Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Leopard · Jan 24, 2004, 08:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,)
Leopard said: "The government has no business being involved with marriage - it should not be trying to endorse or restrict marriage in any way - it is a purely societal thing."

A nice ideal. The ironical fact is that government and the courts micromanage marriage in incredible detail. For example, there are many kinds of rules on division of property upon breakup, including pensions. In addition, it is a trial lawyers and creative jurist paradise: Prenups are routinely violated, penalties and payments are often court decided, depending on how good your lawyer is or how creative the judge is.

It would be instructive to search the state and federal laws pertaining to marriage, and to have a lawyer buddy search the case law.

Perhaps the real question, in the light of the immense body of law and case law is: why in the world would gays (or anybody) want to subject themselves to this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

a nice ideal and thats it? you dismiss it because it is, what, 'too' ideal? Not possible? Are we not able to change laws in this country to reflect the morals of its citizens? Should we just accept the status quo and return to worrying about what rerun is on TV tonight?

everything you said was correct - summed up: there is too much outside influence (both government and courts) when it comes to marriage. It will continue to stay this way if people don't stand up for their rights and the limiting of the rights of government. The constitution was written with this exact idea in mind: LIMIT the power of government thereby not impeeding the natural rights of its citizens.

did I misread your post or have you really given up hope on changing any bad law and that your advice is to try to go through life stirring up as little dust as possible...????

...which leaves the same exact situation in place for your children to enjoy, and their children, and so on...

Sorry, I have been on a rampage the last couple of posts and probably come across real arrogant and inflexible - an asshole by any other name. I just got into this mood recently, it will pass soon and I will be more complacent and amendable, at least more civil - LOL!

your friend in liberty,
michael

JustinGilmore · Jan 26, 2004, 02:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,)
Why does that make me wrong by default? Perhaps it shows that their push on this issue is a bit ill advised, as a practical matter.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Ill advised? Maybe. Though they still want equality, and that should not be denied even if you believe it's not a smart more on their part.

LogicaLunatic · Jan 27, 2004, 03:44 pm

If marriage were purely a religious act then I'd say to leave the question up to the religions. But that isn't the case. Today people can be married by a Judge and the Judge's religion doesn't matter.

Harami was right, marriage has been stolen from the religions by Government. Marriage, therefore, has become a function of the State just like Incorporating a company is. Given that, it is clearly unconstitutional to deny Marriage as a State function to homosexuals.

Now, if the Catholic church wants to deny baptisms to children of Homosexual parents, so be it. But as soon as the Government starts baptizing people (which it will start doing of we don't get Bush out of office) that will have to change.

LogicaLunatic

Leopard · Jan 27, 2004, 03:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
If marriage were purely a religious act then I'd say to leave the question up to the religions. But that isn't the case. Today people can be married by a Judge and the Judge's religion doesn't matter.

Harami was right, marriage has been stolen from the religions by Government. Marriage, therefore, has become a function of the State just like Incorporating a company is. Given that, it is clearly unconstitutional to deny Marriage as a State function to homosexuals.

Now, if the Catholic church wants to deny baptisms to children of Homosexual parents, so be it. But as soon as the Government starts baptizing people (which it will start doing of we don't get Bush out of office) that will have to change.

LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

yeah, pretty much my position too, except that it doesn't matter if Bush is in office or Satan himself... its the power behind the office thats the problem

the c/b · Jan 27, 2004, 04:56 pm

marriage is not just a religion thing anymore,

these days the law influences marriage also

if the partners dies, unless will is declared, where does kids or money go ?

if you are a father , but not on birth certificate, you have no rights

so its up to them

go for for it

all the best

if you have kids

how it works for you,

is probably better than me who is a father but not on the birth certificate

melpomene · Jan 28, 2004, 09:27 am

I have no problem, at all, with gay marriages.

I will even go so far as to say that i think it is abhorent that anyone/people could think nothing but the best for two people, who love each other, to get married, regardless of gender.

