From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:12:46 GMT
            <1992Aug19.170114.6707@jack.sns.com>
            <193525@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>
            <1992Aug21.211732.7662@jack.sns.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

I know I'm gonna regret this.

Written in article <1992Aug21.211732.7662@jack.sns.com>
 by jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best):

: In article <193525@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul 
:    Bartholomew) writes:
:> In article <1992Aug19.170114.6707@jack.sns.com>, jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim 
:>    Best) writes:
:>> In article <oo5vans@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
:>>    
:>>> Given that the government sanctions unions between a man and a woman,
:>>> what legal reason is there that they should not sanction a union
:>>> between two men or two women?

Let's remove that given.  If you're going to decide what the govt OUGHT
to do, frequently you don't want to look at what it IS doing.  Obviously
if it was working correctly, we wouldn't need *.politics.* newsgroups.

:>> Well then how about marriages between a man and three or four women, or
:>> a woman and three or four men, or a man and a goat, or a woman and a dog,
:>> or you know I have this old ford I * really * love ! Humm maybe.....

Swell idea.  Note that if you eliminate the "given" of "govt sanction,"
then anything goes.  So long as no one is hurt, who cares?

Seriously.

:> The first two cases sound reasonable to me.  I draw the line at anything
:> not involving consenting adult human beings, however.  (I happen to believe
:> that bigamy is one of the dumbest crimes ever invented by man.)
:>
: Well here we go lets open Pandora box once again. How are we going
: to define adult????? Without starting in with that whole thread
: again. Seems it has been discussed lately in another thread.:-)

For the purposes of discussion, what say we define "adult" as someone
old enough to vote, and leave it at that?  If you're old enough to
defend the nation with a gun, you should be accorded all other adult
privleges and responsibilities.

Once we agree to that, we can argue about how to determine that
particular condition later.

: So you draw the line at consenting adults I draw the line at the
: traditional (biblical) one man, one woman.
:
: So you see we both draw a line in the sand somewhere. Whose line
: is the right line? I don't know maybe neither. But the point is
: we BOTH DRAW A LINE that says this far and no further.

Let's say we draw the line somewhere such that the fewest number of
people are hurt.  If no one's hurt by two particular choices of line,
then let's draw it where it makes the most people happy.

You draw the line between a biblical marriage and a homosexual marriage.
Fine, that's your personal choice.

However, if you wish that line to be codified into law, you must
demonstrate how crossing from one side to the other results in someone
getting hurt.

Not "damned to hell," notice.  With the multiplicity of religions extant
today (and that's just in LA!) separation between church and state
becomes more important than ever before.  Therefore, an activity being
considered a "sin" in one or another religion is not sufficient reason
to outlaw it.

:>> The point here is if you want to destroy the institution of marriage then
:>> why place any limit on it at all? Or do you just wish to press for you own
:>> personal agenda?
:>
:> I don't think anyone is trying to destroy the institution of marriage.

I agree.  Removing govt involvement does not destroy it, it only frees
it for personal interpretation.  For example, why should a male and
female roommate need to move out every so often in order to avoid being
declared "common-law married"?  If they wish to consider themselves
married or only roomies, then let them declare one or the other.

Personal interpretation is what counts, not govt recognition.

:> There are two kinds of marriages, really.  The first is sanctioned by
:> the government; the second is sanctioned by a religious organization of
:> some kind.  Usually, a couple selects both when they get married.
:>
:> I'm sure that Jeff would like churches to sanction homosexual marriages,
:> but I suspect that he's not pushing the government to force churches to
:> do this.  However, since the government has taken it upon itself to
:> recognize legal unions between one man and one woman, why should it
:> not recognize alternative forms of marriage?

I disagree.  Marriage should not be sanctioned by the govt any more than
any other partnership.  Therefore, the logic should be reversed.  Ie,
since the govt does not recognize unions between members of the same sex,
it should also not recognize the more traditional unions.

Whether one or another church chooses to recognize it is up to the
church.  I'm sure that homosexuals wishing religious sanction can find
the church that will give it to them.

And why not?  Quibbling over such an issue is, to my mind, like
fussing over whether or not it's proper to smash a glass at the
wedding.  If you don't like the idea, change religions.

