In article <3F7EA904.A3F2E493@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
>> > so important to same --- couples?
>>
>> All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
>> heterosexual couples.
>
>Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?
>
>> > insulting millions of people who deeply believe that a marriage is a man
>> > / woman union?
>>
>> There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
>> because same---- unions make you feel bad.
>
>I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
>million of people are against redefining marriage to include same ---
>unions.

In the 19th century, the same could be said about popular opposition to ending
slavery.


>There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
>apparently could care less about their reasons.
>
>> I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
>> should hold legal sway over equal rights.
>
>I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
>words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
>single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
>marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
>me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
>because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
>name calling to try and get your way.
>
>If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same --- unions
>equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
>tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
>doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
>of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.
>
>Ed

 

In article <3F7EA904.A3F2E493@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
>> > so important to same --- couples?
>>
>> All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
>> heterosexual couples.
>
>Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?
>
>> > insulting millions of people who deeply believe that a marriage is a man
>> > / woman union?
>>
>> There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
>> because same---- unions make you feel bad.
>
>I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
>million of people are against redefining marriage to include same ---
>unions.

In the 19th century, the same could be said about popular opposition to ending
slavery.


>There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
>apparently could care less about their reasons.
>
>> I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
>> should hold legal sway over equal rights.
>
>I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
>words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
>single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
>marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
>me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
>because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
>name calling to try and get your way.
>
>If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same --- unions
>equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
>tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
>doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
>of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.
>
>Ed

 

In article <3F7EA904.A3F2E493@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
>> > so important to same --- couples?
>>
>> All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
>> heterosexual couples.
>
>Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?
>
>> > insulting millions of people who deeply believe that a marriage is a man
>> > / woman union?
>>
>> There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
>> because same---- unions make you feel bad.
>
>I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
>million of people are against redefining marriage to include same ---
>unions.

In the 19th century, the same could be said about popular opposition to ending
slavery.


>There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
>apparently could care less about their reasons.
>
>> I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
>> should hold legal sway over equal rights.
>
>I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
>words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
>single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
>marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
>me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
>because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
>name calling to try and get your way.
>
>If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same --- unions
>equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
>tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
>doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
>of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.
>
>Ed

 

In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
>> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> 3> It is not a marriage.
>>
>> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
>> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>> 2> couples."
>>
>> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
>> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>>
>> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
>> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
>> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
>> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
>> relationship.
>>
>> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
>> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
>> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
>>
>> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
>> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
>> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
>>
>> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
>> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
>> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
>> union between members of the same race."
>>
>> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>>
>> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
>> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
>> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
>
>Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
>somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
>circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
>
>If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
>proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
definition
>stands.
>
>Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
on
>the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
>under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.

Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
probably not in session now...


>Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
>without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
>needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
>consitution, what good is it?
>

 

In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
>> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> 3> It is not a marriage.
>>
>> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
>> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>> 2> couples."
>>
>> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
>> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>>
>> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
>> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
>> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
>> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
>> relationship.
>>
>> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
>> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
>> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
>>
>> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
>> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
>> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
>>
>> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
>> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
>> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
>> union between members of the same race."
>>
>> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>>
>> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
>> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
>> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
>
>Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
>somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
>circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
>
>If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
>proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
definition
>stands.
>
>Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
on
>the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
>under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.

Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
probably not in session now...


>Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
>without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
>needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
>consitution, what good is it?
>

 

In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
>> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> 3> It is not a marriage.
>>
>> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
>> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>> 2> couples."
>>
>> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
>> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>>
>> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
>> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
>> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
>> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
>> relationship.
>>
>> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
>> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
>> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
>>
>> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
>> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
>> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
>>
>> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
>> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
>> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
>> union between members of the same race."
>>
>> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>>
>> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
>> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
>> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
>
>Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
>somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
>circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
>
>If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
>proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
definition
>stands.
>
>Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
on
>the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
>under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.

Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
probably not in session now...


>Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
>without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
>needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
>consitution, what good is it?
>

 

In article <3FCF58AC.624DC119@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>
>It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?

Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.


>Or do you define a
>scientist as someone who agrees with you?
>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FCF58AC.624DC119@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>
>It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?

Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.


>Or do you define a
>scientist as someone who agrees with you?
>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FCF58AC.624DC119@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>
>It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?

Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.


>Or do you define a
>scientist as someone who agrees with you?
>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FCF5A19.FD71112B@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
>> discrimination?
>
>Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
>discrimination?

No, but when you prevent an entire class from getting married so they CAN have
those rights, that is.


>For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
>and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
>marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a
woman.
>Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
>redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to
a
>different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.
>
>Ed
>