Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

February 21, 2004

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> Chris-

>

<snip>

>

> Are you really suggesting that homosexuals aren't second-class

citizens due

> to marriage laws because the marriage laws don't SOLELY discriminate

> against homosexuals?

, by this logic, being married determines whether or not someone

is a second-class citizen or not. Do you really mean to say that?

I think we need to get away from the idea that marriage laws are in

place to make someone a first-class citizen, or to give them certain

personal rights, etc. If that's the case, we'd better figure out a way

to make sure *every* citizen has a marriage license when they reach

age 21.

The whole idea of laws in general is to protect its citizens. In the

case of marriage, the purpose is to protect the family unit,

particularly children. There's no question that children are best

raised by their own parents together in their own home. Unfortunately,

no-fault divorce laws weakened the family unit and took away more of

the protection from broken homes that children previously had.

Homosexual marriage laws will take that protection away even further

allowing for more and more children to be raised by one parent and

another person, with their other parent living outside of their home

and in many cases alienated from them.

Yes, adopted children can do well. Yes, step parents can be wonderful

parents, too. Thank God for both when a child has lost a parent to

death, or when their own parents are unfit to be parents. But it's a

well-known fact that a child does best when raised in a home with both

of their parents.

We've really become a " me, me " society as adults, rather than looking

out for what's best for the next generation, and the future of our

society. Violence has increased, depression and psychological

disorders have increased not only in adults, but now in children also.

And no wonder, when the family unit has become so mixed up and so far

removed from the original biological father, biological mother, and

biological children grouping it was meant to be and that marriage laws

originally protected.

~ Fern

February 21, 2004

Fern-

> > Are you really suggesting that homosexuals aren't second-class

>citizens due

> > to marriage laws because the marriage laws don't SOLELY discriminate

> > against homosexuals?

>

>, by this logic, being married determines whether or not someone

>is a second-class citizen or not. Do you really mean to say that?

I'm sorry, but I disagree categorically. It's the freedom to marry which

matters and which is what I'm talking about. Similarly, people aren't

second-class citizens if they choose of their own free will not to vote

(this is separate from any issues of civic duty, doing what's right, etc.),

only if they're not _allowed_ to vote.

>There's no question that children are best

>raised by their own parents together in their own home.

Of course there's question. What about when those parents are

abusive? I'm sure you'll agree there are some circumstances in which

children are better off in family units other than their biological ones,

but if so, you can't justify an absolute statement to the contrary.

>Unfortunately,

>no-fault divorce laws weakened the family unit and took away more of

>the protection from broken homes that children previously had.

Being a child of divorce and heavy-duty domestic strife myself, I have to

disagree. Certainly children would be better served by their parents

maintaining their marriages in many cases, but it's very far from being

automatically true. Growing up with violence of any kind is very

stressful, even if it's not directed at you.

>Homosexual marriage laws will take that protection away even further

>allowing for more and more children to be raised by one parent and

>another person, with their other parent living outside of their home

>and in many cases alienated from them.

Your assumption seems to be that it would be better for a child to grow up

with a closeted parent rather than seeing and understanding that honesty is

best. Whether or not my interpretation of your statement is correct,

though, I disagree.

>We've really become a " me, me " society as adults, rather than looking

>out for what's best for the next generation, and the future of our

>society. Violence has increased, depression and psychological

>disorders have increased not only in adults, but now in children also.

>And no wonder, when the family unit has become so mixed up and so far

>removed from the original biological father, biological mother, and

>biological children grouping it was meant to be and that marriage laws

>originally protected.

You don't think the economics of recent decades have anything to do with

the " me, me " quality of today's adults? And that malnutrition is causing

at least some of the behavioral problems of today's children?

And how is gay marriage going to increase violence, depression and

psychological disorders?

-

February 21, 2004

@@@@@@@@@@@

> Yes, adopted children can do well. Yes, step parents can be

wonderful

> parents, too. Thank God for both when a child has lost a parent to

> death, or when their own parents are unfit to be parents. But it's a

> well-known fact that a child does best when raised in a home with

both

> of their parents.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Do you really think a child raised in a home with both of their

parents will do better than a child raised by a gay couple who

adopted the child as an infant from, say, Cambodia? I doubt it, and

it would be nice to have more of the latter...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 21, 2004

<Are you really suggesting that homosexuals aren't second-class citizens due

to marriage laws because the marriage laws don't SOLELY discriminate

against homosexuals?

I agree with Chris. Marraige laws apply equally to all and thus, discrimination

is not an appropriate term for them. Actually, marraige was initially done in

this country by churches, not by the state. If you explore your own geneology

back, churches are where you will have to go to find such records and those of

births as the state also did not keep records of either. Marraige as the

joining together of a man and wife, the symbolic ceremonies and what not, was

cultural tradition in Christian society. State recognition of those came

secondary after they already existed. As most settlers came from Europe,

marraiges were done by the church but church and government were one and the

same. I do not know what authority leaders of the colonies had to perform

marraiges but I do know that captains of ships at sea had such authority by

maritime laws. Marital laws were deemed state rights in our structure, not

national. As their constitutions and laws were developed, they addressed

relevant issues to that institution that already existed such as property

rights, etc. These all vary by states. They established rights of certain state

officials to perform marraiges (not all are members of churches), they began

registering marraiges, they established rights of spouses to authorize medical

care in the event a spouse was not capable, etc. It was and has been society

that defined marraige as a joining of male to female long before that

constitution was even conceived of. The state only recognized what already

existed and addressed laws pertaining to relevant issues.

What we are now arguing is a redefinition of that term and cultural tradition

with the idea that homosexual relationships should be encompassed in that

definition of marraige and those laws applicable to them. One of the arguments

and reasons for addressing the issue is because they now find themselves in long

term relationships, many by marraiges within their communities. The state laws

do not however, recognize these and the same issues such as property rights and

what not, are not addressed. So these relationships can be given legal

recognition, these same issues can be addressed legally. But you do not have to

redefine the defintions of marriage to do that. You do not have to destroy the

traditional institution of marraige. As far as medical insurance and retirement

benefits, these are negotiated by the employer, private corporations. Coverages

and policies can be redefined and can certainly be changed regardless of if the

definition of marraige is changed. Even if the definition is changed, nothing

would stop companies from changing their terms of coverage. That leaves social

security which the government most certainly can change and make applicable to

civil unions.

<By that logic, women weren't second-class citizens during at least some of

the time before suffrage because other classes of people were also denied

the right to vote.

As a feminist, I have to challenge the lack of voting rights to women as

reflective of their second class citizenship but rather only reflective of the

social structure of that time. We continually grab things out of context to

prove points- especially causes. Societies always establish social structures,

it provides social order. Let's go back to the time when voting rights were

intially given to males. Bear in mind, many of those initial settlers had come

from countries where there were no voting rights for anyone, it was a new event.

Monarchies were the rule of order. Now, during this time, responsibility for

fighting the war so that that government and constitution granting voting rights

could exist, was also given to men only. The social rules at that time said in

fighting that war, men had to do it, not women. It was acceptable to kill

males. It was not acceptable to kill women or children. Now pulling this out

of context of the time, you could use it to justify saying that there was higher

regard for the female's life than the male's, thus reflecting a greater

indication of second class citizenship on the male sex as opposed to the female

sex. In those days, there were other customs that could reflect similar such as

the man allowing the woman entrance first into a room or situation, or such

customs as him placing his coat on top of a mud puddle that she had to cross.

<Also, by naming (presumably pre-emancipation) blacks and (presumably

pre-suffrage) women you're suggesting a threshold for reduced-class

citizenship without actually identifying it.

In contrast to my own argument above would be blacks who were in fact,

considered far less than second class but actually as a lower life form of human

beings. They were in fact, considered property owned by whites. It is very

unfair to compare the situation of a female to a pre-emancipated black,

especially in southern culture where most slaves were, as it greatly minimizes

the human degradation the black was forced to endure.

February 21, 2004

<I'm sorry, but I disagree categorically. It's the freedom to marry which

matters and which is what I'm talking about. Similarly, people aren't

second-class citizens if they choose of their own free will not to vote

(this is separate from any issues of civic duty, doing what's right, etc.),

only if they're not _allowed_ to vote.

Homosexuals are free to marry , they do marry, they have been marrying.

They have the same freedom to live happily ever after as anyone else. The

question is about the state recognizing such unions and addressing relevant

issues that exist for them in their marraiges.

>There's no question that children are best

>raised by their own parents together in their own home.

>Of course there's question. What about when those parents are

abusive? I'm sure you'll agree there are some circumstances in which

children are better off in family units other than their biological ones,

but if so, you can't justify an absolute statement to the contrary.

, even child protective services has realised that the best solution to such

problems is to get help for the parents to correct the abuse and do everything

they can to help hold the family unit together. Children are only permanently

removed when the abuse is actually pretty bad and resolution of the problems is

not possible. In most cases, abuse occurs when there is much stress going on

for the parents, usually financial problems and what not that can be addressed

and resolved. There are plenty of studies that reflect children do better in

dysfunctional families than they do in divorce situations. Of course that is

not an absolute and Fern did not mean hers that way either. But your statements

are not absolute truths either.