FC Mellon · Jan 28, 2004, 10:27 am

I personally find it repugnant when one human tries to dictate how other humans live their lives as long as they are not hurting anyone...I don't mind if the 'child mind' wants to 'play grownup'...it is just when they want to play 'God' which starts to worry me. Sometimes what one detests about another is what they can't handle about themselves but are afraid to deal with their own uncertainties and find it much easier to criticize others for what they may harbor/question within themselves.
]?{
p.s. ...of course there will always be some who '????????' their own desires....and that is 'ok' too...it is just a part of being human...so don't feel weird about yourself if/when you see others feeling weird about you also....don't let them make it your problem...it is their problem they need to deal with.

PeterAngelo · Jan 28, 2004, 12:17 pm

HUMAN SEXUALITY AND "GAY" MARRIAGE:

I think of human sexuality as charted on a normal curve.

At the top of the curve will be the majority. Heterosexuals who just love to do it and make babies, raise families, and regenerate the herd. I'm one of them. I've had four wives, countless lovers, nine kids (six survive) and I'm currently living with a thirty five year old stripper who keeps me too happy. I need a gallon of maiden oil a day to survive.

At the extreme ends of the curve will be those who prefer male-to-male, and female-to-female. Bi's and every combination imaginable fall in between.

It would be great if each person found his or her own way. I have always lived with women who shared my view. I believe a woman should be like a bird. Mate with anyone she wants anytime she wants. They do anyway. A woman should live with and share her life and children with as many people as she sees fit. All of them forming a large, loving, and nurturing family. Same for men. It is what we do anyway. Get over it.

People always thought real birds were monogamous and the male bird was born to chase away all others and take her when he wishes. All by brute force. Actual study showed that the bully did indeed expend more sperm, which lowered his sperm count. As soon as he went to get food or nesting material, or fight another bird off, some other male came in and did the deed. DNA testing showed that the nest protector was least likely to impregnate her. Huey Long said it would only take one loaf of bread to feed every pure white man in Louisiana. They shot him.

I found that having children with multiple women is a lot like Ben Cartwright and the Ponderosa. Each son was different because each son had a different mother. The benefits are obvious. It worked out for me just the same. My "Hoss" is a lawyer. He is as big as Hoss was and just as good. The rest are equally successful and varied. My daughter is awesome. Her natural father was a man my wife lived with for a while when I was in Alaska doing Eskimo's. My daughter never saw him because he died young of a stroke. I raised her from birth. She is my daughter. My warrior princess.

There were times my wives and I didn't see each other for extended periods. That is all right. Life is a long time. My favorite wife died two years ago. I still have the others to fall back on. We visit and spend time together and share many children. It is a perfect system.

The only women in my family who are alone suffering incredible guilt and loneliness are the two who aborted a total of six babies between them. They were hot groupies who had no time to stop the party. Now they are old, ugly, fat and anxious to die. It was their choice. It always is.

Homosexuals have throughout history contributed to the arts, and in every other walk of life, in many ways we all acknowledge and grudgingly admire. They may or may not want children. They may want to grow old with a circle of friends and family that include them as they are. Kids are always around to nurture. They don't have to be yours. We are a family of human beings that need each other.

Instead of raising kids they can spend their time following any dream they have. What is happening to Michael Jackson is the brute bird destroying the example of what we do to a pure heart. Affection is not homosexuality. Affection, loving, caring and human dignity do not go with war.

On the day they tore Bush's statue down CNN spent 99% of their airtime on Michael. Michael will be vindicated. They did the same thing to Jesus when children surrounded him. Then they crucified him.

How many fake marriages have been doomed from the start because one partner had to lie about themselves to everyone including their mate? How many husbands and wives never understood why their partner had no interest in sex, and lived cold, lonely lives of desperation that often turned violent? Rejection does that. Frustration does that. A perverted life of lies and duplicity does that.

All of life can be measured on a normal curve. Right now we are in reverse. The ends of the human curve regarding murderers has the minority in charge of the majority of good family people held hostage by their terror.

Nature always seeks balance. The Supreme Court is moving in the right direction despite the howls of the Devil Dogs. For that I thank them. The institutions already in place can and probably will do the right thing eventually.

There are many good trends to counter the madness of the Idiot Prince. I am hopeful of course that the E-Grapevine will move things forward at warp speed.

Truth is freedom. No justice, no peace. Education is the key to understanding and experience the key to wisdom.

damnrad · Jan 29, 2004, 02:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
god is dead to the american government? have you looked at your money lately?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Let's see -- it says 'in God we trust.' Oh, I know what that refers to: the Almighty Dollar!

But I don't see what that has to do with gay marriage.

I'm glad that you support civil unions. Most of what is needed can be done under that rubric, and support for civil unions is perhaps what will fly with the public. But still, I see no reason to discriminate, to retain civil marriage for heterosexual relationships (which is not to say for heterosexuals, just for openly man-woman civil unions) and provide some lesser 'civil union' for homosexual relationships. Separate but equal just doesn't work so well.

Still, if you want to restrict marriage, perhaps through a constitutional amendment, how about the following? If a person wants to marry a person of the same sex, then he/she will enter a gay marriage, while if a person wants to marry a person of the opposite sex, then she/he will enter a straight marriage? ;-)

And, by the way, our rights under the Constitution of the United States derive from the will of the people. Help from any supernatural entities that may exist will be appreciated; but the rights come from the will of the people.

Impenitent · Jan 29, 2004, 04:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
god is dead to the american government? have you looked at your money lately?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Let's see -- it says 'in God we trust.' Oh, I know what that refers to: the Almighty Dollar!

But I don't see what that has to do with gay marriage.

...And, by the way, our rights under the Constitution of the United States derive from the will of the people. Help from any supernatural entities that may exist will be appreciated; but the rights come from the will of the people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

no they don't... I argued this point with fedfem in the nietzsche thread...

"endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights"... declaration

rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves)

damnrad · Jan 29, 2004, 05:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
If marriage were purely a religious act then I'd say to leave the question up to the religions. But that isn't the case. Today people can be married by a Judge and the Judge's religion doesn't matter.

Harami was right, marriage has been stolen from the religions by Government. Marriage, therefore, has become a function of the State just like Incorporating a company is. Given that, it is clearly unconstitutional to deny Marriage as a State function to homosexuals.

Now, if the Catholic church wants to deny baptisms to children of Homosexual parents, so be it. But as soon as the Government starts baptizing people (which it will start doing of we don't get Bush out of office) that will have to change.

LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Who stole marriage? Actually, marriage was stolen from the community by religion, with the connivance of government. But the thing is that government involvement is practical -- there are legal issues that depend on it; and there are societal and economic issues that do as well, whereby government regulation of marriage is used to sort out those issues.

So, should the public act be civil union and the religious one marriage? I don't care, so long as there is no discrimination in the government act. In some countries, there is civil marriage that is quite distinct from religious marriage -- those who want to be 'married' by both go through ceremonies for both. Personally, I think it more practical to do as is done in the U.S., whereby clergy are allowed to perform legal marriages -- in effect, the religious marriages are given 'deemed status' as civil marriages so long as the proper papers are filed. So, let the state recognize gay marriages; and let religions decide for themselves whether or not they recognize ANY civil marriage as a 'true' marriage.

Leopard · Jan 30, 2004, 02:24 pm

government involvement is practical?

what exactly changes when you as a citizen of the US, decideds to form a legal contractual relationship with another person? As a citizen, you are taxed - isn't it dscrimination or at the very least an attempt at social manipulation to treat people differently based on their social status (ie: single vs married).

what are these practical things that the government must do or know about when it comes to marriage?

michael

LogicaLunatic · Jan 30, 2004, 02:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My creators are my mother and father. Your creators are your mother and father. My parents and your parents are people. Rights come from the people.

Like somebody else said, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. There IS a legal document that does make it VERY clear that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion. See the Treaty with Tripoli.

LogicaLunatic

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 03:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
government involvement is practical?

what exactly changes when you as a citizen of the US, decideds to form a legal contractual relationship with another person? As a citizen, you are taxed - isn't it dscrimination or at the very least an attempt at social manipulation to treat people differently based on their social status (ie: single vs married).

what are these practical things that the government must do or know about when it comes to marriage?

