Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Diana Duncan <art2mis AT nc.rr.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:03:51 -0500


On Thursday, Feb 5, 2004, at 21:11 US/Eastern, Tom Boucher wrote:


On Feb 5, 2004, at 4:26 PM, childers.paula AT epamail.epa.gov wrote:
palls me to think our great nation has sunk to even PROPOSING this
kind of prejudice & pandering; no Western democracy has codified such
blatant discrimination into their Constitution or foundation of law,
only places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or some little
hypersuperstitious backwater in Africa.

pissed and wanting my equal rights,
Paula

I feel that this is nothing more than going for the conservative vote in 2004.

just wait, during debates 'family values' and such will be tossed around to show how much the democrats are god hating commies.



At least as far as I've heard, the Dems are also drawing some sort of distinction between civil unions and marriage. Certainly Kerry, Edwards and Dean have all said they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I just completely fail to see the logic. I also find it sad that nowhere have I read or heard of anyone in the news media pointing out the fundamental illogic of all the arguments against gay marriage so far. I guess that as soon as anyone mentions "religion", all questions of logic go out the window anyway.

So, all replies so far simply add to the point - marriage as it is practiced today in a legal sense has NOTHING to do with religion in this country. So why is this the argument so often brought up (by both sides) as to why they oppose gay marriage?

I don't think I'll get an answer that makes sense, because it just plain doesn't. I was just wondering if I was missing some point that made it make sense. :)

Diana

(pissed and wanting everyone's equal rights)

Hey, by the way...isn't the Republican party supposed to be the "state's rights" party? Up until now, it has always been up to the individual states to legislate marriage any way they see fit. When it was illegal in Mississippi to marry inter-racially, I don't believe that state was required to recognize a couple legally married in New York. Different states have different legal ages for marriage, too. So the true Republican should let the individual states set the laws.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page