From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 1 Jan 93 08:15:48 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Jan1.004804.21349@novell.com>, bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. B
oerner) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.135710.867@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bra
dt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>>I have heard an suggestion that might, in principle, satisfy both camps.
>>Since marriage (at least the definition of marriage that excludes gays) is a
>>religious institution, perhaps the solution is to say that one may not grant
>>benefits, rights, or privledges based on marital (i.e. religious) status.
>>This would open us up to the creation of a form of "contractual" (i.e.
>>legal) spousal relationship that would make one eligible for such things as
>>employment benefits.  This way, one may be "married" in a religious sense, a
>>legal sense, or both, at the individual's option.  After all, the whole
>>issue of samesex marriages arose because we made the mistake of using a
>>religious ceremony in a nonreligious context.
>
>Nope, it wouldn't satisfy the camp opposed to leaving the gay community
>alone - we ALREADY have the ability to distinguish between a
>"religious" and a "legal" marriage.  For instance, you can get married
>by a JP which is legally binding and never get married in a religious
>ceremony.  On the flip side, I imagine you can have a religious
>ceremony but never be legally married (at the weddings I've been too,
>the couple signs something in front of the minister and a witness
>before the ceremony is over, presumably this is to create a legal
>marriage at the same time as the religious one).  However, even if a
>couple does get religiously married and not legally, then the common
>law of some states might kick in and they would be considered legally
>married.
>
>In any case, I would think that those opposed to granting "special"
>rights to gays would still insist that legal marriage for gays is a
>"special" right.
>
   Why should gays have special rights? I could care less what they do in the
   PRIVACY of their own homes, I just don't want to see or hear about it. In a
   recent post, it was suggested that homosexuality is genetic. I think it is.
   I think it is a genetic defect of the hormonal sex drive in the brain. If
   it was a "decent" thing to do, the Bible would not characterize the act as
   "unGodlike" and "unholy acts", etc., etc. Why should gays have rights made
   just for them? None are made for me. For instance; a hetero couple want to
   spend a romantic interlude under the stars and the police catch them. The
   charges in Pa would be 1 public lewdness 2 indecent exposure 3 disorderly
   conduct. I should know...  So what, they want the right to legally marry,
   adopt kids, etc., etc? What will be next? The right to do what I was cited
   for? What?
   I think homosequality is wrong. Wrong and disgusting. If you disagree, too
   bad. I won't respond to immature comments from the liberal parade who think
   that I'm a bigot, basher, whatever.

>Brendan
>--
>Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
>Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
>   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
>