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There are a number of practical things: helping to establish responsibility for the raising of children; helping to establish responsibility of one citizen for another; helping to determine the ownership of property; and helping to reasonably adjust taxation to account for differences in costs of living entailed by living situation; trying to ensure one of the forms of social stability. Tbose are a few. Marriage is not a panacea for any of those. But many of us who rejected many of the traditional bases for 'believing in' it have still found it useful enough to undertake in our personal lives. But I do not begrudge those who choose to conduct their relationships with their significant others without recourse to marriage; and as you note, marriage can certainly be used as a basis for social manipulation: witness those trying to define it in the U.S. Constitution as solely available to heterosexual relationships. The real issue about gay marriage is that so many gays want access to the relationship, alhtough others may not want to marry but are understandably outraged at being denied a choice in the matter.

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 03:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My creators are my mother and father. Your creators are your mother and father. My parents and your parents are people. Rights come from the people.

Like somebody else said, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. There IS a legal document that does make it VERY clear that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion. See the Treaty with Tripoli.

LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Although John Adams spelled it out in that treaty, he and others (particularly Madison) didn't do a bad job by excluding any call to a religious basis for the US when drafting the U.S. Constitution.

Impenitent · Jan 30, 2004, 05:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My creators are my mother and father. Your creators are your mother and father. My parents and your parents are people. Rights come from the people.

Like somebody else said, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. There IS a legal document that does make it VERY clear that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion. See the Treaty with Tripoli.

LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am simply stating what the founding fathers themselves said...

rights come from the people? no, rights are imposed on other people... do you have a right to do anything? only if others LET you do it...

if the majority ever got around to figuring out they were the majority and could rule the other 49% with democratic impunity, slavery would make a quick re-appearance

LogicaLunatic · Jan 31, 2004, 12:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

I am simply stating what the founding fathers themselves said...

rights come from the people? no, rights are imposed on other people... do you have a right to do anything? only if others LET you do it...

if the majority ever got around to figuring out they were the majority and could rule the other 49% with democratic impunity, slavery would make a quick re-appearance<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There is an amazing essay named Freedom on a Leash which I've reprinted on my site. It has appeared a few different times on Volcanvo too. Take a look at the following page under Non-Fiction...

http://www.logicalunatic.com/reading.asp

LogicaLunatic

PatC · Feb 9, 2004, 01:45 am

It has been said been said several times already, but who cares if gays are allowed to marry. Th reason why the can;t already, is because the whole world has a severe case of homophobia and looks down on it. Homosexuals are not going away and will most likly continue to fight and protest until they recive their right to marry. Im sure most politicians will admit in private that they dont care, yet since most of America is homophobic they oppose the gay marriage for their own political gain. How often have you heard that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women", yet we have the highest divorce rate in the world, drive through wedding chapels, and that reality tv shit.

Leopard · Feb 9, 2004, 07:59 am

ROFL!

Rights are not 'imposed' on other people! how do you EVER get to that point? Rights are, by definition, 'negative' - meaning they do NOT require the positive action of others to be enforced. a 'positive' right is one that forces other to take an action - for instance: calling welfare a 'Right' would be an example of a 'positive' right in that it forces others to pay money to the welfare recipient. A true 'right' is negative, ie: the right to live - nobody has to do anything for you to try to live and maintain yourself, the 'right' to speech: nobody else has to do anything, or even provide you with an audience or a platform, for you to freely exercise this right (unless you want to do so on someone elses property...)

rights/smites...

michael

Impenitent · Feb 9, 2004, 10:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
ROFL!

Rights are not 'imposed' on other people! how do you EVER get to that point? Rights are, by definition, 'negative' - meaning they do NOT require the positive action of others to be enforced. a 'positive' right is one that forces other to take an action - for instance: calling welfare a 'Right' would be an example of a 'positive' right in that it forces others to pay money to the welfare recipient. A true 'right' is negative, ie: the right to live - nobody has to do anything for you to try to live and maintain yourself, the 'right' to speech: nobody else has to do anything, or even provide you with an audience or a platform, for you to freely exercise this right (unless you want to do so on someone elses property...)

rights/smites...

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

look at what you said...

"calling welfare a 'Right' would be an example of a 'positive' right in that it forces others to pay money to the welfare recipient."

FORCES OTHERS TO PAY

that is imposed on someone else, you make my argument

they are imposed on other people by virtue that you expect others to allow you to speak and live... the other has the perfect ability to silence you and or kill you... how do you prevent them from acting? appealing to a right to life and speech? hardly...