>Being a child of divorce and heavy-duty domestic strife myself, I have to

disagree. Certainly children would be better served by their parents

maintaining their marriages in many cases, but it's very far from being

automatically true. Growing up with violence of any kind is very

stressful, even if it's not directed at you.

I agree with Fern, no fault divorce laws did weaken the family unit, as did the

women's rights movements. Divorce has become the solution to domestic strife

rather than working those problems out or making mutual agreements such that the

children can finish being reared. Divorce has now become the thing to do for

whatever the state of discontentment. The effects on children (who have no

rights) have been downplayed, minimized, justified, and even as you,

rationalized to be better than resolution of the differences. I have seen so

many who blamed spouses for unhappiness, who divorced only to find the grass was

not greener on the other side but actually much less so. The pain to those kids

for what? Another marraige that results with exactly the same life problems?

You really cannot comprehend the effects to kids until you spend time with the

youth of today and LISTEN to them.

>Homosexual marriage laws will take that protection away even further

>allowing for more and more children to be raised by one parent and

>another person, with their other parent living outside of their home

and in many cases alienated from them.

>Your assumption seems to be that it would be better for a child to grow up

with a closeted parent rather than seeing and understanding that honesty is

best. Whether or not my interpretation of your statement is correct,

though, I disagree.

In raising children, there is much activity by parents that should appropriately

be closeted. You apparently have not experienced teenage yet - it all comes back

on you. I listened last night to a program discussing how children reacted when

their parents were honest about their own drug use when they were younger. The

kids repeatedly said they used that honesty to justify their own use. The

general concensus (by these kids) was that honesty was not the best policy

always with children. Children need role models, they need to trust and respect

their elders. Teenagers most especially are so vulnerable to this stuff. Once a

child is grown and the parental relationship has changed to be more mutual and

adult to adult, then sharing of honesty can be just fine. Before that though, it

is not always good at all.

I think Fern is referring to people who divorce because they have decided to

come out of the closet. Thus the child loses living with one biological parent

and in exchange, gets a new parental figure in the home of the same sex. I've

known two where this happened, it is a big one for kids to deal with. Also for

kids are the social ramifications - their identity with their family gives a

sense of importance and a feeling of place, especially if the parents have a

role in the community. You either have to establish homosexual relationships

as normal which I don't think is possible to do, or you do closet the

relationships for the social survival of the child. Kids are meaner today than

they ever were. They are going to pick on whatever. No matter what law you

pass, there will always be negative reactions towards deviances from what most

know. You simply cannot get away from that for kids and it is really pushing it

to expect a young child to be able to deal with such - it is selfish.

>We've really become a " me, me " society as adults, rather than looking

>out for what's best for the next generation, and the future of our

>society. Violence has increased, depression and psychological

>disorders have increased not only in adults, but now in children also.

>And no wonder, when the family unit has become so mixed up and so far

>removed from the original biological father, biological mother, and

>biological children grouping it was meant to be and that marriage laws

originally protected.

>You don't think the economics of recent decades have anything to do with

the " me, me " quality of today's adults? And that malnutrition is causing

at least some of the behavioral problems of today's children?

How can a single working parent provide proper meals for their children in these

days?

<And how is gay marriage going to increase violence, depression and

psychological disorders?

Why read Nourishing Traditions or Weston Price? It is the further breakdown of

the family unit.

February 21, 2004

-

>Homosexuals are free to marry , they do marry, they have been marrying.

What you're really saying is that homosexuals are free to enter into

heterosexual marriages.

>They have the same freedom to live happily ever after as anyone else.

No more so than heterosexuals would be if they were only free to enter into

homosexual marriages.

>The question is about the state recognizing such unions and addressing

>relevant issues that exist for them in their marraiges.

That's one of the strangest goalpost moves I've ever seen.

>, even child protective services has realised that the best solution

>to such problems is to get help for the parents to correct the abuse and

>do everything they can to help hold the family unit together.

Not only are you arguing on authority, you're not even doing a good job of

it. Child protective services can't go taking children away from parents

in every single situation in which they might have been better off if the

parents had split and the kids had gone with one parent or the other.

>Children are only permanently removed when the abuse is actually pretty

>bad and resolution of the problems is not possible.

And furthermore, you're not even responding to my actual point, which is

that it's simply far from the truth to say that children are always better

off in their biological families. That's flat-out wrong.

>But your statements are not absolute truths either.

My statement is, actually, absolutely true, because it's a relative statement:

PI:

>>I'm sure you'll agree there are some circumstances in which

>>children are better off in family units other than their biological ones,

>>but if so, you can't justify an absolute statement to the contrary.

>The effects on children (who have no rights) have been downplayed,

>minimized, justified, and even as you, rationalized to be better than

>resolution of the differences.

This is such a compendium of absurdities I don't even know where to start.

A) Children have rights, and no serious person has suggested otherwise.

While some people no doubt downplay the effects of divorce on children,

others just as loudly insist that divorce is practically the worst possible

thing that could happen to children.

C) Justified? What does that even mean? If you mean I'm saying that if a

man is sexually abusing his child his wife should divorce him, then hell

yeah, I'm justifying divorce! If you mean I'm saying that my biological

father regularly put me in dangerous positions when I was an infant and

couldn't be dissuaded from doing so and that my mother was therefore

probably justified (that word again) in divorcing him, then yes, you got me.

D) You're begging the question by assuming that divorce is bad and that any

justification is therefore a rationalization.

>I have seen so many who blamed spouses for unhappiness, who divorced only

>to find the grass was not greener on the other side but actually much less

>so. The pain to those kids for what? Another marraige that results with

>exactly the same life problems?

Yes, people make bad choices. Your blanket response appears to be that

freedom should be curtailed to prevent them from making the particular

kinds of bad choices you don't like.

>You really cannot comprehend the effects to kids until you spend time with

>the youth of today and LISTEN to them.

So now you're arguing on your own authority?

>In raising children, there is much activity by parents that should

>appropriately be closeted. You apparently have not experienced teenage yet

>- it all comes back on you.

I'm sorry, but your English isn't clear.

>I listened last night to a program discussing how children reacted when

>their parents were honest about their own drug use when they were

>younger. The kids repeatedly said they used that honesty to justify their

>own use.

So you're equating homosexuality with drug use? Again, you're begging the

question by presupposing that homosexuality is a bad thing. Imagine if,

for " homosexuality " we substituted " femaleness " and insisted that all

females should pretend to be male.

>I think Fern is referring to people who divorce because they have decided

>to come out of the closet. Thus the child loses living with one

>biological parent and in exchange, gets a new parental figure in the home

>of the same sex.

And what happens when there's shared or joint custody?

>I've known two where this happened, it is a big one for kids to deal with.

So children should be insulated from all big things?

>Also for kids are the social ramifications - their identity with their

>family gives a sense of importance and a feeling of place, especially if

>the parents have a role in the community. You either have to establish

>homosexual relationships as normal which I don't think is possible to do,

>or you do closet the relationships for the social survival of the child.

Normalizing homosexual relationships can be done because it has been done.

>Kids are meaner today than they ever were.

Sorry, that statement bears no relationship to reality whatsoever.

>How can a single working parent provide proper meals for their children in

>these days?

What does this have to do with gay marriage?

><And how is gay marriage going to increase violence, depression and

>psychological disorders?

>

>Why read Nourishing Traditions or Weston Price? It is the further

>breakdown of the family unit.

Nutrition is objectively measurable. In contrast, you are once again

begging the question, assuming that the " breakdown " of the heterosexual

biological family unit is (a) a bad thing and ( causes violence,

depression and psychological disorders. I ask how, you say " because it

does " . Non-responsive.

-

February 21, 2004

>You keep conflating the personal and social aspects of marriage with the

>legal and contractual aspects of marriage, which are independent.

No, they're not independent, they're linked phenomena. You keep

assuming that you can discriminate against certain homosexual behaviors (or

institutions, or traditions, or whatever term you'd prefer) without

discriminating against homosexuals.

-

February 21, 2004

Chris-

>However, I don't find it entirely convincing. If

> " white males " are given the right to vote, it's quite clear that " white "

>is meant

>to exclude " black " and " male " is meant to exclude " women. " That's just

>hitting

>two birds with two different stones with the same slingshot.

How are " white " and " male " more effective at excluding classes of people

than " straight " and " pairs of the opposite sex " ?

>I think the marriage laws are fundamentally different, in that they don't

>have specific target groups for exclusion.

If the law is " only white men can vote " , well, then, sorry, but you " don't

have specific target groups for exclusion " .

>Two homosexuals aren't excluded more

>than two heterosexual female (fourth?) cousins. The former want marriage for

>a legal sanction of a familial and sexual relationship, and say the latter

>want a legally sanctioned marriage for entirely non-sexual reasons, but

>both are

>barred by virtue of being the same sex.

