Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ian Meyer <ianmeyer AT mac.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 08:46:37 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alright, here's my first (and last?) foray into this thread....

First to state that I am all for allowing same-sex marriages, to me it seems to fall under equal protection.

Second off, there's something below that interested me. With regards to the (edited for length) quote below, what is to keep the same scenarios from happening between people of different sexes? Surely you don't mean to say that men and women never wed for the benefits and not the love that should be there? Or even just for kicks, only to divorce in a couple days (a certain celebrity seems to come to mind here). Yet we do not stop heterosexual marriages because of the transgressions of a few couples. Furthermore, as we have seen in San Francisco with the large lines and the like, there are thousands of loving couples just waiting for the chance to be legally married, and we shouldn't let the minority that will exploit the situation ruin it for everyone.

So that's my $0.02

Ian

- -------------------------
What's that file that's attached you ask? Well, its my Gnu Privacy Guard (GnuPG) signature that can be used to authenticate this email. For more information, check out http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/documentation/faqs.html


On Feb 23, 2004, at 12:45 AM, Thomas Woods wrote:

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFAOgRBDaRr/N2jLBARAq00AJ0aOoRgSIM9ereeF3I6LimRBh/JDQCggWyZ
qkbAzfYZnPNiR3uKqCcZrBo=
=gfZr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page