From: lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: Presidential talk
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:53:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.171829.1026@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov>, mason@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Mason) writes:
> Leah.Wesolowski@p0.f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leah Wesolowski) writes:
> 
> Now, don't tell me Leah, that you don't feel just a little bit
> superior because the government legally recognizes your relationship,
> but doesn't recognize mine.

Can't speak for Leah, but I feel quite a bit superior for having established
my heterosexual marriage, compared with homosexual marriages. However, it has
NOTHING to do with whether the government recognizes it or not - our REAL
marriage was an agreement between the two of us, and secondarily we had it
also blessed by (her) church, and (again, her) government. And I feel very
lucky to have found such a delightful woman that has not been exposed to the
constant barrage of liberal propaganda that basically ALL American women have
been - she has the most refreshing views on sexual roles and child-rearing...
any of you other guys out there had it with the Women's (excuse me, WoPerson's,
oops, WoPerChilds') Movement? I found a neat way to go OUTSIDE of the game...

> IMHO, the state has no business in
> engaging itself in the marriage business anyway; the social contract
> is between the INDIVIDUAL and the state. 

What does the "social contract" between individuals and the state (which as
near as I can tell is about the same as the "contract" between a small 
business owner and a protection racketteer, or a homeowner and a burglar) have
to do with the (considerably more real) social contract between a man and a
woman who wish to establish a family?

> But as long as the state is
> going to recognize SOME marriages, it's going to have to recognize ALL
> marriages.

Say, between an Albanian herdsman and his favorite sheep? One involving an 8
year old child? Anyone really think there should be NO line drawn ANYWHERE,
other than this gentleman? I'm afraid I just can't follow the above logic...
In math, that would be stated as: "If there exists some X which is in the set
S, then ALL elements of the set S are equal to X." Right.

> Admit it, hets hedge when confronted with gay marriages,
> etc., because they realize these are areas in which they themselves
> enjoy SPECIAL PRIVILEGES!!!!!!

I don't hedge at all. And yes, we do enjoy a very special priviledge, which is
the ability to create new human life. Not real sure how you are planning to
get the government to grant that "right" to homosexual couples....

Now if the "special privileges" you are referring to are tax breaks for "real"
married couples, it is not clear if these really exist. Many couples where
both work would really be better off divorced at tax time, which the IRS no
longer allows... (couples used to divorce for one week around Dec 31 to avoid
the "marriage tax"). The basic problem is the classic liberal hyper-progressive
income tax rates - a second income is ALL "marginal income" at the highest
rate in most cases... 

If you are referring to the ability to adopt children, in the event (which has
got to be FAIRLY common in homosexual marriages) that you can't make one
the "old-fashioned way"... I really feel that it is extremely unfair to any
child to be raised by two parents of the same sex, and of a sexual persuasion 
that the bulk of society considers to be abnormal. Such a child cannot be
considered to have a fair chance of fitting into society, or having normal,
healthy relationships later in life. Being raised by a single parent of either
sex isn't a great deal better. The conventional family is a good solution that
has worked well since before recorded history...

If you really want to live in a sexual relationship with another man, go right
ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to consider it to be equivalent in any
way with conventional heterosexual child-oriented marriage. Some argument
perhaps could be made to equate it with (intentional) DINK (Dual-Income,
No-Kids) couples, but not with "conventional" marriage.

Note that at no time am I making ANY religious arguments, purely social ones.

> -Jim
> 
>   ACTION == LIFE
>         \     	   Jim Mason                              --------------
>          \    	   NTI Systems Group                         Standard  
>         / \   	   NASA/Marshall Space Flight Centre        Disclaimer 
>        /   \  	   +1 205 544 2122                        --------------
>  SILENCE == DEATH

Does the above logo mean "ACTION leads directly to DEATH, and indirectly to
SILENCE (makes sense), and LIFE is a side issue"?

Larry "so there" Hughes

Newsgroups: hsv.general