Talk about out of left field. Then blacks and women weren't excluded from

voting more than foreigners and aliens and sparrowhawks.

>I think typically it is considered the absence of citizenship rights.

What would you classify as citizenship rights?

-

February 21, 2004

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Mike/Chris:

> > Ah ha, so you're saying that not only group A but a superset B is

> > discriminated against by marriage/household union laws. Since A

is a

> > subset of B, A is discriminated against too, and A is the group

in

> > question. So instead of just admitting the point about group A

is

> > correct, you imply it while making a separate point.

>

> I already addressed the issue of sets, but perhaps it wasn't to

you. I'll

> make the point again: Bisexuals could either be considered a

separate set, or

> could be considered a subset of homosexuals. If bisexuals are

considered a

> separate set, the above is invalid.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

It would not be invalid. Talking about a set C has no bearing on set

A. If we treat bisexuals as a separate set than congenital

homosexuals (set A), then they are just yet another of the irrelevant

groups you continually distract the issue by referring to.

@@@@@@@ Chris:

If bisexuals are considered a subset of

> homosexuals, it cannot be argued that homosexuals by nature cannot

marry someone

> they have the capacity to be attracted to, because a large portion

of them have

> legal options that are coincident with their capacity for

attractions.

@@@@@@@@@

Come on think about what you just wrote! This is a joke.

First, we can divide set A (homosexuals) into as many subsets as we

want, but the subset of congenital non-bisexual homosexuals (let's

call it CH) is the one that all arguments revolve around. Referring

to different categories of homosexuals just distracts the essential

issue.

Secondly, there's is zero logic in saying that bisexuals are not

discriminated against because they could choose the heterosexual

option! Obviously, they may want to choose the homosexual option or

they wouldn't be " bisexuals " !! The way you phrased it in terms

of " possible consistency with legal options " is a correct statement,

but obviously that statement has no bearing on the issue at hand! We

could just as easily phrase the matter so the discrimination against

bisexuals is exactly the same as the discrimination against

homosexuals in general.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 22, 2004

In a message dated 2/21/04 4:04:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> How are " white " and " male " more effective at excluding classes of people

> than " straight " and " pairs of the opposite sex " ?

It's isn't the magnitude of the effect; it's the effect itself. So to ask

how they are more effective at excluding a class of people is to frame the

question incorrectly. " White " and " male " and " straight " all exclude classes of

people, but the latter, to my knowledge, is used nowhere in the marriage laws.

However, limiting marriage to two people, each of opposing sexes, does not

have affect a specific target group. What determines the discriminatory effect

is not whether the two people are homosexual, but whether they are of the same

sex. This may sound absurd initially, but I'll explain:

Say, for example, the limitations on hospital rights. I'm not sure the

wording of these laws or exactly how it works, but this is one of the legal

phenomena that have been invoked with this issue. There are certain rights a

spouse

has in relation to visitation or decisions regarding a hospitalized victim.

As it stands, a homosexual couple who live together, are raising a family,

are sharing finances, and who plan to be a couple for life, cannot attain this

legal stature the way a heterosexual couple can if they have chosen to legally

marry. However, consider the following example:

A man, say he's heterosexual, chooses to become a monk and to live a celibate

life. He lives largely disconnected from society, but the monks at the

monastery do use hospitals when needed and have other limited interactions with

mainstream society. Since the monk will not be marrying, he wishes his

spiritual

father to be the person to have primary visitation rights in the case of his

hospitalization, and to make decisions in his stead if his condition requires

it. But, this legal arrangement cannot be made because the only avenue

through which it can be made is marriage, and they cannot attain a " marriage "

precisely because they are of the same sex.

Both men in this hypothetical situation are heterosexual. But they are

barred from attaining their desired legal/contractual arrangments in the same

way

and for the same reason that a homosexual couple are, despite not being

homosexuals.

Thus, it is the type of relationship that determines the disriminatory power

of the law, not the class of people.

> >I think the marriage laws are fundamentally different, in that they don't

> >have specific target groups for exclusion.

>

> If the law is " only white men can vote " , well, then, sorry, but you " don't

> have specific target groups for exclusion " .

That's true; my wording wasn't optimal. You *do* have exclusion based on

membership to a group, whereas in the case of the marriage laws you have

exclusion based on the desired contract.

>

> >Two homosexuals aren't excluded more

> >than two heterosexual female (fourth?) cousins. The former want marriage

> for

> >a legal sanction of a familial and sexual relationship, and say the latter

> >want a legally sanctioned marriage for entirely non-sexual reasons, but

> >both are

> >barred by virtue of being the same sex.

>

> Talk about out of left field. Then blacks and women weren't excluded from

> voting more than foreigners and aliens and sparrowhawks.

But they were excluded on the basis of their membership, or lack of

membership in a class of people, defined by intrinsic properties. Homosexuals

are not

barred from marrying based on their identity as homosexuals, but based on the

relationship they choose to contract. I already showed this above, but I'll

show it one more way:

A bisexual is a membership of the class of homosexuals (and heterosexuals),

but a bisexual is not barred from marrying someone with whom they have a

potential for attraction based on their identity as a subset of a sexual class.

If

they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, they are entirely legally

capable of doing so. Thus, the membership in the sexual class is entirely

irrelevant, EXCEPT WHERE IT IS COINCIDENT WITH a desire of making the disallowed

contract.

Chris

February 22, 2004

In a message dated 2/21/04 4:56:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> It would not be invalid. Talking about a set C has no bearing on set

> A. If we treat bisexuals as a separate set than congenital

> homosexuals (set A), then they are just yet another of the irrelevant

> groups you continually distract the issue by referring to.

I disagree. The existance of an equally oppressed set C, who are oppressed

when they engage in behavior x but are not when they engage in behavior y,

shows that a set A that is defined by its exclusive engagement in behavior x ,

shows that set A is oppressed not by its identity as set A, but by its

engagement

in behavior x.

It happens that, since set A exclusively engages in behavior x, that set A is

necessarily impacted as a set, but that is coincidental to the selectivity of

the law, not definitional to it. The actual selectivity of the law is based

on behavior x, not set A, as shown by its equal effect on the subset of set C

who engage in behavior x.

Does that justify it? Of course not. It just shows that the tyranny is

discriminating on the basis of a behavior, not a set. Granted it IMPACTS a set,

and impacts that set AS a set, but it doesn't DISCRIMINATE based on the set--

it disriminates based on the behavior.

>

> @@@@@@@ Chris:

> If bisexuals are considered a subset of

> >homosexuals, it cannot be argued that homosexuals by nature cannot

> marry someone

> >they have the capacity to be attracted to, because a large portion

> of them have

> >legal options that are coincident with their capacity for

> attractions.

> @@@@@@@@@

>

> Come on think about what you just wrote! This is a joke.

> First, we can divide set A (homosexuals) into as many subsets as we

> want, but the subset of congenital non-bisexual homosexuals (let's

> call it CH) is the one that all arguments revolve around. Referring

> to different categories of homosexuals just distracts the essential

> issue.

No it doesn't; it shows the activity of the law and on what basis the

injustice of the law is applied. It is applied on the basis of the

relationship, not

the indentity of the individual engaging in the relationship, as shown by its

application to individuals engaging in the same behavior but belonging to a

different set. This could theoretically mean it was oppressing two sets at

once (as in " white male " oppressing blacks and females) but the fact that it is

only applied to bisexuals engaging in homosexual marriages shows that

bisexuals, unlike homosexuals, are not impacted as a set.

>

> Secondly, there's is zero logic in saying that bisexuals are not

> discriminated against because they could choose the heterosexual

> option! Obviously, they may want to choose the homosexual option or

> they wouldn't be " bisexuals " !!

They may want to, and so thus whether the law impacts them is determined by

whether they engage that particular choice, or possibility if you will, not

based on their membership in the bisexual set.

Chris

February 22, 2004

I am not saying that marraiges are unique to Christians or created by

Christians. Marraige existed before Christianity did. Most cultures have had

either monogamous or polygamous marraiges going all the way back through time,

all over the world. In most cultures these have been structured male and

female. I am unaware of any that ever officially recognized homosexuals in such

a relationship " legally " , but I do not attest this is not possible. That is not

saying that homosexuality and their relationships are not every bit as old as

the marital relationships. In most all cultures, there is ceremony involved to

this commitment of permanent relationship - ritual and tradition. Children are

assumed of the relationships whether they come or not.

In this country, it has been the Judeo/Christian concept of marraige and

monogamy that has been the tradition and accepted style for the tribe so to

speak. Please reference the history of the Mormans and statehood of Utah,

polygamy was not tolerated as a condition of statehood. Those people had been

driven westward out of many states, experienced tremendous persecution, mainly

because polygamy was contrary to Christian values of monogamy. And polygamy

certainly has much wider acceptance in the world and history in many cultures.

As I recall, it was an issue that entailed violence, federal troops were sent in

to enforce this shortly after statehood was granted. My point in the previous

post was that what was accepted to be tradition and marraige in this country

came from the Christian concept of marraige and that marraiges were done by

churches first. State governments came next and recognized something that

already existed. The state did not define it or set up secondary citizenship.

