Dear Mary...

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...

Of course not. But since marriage is a legal state, those governments
can redefine it as they wish.


Why is marriage a legal state? What gives government the authority to
redefine it? Is marriage not older than government?



Excellent point, for a change. Yes, marriage is older than government.
Coming-of-age rituals, such as circumcision, First Communion,
confirmation, etc., are older than government. Becoming a recognized
cleric is older than government.

Religions do very nicely managing these rites on their own. The rules of
one religion may very much conflict with those of another, such as
Islamic polygamy, State Shinto obligation, etc. To a large extent, we
leave these things up to the religious leadership.

I actually don't have a problem if, according to the teachings of Islam
or of the older traditions of Latter-Day Saints, people want to enter
into a religiously-approved plural marriage. I'd simply like the
governemt to record the marriage and the associated property,
inheritance, parental control, medical surrogacy rules.

In other words, people can have religiously defined marriages, plus
civilly defined unions/contracts. Since in the US we have freedom not to
be in a religion, logically, the state should be able to record the
legal details of a civil union.

But you keep repeating a religious definition, but a definition that
applies only in specific religions. I will ask specifically: the Koran
allows, with conditions, a marriage to be defined between a man and up
to four wives. By your reasoning, isn't that a religiously defined
marriage? Or are you saying that only SOME religions get to define
marriage?

wrote:
|| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
|| message
|| hlink.net...
|||
||| " wrote in message
||| ink.net...
||||
|||| You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous usage of the
|||| language.
||||
|||| Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and therefore
|||| may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable within the
|||| many multitudes of social, political and religious institutions of
|||| the world which are many more than most people fully comprehend.
|||| Within that framework, marriage between two individuals of the
|||| same sex is eminently a possibility.
||||
|||| Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with something that is an
|||| absolute impossibility save that any behavior is impossible among
|||| the many and diverse social-political-religious institutions of
|||| the world or that any particular form of behavior by homo sapiens
|||| sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one may find in
|||| the world.
||||
|||
||| You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the opposite sex.
|||
|| No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
|| social-political-religious framework it will be whatever any human
|| social-political-religious group can come up with.

Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to the Old Testament
(Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made specific reference to the act of
same gender sex and the union of two, which would invalidate the same-sex
marriage issue. Marriage is a covenant involving God and two people
(man-woman). The Church recently addressed the issue with a 12-page
document of considerations which *cited various biblical references*. Below
is the link to this document which also mentions legislators when voting on
the issue. "When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual
unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the
Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and
publicly and to vote against it." In some religious frameworks (churches),
the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an impossibility.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75


||
|| You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly illiterate.

It is a union meant for two people of different gender. Homosexuality is
not something I agree with and never will agree with it. However, if that's
what they have decided for themselves and if it brings them happiness in
some way, while I might voice my opposition to their act, I would not be
unkind to them for continuing it. Just as I would not be unkind I would
never condone/accept a gay marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned
religious framework).

Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant for male-female, is
naive then I guess that makes the inspired word of God naive? It has
nothing to do with naivety or illiteracy, but more to do with values and
beliefs built from a foundation that has its roots in the Bible (the
inspired word of God), at least in the religious framework anyhow.

This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not now. I prefer to go
with what's been in place for a couple thousand years or more. Does that
make me one or both, naive or illiterate?

Back to my break. Toodles.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "Magda" wrote in message
|| ...
|||
||| In your neck of woods, maybe.
|||
||
|| Everywhere.

Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the word
"marriage". Some people simply define it as a union between two people in
love and of mutual consent; however, that definition is vague and
secular-based and based on individual *preference*. On a secular level,
that's fine, but in a religious framework the definition is not quite so
vague and not so out of personal preference. This is one of those debates
that will just go on and on because there are so many elements and opinions
involved in it. You can choose to get caught in the whirlpool of it or not.
The whirlpool gets all muddy if the participants get zapped with zingers
between each other, when it gets to that point, best to pull yourself out of
it and leave it be.

I provided a link in another post in this thread, use references when trying
to argue your point, and that link has mention of some specific references.
Good luck, I've said my piece on it, although I had intended on not
returning to the NG quite so soon. Toodles....
Here's the link for quick reference for you....
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

"~Nins~" wrote in message
newstq%b.25231$AL.466780@attbi_s03...

Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the word
"marriage".



When individuals can define words to their liking language ceases to have
meaning.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
|| "~Nins~" wrote in message
|| newstq%b.25231$AL.466780@attbi_s03...
|||
||| Steven, sometimes it depends on the individual's definition of the
||| word "marriage".
|||
||
||
|| When individuals can define words to their liking language ceases to
|| have meaning.