Jan 24, 2004, 08:19 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,) Leopard said: "The government has no business being involved with marriage - it should not be trying to endorse or restrict marriage in any way - it is a purely societal thing." A nice ideal. The ironical fact is that government and the courts micromanage marriage in incredible detail. For example, there are many kinds of rules on division of property upon breakup, including pensions. In addition, it is a trial lawyers and creative jurist paradise: Prenups are routinely violated, penalties and payments are often court decided, depending on how good your lawyer is or how creative the judge is. It would be instructive to search the state and federal laws pertaining to marriage, and to have a lawyer buddy search the case law. Perhaps the real question, in the light of the immense body of law and case law is: why in the world would gays (or anybody) want to subject themselves to this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> a nice ideal and thats it? you dismiss it because it is, what, 'too' ideal? Not possible? Are we not able to change laws in this country to reflect the morals of its citizens? Should we just accept the status quo and return to worrying about what rerun is on TV tonight? everything you said was correct - summed up: there is too much outside influence (both government and courts) when it comes to marriage. It will continue to stay this way if people don't stand up for their rights and the limiting of the rights of government. The constitution was written with this exact idea in mind: LIMIT the power of government thereby not impeeding the natural rights of its citizens. did I misread your post or have you really given up hope on changing any bad law and that your advice is to try to go through life stirring up as little dust as possible...???? ...which leaves the same exact situation in place for your children to enjoy, and their children, and so on... Sorry, I have been on a rampage the last couple of posts and probably come across real arrogant and inflexible - an asshole by any other name. I just got into this mood recently, it will pass soon and I will be more complacent and amendable, at least more civil - LOL! your friend in liberty, michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Jan 26, 2004, 02:29 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
JustinGilmore Molten Ash Location: US, California Posts: 44	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,) Why does that make me wrong by default? Perhaps it shows that their push on this issue is a bit ill advised, as a practical matter.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ill advised? Maybe. Though they still want equality, and that should not be denied even if you believe it's not a smart more on their part. ...weird

Jan 27, 2004, 03:44 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	If marriage were purely a religious act then I'd say to leave the question up to the religions. But that isn't the case. Today people can be married by a Judge and the Judge's religion doesn't matter. Harami was right, marriage has been stolen from the religions by Government. Marriage, therefore, has become a function of the State just like Incorporating a company is. Given that, it is clearly unconstitutional to deny Marriage as a State function to homosexuals. Now, if the Catholic church wants to deny baptisms to children of Homosexual parents, so be it. But as soon as the Government starts baptizing people (which it will start doing of we don't get Bush out of office) that will have to change. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 27, 2004, 03:58 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) If marriage were purely a religious act then I'd say to leave the question up to the religions. But that isn't the case. Today people can be married by a Judge and the Judge's religion doesn't matter. Harami was right, marriage has been stolen from the religions by Government. Marriage, therefore, has become a function of the State just like Incorporating a company is. Given that, it is clearly unconstitutional to deny Marriage as a State function to homosexuals. Now, if the Catholic church wants to deny baptisms to children of Homosexual parents, so be it. But as soon as the Government starts baptizing people (which it will start doing of we don't get Bush out of office) that will have to change. LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yeah, pretty much my position too, except that it doesn't matter if Bush is in office or Satan himself... its the power behind the office thats the problem Take on the responsibility to be free

Jan 27, 2004, 04:56 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
the c/b Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	marriage is not just a religion thing anymore, these days the law influences marriage also if the partners dies, unless will is declared, where does kids or money go ? if you are a father , but not on birth certificate, you have no rights so its up to them go for for it all the best if you have kids how it works for you, is probably better than me who is a father but not on the birth certificate bullshit stinks, but it is good for your roses

Jan 28, 2004, 09:27 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
melpomene I can smell fear ... Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 21	I have no problem, at all, with gay marriages. I will even go so far as to say that i think it is abhorent that anyone/people could think nothing but the best for two people, who love each other, to get married, regardless of gender. <Insert witty sig here>

Jan 28, 2004, 10:27 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
FC Mellon Molten Ash Location: So Cal Posts: 51	I personally find it repugnant when one human tries to dictate how other humans live their lives as long as they are not hurting anyone...I don't mind if the 'child mind' wants to 'play grownup'...it is just when they want to play 'God' which starts to worry me. Sometimes what one detests about another is what they can't handle about themselves but are afraid to deal with their own uncertainties and find it much easier to criticize others for what they may harbor/question within themselves. ]?{ p.s. ...of course there will always be some who '????????' their own desires....and that is 'ok' too...it is just a part of being human...so don't feel weird about yourself if/when you see others feeling weird about you also....don't let them make it your problem...it is their problem they need to deal with.

Jan 28, 2004, 12:17 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	HUMAN SEXUALITY AND "GAY" MARRIAGE: I think of human sexuality as charted on a normal curve. At the top of the curve will be the majority. Heterosexuals who just love to do it and make babies, raise families, and regenerate the herd. I'm one of them. I've had four wives, countless lovers, nine kids (six survive) and I'm currently living with a thirty five year old stripper who keeps me too happy. I need a gallon of maiden oil a day to survive. At the extreme ends of the curve will be those who prefer male-to-male, and female-to-female. Bi's and every combination imaginable fall in between. It would be great if each person found his or her own way. I have always lived with women who shared my view. I believe a woman should be like a bird. Mate with anyone she wants anytime she wants. They do anyway. A woman should live with and share her life and children with as many people as she sees fit. All of them forming a large, loving, and nurturing family. Same for men. It is what we do anyway. Get over it. People always thought real birds were monogamous and the male bird was born to chase away all others and take her when he wishes. All by brute force. Actual study showed that the bully did indeed expend more sperm, which lowered his sperm count. As soon as he went to get food or nesting material, or fight another bird off, some other male came in and did the deed. DNA testing showed that the nest protector was least likely to impregnate her. Huey Long said it would only take one loaf of bread to feed every pure white man in Louisiana. They shot him. I found that having children with multiple women is a lot like Ben Cartwright and the Ponderosa. Each son was different because each son had a different mother. The benefits are obvious. It worked out for me just the same. My "Hoss" is a lawyer. He is as big as Hoss was and just as good. The rest are equally successful and varied. My daughter is awesome. Her natural father was a man my wife lived with for a while when I was in Alaska doing Eskimo's. My daughter never saw him because he died young of a stroke. I raised her from birth. She is my daughter. My warrior princess. There were times my wives and I didn't see each other for extended periods. That is all right. Life is a long time. My favorite wife died two years ago. I still have the others to fall back on. We visit and spend time together and share many children. It is a perfect system. The only women in my family who are alone suffering incredible guilt and loneliness are the two who aborted a total of six babies between them. They were hot groupies who had no time to stop the party. Now they are old, ugly, fat and anxious to die. It was their choice. It always is. Homosexuals have throughout history contributed to the arts, and in every other walk of life, in many ways we all acknowledge and grudgingly admire. They may or may not want children. They may want to grow old with a circle of friends and family that include them as they are. Kids are always around to nurture. They don't have to be yours. We are a family of human beings that need each other. Instead of raising kids they can spend their time following any dream they have. What is happening to Michael Jackson is the brute bird destroying the example of what we do to a pure heart. Affection is not homosexuality. Affection, loving, caring and human dignity do not go with war. On the day they tore Bush's statue down CNN spent 99% of their airtime on Michael. Michael will be vindicated. They did the same thing to Jesus when children surrounded him. Then they crucified him. How many fake marriages have been doomed from the start because one partner had to lie about themselves to everyone including their mate? How many husbands and wives never understood why their partner had no interest in sex, and lived cold, lonely lives of desperation that often turned violent? Rejection does that. Frustration does that. A perverted life of lies and duplicity does that. All of life can be measured on a normal curve. Right now we are in reverse. The ends of the human curve regarding murderers has the minority in charge of the majority of good family people held hostage by their terror. Nature always seeks balance. The Supreme Court is moving in the right direction despite the howls of the Devil Dogs. For that I thank them. The institutions already in place can and probably will do the right thing eventually. There are many good trends to counter the madness of the Idiot Prince. I am hopeful of course that the E-Grapevine will move things forward at warp speed. Truth is freedom. No justice, no peace. Education is the key to understanding and experience the key to wisdom.

Jan 29, 2004, 02:56 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) god is dead to the american government? have you looked at your money lately?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let's see -- it says 'in God we trust.' Oh, I know what that refers to: the Almighty Dollar! But I don't see what that has to do with gay marriage. I'm glad that you support civil unions. Most of what is needed can be done under that rubric, and support for civil unions is perhaps what will fly with the public. But still, I see no reason to discriminate, to retain civil marriage for heterosexual relationships (which is not to say for heterosexuals, just for openly man-woman civil unions) and provide some lesser 'civil union' for homosexual relationships. Separate but equal just doesn't work so well. Still, if you want to restrict marriage, perhaps through a constitutional amendment, how about the following? If a person wants to marry a person of the same sex, then he/she will enter a gay marriage, while if a person wants to marry a person of the opposite sex, then she/he will enter a straight marriage? ;-) And, by the way, our rights under the Constitution of the United States derive from the will of the people. Help from any supernatural entities that may exist will be appreciated; but the rights come from the will of the people.

Jan 29, 2004, 04:48 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) god is dead to the american government? have you looked at your money lately?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let's see -- it says 'in God we trust.' Oh, I know what that refers to: the Almighty Dollar! But I don't see what that has to do with gay marriage. ...And, by the way, our rights under the Constitution of the United States derive from the will of the people. Help from any supernatural entities that may exist will be appreciated; but the rights come from the will of the people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> no they don't... I argued this point with fedfem in the nietzsche thread... "endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights"... declaration rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves) "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 29, 2004, 05:09 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) If marriage were purely a religious act then I'd say to leave the question up to the religions. But that isn't the case. Today people can be married by a Judge and the Judge's religion doesn't matter. Harami was right, marriage has been stolen from the religions by Government. Marriage, therefore, has become a function of the State just like Incorporating a company is. Given that, it is clearly unconstitutional to deny Marriage as a State function to homosexuals. Now, if the Catholic church wants to deny baptisms to children of Homosexual parents, so be it. But as soon as the Government starts baptizing people (which it will start doing of we don't get Bush out of office) that will have to change. LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Who stole marriage? Actually, marriage was stolen from the community by religion, with the connivance of government. But the thing is that government involvement is practical -- there are legal issues that depend on it; and there are societal and economic issues that do as well, whereby government regulation of marriage is used to sort out those issues. So, should the public act be civil union and the religious one marriage? I don't care, so long as there is no discrimination in the government act. In some countries, there is civil marriage that is quite distinct from religious marriage -- those who want to be 'married' by both go through ceremonies for both. Personally, I think it more practical to do as is done in the U.S., whereby clergy are allowed to perform legal marriages -- in effect, the religious marriages are given 'deemed status' as civil marriages so long as the proper papers are filed. So, let the state recognize gay marriages; and let religions decide for themselves whether or not they recognize ANY civil marriage as a 'true' marriage.

Jan 30, 2004, 02:24 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	government involvement is practical? what exactly changes when you as a citizen of the US, decideds to form a legal contractual relationship with another person? As a citizen, you are taxed - isn't it dscrimination or at the very least an attempt at social manipulation to treat people differently based on their social status (ie: single vs married). what are these practical things that the government must do or know about when it comes to marriage? michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Jan 30, 2004, 02:55 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My creators are my mother and father. Your creators are your mother and father. My parents and your parents are people. Rights come from the people. Like somebody else said, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. There IS a legal document that does make it VERY clear that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion. See the Treaty with Tripoli. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 30, 2004, 03:00 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) government involvement is practical? what exactly changes when you as a citizen of the US, decideds to form a legal contractual relationship with another person? As a citizen, you are taxed - isn't it dscrimination or at the very least an attempt at social manipulation to treat people differently based on their social status (ie: single vs married). what are these practical things that the government must do or know about when it comes to marriage? michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There are a number of practical things: helping to establish responsibility for the raising of children; helping to establish responsibility of one citizen for another; helping to determine the ownership of property; and helping to reasonably adjust taxation to account for differences in costs of living entailed by living situation; trying to ensure one of the forms of social stability. Tbose are a few. Marriage is not a panacea for any of those. But many of us who rejected many of the traditional bases for 'believing in' it have still found it useful enough to undertake in our personal lives. But I do not begrudge those who choose to conduct their relationships with their significant others without recourse to marriage; and as you note, marriage can certainly be used as a basis for social manipulation: witness those trying to define it in the U.S. Constitution as solely available to heterosexual relationships. The real issue about gay marriage is that so many gays want access to the relationship, alhtough others may not want to marry but are understandably outraged at being denied a choice in the matter.

Jan 30, 2004, 03:03 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My creators are my mother and father. Your creators are your mother and father. My parents and your parents are people. Rights come from the people. Like somebody else said, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. There IS a legal document that does make it VERY clear that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion. See the Treaty with Tripoli. LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Although John Adams spelled it out in that treaty, he and others (particularly Madison) didn't do a bad job by excluding any call to a religious basis for the US when drafting the U.S. Constitution.

Jan 30, 2004, 05:57 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) rights come from the creator, not from the majority (otherwise we'd still have slaves)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My creators are my mother and father. Your creators are your mother and father. My parents and your parents are people. Rights come from the people. Like somebody else said, the Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. There IS a legal document that does make it VERY clear that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion. See the Treaty with Tripoli. LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am simply stating what the founding fathers themselves said... rights come from the people? no, rights are imposed on other people... do you have a right to do anything? only if others LET you do it... if the majority ever got around to figuring out they were the majority and could rule the other 49% with democratic impunity, slavery would make a quick re-appearance "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 31, 2004, 12:48 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) I am simply stating what the founding fathers themselves said... rights come from the people? no, rights are imposed on other people... do you have a right to do anything? only if others LET you do it... if the majority ever got around to figuring out they were the majority and could rule the other 49% with democratic impunity, slavery would make a quick re-appearance<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There is an amazing essay named Freedom on a Leash which I've reprinted on my site. It has appeared a few different times on Volcanvo too. Take a look at the following page under Non-Fiction... http://www.logicalunatic.com/reading.asp LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Feb 9, 2004, 01:45 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
PatC Molten Ash Location: Boston Posts: 105	It has been said been said several times already, but who cares if gays are allowed to marry. Th reason why the can;t already, is because the whole world has a severe case of homophobia and looks down on it. Homosexuals are not going away and will most likly continue to fight and protest until they recive their right to marry. Im sure most politicians will admit in private that they dont care, yet since most of America is homophobic they oppose the gay marriage for their own political gain. How often have you heard that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women", yet we have the highest divorce rate in the world, drive through wedding chapels, and that reality tv shit. We're looking at the world through the barrel of a gun, are we ready?

Feb 9, 2004, 07:59 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	ROFL! Rights are not 'imposed' on other people! how do you EVER get to that point? Rights are, by definition, 'negative' - meaning they do NOT require the positive action of others to be enforced. a 'positive' right is one that forces other to take an action - for instance: calling welfare a 'Right' would be an example of a 'positive' right in that it forces others to pay money to the welfare recipient. A true 'right' is negative, ie: the right to live - nobody has to do anything for you to try to live and maintain yourself, the 'right' to speech: nobody else has to do anything, or even provide you with an audience or a platform, for you to freely exercise this right (unless you want to do so on someone elses property...) rights/smites... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 9, 2004, 10:45 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) ROFL! Rights are not 'imposed' on other people! how do you EVER get to that point? Rights are, by definition, 'negative' - meaning they do NOT require the positive action of others to be enforced. a 'positive' right is one that forces other to take an action - for instance: calling welfare a 'Right' would be an example of a 'positive' right in that it forces others to pay money to the welfare recipient. A true 'right' is negative, ie: the right to live - nobody has to do anything for you to try to live and maintain yourself, the 'right' to speech: nobody else has to do anything, or even provide you with an audience or a platform, for you to freely exercise this right (unless you want to do so on someone elses property...) rights/smites... michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> look at what you said... "calling welfare a 'Right' would be an example of a 'positive' right in that it forces others to pay money to the welfare recipient." FORCES OTHERS TO PAY that is imposed on someone else, you make my argument they are imposed on other people by virtue that you expect others to allow you to speak and live... the other has the perfect ability to silence you and or kill you... how do you prevent them from acting? appealing to a right to life and speech? hardly... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...