internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.
- From: Thomas Woods <tom AT familyfunnies.com>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:45:05 -0500
Sorry for the lag in my reply. This weekend has been a long one for me. We only get scheduled downtime 4 times per year, and this weekend is one of those. I think I've worked 73 hours in the last 3 days... :)
Well, I can't believe it, I read my original post, and thought "what the heck was I thinking, writing bait like that?!" Amazingly, in all of the replys I didn't see a single email I would consider a flame. Very cool. Sorry, internetworkers.... I'm gonna stick around :)
I know I posted this in a "gay-marriage" oriented thread, but I really intended the message to address the overall liberal tone of the group, not this specific topic. And it still seems to be more liberal than not. But it's clear that there are at least a few more centered and right leaning folks around. I can live with that. <grin>
To address the same sex marriage topic, since I *did* post in here... There are good, non-religious reasons to limit marriage to a union of one man and one woman. (I guess zman will never be my friend...) The religious reasons are the best, and most compelling, but when presented to non-religious people, typically fall on deaf ears. So here's my take on it, religiosity aside:
<rant>
First of all, let me be clear... I do not think, under any circumstances, the government should regulate what is ok and what is not ok in the bedroom. This is not about regulating behavior. Whatever happens between two consenting adults is between them, regardless of their gender, race, weight, color of hair (or position preference.) The only thing the law should be concerned with is that they are both consenting and that they are both adults. I think most all of us can agree on that.
However, if we re-write the definition of marriage so that it is not limited to a one man and one woman union, we begin a process with far reaching implications. What will we use to determine if a couple qualifys for same sex marriage? Should they be required to live together to get married? If so, then they continue to be denied "rights" that are granted to heterosexual couples. However, if this is not a requirement, then does it not open the door to countless "marriages" of people with no common interest other than that of sharing insurance benefits and the like? Does a same sex couple have to be intimate to be allowed to marry? So much for the government staying out of the bedroom. Yet, if that's not required, two college roomies would be able to get "married" so that they can be out from mom and dad's finances, and qualify for financial aide that they could not otherwise get... Then simply divorce after graduation.
This sets up up to recognize marriages of more than two people, as well. If we're going to recognize same sex marriage, what is the purpose of limiting the marriage to two people? I mean, if marriage is going to be redefined, let's be sure anyone who wants to marry anyone else has thier rights protected. Under this rule a whole sorority house could "marry" (whoa guys, calm down ;) to claim medical benefits from one or two members who work.
If same sex marriages are recognized by the stated, should two brothers be allowed to marry? The reason the law forbids marriage between brother and sister is the medical effects of inbreeding. This medical effect would not apply to a marriage which cannot, by definition, create biological offspring. So why not allow it? But, if we allow two brothers to marry, and not a brother and a sister, are we not denying the heterosexual "couple" a right that would be freely granted to the two brothers? Maybe it would be ok if either the brother or sister was willing to undergo surgery to become sterile....
What it boils down to is that recognizing same sex marriage actually dilutes the institution of marriage. It trivializes the importance of the family bond, and opens many doors to abuse of the benefits granted to married people. </rant>
Oh, and I've actually enjoyed reading the thread. Some good points were made. And to hit the Libertarian comment....
Yes, I know that there are people who are not specifically Democrats or Republicans, but the vast majority of politically active, and outspoken people associate with one of those two groups. Sorry for the gross oversimplification. It may worry you to know this, but I occasionally find myself thinking that the Libertarians may actually be more correct that the rest of us... But I'm still not convinced of it.
Tom
Tom Woods wrote:
Wow... ok. I'm thinking that I don't belong here.
I subscribed to this list just a few days ago... Mostly what I've seen is 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.
This tells me that either:
A) There is no one on the list that is not a die-hard liberal .
or
B) The more conservative members are unwilling to present opposition. Or maybe they're afraid to speak up in fear of the flames that it will prompt?
Either way, it's clear to me that I should consider that maybe I don't belong here. I will wait to see some responses to this message, and then probably unsubscribe. If I see a glimmer of hope that the list is more than a one-sided political discussion, I'll probably stick around. I have enjoyed the non-political conversation that i've seen here. In particular, the VoIP info was great.
*Ducking in preparation for the flames headed this way*
Tom
Tom Boucher wrote:
http://images.villagevoice.com/fiore/agenda.swf---
---
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
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
-
Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.
, (continued)
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Sil Greene, 02/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Sil Greene, 02/20/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Jim Ray, 02/20/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
David R . Matusiak, 02/20/2004
- [internetworkers] fringe equipment update, Alan MacHett, 02/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Michael Czeiszperger, 02/20/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Paul Smith, 02/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Edward Wesolowski, 02/20/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Tom Boucher, 02/21/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Phillip Rhodes, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Thomas Woods, 02/23/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Tom Boucher, 02/23/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Ian Meyer, 02/23/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Dan Wilson, 02/20/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing., Frye, Matthew, 02/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Dan Wilson, 02/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
K. Jo Garner, 02/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Tony Spencer, 02/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Jim Ray, 02/20/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Civil Disobedience (was: Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.), Phillip Rhodes, 02/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Jim Ray, 02/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
Tony Spencer, 02/20/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.,
K. Jo Garner, 02/20/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.