Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
non-homophobe.

Surprise, surprise.

DS

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > > married?
> >
> > Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> > reasons.
> >
> > DS
>
> That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
> to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
> marriage. (sarcasm)
>
> OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
> chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
> consented to marry a human?
>
> Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
> yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
> to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
> imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
> privilege.
>
> Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
> picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
> romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:

>>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>>to me, don't you think?
>>
>>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>>society.
>
>They're the most prominent voice against it right now.

They may be, but that's not what you said.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:

>>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>>to me, don't you think?
>>
>>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>>society.
>
>They're the most prominent voice against it right now.

They may be, but that's not what you said.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:

>>>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>>>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>>>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>>>to me, don't you think?
>>
>>Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
>>society.
>
>They're the most prominent voice against it right now.

They may be, but that's not what you said.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:

>>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>>What is the "it" here?
>>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>>The rankling?
>
>That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
>explanation of what gay marriage is.

Are you sure?
Since the definition of marriage is so closely tied to religion, those
who adhere to the religious beliefs are rankled by the idea of gay
marriage because 'it's against God's law'.
That's not a definition of Gay marriage.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:

>>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>>What is the "it" here?
>>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>>The rankling?
>
>That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
>explanation of what gay marriage is.

Are you sure?
Since the definition of marriage is so closely tied to religion, those
who adhere to the religious beliefs are rankled by the idea of gay
marriage because 'it's against God's law'.
That's not a definition of Gay marriage.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:

>>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>>What is the "it" here?
>>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>>The rankling?
>
>That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
>explanation of what gay marriage is.

Are you sure?
Since the definition of marriage is so closely tied to religion, those
who adhere to the religious beliefs are rankled by the idea of gay
marriage because 'it's against God's law'.
That's not a definition of Gay marriage.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
> >news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
> >> <snip>
> >> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
> >>
> >> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was
then
> >> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
> >> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
> >>
> >> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of
property
> >> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
and
> >> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is
most
> >> medieval ...
> >>
> >
> >Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
> >purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for
the
> >purpose of raising children.
>
> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
> prevented from marrying?

That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
doesn't require marriage.

To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
> >news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
> >> <snip>
> >> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
> >>
> >> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was
then
> >> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
> >> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
> >>
> >> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of
property
> >> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
and
> >> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is
most
> >> medieval ...
> >>
> >
> >Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
> >purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for
the
> >purpose of raising children.
>
> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
> prevented from marrying?

That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
doesn't require marriage.

To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
> >news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
> >> <snip>
> >> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
> >>
> >> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was
then
> >> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
> >> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
> >>
> >> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of
property
> >> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
and
> >> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is
most
> >> medieval ...
> >>
> >
> >Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
> >purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for
the
> >purpose of raising children.
>
> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
> prevented from marrying?

That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
doesn't require marriage.

To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.