Text 3206, 103 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 12:20:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3679.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Charlie Edmondson to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <44a9960b$1@news.cadence.com>
@REPLY: <0001HW.C0CEC5FD000A684AF0407530@news.verizon.net>
Amy Guskin wrote:

>>>On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:46:18 -0400, Carl wrote
> 
> (in article <bdKdncRu5dNB1DTZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com>):
> 
> 
>><kruegerb76@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>news:1151942047.852526.291690@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Rob Perkins wrote:
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No. There is no conceivable justification for a gay marriage
>>>>>amendment. It addresses no threat.
>>>>
>>>>The logic, which is arguably slippery-slope, goes like this:
>>>>
>>>>1 - If we change the definition of marriage to include couples not
>>>>sanctioned by a particular religious group, members of that group will
>>>>refuse to solemnize marriages which don't match their definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Um, what does any church have to do with the _legal_ definition of
>>>marriage?
>>>
>>>What may or may not get passed as law is the legal definition.  If you
>>>are a person of faith, you may have your own more church-based
>>>definition, but what does that have to do with the legal definition?
>>>
>>>Gay marriage (or legally restricting the same) is a matter of legal
>>>rights (or the taking away of those rights).  It has nothing to do with
>>>"the church".
>>
>>They aren't quite that separate. Marriage is also a religious concept... 
>>e.g. compared to  "living in sin." for instance and priests not being able 
>>to marry because they are married to the church kind of thing.   For many 
>>religious people, they usually get married in a church and often consider 
>>the religious significance much greater than the legal one. For example, 
>>consider the issue of a Catholic wanting an annulment rather than just a 
>>divorce.
>>
>>Also,  the idea of a "Civil union" was rejected by some of the most vocal in 
>>the gay community...even though it would have given full legal status for 
>>such a union.  I know several people in the community that would have been 
>>fine with that though.
>>
>>As a result, the perception is that gays want the same status beyond the 
>>legal sense... equating the union with the religious sense as well, which 
>>upsets those whose faith does not accept that.<<
> 
> 
> That's a narrow view: what about gay couples who are atheists but still want 
> to have the benefit of being able to say that they are married?  From where I

> sit, the issue seems to be a desire for equality, pure and simple.  A civil 
> union is not a marriage.  "Marriage" has a social connotation that "civil 
> union" does not.
> 
> Why anyone would want to place restrictions on the amount of consensual love 
> being expressed in this world, I can't understand.
> 
> Amy
> 
Ok, going to step in, and then out.  I am not discussing this, but I 
will present my feelings and opinion.

I am married.  I am a religous person to whom the term 'married' means a 
God blessed union between a man and a woman.  It is how it has been 
defined for centuries (millenia...?) and that is how it is.

The state has accepted this definition, and used it to define certain 
rights and responsibilities.  I can not just leave my wife without 
penalty.  She will receive my estate when I die.  We have paid more in 
taxes due to that relationship in the past, and less in taxes due to 
that relationship in the past.  That was fine with me, they had to 
define familial relationships for civil purposes.

Now, a group has come along, and said they want to redefine what a 
marriage is.  They were left out by the old definition, and feel I 
should change MY definition to suit them.  To heck with my traditions, 
religion or feelings, they want it, and they have a lot of political 
power to press the matter.  I say no, and support politicians who act 
the same way.

Now, do I hate this group who wants this change? No, I just disagree 
with them.  Do I accept their lifestyle?  Not for myself, that is for 
sure, but I have often subscribed to the philosophy of each person 
should be allowed to go to hell in their own way, if they so choose... 8-)

Charlie
              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)