It rather supported the one style that predominantly existed by great majority,

as being the collective style for the whole. As I stated before, our society,

our state laws, are structured on Judeo/Christian ideologies. State governments

today, recognize heterosexual marraiges performed by churches. I am not sure

what is current now but when I was young, not all churches recognized state

performed marraiges.

Another point is that marraiges in the sense of symbolic committments or mating

of two are not dependent on the state to exist. They existed before the states

did. And homosexuals have these symbolic relationships now. Even polygamy is

still practiced in this country. There are churches who do marry them. So it is

not correct to say they are forbidden from homosexual marraiges because they are

not. It would be an applicable argument applied to polygamy because there is law

specifically forbidding this style and it is enforced. What they do not have is

state recognition of their relationships, whether on the same terms as

heterosexuals do as a marraige by definition, or on different terms as civil

unions. And as the state defines rules in marraige covering property,

inheritance, divorce, hospital rights as Christie referred to, in the absence of

other contractual agreements, their relationships are not covered under any

terms of law, and that is reasonable to ask the law to address such. But

homosexuals can make these contractual agreements, nothing forbids it. Thus

again, it is not appropriate to argue they are denied these things. There can

be prenuptial agreements covering property splits, they can have wills,

direction of care can be given by power of attorneys. Visitation rights in a

hospital are a matter of policies in a hospital, there is not legality involved

in this for anyone. When a person is dying, hospitals respect spouses and next

of kin frequently as the only to visit but girl/boy friends, friends, attorneys,

ministers, are frequently allowed as well. Many times, family visitation is

limited in number, hours and amount of time is limited by the medical staff.

And if any of these people are disruptive in the hospital or felt to be contrary

to the well being of the patient, hospitals can kick them out and deny

visitation even to a spouse. Law will support the hospitals in this. As

Christie described, all the friends where staying at the hospital when this

person was dying. When the family arrived, they kicked them out. This says the

hospital was not denying visitation to anyone. But it also says to me that

something was wrong in that when the family arrived, they should not have had

to ask the friends to leave, those friends should have left on their own in

respect of the family of origin relationship. Again, when you tend to give no

respect, you tend not to get it back whatever your sexual status.

Now, while these contractual agreements do not have to be gotten via an

attorney, that is the best way and as Christie pointed out, that requires having

the money to do so. That is a good point. Another is that many fail to do such

and nothing legally addresses or protects them in such cases. In her example,

the couple did make agreements but the family challenged in court and won - that

is not a good point because families can and do challenge these things in

heterosexual relationships as well. Giving the same marital rights to homosexual

relationships does not guarantee such challenges cannot or will not occur. So

again, this is not a relevant argument for. Examples are the woman on life

support in Florida whose husband wants to stop that support. The family has

challenged his rights to do this. Again, rights to a spouse ruling over rights

of the biological family are in line with Judeo/Christian ideology but such

situations are grey areas obviously, morally and legally. As a wife, I can

respect spousal rights but as a mother, I can also respect parental rights to

those who bought a person into the world and loved them in a way no one else

possibly can. I can't think of the woman's name right now but she makes press a

lot. She had been a stripper or something and married a man in his very late

years of life who was a multimillionaire. His son stepped in when the man

became unable to manage the estate and got legal rights to do so over her rights

as spouse, and he subsequently challenged the will and won, she was kicked out

of the home. My point being is that such situations are not a reflection of

discrimination, lack of rights, or persecution of homosexual relationships.

They are reflections of life in the real world.

Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

In a message dated 2/21/04 1:25:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Marraige as the joining together of a man and wife, the symbolic ceremonies

> and what not, was cultural tradition in Christian society. State

> recognition of those came secondary after they already existed.

This is a historical fallacy. The Roman Empire had marriages before the

Christian Church, and the Christian Church began recognizing state marriages

*long* before it instituted marriage as a so-called " sacrament " that the state

began recognizing.

But that's not really relevant. Your fundamental point is more or less

correct-- that contracts are made between private individuals or organizations.

Anyone should be able to engage in any kind of contract they want, and it should

be fully recognized by whatever body (civil gov't in our case) is the

arbitrating body with the responsibility of enforcing contracts. Period.

Chris

February 22, 2004

>This says the hospital was not denying visitation to anyone. But it also says

to me that something was wrong in that when the family arrived, they should not

have had to ask the friends to leave, those friends should have left on their

own in respect of the family of origin relationship. Again, when you tend to

give no respect, you tend not to get it back whatever your sexual status.

Good grief. How can you assume that the spouse, in this case, " wasn't giving

respect " ? Why *should* the friends have left " on their own " ? That is EXACTLY why

gays want marriage. There are cases where a birth family's rights overrule

spousal rights, but they are rare (which is why they make the news). As you say,

much of our law is based on Judeo-Christian tradition, which says " a man shall

leave his father and mother and cling to his wife " .... i.e. the spousal

attachment supercedes the birth attachment. Ergo it is a good thing to have an

officially recognized spousal attachment.

>> Giving the same marital rights to homosexual relationships does not guarantee

such challenges cannot or will not occur. So again, this is not a relevant

argument for.

There are no guarantees, but that hardly makes it an irrelevant argument. The

exceptions don't make the rule. The fact it is HARDER to get rights if you

aren't married makes getting married a valuable thing. Withholding a valuable

thing from a group of people for no good reason is discrimination.

And none of this really answers the question, " Who does gay marriage hurt " ? The

answer so far has been " it hurts the tradition of marriage " which just isn't

very convincing (if the tradition of marriage has survived the tradition of

mistresses, philandering, arranged matches, sham marriages, the 70's, etc. then

it is in no immediate danger, and as you have pointed out, homosexuals have been

living in arrangements that are marriages in all but name for a long time

without the end of life as we know it).

-- Heidi

February 22, 2004

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> Fern-

>

> > > Are you really suggesting that homosexuals aren't second-class

> >citizens due

> > > to marriage laws because the marriage laws don't SOLELY

discriminate

> > > against homosexuals?

> >

> >, by this logic, being married determines whether or not

someone

> >is a second-class citizen or not. Do you really mean to say that?

>

> I'm sorry, but I disagree categorically. It's the freedom to marry

which

> matters and which is what I'm talking about. Similarly, people

aren't

> second-class citizens if they choose of their own free will not to

vote

> (this is separate from any issues of civic duty, doing what's right,

etc.),

> only if they're not _allowed_ to vote.

But everyone IS free to marry within the laws governing marriage.

Again, I go back to what I said before, about what marriage is: a man

and a woman in procreative sexual union. To now change the definition

of marriage is not giving more people opportunity to marry, but rather

destroying marriage and creating something else.

> >There's no question that children are best

> >raised by their own parents together in their own home.

>

> Of course there's question. What about when those parents are

> abusive? I'm sure you'll agree there are some circumstances in

which

> children are better off in family units other than their biological

ones,

> but if so, you can't justify an absolute statement to the contrary.

I agree there are exceptions. But the ideal is certainly that children

live in the same home as both their biological parents. That has been

proven over and over. It is the basic framework that works the best

speaking in a general sense. You have to start somewhere with a basic

framework. To allow for homosexual marriages or otherwise, is to

change that basic framework.

> >Unfortunately,

> >no-fault divorce laws weakened the family unit and took away more

of

> >the protection from broken homes that children previously had.

>

> Being a child of divorce and heavy-duty domestic strife myself, I

have to

> disagree. Certainly children would be better served by their

parents

> maintaining their marriages in many cases, but it's very far from

being

> automatically true. Growing up with violence of any kind is very

> stressful, even if it's not directed at you.

No doubt, and again I agree there are exceptions. But I also will

reiterate that the original family unit provides the best environment

and protection for the child.

> >Homosexual marriage laws will take that protection away even

further

> >allowing for more and more children to be raised by one parent and

> >another person, with their other parent living outside of their

home

> >and in many cases alienated from them.

>

> Your assumption seems to be that it would be better for a child to

grow up

> with a closeted parent rather than seeing and understanding that

honesty is

> best. Whether or not my interpretation of your statement is

correct,

> though, I disagree.

There can be honesty without destruction. Many parents in the past

(less and less today) have worked hard to maintain the best

environment for their child by denying themselves. People aren't

slaves to their sexuality, much as many people believe.

> >We've really become a " me, me " society as adults, rather than

looking

> >out for what's best for the next generation, and the future of our

> >society. Violence has increased, depression and psychological

> >disorders have increased not only in adults, but now in children

also.

> >And no wonder, when the family unit has become so mixed up and so

far

> >removed from the original biological father, biological mother, and

> >biological children grouping it was meant to be and that marriage

laws

> >originally protected.

>

> You don't think the economics of recent decades have anything to do

with

> the " me, me " quality of today's adults? And that malnutrition is

causing

> at least some of the behavioral problems of today's children?

