RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] southpark speaks the truth

["Spurling, Shannon" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

So, the group marriage thing is defined as the contract between the
husband and each one of his many wives. Or vice versa. I think the main
beef against gay marriage is as follows:
1. Legally, a boiler plate contract could probably be devised that
permitted same sex couples to convey all of the rights and privileges
that married couples have to each other. It might need clever wording,
but I would never put any thing past a creative lawyer... (They are the
worst. Never tangle with one.) :-)
2.  Civil unions would suffice as such a boiler plate, and is in essence
what a judge presided marriage is (As was pointed out by someone
earlier). 
3. Courts and Gay rights groups still insist that civil unions would not
be good enough. Why?

Think about that for a moment. What is the only difference? The
essential difference between civil union and marriage. Why would it be
separate and not equal? The reason that separate but equal was not good
enough for civil rights is because it was not and never could be equal.
You figure that out and you will see why gay people want it, and why
others want to protect it. I hate to say it, but love doesn't have any
thing to do with it.

Shannon Spurling
WAN Engineer -Specialist

MOREnet, Network Services, Core Network
3212 LeMone Industrial Blvd.
Columbia, MO 65201

Main:(573) 884-7200   Fax:(573)884-6673

EMAIL:PROTECTED
EMAIL:PROTECTED


-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL:PROTECTED
[mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodsmall,
Ryan (IATS)
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:03 PM
To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] southpark speaks the truth

The strict "Judeo-Christian" definition of marriage went out the window
with the separation of church and state.  The second that justices of
the peace (judges, etc.) were allowed to perform marriages, the word
"marriage" was redefined.  The traditional marriage was performed in a
church, by a priest, minister, etc.  When we allowed justices to perform
what are essentially state-sanctioned marriages, that half of the
equation became a matter of law.  No one in their right mind would say
that if a state decides to allow homosexual marriage that churces in
that state must perform ceremonies for homosexuals; separation of church
and state, right?  It's within the rights of the church to decide who
they will and will not allow to marry.  I just don't understand the
uproar over this issue.

But your group marriage argument is silly.  Marriage (in the civil, not
religious, sense) has *always* been defined as a union between two
people, not a group.  In both the religious and civil senses.

Rant rant rant.  Sorry.

     ryan woodsmall
        EMAIL:PROTECTED


> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL:PROTECTED 
> [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:34 PM
> To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
> Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] southpark speaks the truth
>
> Alright! You've convinced me. Where do I sign up to be a Mormon? ;)
> 
> Actually, I have no problem with group marriages but I do think every 
> partner should be a willing participant. If they manage to 
> legalize gay 
> marriages, as seems to be the big battle these days, then I 
> think they 
> should have to legalize the group marriages thing too.. afterall if 
> you're going to break the strict Judio-Christian definition 
> we currently 
> use then you have no reason not to allow such marriages. The 
> part of it 
> that bothers me is that most of these cults don't give the girls a 
> choice and they aren't very careful about disallowing close family 
> members from having children. A local paper I recently read had an 
> interesting story about how it was common practice for men to marry 
> their own mother, sisters, cousins, etc and thus many people 
> of the cult 
> begin to be severely retarted. Besides, it's just gross that they are 
> porking their own mom or grandmother. Eww!

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion



_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion