Leaving the community

In article vnpkd.81153$R05.56261@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:


I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.

I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.

Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
different.


I agree with you entirely on this and have done exactly the same thing
with my own four now grown children (and my teaching seems to have,
fortunately, "taken" with all four of them, for which I take some
satisfaction, even if not necessarily credit).

I'd also like to extend my understanding of the non-religious arguments
involved in other of our country's current political issues, and maybe
you can help.

I also happen to have -- as I'd be pretty sure you do also -- at least
one specific close relative (not actually one of my children) who is an
openly gay or lesbian person, and who I also know is absolutely a fine,
moral, admirable, and productive person.

So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

Please note: I'm not attributing any views on this issue either way to
you; I have no idea what your views are (and my prediction that you'll
have at least a few gay or lesbian individuals among your not too
distant relatives is based only on simple statistics).

But you're in a Red state, and occasionally outspoken on issues; and I'm
in a Blue state, and genuinely puzzled by this particular issue. So,
what are the non-religious argments on this issue that drive the Red
states to this level of action?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.

That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of the
consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing gays
to marry might hurt someone.

Like you, I'd love to hear any proposed "non-religious argument against gay
marriage". Mainly because all the ones I've heard so far are so stupid,
they make me laugh. And I love a good joke.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual marriage?
Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits. I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now, these
judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They
answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or
the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen to
think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual
marriage?

A general belief in non-discrimination is sufficient to justify allowing
homosexual marriage.

Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits.
I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay.

Suggest all you want, it ain't true. Homosexuals make up a very tiny
proportion of our population. Plenty of corporations already extend
"partner benefits" to unmarried couples, including homosexuals, and it has
not made any sort of noticeable dent in the bottom line.

There's no "major cost". Any potential "minor cost" hypothesized can easily
be offset by further hypothesizing by a "minor benefit". (Economic benefit
to eliminating a discriminated-against group, for example).

I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups.

Funny. I wonder if the same arguments were made when we gave voting rights
to blacks. Or to women. "Gosh, you never know WHO ELSE will want the same
thing!"

There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships

So, let them. What do I care?

, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous.

Spouse abuse and incest is already illegal, and occurs with frightening
regularity in marriages currently allowed by law. As you also point out,
abuse and incest already happens in "marriages" not legally sanctioned. How
do you know that making such marriages legal won't allow them to be more
public, and provide greater legal standing for spouses who are abused.

Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

Oh, please. Let them try. A person's sexual orientation isn't anywhere
close to the same difference that exists between a child and an adult. We
have plenty of laws that discriminate against children, and generally for
good reason. You're just being absurd now.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before.

You pretend to know the law better than those judges? Uh, sure. Nice
fantasy world you live in there.

Whether you agree with them or not, judges generally do their best to follow
the letter of the law. If ever there was a canard being thrown around, it's
the "activist judges are changing the law!" panic attack the religious right
is having. I haven't looked as closely at the other states, but in
Washington the two decisions made already (by two different judges!) made
very clear the letter of the law they were following. State constitutional
protection against discrimination is a very strong foundation on which to
base the decisions.

You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in
order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful.

I can?

If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room
for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

Widespread violence? Civil disorder? Disrespect and politicization of the
judicial system? You're on a trip, man. Other than a handful of
whacked-out fundamentalists who mind-bogglingly believe that it's okay to
kill full-grown adults, but not blastocysts, what violence and civil
disorder are you talking about? They are a mere blip on the radar compared
to other public safety issues, like gang violence, sexual predators, and
even terrorist attacks like OK City and 9/11.

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through
judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

Seriously, dude...give me some of what you're taking. I gotta see what the
fuss is all about.

Most people, even the evangelicals and fundamentalists, if homosexual
marriage were legalized, would get over it. The rest of us already do a
host of other crap they think dooms us to hell anyway, and it's not like by
preventing gays from marrying, they prevent them from having sex (well,
maybe it prevents the fundamentalist gays from having sex...I dunno). If we
can get past suffrage for blacks and inter-racial marriage, a few
homosexuals getting married isn't going to doom the country. Not even
close.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
not for the children killed during the abortion.

"Children" who in large numbers were dying anyway (making abortion illegal
doesn't get rid of abortion), or who if born would have suffered their
entire short life in many cases.

Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group of
people who don't feel that way, of course

In any case, since you're clearly "anti-choice", you should know as well as
anyone that no thread about abortion is going to get anywhere, not even on
an abortion newsgroup, nevermind a piloting one.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

not for the children killed during the abortion.

"Children" who in large numbers were dying anyway (making abortion illegal
doesn't get rid of abortion), or who if born would have suffered their
entire short life in many cases.

so, you are defending abortion in part because the child would die
anyway? (after all, making murder illegal doesn't get rid of murder).
Can you see the problem with that kind of reasoning?



Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group of
people who don't feel that way, of course

I made no such claim.



In any case, since you're clearly "anti-choice", you should know as well as
anyone that no thread about abortion is going to get anywhere, not even on
an abortion newsgroup, nevermind a piloting one.

Then why did you bring up abortion?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel

He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
the instant of conception.

My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
Forster)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go
all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual
marriage?
Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits.
I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups
in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to
marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now,
these
judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They
answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or
the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen
to
think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

Why shant they have the right if other people have the right to marry?


You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in
order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room
for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

You are incorrect. It is not the issue about judges that made it divisive,
rather the nature of the subject is divisive. Some people want to control
other people, that is all.


I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through
judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

You have got to be kidding me?! Civil war over gay marriages? Where do you
get this stuff?