RE: Re: POLITICS Disurbing article

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 2:31:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I absolutely do not understand what you're talking about. I don't give a

> damn if the public approves of or " endorses " my relationships, any more than

it

> does yours. I just want to be legally identical to you in the legal area of

> marriage rights, ie, I want to be able to marry a woman under exactly the

> same terms and conditions that you can. That's all.

But you object to civil unions that are legally identical but " not called

marriage. " Do you not? I thought that's what you said. In that case, the

civil

unions settle the civil rights issue, and the " calling it marriage " issue is

a matter of the state culturally normalizing homosexuality.

I don't think it's the state's job to culturally normalize anything.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 2:36:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I think it IS analagous, as I'm claiming I am in a second class of

> citizenship.

>

> However, I simply pointed out that the biblical and other arguments being

> offered had also been offered in the service of positions we would now hold to

> be indefensible, ie, that black men and all women were less than full human

> beings with less than full rights, that women could not vote, that slavery was

> acceptable, etc. The issue of citizenship is not required to make my point.

Right, but in both cases the group did not possess citizenship according to

it's legal definition. Homosexuals do. I'm not saying you have no cause for

grievance, it's just a fundamentally different kind of grievance, regardless of

its validity.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Christie,

If the government got out of the marriage business look how much money they

would lose on marriage licenses.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Christie [mailto:christiekeith@...]

>> I believe that homosexuals should have 100% the same rights as

heterosexuals

(including equal inability for the state to morally sanction their

relationships) <<

I have no problem with that. Is that what you meant in the last post that I

questioned? Then we agree. I would be equally content if the state stopped

being in the marriage business entirely, in fact, that would be my

PREFERENCE. However, if that's not going to happen, then I want the same

legal rights you have as regards marriage. I mean YOU personally, Chris...

not your sister. <G>

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> If the government got out of the marriage business look how much money they

would lose on marriage licenses. <<

Well, they could get it back by taxing the churches then!

Problem solved.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Excellent idea!

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Christie [mailto:christiekeith@...]

>> If the government got out of the marriage business look how much money

they

would lose on marriage licenses. <<

Well, they could get it back by taxing the churches then!

Problem solved.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Christie wrote:

:Well, they could get it back by taxing the churches then!

Judith wrote:

> Excellent idea!

____

Hey, that's a great idea. It never occurred to me that we should just tax

all the people and institutions that we don't like. Don't speak too loud,

though, or the more numerous Christians will get the idea to levy a tax on

homosexuals.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Christie wrote:

>

> :Well, they could get it back by taxing the churches then!

>

> Judith wrote:

>

> > Excellent idea!

> ____

>

> Hey, that's a great idea. It never occurred to me that we should just tax

> all the people and institutions that we don't like. Don't speak too loud,

> though, or the more numerous Christians will get the idea to levy a tax on

> homosexuals.

>

> Chris

That human tribe seems to always get put aside with names for other tribes.

Wanita