True, sometimes, but that is the reality sometimes. You did read the rest
of my post, didn't you?

"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:VMq%b.418336$na.808874@attbi_s04...

You did read the rest of my post, didn't you?


Yup.

"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:jtq%b.25230$AL.466402@attbi_s03
wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
message

hlink.net.
...

" wrote in
message

ink.net...

You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous
usage of the
language.

Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and
therefore
may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable
within the
many multitudes of social, political and religious
institutions of
the world which are many more than most people fully
comprehend.
Within that framework, marriage between two
individuals of the
same sex is eminently a possibility.

Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with
something that is an
absolute impossibility save that any behavior is
impossible among
the many and diverse social-political-religious
institutions of
the world or that any particular form of behavior by
homo sapiens
sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one
may find in
the world.


You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the
opposite sex.

No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
social-political-religious framework it will be whatever
any human
social-political-religious group can come up with.

Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to
the Old
Testament (Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made
specific
reference to the act of same gender sex and the union of
two, which
would invalidate the same-sex marriage issue. Marriage is
a covenant
involving God and two people (man-woman). The Church
recently
addressed the issue with a 12-page document of
considerations which
*cited various biblical references*. Below is the link to
this
document which also mentions legislators when voting on
the issue.
"When legislation in favour of the recognition of
homosexual unions
is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly,
the
Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his
opposition clearly
and publicly and to vote against it." In some religious
frameworks
(churches), the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an
impossibility. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75



You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly
illiterate.

It is a union meant for two people of different gender.
Homosexuality is not something I agree with and never will
agree with
it. However, if that's what they have decided for
themselves and if
it brings them happiness in some way, while I might voice
my
opposition to their act, I would not be unkind to them for
continuing
it. Just as I would not be unkind I would never
condone/accept a gay
marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned religious
framework).

Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant
for
male-female, is naive then I guess that makes the inspired
word of
God naive? It has nothing to do with naivety or
illiteracy, but more
to do with values and beliefs built from a foundation that
has its
roots in the Bible (the inspired word of God), at least in
the
religious framework anyhow.

This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not
now. I
prefer to go with what's been in place for a couple
thousand years or
more. Does that make me one or both, naive or
illiterate?

Back to my break. Toodles.

It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my own
religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as
being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and
religious laws. However, in the US my religion and yours
are not the only ones that are followed by the many and
diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it is
mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic
and civil institutions of marriage before the civil
authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed and
if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize that
such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties and
obligations as any other marriage under those civil
authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of the
New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of the
state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render
unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such a
use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he who
cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse (depending
upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act)
than a same sex marriage. :-)

Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I made/make
my living enforcing the will of one group of people over
another and sometimes see that my side is not always in the
absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in
such situations I try to allow for that which is different
from my own ways so long as it does not harm others.

Snark

" wrote in message
link.net...
"~Nins~" wrote in message
news:jtq%b.25230$AL.466402@attbi_s03
wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
message

hlink.net.
..

" wrote in
message

ink.net...

You see, once more you have engaged in an erroneous
usage of the
language.

Marriage, is a socio-politico-religous institution and
therefore
may change in accordance with whatever is acceptable
within the
many multitudes of social, political and religious
institutions of
the world which are many more than most people fully
comprehend.
Within that framework, marriage between two
individuals of the
same sex is eminently a possibility.

Now, I am rather hard pressed to come up with
something that is an
absolute impossibility save that any behavior is
impossible among
the many and diverse social-political-religious
institutions of
the world or that any particular form of behavior by
homo sapiens
sapiens is impossible is as close to impossible as one
may find in
the world.


You don't get it. Marriage requires persons of the
opposite sex.

No, it doesn't. Since it is defined within a human
social-political-religious framework it will be whatever
any human
social-political-religious group can come up with.

Well, it depends on values and beliefs. It dates back to
the Old
Testament (Genesis, Leviticus, etc.) where God made
specific
reference to the act of same gender sex and the union of
two, which
would invalidate the same-sex marriage issue. Marriage is
a covenant
involving God and two people (man-woman). The Church
recently
addressed the issue with a 12-page document of
considerations which
*cited various biblical references*. Below is the link to
this
document which also mentions legislators when voting on
the issue.
"When legislation in favour of the recognition of
homosexual unions
is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly,
the
Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his
opposition clearly
and publicly and to vote against it." In some religious
frameworks
(churches), the possibility of gay marriage is indeed an
impossibility. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1D121A75



You sir, are either incredibly naive or incredibly
illiterate.

It is a union meant for two people of different gender.
Homosexuality is not something I agree with and never will
agree with
it. However, if that's what they have decided for
themselves and if
it brings them happiness in some way, while I might voice
my
opposition to their act, I would not be unkind to them for
continuing
it. Just as I would not be unkind I would never
condone/accept a gay
marriage in the religious sense (you mentioned religious
framework).

Snark, if having such an opinion that marriage is meant
for
male-female, is naive then I guess that makes the inspired
word of
God naive? It has nothing to do with naivety or
illiteracy, but more
to do with values and beliefs built from a foundation that
has its
roots in the Bible (the inspired word of God), at least in
the
religious framework anyhow.

This is a debate that has no end in sight, at least not
now. I
prefer to go with what's been in place for a couple
thousand years or
more. Does that make me one or both, naive or
illiterate?

Back to my break. Toodles.

It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my own
religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as
being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and
religious laws. However, in the US my religion and yours
are not the only ones that are followed by the many and
diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it is
mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic
and civil institutions of marriage before the civil
authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed and
if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize that
such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties and
obligations as any other marriage under those civil
authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of the
New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of the
state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render
unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such a
use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he who
cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse (depending
upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act)
than a same sex marriage. :-)

Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I made/make
my living enforcing the will of one group of people over
another and sometimes see that my side is not always in the
absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in
such situations I try to allow for that which is different
from my own ways so long as it does not harm others.


I agree with you, Snark, but that's easy .... coz I live in
Canada where same sex marriage is permitted ...

Furthermore, if one wanted to take the Bible literally
to the word, we would be mandated to call upon the
death of homosexuals:

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them.

Now, does the government really want to get involved
in *that* nasty business?

- nilita

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:21:33 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Steven P. McNicoll"
came forth and told this tale in us.military.army


"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
.. .

Since marriage does grant rights, it is unconstitutional to deny those
rights without due process of law (14th Amendment, Section 1) Here in
California, Article I, Section 31 of the State Constitution forbids
discrimination in public contracts, which includes marriage.

Who is being denied marriage?

Same-sex couples.

Now, I'd like you to explain what has happened to your life now that
over 3,000 gay couples have been married in San Francisco.

By "gay couples" I assume you mean same-sex couples. No same-sex couples
have been married in San Francisco. Marriage requires persons of the
opposite sex. Homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex
just as heterosexuals are. No rights are being denied to anyone.

Wrong. over 3,100 people have been married. Not one of thiose unions
has been successfully challenged. In four different hearings judges
have refused to stop the marriages from occuring.

I am, for almost 13 years now. My marriage is
still solid as a rock. What harm is being done? Explain it to me.

Harm is not the issue.

Actually, it is.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"la n." wrote in message

" wrote in
message

link.net..
..
snip
It probably makes you devout in your beliefs. Within my
own
religion I must oppose any acceptance of such a union as
being contrary to it's system of beliefs, tenets and
religious laws. However, in the US my religion and
yours
are not the only ones that are followed by the many and
diverse peoples of this country and I don't feel that it
is
mine to judge them. Also, in terms of the socio-economic
and civil institutions of marriage before the civil
authorities of the land, such an issue must be addressed
and
if the civil authorities of the land wish to recognize
that
such couples have the same rights, priviledges, duties
and
obligations as any other marriage under those civil
authorities it is simply, to quote an oft used part of
the
New Testament, used in justifying murder in the name of
the
state, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and
render
unto God that which is God's". Now in my own faith, such
a
use of the word god as if it were the proper name of he
who
cannot be named would be as bad or perhaps worse
(depending
upon the argument of the relative "badness" of this act)
than a same sex marriage. :-)

Live and let live I say. Perhaps it is because I
made/make
my living enforcing the will of one group of people over
another and sometimes see that my side is not always in
the
absolute right and that sometimes there is no "right" in
such situations I try to allow for that which is
different
from my own ways so long as it does not harm others.


I agree with you, Snark, but that's easy .... coz I live
in
Canada where same sex marriage is permitted ...

Furthermore, if one wanted to take the Bible literally
to the word, we would be mandated to call upon the
death of homosexuals:

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them.

Now, does the government really want to get involved
in *that* nasty business?


All governments do get involved in *that* nasty business.
In fact one of the parts of my job is to commit murder and
assault upon people as my government may direct.
Governments decide which murders are characterized as
criminal and which are not. Ultimately, I believe I _will_
answer to god for my part in them and will stand before him
unbowed as those were and are my acts for which I am
responsible and felt were necessary at the time.

What god will determine thereafter is up to god.

Snark