From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Organization: Systems'n'Software
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 21:17:32 GMT

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?
>> 
>>  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.)
>
        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.:-)

        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 nether. But the point is
        we BOTH DRAW A LINE that says this far and no further.


>>  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?
>
>
>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?
>

        Just IMHO there is no alternative form of marriage. 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*

>>  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.
>

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

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


>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 :-)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
___________________________________________________________________________
                                   \ /        \  /
I had a seat in the very first row +-------------+ 
I heard it all on my radio         | 0 -(....) 0 |    uunet!jack!jsb
                                   +-------------+                         
___________________________________________________________________________