I do believe definitely that malnutrition has been a large

contributing factor. But I don't think it's the only one nor the main

one. When the main structure meant to provide the best possible

environment for a child to grow up in is broken, there will be many

negative results. Some children handle it " well " ; most don't.

> And how is gay marriage going to increase violence, depression and

> psychological disorders?

Not gay marriage per se, but the destruction of marriage being defined

as man and woman: the only combination that can produce their own

biological children, without another person being involved, and

thereby also providing that a child is raised by both of his/her

parents. And I'll qualify again, that I mean ideally. Yes there are

exceptions but there are already provisions for those exceptions.

~ Fern

February 22, 2004

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

From: " Anton " <michaelantonparker@...>

> @@@@@@@@@@@

> > Yes, adopted children can do well. Yes, step parents can be

> wonderful

> > parents, too. Thank God for both when a child has lost a parent to

> > death, or when their own parents are unfit to be parents. But it's

a

> > well-known fact that a child does best when raised in a home with

> both

> > of their parents.

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> Do you really think a child raised in a home with both of their

> parents will do better than a child raised by a gay couple who

> adopted the child as an infant from, say, Cambodia? I doubt it, and

> it would be nice to have more of the latter...

If an infant from Cambodia has both biological parents living

together, why not work to bring the family here as a unit, rather than

breaking up the family, if your desire truly is to give that child the

best chance at life?

~ Fern

February 22, 2004

Well said, .

Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

>

> <I'm sorry, but I disagree categorically. It's the freedom to marry

which

> matters and which is what I'm talking about. Similarly, people

aren't

> second-class citizens if they choose of their own free will not to

vote

> (this is separate from any issues of civic duty, doing what's right,

etc.),

> only if they're not _allowed_ to vote.

>

> Homosexuals are free to marry , they do marry, they have been

marrying. They have the same freedom to live happily ever after as

anyone else. The question is about the state recognizing such unions

and addressing relevant issues that exist for them in their marraiges.

>

> >There's no question that children are best

> >raised by their own parents together in their own home.

> >Of course there's question. What about when those parents are

> abusive? I'm sure you'll agree there are some circumstances in

which

> children are better off in family units other than their biological

ones,

> but if so, you can't justify an absolute statement to the contrary.

>

> , even child protective services has realised that the best

solution to such problems is to get help for the parents to correct

the abuse and do everything they can to help hold the family unit

together. Children are only permanently removed when the abuse is

actually pretty bad and resolution of the problems is not possible.

In most cases, abuse occurs when there is much stress going on for the

parents, usually financial problems and what not that can be addressed

and resolved. There are plenty of studies that reflect children do

better in dysfunctional families than they do in divorce situations.

Of course that is not an absolute and Fern did not mean hers that way

either. But your statements are not absolute truths either.

>

> >Being a child of divorce and heavy-duty domestic strife myself, I

have to

> disagree. Certainly children would be better served by their

parents

> maintaining their marriages in many cases, but it's very far from

being

> automatically true. Growing up with violence of any kind is very

> stressful, even if it's not directed at you.

>

> I agree with Fern, no fault divorce laws did weaken the family unit,

as did the women's rights movements. Divorce has become the solution

to domestic strife rather than working those problems out or making

mutual agreements such that the children can finish being reared.

Divorce has now become the thing to do for whatever the state of

discontentment. The effects on children (who have no rights) have

been downplayed, minimized, justified, and even as you, rationalized

to be better than resolution of the differences. I have seen so many

who blamed spouses for unhappiness, who divorced only to find the

grass was not greener on the other side but actually much less so. The

pain to those kids for what? Another marraige that results with

exactly the same life problems?

>

> You really cannot comprehend the effects to kids until you spend

time with the youth of today and LISTEN to them.

>

> >Homosexual marriage laws will take that protection away even

further

> >allowing for more and more children to be raised by one parent and

> >another person, with their other parent living outside of their

home

> and in many cases alienated from them.

> >Your assumption seems to be that it would be better for a child to

grow up

> with a closeted parent rather than seeing and understanding that

honesty is

> best. Whether or not my interpretation of your statement is

correct,

> though, I disagree.

>

> In raising children, there is much activity by parents that should

appropriately be closeted. You apparently have not experienced teenage

yet - it all comes back on you. I listened last night to a program

discussing how children reacted when their parents were honest about

their own drug use when they were younger. The kids repeatedly said

they used that honesty to justify their own use. The general

concensus (by these kids) was that honesty was not the best policy

always with children. Children need role models, they need to trust

and respect their elders. Teenagers most especially are so vulnerable

to this stuff. Once a child is grown and the parental relationship

has changed to be more mutual and adult to adult, then sharing of

honesty can be just fine. Before that though, it is not always good at

all.

>

> I think Fern is referring to people who divorce because they have

decided to come out of the closet. Thus the child loses living with

one biological parent and in exchange, gets a new parental figure in

the home of the same sex. I've known two where this happened, it is a

big one for kids to deal with. Also for kids are the social

ramifications - their identity with their family gives a sense of

importance and a feeling of place, especially if the parents have a

role in the community. You either have to establish homosexual

relationships as normal which I don't think is possible to do, or you

do closet the relationships for the social survival of the child.

Kids are meaner today than they ever were. They are going to pick on

whatever. No matter what law you pass, there will always be negative

reactions towards deviances from what most know. You simply cannot

get away from that for kids and it is really pushing it to expect a

young child to be able to deal with such - it is selfish.

>

> >We've really become a " me, me " society as adults, rather than

looking

> >out for what's best for the next generation, and the future of our

> >society. Violence has increased, depression and psychological

> >disorders have increased not only in adults, but now in children

also.

> >And no wonder, when the family unit has become so mixed up and so

far

> >removed from the original biological father, biological mother, and

> >biological children grouping it was meant to be and that marriage

laws

> originally protected.

> >You don't think the economics of recent decades have anything to do

with

> the " me, me " quality of today's adults? And that malnutrition is

causing

> at least some of the behavioral problems of today's children?

>

> How can a single working parent provide proper meals for their

children in these days?

>

> <And how is gay marriage going to increase violence, depression and

> psychological disorders?

>

> Why read Nourishing Traditions or Weston Price? It is the further

breakdown of the family unit.

>

February 22, 2004

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

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> In a message dated 2/21/04 12:00:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> readnwrite@... writes:

>

> > The whole idea of laws in general is to protect its citizens. In

the

> > case of marriage, the purpose is to protect the family unit,

> > particularly children. There's no question that children are best

> > raised by their own parents together in their own home.

>

> This is really entirely irrelevant from the issue for two reasons.

First,

> marriage does not correlate well to the presence or absence of

children in a

> home. There's no law saying that non-married people cannot have

children, and a

> large portion of chidren are of divorced or single parents.

Have we gotten so far away from the norm, that the abnormal is now

normal, and normal is now the exception? Marriage is by and large

engaged by a young man and a young woman intent on having children. If

they aren't intent on having children they must take definite steps to

NOT have children. Having children is the normal, natural result of

marriage. NOT having children requires intervention. Yes, people get

married later in life. But MOSTLY people marry in time biologically to

have children. When people are infertile there is something wrong

physically, and that too is not the norm.

The fact that a large portion of children are from divorced or single

parent homes doesn't mean that's a good thing. In fact, study after

study has shown that it's not, and that children raised in a home with

both their biological children is by and large the best environment

for a child.

> Second, there are lots of rights that come with marriage regarding

hospital

> rights, taxes, inheritance, and a whole host of issues Christie

expounded on at

> length.

Civil unions seem to be the answer to that, without destroying and

changing the whole definition of marriage.

~ Fern

February 22, 2004

>>What you're really saying is that homosexuals are free to enter into

heterosexual marriages.

Yes they are free just as anyone else to enter heterosexual marraiges. And they

are equally restricted from state sanctioned marraiges just as any one else is.

There are two aspects. One is that the law is equally applied to all people.

All people can enter (by choice) into a heterosexual marraige that is recognized

by law. By virtue of being applicable to all, it is not discriminatory. If you

go back in history to pre-emancipation, blacks did not have this right. That

was discriminatory as it was based by virtue of their race. Nor were symbolic

marraiges of blacks respected. One could be sold away from the other. Children

could be sold with no regard for parental rights. And formalizing marraiges was

one of the first things blacks did when they were emancipated.

The second aspect is that they can and do have these relationships. No law

prevents it.

>>They have the same freedom to live happily ever after as anyone else.

>No more so than heterosexuals would be if they were only free to enter into

homosexual marriages.

But homosexuals can enter into marriages. The only difference is that the state

does not recognize these relationships as mutual partnerships in the way that

heterosexual relationships are recognized. If you reversed the law,

heterosexuals would have the same freedom to live happily ever after as they do

now. The issue is a matter of state recognition and laws addressing relevant

issues to such. That's all. But what is being wanted by gays is not simply

recognition of these unions or laws addressing. What is being wanted is that

marraige be redefined. In contrast would be polygamists who are denied right to

such practice by law. Another example would be beastiality or necrophilia or

pediophilia which all have laws forbidding the practice of such. Now yes you

can say there are sodomy laws but these are not enforced just as there are many

laws on books that are not enforced as well.

