Leaving the community

In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?
If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs
to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the
marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual
couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked?

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government
absolutely no good.

Depends upon your definition of stable family.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Frank Stutzman wrote:

In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids Congress from
passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;".

If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

The state has been "in the marraige business" for well over 1,500 years. Marraige is
a legal contract and has been ever since inheritance rights began to be important and
codified.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.

Give them time. As you point out, it's a poor sampling. I've known a number of gay
people, but few for very long. The one person that I've known for decades was married
and divorced. She is currently involved in her third lesbian relationship. If
marraige had been an option, she would have married and divorced her first lesbian
partner and be married to the third one now.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige"
has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?
If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

No, we don't have a seperation of church and state. What we have is a right
for the people to express their own religous beliefs with no intervention by
the state.

"The People" have inserted religous tenants into virtually every law we
have. The People want marraige recognized by their governement and if the
governemnt didn't do so, The People would revolt.

Gay folks may revolt in the future but they simply don't carry enough
political clout to make changes to our way of life and our Constitution.

With the help of a couple of activist judges and elected folks, they may get
their way . . . In the future.

It damn sure ain't gonn happen during the next four years.

Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is
supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs
to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the
marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual
couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked?

No. That would be unenforceable. Besides, that would be my definition of a
"union" (which I don't necessairily have a problem with) instead of a
marraige. Folks usually get married with the intent of having kids. Some
don't. Their loss.

All that said, gay people (as a sociological group) aren't even looking for
the right to get married. They are looking for legitmicy and respectability
of the gay lifestyle. American's are coming around to it but just ain't
ready for that yet and the polls and numbers of laws enacted against it show
it.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a
government
absolutely no good.

Depends upon your definition of stable family.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.

Is that right? The heterosexual divorce rate is about .40 percent. What is
it for homosexual marriages, Frank?

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher wrote:

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

You got this half wrong. Birds are high wing, therefore high wing is
natural and proper. :-)


Matt

"Jim Fisher" wrote
"Terry Bolands" wrote
"Jim Fisher" wrote

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing
planes. That's just they way it is.

It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if
you want, but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't
get married.

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that
"marraige" has been recognized for thousands of years as a
religous tenant. We aren't talking "unions" but marraige.

That doesn't make it a truism at all. There are plenty of
non-religious individuals who still believe in the institution of
marriage. Civil servants can perform marriages.

Governemental support of a marraige between a man and a woman
and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported and
recognized beacause such support has historically contributed
to to overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does
a government absolutely no good.

You presenting this as a fact, but it is only an opinion.

This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but
a rational person cannot deny it.

I disagree. This is a debatable issue, and debatable by fully
rational persons.

Beyond this, doesn't the practice of same-sex marriages in some
European countries prove that it isn't a truism?

I think the line between the religious and civil role is fairly
vague. I, personally, am in favor of same-sex marriage, but I
think I could be in favor a situation in which marriage is soley
a religious rite and civil unions are a, well, civil
distinction. Marriage would only have a religious significance
and civil unions would have legal/financial/etc significance.
Any given religion coud define marriage however they liked, but
any two people could get a civil union.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital'
status is akin to human rights abuses endured by black
Americans" is an affront to my, and your, intelligence.

Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront
to your intelligence.

"abeeeeeeerrrrrrrrant (br-nt, -br,-)
adj.
1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
Man+woman - Expected and even proper.
Man+man - Untrue to type

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this
(marriage or adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant.

Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the
population, gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and
"aberrant." You don't have to like that fact but it is
axiomatic.

No, it is just different. Calling it aberrant puts the judgment
of 'improper' on it. Your opinions aren't axiomatic, Jim. Most
people in the US used to look on interracial marriage as
aberrant. Opinions have changed...not axiomatic.

tb

No, it is just different. Calling it aberrant puts the judgment
of 'improper' on it. Your opinions aren't axiomatic, Jim. Most
people in the US used to look on interracial marriage as
aberrant. Opinions have changed...not axiomatic.

Succinct and to the point! Most excellent reply!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Terry Bolands" wrote in message
om...

Jim Fisher wrote:



Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I were
black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't such a
generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks do just that. Look for the vote breakdowns against the gay
marriage bills on the ballot.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
just they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.

Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?"
Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely
victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is
not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic
party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for
queers?

Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the
gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that
are routinely granted to others?



--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but
for now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your

bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
just they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.


Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?"
Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely
victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is
not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic
party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for
queers?

Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the
gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that
are routinely granted to others?

The government takes moral stands all of the time. A good share of our
laws are based on morality. Things such as not killing your neighbors.


Matt

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

I understand, why. Often when people are confronted with the facts that
their feelings are colored by bigotry of one type or another, their first
impulse is to vehemently deny it.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

But they DON"T have equal rights. If their lifetime partner is in the
hospital they have NO legal visiting rights as a spouse would. When their
loved one dies they have NO right to insurance like a 'regular' spouse
would -despite spending decades together as a couple. The list goes on....
This is discrimination Jim and even though they may not be black still makes
it just as wrong and ugly. They don't even have the right to be buried with
their loved one. Sounds like a second class citizen to me, Jim!


Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Look above Jim,,,, you REALLY just haven't got a clue.... There are MANY
other rights that they don't have and it all comes from persons like you who
are so afraid that the existence of a gay couple might be a threat to your
sexual orientation or someone else's. Bigotry, Jim,,, not over color, in
your case, but the sexual preference of consenting adults. Why do you give
a flying fish (substitution here) ????? WHAT are you SO afraid of? Your
wife knows you are a straight man - are you afraid that if you agree that
others deserve civil right too, that somehow your sexual orientation will be
questioned? Balderdash!


Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes.

You're right (so far) about the married part, but I know a lesbian couple
who own a Piper Cherokee 140 (definitely a low-wing airplane). Wouldn't you
agree?

That's just
they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.

Bigotry is such an ugly thing,,,, it really doesn't suit, you, Jim. I
never in my wildest dreams pegged you as a bigot


--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but
for now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
activity' as the measure.

Here's hoping you have a clue.....

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -