Thrown out of an FBO...

4. What's a "gay married couple"?

Well, I'll take that one on, Jay, by asking in return -- and in
seriousness -- what's a "married couple"?

If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples.

Um, well, that's like asking why people who don't own land can't sell
it. Or why folks who order food in a restaurant must pay for it. It's
a legal definition.

Marriage is a state that exists between a man and a woman. You can
have the same legal rights between two men, or two women, if you'd
like, but you'll have to come up with a new name for it. Call it
"frimage", or "shariage", or some other made-up word for it -- but the
word "marriage" is already taken.

This ain't a religious issue. I don't care who is screwing whom, as
long as it's behind closed doors. But you'll have to come up with a
new term. (And I believe the majority of voters agree with me, for
once.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
If the answer is, it's an essentially *legal* status, based on state or
Federal laws regulating marriage, then I'll want to know why it
shouldn't be available to gay as well as heterosexual couples.

Marriage is a state that exists between a man and a woman. You can
have the same legal rights between two men, or two women, if you'd
like, but you'll have to come up with a new name for it.

Why? When we broadened marriage rights to include interracial couples, we
didn't have to come up with a new name for marriage. When we broadened
voting rights to include women, we didn't have to come up with a new name
for voting (even though voting had previously been regarded--for thousands
of years, in cultures throughout the world--as an inherently male activity).

Legal definitions evolve all the time. Why should they ossify instead? An as
an empirical fact, a growing number of nations (and portions of nations,
including the US) do define legal marriage without regard to the race,
religion, or gender of the participants.

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor should
it
be.)

hmmm, is that what you think the issue is about?

It's a commonly cited excuse for opposing same-sex marriage.

The ONLY people I've ever heard cite that "excuse" actually support same-sex
marriage and are using it to misrepresent the opposing view.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

For further discussion, here is the exact wording of the recent referendum
in Wisconsin:
"Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide
that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall
not be valid or recognized in this state."



The Yes vote was 59%, the No vote was 41%.



While not clearly defining the word marriage to be between a man and a
woman, several other states referendums did just that according the CNN 2006
Votes website.



Jim

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(A couple's ability or intention to
reproduce together has never been a prerequisite for marriage, nor
should
it
be.)

hmmm, is that what you think the issue is about?

It's a commonly cited excuse for opposing same-sex marriage.

The ONLY people I've ever heard cite that "excuse" actually support
same-sex
marriage and are using it to misrepresent the opposing view.

Reality consists of more than what you may remember ever hearing, Bob. A
moment's research would show that the specious procreation-prerequisite
argument is in fact at the heart of much of the world's opposition to
same-sex marriage.

To cite just the most obvious example, the Vatican--which prominently
lobbies against gay marriage in the US and throughout the world--published a
document in 2003 arguing that "marriage exists solely between a man and a
woman... in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of
new human lives... in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and
fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage".

--Gary

On 11 Nov 2006 05:27:53 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

Just curious, but why do you feel having a web site is likely to linked to being
a better independent hotel?

Motels without a personal website (meaning not the blanket "chain" site
that covers the entire brand) have nothing to brag about, and are
usually run by "managers" -- not "owners". This is an important,
often critical difference in the service you will receive.

so what has this to do with a website? some (hotels) are small enough to
exist because of word of mouth, they don't need no friggin website.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

Martin Hotze wrote:



I was told to not talk about religion or politics when in the US (as a
foreigner).



Nah, that only applies to relatives at Thanksgiving dinner.

mike regish wrote:

Just what makes you think this is even an issue the people should vote on?
Since when do people get to vote on basic rights?

That's not basic.


Do you think slavery would
have been abolished if the people got to vote on it?

In the North? Hello? Read your history. It wouldn't have been close.

Peter Duniho wrote:

The difference is most of us don't post with the intent to draw out
predictable answers. That's called trolling.

I guess now I understand why you are so tolerant of Mxsmanic's behavior. He
and you share a common personality defect.

Nice troll, Peter. Some of us enjoy Jay's stories more than your ad-hominen
attacks about your self-proclaimed 'personality defects.'

Jay Honeck wrote:

He laughed and said that he "Had to fill the tank more often than
that!", to which I laughingly replied "Yeah, the only time the tanks
don't get filled at our place is when charter pilots use our van --
those guys are the cheapest SOBs around!"

His face suddenly flushed red, and his tone abruptly changed. "Well,
I'm a charter pilot, and I believe you're insulting me, now..." he
growled in a quiet but somehow menacing voice. Still laughing, not
sure if he was joking, too, but somewhat alarmed at his sudden change
of tone, I replied in a conspiratorial way "Well, we all know *why*
they don't fill the tanks -- they're not making diddly squat, and those
kids can't afford to shell out too much cash..."

This placated him not at all. He went on to tell me how he's got "Six
charter pilots working for him, and they all make a good wage, and you
shouldn't be making blanket statements insulting 'em that way..."

Just like *that* the atmosphere in the office changed, and I was
starting to get flustered at his sudden change of personality. Mary
piped up and said that this was all "Just our observation of the way
some charter pilots behaved...", and I replied that I was "Just joking
around..." -- to which he snarled "Okay, 'John Kerry' -- maybe you
folks shouldn't be coming around here and borrowing my car anymore..."

One way to diffuse the situation would have been to say that his pilots
were welcome to try your hotel sometime, and it would be nice to have some
of the better charter pilots go there for a change, or another way to let
him know that you weren't accusing HIS pilots of being cheap SOBs.