>The question is about the state recognizing such unions and addressing

>relevant issues that exist for them in their marraiges.

<<That's one of the strangest goalpost moves I've ever seen.

Don't tell me you are into soccer.

>, even child protective services has realised that the best solution

>to such problems is to get help for the parents to correct the abuse and

>do everything they can to help hold the family unit together.

>>Not only are you arguing on authority, you're not even doing a good job of

it. Child protective services can't go taking children away from parents

in every single situation in which they might have been better off if the

parents had split and the kids had gone with one parent or the other.

You are misunderstanding me. Protective services has rights to remove children

on a moments notice from a home on nothing more than suspicion of abuse. Then

the case is further investigated and parental rights can be taken away and are

taken away very often from the poor. When they walk into a situation where

violence or physical abuse is occurring, they may remove the child on a

temporary basis but all efforts are directed at dealing with whatever is causing

the violence or abuse so the child can be restored to the family home, keeping

the family intact if in anyway possible. This was not always policy but they

have found children do better with their family than in alternative situations.

>Children are only permanently removed when the abuse is actually pretty

>bad and resolution of the problems is not possible.

>And furthermore, you're not even responding to my actual point, which is

that it's simply far from the truth to say that children are always better

off in their biological families. That's flat-out wrong.

>But your statements are not absolute truths either.

>My statement is, actually, absolutely true, because it's a relative statement:

Only because you qualify my statement.

PI:

>>I'm sure you'll agree there are some circumstances in which

>>children are better off in family units other than their biological ones,

>>but if so, you can't justify an absolute statement to the contrary.

>The effects on children (who have no rights) have been downplayed,

>minimized, justified, and even as you, rationalized to be better than

>resolution of the differences.

>This is such a compendium of absurdities I don't even know where to start.

>>A) Children have rights, and no serious person has suggested otherwise.

Children under the age of 18 have very few rights.

>> While some people no doubt downplay the effects of divorce on children,

others just as loudly insist that divorce is practically the worst possible

thing that could happen to children.

There are always extremists. What I am expressing is what I see as typically

happening today which is that the negative aspects on children are downplayed,

negated, ignored, rationalized, justified, and denied

< C) Justified? What does that even mean? If you mean I'm saying that if a

man is sexually abusing his child his wife should divorce him, then hell

yeah, I'm justifying divorce! If you mean I'm saying that my biological

father regularly put me in dangerous positions when I was an infant and

couldn't be dissuaded from doing so and that my mother was therefore

probably justified (that word again) in divorcing him, then yes, you got me.

You are justifying divorce by virtue of the very bad situations. Yes I would

agree that removal of the father from the family living arrangement if incest

were occurring but most sexual abuse of children is not done by the father.

Most is done by boyfriends of the mother, step fathers and step brothers, non

blood related, and by extended family relatives such as uncles. Incest by

biological fathers is actually very rare and sexual abuse less likely to occur

when the father is in the home.

<D) You're begging the question by assuming that divorce is bad and that any

justification is therefore a rationalization.

You are the one who is bent towards absolutes. Not all reasons for divorce are

rationalizations, but most reasons for it today are. In the case of no-fault

divorce, there is none at all required.

>Yes, people make bad choices. Your blanket response appears to be that

freedom should be curtailed to prevent them from making the particular

kinds of bad choices you don't like.

Oh yes the cop out is that I married the " wrong " person, " we've changed " . But

to have freedom, responsibility is necessary. Otherwise, you stay a child

making others responsible for your life. And I am not talking in any sense of

limiting freedoms. I am talking about what is socially acceptable today. And

it is completely totally acceptable for a parent to get up and divorce just

because they feel like it. So 50% of the kids today are being reared in single

parent homes, most by their mothers who find themselves ranked in the roles

called " poverty " . Oh yea its cool and in how many cases is reality really

better for those kids? I just had a friend commit suicide when the reality of

life and what she had done by divorcing that crumb hit. At least President Bush

has enough brains to comprehend this reality.

>You really cannot comprehend the effects to kids until you spend time with

>the youth of today and LISTEN to them.

>So now you're arguing on your own authority?

Seeing is believing. Go spend time with the kids today - listen to their

perspectives on it all. Listen to the reality of their lives. Listen to how

they feel about it all and the adults that have reared them.

>In raising children, there is much activity by parents that should

>appropriately be closeted. You apparently have not experienced teenage yet

>- it all comes back on you.

<<I'm sorry, but your English isn't clear.

Can't say it any clearer than that. There is much that adults do that is beyond

the understanding of a child. There is much you keep private until age

appropriate. This actually hits on one of my peeves towards the gay aliance who

in the 90's, produced a elementary school reader on homosexuality and proceeded

to get it approved by educational agencies. They were stopped because many

parents had enough upstairs to know that this was not age appropriate. Oh yes,

it left a good impression in my mind that these people should be raising

children.

>I listened last night to a program discussing how children reacted when

>their parents were honest about their own drug use when they were

>younger. The kids repeatedly said they used that honesty to justify their

>own use.

>>So you're equating homosexuality with drug use? Again, you're begging the

question by presupposing that homosexuality is a bad thing. Imagine if,

for " homosexuality " we substituted " femaleness " and insisted that all

females should pretend to be male.

I am equating someone who thinks parents should be " honest " to kids about all

they do or have done . This was an example of kids feeding back that such

honesty had had an adverse effect on their own bad decisions, contrary to the

best intentions of the parents. This is addressing that children's needs in

parental relationships are different than an adult to adult relationship. This

is addressing that some people's ideas on raising children are not exactly

right.

As far as drugs, I never said drug use was bad if done by responsible adults who

understand the drugs they are using and appropriate situations to do such, such

as not when driving a car, or when using other drugs. Depending on the drugs,

some are by far better than alcohol. But use among children are much different

circumstances as they lack ability to intellectually understand what they are

doing and the potential ramifications of whatever drug and or drugs they are

using.

>I think Fern is referring to people who divorce because they have decided

>to come out of the closet. Thus the child loses living with one

>biological parent and in exchange, gets a new parental figure in the home

>of the same sex.

<And what happens when there's shared or joint custody?

It's a mess for kids, especially when the structure by which they originally

started developing is dramatically changed in these situations. To give

examples, I went through having to explain to my children why some particular

friends had 8 grandparents, not 4. Of course, their friends got even more

presents at Christmas so this seemed quite appealing and something my kids

thought they were being cut short of in life. But then divorce happened again,

and the relationships established with the child to step parent, and between the

child to step grandparents, had no legal rights to continue and were abruptly

ended. That was it, it was over. No effect on the child? Yea right.

Another example, kids tend to formulate friendships and get involved in things -

social development. They tend to play with certain friends in routine, spend

the night, do things together, all that. In the cases of kids with two homes,

they are here within the one group at some times, but at others they are in the

other parent situation. Frequently, both parents are not in the same community.

So the kid really is available half time for involvement and development in

these social structures and relationships. He may have another social group at

the other parental home, but he well may not as he goes to school in one and one

only. Oh yes so he can not participate in the neat event occurring this weekend

because he has to spend time with his dad. No effect? Wrong.

>I've known two where this happened, it is a big one for kids to deal with.

<So children should be insulated from all big things?

Respect and consideration should be given to children and their ability to deal

with complicated issues, especially alternative lifestyles until age

appropriate.

>Also for kids are the social ramifications - their identity with their

>family gives a sense of importance and a feeling of place, especially if

>the parents have a role in the community. You either have to establish

>homosexual relationships as normal which I don't think is possible to do,

>or you do closet the relationships for the social survival of the child.

>Normalizing homosexual relationships can be done because it has been done.

Only politically. It is against basic normal instinct, always was and always

will be.

>Kids are meaner today than they ever were.

>Sorry, that statement bears no relationship to reality whatsoever.

Only because you do not know what reality is for kids these days. The great

social revolution of the 60's resulted in these kids getting all kinds of social

reconditioning programs in schools with the intentions of eliminating racism

and prejudice and intolerance - as if they even knew what that was. THe

brilliant minds figured the way to do this was by first categorizing everyone

into distinct groups and then placing special focus on particular groups - such

as black history month. What they actually did was to create a few generations

of kids who see everyone in a category, with distinct differences from each

other, as opposed to seeing all as one collective group with varying

differences. Now go to a high school and start talking to those kids and ask

them what group they are in. Ask them how many groups exist at their school.

They see in categories and judgements placed towards all.

>How can a single working parent provide proper meals for their children in

>these days?

>>What does this have to do with gay marriage?

It does not have to do with gay marraige, it has to do with the breakdown of the

family unit.

><And how is gay marriage going to increase violence, depression and

>psychological disorders?

>

>Why read Nourishing Traditions or Weston Price? It is the further

>breakdown of the family unit.

Nutrition is objectively measurable. In contrast, you are once again

begging the question, assuming that the " breakdown " of the heterosexual

biological family unit is (a) a bad thing and ( causes violence,

depression and psychological disorders. I ask how, you say " because it

does " . Non-responsive.

