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

[Edward Wesolowski <edwes AT idisplay.com>]

>..if the "religious right" is against equal rights for same-sex couples, 
does that make me part of the "religious wrong?"
...Religous Wrong! Yeah, That must be it. Thanks for an identity, Dave! 
Finally;-)
Ed W.

At 11:59 AM 2/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> On 2/20/04 4:37 AM, "Lee Haslup" <biglee AT haslups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>> ... an endless supply of liberal "Me too, I agree" conversations.  As
> >>> a member of the dread, horrible, so-called "religious right" I am
> >>> very disappointed to see all of this liberal chatter with not a
> >>> single "core" member of the list willing to represent the opposing side.
> >>
> > Tom,
> >
> > We do tend to lurk, but we are out there.  Welcome to the list.  Please
> > be patient with them, despite their political naivete they are all very
> > nice people.  We get together once a month for a social outing.  You
> > should come.  You'll see.
> >>
> >> Become that person then.  Please, tell me why you think gay marriage
> >> should not be allowed.  I'd love to hear more about why the government
> >> should be in the business of dictating what are essentially
> >> religious / moral principles, especially in light of the principle
> >> of separation of church and state.
> >
> > Phillip,
> >
> >  I'll take a stab at it while we're waiting for Tom to get back to
> > us.  The "Gay Marriage" thing is one more attempt to use the coercive
> > power of the State to destroy (or at least greatly change) an
> > institution from which certain people feel excluded.
>
> If "marriage" has such a religious/moral implication that the government
> should not be able to legislate the definition, then it should not have any
> involvement, in my opinion. Why not call any union sanctioned by the
> government to be a Civil Union (be it heterosexual or same-sex). Those that
> want to be "Married" can have a religious ceremony.
>
> > As a libertarian (of a different feather) I unflaggingly support any gay
> > couple's right to do anything that married couples do -- live together, 
> shop
> > together, sleep together, love each other, fight, buy furniture -- but I do
> > not support their efforts to compel an unwilling majority to call them
> > "Married".
>
> I may be wrong, but I believe that most same-sex couples fighting for the
> right to "marry" are looking for the rights that accompany such a union,
> rather than attempting to co-opt the "sanctity" of "marriage." I think you
> omitted from your list of things married couples can do some that same-sex
> couples can not, such as participate in a spouses' health insurance (in most
> cases), and have a say in their partners' health care (especially
> end-of-life issues). I believe there are tax/inheritance issues involved as
> well--very worldly concepts, rather than spiritual ones. I pity the same-sex
> couple in the US which one is not an American citizen (check out US
> immigration law, and see what additional rights "Married" couples get that
> same-sex couples can not).
>
> As some anecdotal evidence of this--my wife's grandmother remarried a few
> years back (I believe she was 83, and married a younger man of 82). Was the
> motivation their strong religious beliefs that men and women in
> relationships should get married? No, it was because he suffered a heart
> attack (while they were in the UK, so she was allowed to see him in the
> hospital), but the realization that if anything happened while in the US,
> they would have no legal standing. Would they have settled for a "Legal
> Union" if it conveyed all of the rights marriage currently does? As a devout
> atheist, I believe she would have.
>
> A recent quote I heard was something to the effect of "the worst thing that
> happened to marriage is allowing heterosexuals to do it, since half of their
> marriages fail." I don't have the stats available, but I have heard this
> from many places. I wonder what would happen to the stats if same-sex
> marriage was allowed.
>
> Personally, I am hoping my recent religiously performed, heterosexually
> oriented, marriage beats those sad statistics (as does my wife, lurking on
> this list). It doesn't feel any different now that same-sex couples are
> getting "Married." Should it?
>
> The suggestion that liberals and the religiously observant are on opposite
> sides confuses me, though. While fairly "liberal" (though more correctly,
> probably more libertarian in leanings), my wife and I are also religious.
> Those that know me, know I server on the board of a state-wide religious
> organization (though I am not expressing, or representing the  views of that
> organization when I post on the list). My wife organizes a monthly religious
> service (if you are looking for an independent, reform-leaning, Jewish
> service for twenty and thirty-somethings, let me know off-list).
>
> So, if the "religious right" is against equal rights for same-sex couples,
> does that make me part of the "religious wrong?"
>
> David
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web 
> site!  http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers