[extropy-chat] Gay Marriage

[Al Brooks]

Right-- as far as you are concerned. For me there's no
reason to think those who say they want government out
of marriage actually do, so I reject religious
ceremony contract marriage. 
I want parity for any alternatives to hetero marriage
based on what the benefits are for heteros at the
time. If on January 1st 2015 straights have x, then I
want gays and polys to be granted x as well.

> As far as I am concerned, marriage should be an
> entirely religious ceremony.
> It should have nothing to do with government. It
> should not be regulated by
> the state. If a certain church wants to keep a
> certain type of people out of
> their group, then so be it. Groups with like beliefs
> should be allowed to
> congregate with like minded people. I don't think I
> would be accepted too
> well with a bunch of bikers...and that is fine. I
> wouldn;t want to be with a
> bunch of bikers who didn;t want me to be around!
> 
> Gays in church are the same way. People who are
> anti-gay should have just as
> much a right to congregate as the KKK, atheists,
> pagans, or a bunch of
> anti-Bush supporters. Boy Scouts should be for boys,
> girl scouts for girls.
> Why would a girls want to be a boy scout anyways?
> 
> The solution is not to force a group to accept
> people who don;t fit the
> group. The solution is to form more groups. I don;t
> see the members here
> complaining that they don;t get a Catholic
> newsletter!
> 
> So if the issue is whether or not gays are allowed
> church marriages, that is
> up to the church. And I am sure that there are
> Christian denominations that
> recognize gay marriages. I know of such a church
> right here in Evansville,
> IN.
> 
> But I don;t think that is a problem on this list.
> The people here seem to
> think about matters in more of a logical sense
> rather than caring what the
> church thinks. I am sure the church would condemn my
> decisions of
> cryo-preservation, atheism,  cloning, etc just as
> much as they condemn gays.
> Homosexuality is only one sin. I commit many! lol
> 
> So I can only assume the matter has to do with
> either contract law, or
> benefits.
> 
> As a matter of contract, eliminating marriage puts
> everyone on an equal
> footing. my girlfried and I can have a contract, and
> so can two roommates in
> college that buy a frat house together.
> All matters of contract, property, and those evil
> government benefits that
> keep people as slaves to the state should stand on
> their own. They should
> not have anything to do with race, religion. color,
> creed, sex, sexual
> orientation, or what kind of ice cream a person
> likes.
> 
> I am not completely sure what Mike thinks here, but
> I would like his
> opinion. I don;t even care for the civil union idea.
> It is just another name
> for marriage. I want the state out of the
> relationship regulation business
> altogether. People can make contracts with one
> another as they wish. We
> would need a lot more attorneys, but they should get
> less expensive too. :-)
> 
> Finally, regarding benefits....We are talking about
> benefits that both Mike
> and I think should not be there to begin with. It is
> silly to imply that
> Mike is singling out gays when getting rid of
> marriage. That is paranoia. A
> lot of people would lose government benefits by
> getting rid of marriage. But
> the reduction in tax expenditures would be offset by
> a reduction in taxes.
> Why people think it is OK for the government to take
> our money and give it
> back to those who "earn" it by following certain
> behaviors is beyond me.
> 
> Kevin Freels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bryan Moss" <bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 5:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] No Joy in Mudville
> 
> 
> > Brian Lee wrote:
> >
> > > I favor someone else on this list who suggested
> that the gov't get out
> > > of the marriage business altogether and only
> allow civil unions. Then
> > > any marriage is purely non-legal and ceremonial.
> >
> >
> > I don't understand this position at all.  You'd be
> allowing gay
> > marriage, but not calling any marriage marriage,
> but any organisation
> > that wants to call a marriage marriage would be
> free to do so and would
> > also be free to discriminate against homosexuals?
> >
> > Doesn't it just amount to a name change to appease
> bigots?
> >
> > BM
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

=====
Nixon in '08 - he's tanned rested and ready


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com