I would attribute most violence, depression, and psychological disorders to not

meeting biological needs of children such as nutrition, sleep, and exercise.

Again, the social revolution has in reality resulted in now, 50% of the kids

being reared in single parent homes wherein most of those parents work. It is

extremely difficult if not next to impossible to properly get these needs met

appropriately in such conditions. It is hard to do with two parents who both

work.

February 22, 2004

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> A man, say he's heterosexual, chooses to become a monk and to live a

celibate

> life. He lives largely disconnected from society, but the monks at

the

> monastery do use hospitals when needed and have other limited

interactions with

> mainstream society. Since the monk will not be marrying, he wishes

his spiritual

> father to be the person to have primary visitation rights in the

case of his

> hospitalization, and to make decisions in his stead if his condition

requires

> it. But, this legal arrangement cannot be made because the only

avenue

> through which it can be made is marriage, and they cannot attain a

" marriage "

> precisely because they are of the same sex.

Actually, this isn't true. Anyone can designate someone else to have

medical power of attorney for them. I know a 93 year old woman who

never married who has appointed her niece to have medical power of

attorney and my father (who is not related at all) to have financial

power of attorney. In her various hospitalizations over the last

several years her niece and my father had all the rights of family

members in visiting/making decisions. In fact, even though I wasn't

appointed legally and am not related at all, I was included in family

planning meetings at the nursing home, etc., because I was relating

closely to her, and she requested that I be there.

Another man in our church serves as power of attorney for numerous

elderly persons, some who have family, some who don't. When a decision

needs to be made medically or otherwise, the nursing home calls him.

So it's certainly not only those who are married who can have such

legal arrangements made by another party.

~ Fern

February 22, 2004

In a message dated 2/22/04 10:26:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> My point in the previous post was that what was accepted to be tradition

> and marraige in this country came from the Christian concept of marraige and

> that marraiges were done by churches first

I see-- I didn't realize you were limiting your point to American history.

Chris

February 22, 2004

In a message dated 2/22/04 11:42:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> Have we gotten so far away from the norm, that the abnormal is now

> normal, and normal is now the exception? Marriage is by and large

> engaged by a young man and a young woman intent on having children.

So do you advocate enshrining this as law as well? Why is it that in your

very complex definition of marriage, which, among its many definitional

requirements, is that the parties to the marriage must be intent upon bearing

children, you arbitrarily select pieces-- such as the marriage must be a man and

a

woman-- to enshrine in law, and select other pieces-- such as they must have

children or try-- not to enshrine into law?

In order for your position to be consistent, you'd have to advocate a

prohibition of infertile people marrying.

If > they aren't intent on having children they must take definite steps to

> NOT have children.

Yes. Many do so.

Having children is the normal, natural result of

> marriage.

You're conflating " marriage " with " unprotected sex. "

> NOT having children requires intervention.

It could simply require celibacy, but would usually involve intervention. I

don't see your point, since nearly everyone who engages in sex engages in

" intervention " to prevent child birth, including married couples intent on

bearing

one child or some children, most of whom do not plan to bear unlimited

numbers of children, but nearly none of whom would practice sexual abstinence in

order to avoid those numbers of children.

Yes, people get

> married later in life. But MOSTLY people marry in time biologically to

> have children. When people are infertile there is something wrong

> physically, and that too is not the norm.

No, but it is the norm to " intervene " to allow sex without pregnancy in order

to plan the number of children one has, the time one begins having them, and

the spacing between them. It is also true that 20% or so of children are born

out of wedlock and half of marriages end in divorce. I agree that it would

be ideal for this not to be the case. But it is interesting that you want to

force your ideals on homosexuals through the law but don't want to force your

ideals on people who engage in unprotected sex outside of marriage, or marry

without the intent of bearing children.

> >Second, there are lots of rights that come with marriage regarding

> hospital

> >rights, taxes, inheritance, and a whole host of issues Christie

> expounded on at

> >length.

>

> Civil unions seem to be the answer to that, without destroying and

> changing the whole definition of marriage.

I couldn't care less what it is called, and that seems a reasonable

compromise considering how zealous some people are to " defend marriage " but this

position really seems silly to me. First, because you allow marriages for gay

people but just don't call them that, so clearly all that is at stake is

superficial symbolism, not actual institutions. Second, because the definition

would

essentially remain the same, in that it is a permanent bond between two people,

whereas other laws, like the allowance of divorce, actually do change the

definition of marriage in a much more fundamental way. And third, because you

insist that marriage requires people intent on raising a family together,

ignoring the fact that gay people can adopt children and do this the same as

heterosexuals, and you make no room for laws banning infertile couples from

marrying

or married couples from adopting, making your stance clearly inconsistent.

Chris

February 22, 2004

In a message dated 2/22/04 1:00:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> As far as drugs, I never said drug use was bad if done by responsible

> adults who understand the drugs they are using and appropriate situations to

do

> such, such as not when driving a car, or when using other drugs. Depending on

> the drugs, some are by far better than alcohol. But use among children are

> much different circumstances as they lack ability to intellectually understand

> what they are doing and the potential ramifications of whatever drug and or

> drugs they are using.

This is, quite simply, ridiculous. I don't know what else to say about it.

Oh, except that, even though I'm an adult now, having used drugs as a

teenager, I find this extremely insulting.

Chris

February 22, 2004

you're totally misunderstanding me or either intentionally

twisting what I'm saying to argue with me. I'm not sure which and I

won't try to judge that. But I don't plan to get into a fight of words

and terms with you. My point is that the basic and normal structure of

marriage has children in it and always has. The fact that there are

legitimate exceptions doesn't mean that the structure of a man and

woman shouldn't be protected for the possible/probable children that

are born into most marriages.

I'm not sure that there even needs to be a civil union allowed for

homosexuals, since people can designate a power of attorney to act on

their behalf. These are legally and readily recognized. The problems

Christie described have more to do with families' acceptance of their

family member's partners than hospitals or other institutions

recognizing their connection.

~ Fern

Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

> In a message dated 2/22/04 11:42:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> readnwrite@... writes:

>

> > Have we gotten so far away from the norm, that the abnormal is now

> > normal, and normal is now the exception? Marriage is by and large

> > engaged by a young man and a young woman intent on having

children.

>

> So do you advocate enshrining this as law as well? Why is it that

in your

> very complex definition of marriage, which, among its many

definitional

> requirements, is that the parties to the marriage must be intent

upon bearing

> children, you arbitrarily select pieces-- such as the marriage must

be a man and a

> woman-- to enshrine in law, and select other pieces-- such as they

must have

> children or try-- not to enshrine into law?

>

> In order for your position to be consistent, you'd have to advocate

a

> prohibition of infertile people marrying.

>

> If > they aren't intent on having children they must take definite

steps to

> > NOT have children.

>

> Yes. Many do so.

>

> Having children is the normal, natural result of

> > marriage.

>

> You're conflating " marriage " with " unprotected sex. "

>

> > NOT having children requires intervention.

>

> It could simply require celibacy, but would usually involve

intervention. I

> don't see your point, since nearly everyone who engages in sex

engages in

> " intervention " to prevent child birth, including married couples

intent on bearing

> one child or some children, most of whom do not plan to bear

unlimited

> numbers of children, but nearly none of whom would practice sexual

abstinence in

> order to avoid those numbers of children.

>

> Yes, people get

> > married later in life. But MOSTLY people marry in time

biologically to

> > have children. When people are infertile there is something wrong

> > physically, and that too is not the norm.

>

> No, but it is the norm to " intervene " to allow sex without pregnancy

in order

> to plan the number of children one has, the time one begins having

them, and

> the spacing between them. It is also true that 20% or so of

children are born

> out of wedlock and half of marriages end in divorce. I agree that

it would

> be ideal for this not to be the case. But it is interesting that

you want to

> force your ideals on homosexuals through the law but don't want to

force your

> ideals on people who engage in unprotected sex outside of marriage,

or marry

> without the intent of bearing children.

>

> > >Second, there are lots of rights that come with marriage

regarding

> > hospital

> > >rights, taxes, inheritance, and a whole host of issues Christie

> > expounded on at

> > >length.

> >

> > Civil unions seem to be the answer to that, without destroying and

> > changing the whole definition of marriage.

>

> I couldn't care less what it is called, and that seems a reasonable

> compromise considering how zealous some people are to " defend

marriage " but this

> position really seems silly to me. First, because you allow

marriages for gay

> people but just don't call them that, so clearly all that is at

stake is

> superficial symbolism, not actual institutions. Second, because the

definition would

> essentially remain the same, in that it is a permanent bond between

two people,

> whereas other laws, like the allowance of divorce, actually do

change the

> definition of marriage in a much more fundamental way. And third,

because you

> insist that marriage requires people intent on raising a family

together,

> ignoring the fact that gay people can adopt children and do this the

same as

> heterosexuals, and you make no room for laws banning infertile

couples from marrying

> or married couples from adopting, making your stance clearly

inconsistent.