:> There are many benefits granted by society upon recognition of marital
:> status.  There may be tax breaks at both the state and local level;

There should be no tax distinction based on a person's "category."  This
is discriminatory.  People complain about marriage "tax bonus," well
sometimes it's a marriage "tax penalty," depending on your exact
ciurcumstances.  Just by making the distinction, like "separate but
equal," guarantees there will be some disparity.

:> insurance protection may be available for a spouse which is not available
:> for a live-in lover;

You should be able to specify any significant other for your insurance.
Any at all.  Even siblings.

:> disposal of property when one party dies; the right
:> to make decisions about health care and such for a loved one when that
:> one is incapable of making decisions; and so on.  Why should these bene-
:> fits not apply to other forms of marriages?

Why should the benefits not apply to other relationships?  Why can't I
have my sister dispose of my property when I die?  For the record, I'd
almost rather my sister did it instead of my wife (fortunately for me,
my wife doesn't read this stuff! B-{)

: Just IMHO there is no alternative form of marriage.

Fine.  Removing govt recognition will have no impact on you.  You can
still get married in the church of your choice, as it should be.  Then
you can fill out whatever paperwork is necessary to add your spouse on
all your property, survival, insurance, etc.

The gender of you and your spouse shouldn't matter legally.

: I suspect what
: Jeff and other homosexual want are the monetary (tax) benefits
: that the government provides to married couples. And "hey" it
: works for me *just call it something else*

Again, for the record, married couples do not always enjoy tax benefits.
However, if you remove any such legal distinctions between people, then
life becomes a hell of a lot simpler.  If members of the same sex wish
to become married, then so be it.  Their tax status will remain the
same, as will your tax status remain the same when you marry.  But, as
in more traditional marriages, the emotional commitment can be enhanced.

:>> This is just a another example of an abnormal fringe group trying to get
:>> the rest of society to consider them normal!!!!!!!!!
:>
:> Nonsense.  Rather, it is an example of a minority trying to gain the same
:> rights currently granted to the majority.

What does it matter?

: Sorry I just will not buy the argument that homosexuals are a
: minority group. Simply because of the lifestyle that they have
: chosen.

Minority status has nothing to do with the discussion.

: Lets go back to our lines in the sand. Where would you draw the
: line on lifestyles that get special consideration?

No special consideration for anyone.  Being single, married, gay, 
"breeder," white, black, christian, jew, hispanic or asian should
make no difference whatsoever.
(Interesting term, "breeder."  I kinda like it!)

We are supposed to have a system whereby EVERY citizen is EQUAL BEFORE
THE LAW.  Period.  Unfortunately, the tax breaks given to certain
categories of people violate this principle.

: After all even
: Clayton's favorite boggy man is nothing more than a different
: lifestyle. There is one thing I have noticed about this alternate
: lifestyle stuff. It all has to do with some kind of perverted sex.

Clayton's favorite boogie man is something a bit more than a "different
lifestyle."  It is a "lifestyle" wherein a stronger adult forces an
activity onto a weaker child, usually against the child's consent.  This
is even if you assume the child CAN give consent.

It hurts people.

If you wish to use that as logic, then clearly even serial killers are
only having an "alternate lifestyle."  Indeed, if my memory serves,
serial killing is usually even related to some "sexual perversion."
I doubt we're ready to sanction that.

:> As to their normality or lack thereof, who the hell are you to judge?
:
: Since you have stated your opinion on this issue I must assume that you
: had to make some judgements on the issues we are discussing. So I give 
: you back what you have said "who the hell are you to judge?". Those seven
: words are nothing more than a smoke screen to divert the issue somewhere
: else. Nice try though :-)

It's more than a smoke-screen.  It's truth.  Who is _anyone_ to judge?

But we do have to judge.  So how do we judge in a multi-cultural arena
such as the one we find ourselves in?  This is not Iran, we can not
choose our laws based on the Koran or the Bible.  So what do we do?

I repeat.  We draw the line such that the fewest number of people are
hurt.  If you can demonstrate that homosexual marriage hurts anybody,
even the consensual participants, then you have a case for biblical
marriage.  Note, I also repeat that "going to hell" doesn't count.

If you can not demonstrate that someone is hurt, then you must relent
and draw your lines to allow it.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Pro is to con as progress is to Congress.