Text 3461, 70 rader
Skriven 2006-07-07 13:30:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3934.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C0D2801100C34BA2F0284530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY: <br36a25t7u29ft21jbptij097hk42c528a@4ax.com>
>>On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 19:06:42 -0400, Charlie Edmondson wrote
(in article <44ac4602$1@news.cadence.com>):

> Amy Guskin wrote:
> 
>>>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 03:06:45 -0400, Rob Perkins wrote
>> 
>> (in article <4h16o2F1pl4f0U1@individual.net>):
>> 
>>> Rob, not fond of arguments in favor of change for the sake of change <<
>> 
>> 
>> Rob, I'm surprised.  That's an awfully callous, sound-bytey assessment of 
>> an 
>> issue that means a _great_ deal to a large number of people.
>> 
>> Amy
>> 
> Ok, maybe this is a different view on things.  Maybe it will help in 
> understanding the position.
> 
> There is an institution called marriage.  It exists to legalize and 
> bless a relationship between a man and a woman, who will then work 
> together and build a family.  It involves love, sex, children, houses 
> and a lot of legal and religous issues.  It has been around for a long time. 
<<

What about straight couples who don't choose to have children?  Will they be 
stripped of the right to get married because some religious groups feel that 
"marriage" is meant for procreation?  What about atheists who marry, I ask 
again?  Not everyone who marries has the same values - the one common thread 
is (romantic) love.

>> Now along comes a group, and they say, Wow, that sounds like a good 
> idea.  However, I prefer folks of the same sex, but we still want in on 
> this deal.  We plan to meet all the duties and responsibilities inherent 
> in the institution as it is currently practiced. <<

Right, so I'm not meeting my "duty" because I didn't have children?  See?  
Apparently even some straight marriages aren't meeting one particular 
religion's strict, arbitrary standards.

>>I really prefer the idea of a civil union.  It will be more practical in 
> the long run.  What if someone is not married, but wants someone to just 
> carry on if he dies, and wants his best friend to take over.  Or, his 
> business partner.  Or any of a number of reasons two people want to 
> share a life, maybe that doesn't even begin to involve sex of any sort. 
>   Make it a pure legal fiction, and you will be a lot more realistic.<<

Sure, Charlie, something called a "civil union" seems fine for people who 
want to make a business arrangement with another individual.  But as I 
mentioned above, we are talking about _love_.  People who want to officially, 
legally, and socially recognize their _love_, as people have been doing for 
centuries.  Do you not see how much you minimize their expression of love 
when you want to lump it in with business arrangements?

But my comment to Rob wasn't based on a lack of understanding of the opposite 
position in this matter; it was a direct response to what seemed like a very 
callous comment.

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