>

> Chris

February 22, 2004

>but nearly none of whom would practice sexual abstinence in

>order to avoid those numbers of children.

In theory, Catholics would do this. I believe they are not

supposed to use birth control, still, and sex is basically

supposed to " be open to " conception:

http://www.surrogacy.com/religion/catholic.html

This is a very wide-angle opening to a treatment of surrogate motherhood, but

absolutely crucial to bring this issue into its proper focus within the Catholic

tradition. For note that if unity and procreation really are inseparable,

they're inseparable from both directions. Namely, if it is wrong to separate

procreation from unity with the use of artificial contraception, it is equally

wrong to separate procreation from unity and have offspring apart from the

sexual act of the married couple. In short, no sex without (openness to) babies;

no babies without sex. This teaching is articulated most fully in the Church's

1987 statement by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

entitled " Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity

of Procreation " (the Latin title is Donum Vitae, and it can be found at

Now, this opens up another interesting point ... a nun is " wed " to Christ.

So here is a case of a woman marrying (the opposite sex, but also .... ????)

where clearly (?) no actual babies are expected (I'm not clear on this

point). I'm not denigrating the practice, but clearly this stretches the

definition of " marriage " beyond the normal sense, but is considered OK.

-- Heidi Jean

February 23, 2004

>Good grief. How can you assume that the spouse, in this case, " wasn't giving

respect " ?

We have to take the information given but not necessarily at face value. The

statements were that when the family arrived, they ran all the friends out who

were staying at the hospital " because they were gay " . They went to court and

had power of attorney for medical care direction and most likely management of

financial affairs, overturned " because the partner was gay " . They went to court

and had the will overturned which apparently had given the home of the dying man

to his partner, " because he was gay " . And this is described to reflect

intolerance for homosexuals and the second class citizenship they hold. And as

they were successful in the court, this reason as well was attributed to the

courts and judges " being anti-homosexual " .

Now the first thing to question the credibility of is in the courts and judges

of San Francisco being anti-homosexual. I mean I would wager that a significant

number of court officials are gay themselves in that city. And with the goings

on of late in San Francisco with the mayor marrying homosexuals, there certainly

is not indication of any judge nor politican being anti-gay or at least brave

enough to challenge the violations of law occurring.

Obviously there was disharmony between the partner and the family. Since

conflicts are very common between inlaws and spouses, I have to challenge that

this conflict was because of the homosexual nature of the relationship. In

spousal relationships, sometimes those marraiges were not long in duration at

all challenging the justification of rights or inheritance. It is not uncommon

that people marry for financial gain. It is not uncommon that wills and powers

of attorney are challenged on the basis of whether the person who wrote them was

in adverse mental or physical state at the time. There are challenges that such

documents are even real and written by the person. The fact the family took the

inheritance issue into court and won says to me that there very likely were

financial assests worthy of such effort and expense. Considering they were in

San Francisco and there is a home involved, there most likely was a significant

amount of money involved as housing is quite expensive there. It is very

possible that the intentions were not to deny the partner his inheritance

because he was gay, but rather to obtain those financial worths for themselves.

THis most certainly could have been an issue of greed but it could as well have

been that the money had originally been family money they felt should properly,

in right, return to the family. We do not know. But as I said, this occurs

very frequently in heterosexual relationships and certainly not because of the

sexuality issue making it difficult to accept that this is an example of

homophobia.

We also do not know how long this relationship had gone on. Being that the man

was dying, if I was his mother, I would be most upset. I don't think there is

anything more painful for a mother to experience than having to bury a child she

bought into the world. I can identify that in her grief, she may well have felt

responsibility for her son contacting AIDS to be due to this partner or his

homosexual relationships. And thus projecting anger or embitterment towards the

partner could be understandable. Not that I am saying it is right but certainly

understandable in such circumstances as death of a child resulting from a

sexually transmitted disease. That would not represent homophobia. If my

daughter was dying of AIDS and she had been married to a man who was extremely

promiscous, I would be most embittered towards him as well and very possibly

would not want him around in the hospital either, nor want him to obtain any

wealth as a result of her death as I might well feel responsibility for her

death was his. Again, this would not be sexual bias reflective of homophobia.

<Why *should* the friends have left " on their own " ? That is EXACTLY why gays

want marriage.

The reasons for saying that the family should not have had to run everyone out

is due to the fact that when the family arrived, they should have left leaving

them privacy, be it homosexual or heterosexual. When a person is dying, respect

is given to those who are experiencing the greatest pain and grief which is the

family - particularly parents, children and spouses. It is not a party, it is

not the appropriate time to hang. Even if you too are in grief, your own

selfish feelings should be placed secondary to those closest to the dying

person. The few remaining hours of life are the most precious to those who were

most bonded over many years, whose lives are most affected. It is a life

experience and emotional processes are involved in. Friends are suppose to take

a secondary supportive role of those people, they step into the backlight, let

those people go through the dying and grieving processes with respect for the

extremely painful and diffcult event that is occurring. Such deaths from AIDS

usually involve tremendous incredible pain, there is usually great physical

deterioration that has occurred, the dignity of the human being is suppose to be

respected. One tradition for example, is to bring food because those in such

grief are focused on the issue at hand and in respect and human compassion for

what they are going through, we realise that their priority is time with that

person and tending to necessary affairs, handling their own emotions - not

cooking. Again, the fact that the friends did not leave and some still only see

the family as expressing homophobia, indicates that there is lack of respect and

regard for them as family and human beings who did love this person for many

years at such a terribly sad time. Again, if my child was dying and their

friends were all hanging at the hospital, I would run them off as well

regardless of their sexual preferences in life.

<There are cases where a birth family's rights overrule spousal rights, but they

are rare (which is why they make the news).

No they do not overrule, but spousal rights are frequently challenged. In the

case in Florida, the family lost in the courts as to rights to any say in the

decision to remove life support. The governor stepped in without authority of

the law - this is being challenged in court. Not all laws are moral, not all

morals are laws - there are grey areas that cannot simply be defined as to whose

rights really should rule over another person's life.

I respect that when a couple marry, they become family. When a spouse or

partner do not realise or respect the feelings of the parents who bought that

person into life, who loved this person too in the most unselfish of ways, for

the longest period of time, he can hardly expect respect of his feelings and

relationship back in return. Families do not stop caring because a person

marries, whoever it is.

>>As you say, much of our law is based on Judeo-Christian tradition, which says

" a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife " .... i.e. the

spousal attachment supercedes the birth attachment. Ergo it is a good thing to

have an officially recognized spousal attachment.

This is what I was originally saying in that there is great attack on the

Christians for denying these rights that gays feel they should have, when they

are in fact, rights that were established because the Christians believed in

them based on scripture.

>> Giving the same marital rights to homosexual relationships does not guarantee

such challenges cannot or will not occur. So again, this is not a relevant

argument for.There are no guarantees, but that hardly makes it an irrelevant

argument. The exceptions don't make the rule. The fact it is HARDER to get

rights if you aren't married makes getting married a valuable thing. Withholding

a valuable thing from a group of people for no good reason is discrimination.

My point above was that this example was not reflective of homosexual problems,

but rather of all human relationships and marraige was not going to prevent them

from occurring. I said that it is appropriate that the legal system address

these relationships and problems. But that is not saying that marraige has to

be redefined, or their relationships should be encompassed under marital laws,

rather recognition of civil unions and defining of partner rights (however suits

them) seems appropriate. Most people do not seem to want to withhold such

" rights " from homosexuals - based on the polls in this country. But the polls

also reflect that they do not want their definition of marraige " withheld " from

them. Many people do feel there is good reason to not redefine marraige. As I

said before, why should I have regard or concern for homosexual issues when

homosexuals have no regard or concern for others? Why should I respect their

differing perspectives or lifestyles when they do not respect others? Why

should I care about their rights to legal protection when they do not respect

the law anyway? Why should I be tolerant of a group of people who are actually,

collectively as a group, the most intolerant I have ever met?

<And none of this really answers the question, " Who does gay marriage hurt " ? The

answer so far has been " it hurts the tradition of marriage " which just isn't

very convincing (if the tradition of marriage has survived the tradition of

mistresses, philandering, arranged matches, sham marriages, the 70's, etc. then

it is in no immediate danger, and as you have pointed out, homosexuals have been

living in arrangements that are marriages in all but name for a long time

without the end of life as we know it).

Agreed, homosexuals have had their relationships and will always. The issue

here and now is redefining of " marraige " and ending of an extremely long

tradition. So who needs traditions? What they are worth? Well that may be the

more relevant discussion on a board where Nourishing Traditions is a reference

book. They have meaning, they give structure to society, they give order, they

have biological basis to them. Later. And to have a society that is tolerant

of differing beliefs and lifestyles, then respect needs to be given to ALL

differing beliefs and lifestyles and resolution of such issues are very

frequently compromises. Civil unions as opposed to redefining of " marraige "

addresses and resolves the important real issues for gays and it allows non-gays

to maintain their tradition of marraige.

Sign In

Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites