From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:37:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

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?
> 
>  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.....

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.)

>  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.
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?

By recognizing the difference between the two types of marriage contracts,
we can somewhat satisfy both groups.  Your "sacred institution of marriage"
is left intact and unaltered, while Jeff's desire for official recognition
of the commitment between him and his partner is satisfied.

What are the compelling, legal, non-religious reasons why the government
should recognize the validity of one form of marriage over all others?
Why is the government involved in this area at all?  A marriage contract,
as I see it, involves commitment between the parties involved; recogni-
tion of a special relationship; protection and nurturing of children (if
any); and mutual protection and support.  Why should this sort of thing
be limited to relationships involving exactly one man and one woman?

There are many benefits granted by society upon recognition of marital
status.  There may be tax breaks at both the state and local level;
insurance protection may be available for a spouse which is not available
for a live-in lover; 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?

>  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.

As to their normality or lack thereof, who the hell are you to judge?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics