Good on you BillyPilgrim... I am with you on this one. :D

OK. Thanks for those thoughts .....

"Marriages by the state in general bother me. Marriages are historically a union before God, meant to keep men from running willy nilly through hoardes of nubile women. "


It has nothing to do with control.

I can't believe that in this whole thread, I've yet to see the word "procreation". Marriage is about procreation. The legal status and privaleges bestowed are to make raising children easier. Hence, marrying your sister, with whom you should not have children for biological reasons, is not legal. And most of the arguments _for_ gay marriage involve the impact on children of gay parents, like the partner not being able to procure medical care for the child.

The real question here is, why are people who can't have children (too old, or sterile), or don't want children, endowed the legal privaleges of people will have children? Although I don't agree with gay marriage, I can see why they feel that the current system is unfair.

I was in San Francisco over last weekend. On the way to the hotel, the crew van took us past city hall (county hall, actually) and the line for certs was around the block.

The next morning, on the second page of the paper, was the ongoing story about the mayor bravely standing up to the religious right and for the freedom of San Franciscans. Buried under that story was a little article about a gay couple that was in court suing each other over the custody of twin daughters. The eggs were from one woman, and the other woman carried the fertilized (somehow) eggs to term, and gave birth. They had split up 2 months later, and were fighting over the girls.

The courts were trying to figure out how to deal with this. The usual routine was to give more weight to the birth mother, but in this case, the other partner had a DNA match with the girls that the birth mother did not.

OK, when someone says how could this gay marriage thing blow up in our faces, here is your cocktail party story.

BTW, the case is unresolved. The girls are in foster care, as both of the 'parents' have alledged abuse. Who do you suppose is paying for all of this?

Agreed, that will be a tough divorce case for the courts to sort out, and there is no perfect solution. Who pays? We all do, as with any court case where the losing party can't be made to cover costs. Also, hetero's don't hold the monopoly on abuse, whether it be drug or child, you didn't mention.

Using hyperbolic examples ( marriage to cars, cousins, uncles, animals, vegetables, and minerals, and multiple combinations of all the above) doesn't argue well for the user's point of view. Trying to frighten people by painting a vision of the progeny found at the bottom of this "slippery slope"! Silly. I expect to see this kind of thing from the , but not from ya'll.

island, I don't understand your quoting from my previous post, as if to refute it, then re-emphasizing my POV.


Ed

Gee, folks...It has always been the case that officials, either civil or religious do NOT marry the people; they marry each other and the official is only there as a witness for either god, the state, or both. Having said that, then gay marriage is simply a way of legitimizing a life style indulged in by a small portion of overall society, that portion attempting to convince the masses that their way of life is normal. I have always wondered about those that shout the loudest. Who are they actually trying to convince? Us or themselves....Something to think about.

Please note I am not being judgemental.

Any society that attempts to become all things to all people ultimately becomes nothing to anyone.

Woodpie, I'm not painting the picture....... It's already happening. It's here!

My using the example of marrying my car illustrates just how far this could be taken.

Oh.... wait you say... Humans should be mentioned here? Geez, I didn't think that marriage should have to be explained as between humans of different sexes, but if we have to explain that to members of this society (you know, a group of people bound together by laws for the common good), then maybe we have to 'remind' some of these members that the rules of this society were set a long time ago.

The framers of those rules did not think that some time in the future, common sense would have to be spelled out in a constitutional amendment. The object being to keep society from having to legislate what was common sense at one time.

It's kind of like buying a house next to the airport, and then complaining about the noise of the airplanes. You bought the house next to the airport, you bought into the noise.

If you are a member of this society, you have already bought into the concepts in play here. If you want to change the rules; put it up for a vote. If you lose the vote, and decide to break the law anyway, you are subject to sanction. (This is where we are today in California).

Not good enough? Secede. Leave. Do it in secret. (Known as the Clinton 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell Doctrine').

I don't think this is anybody's fault, and I am not saying that there are right and wrong here. I DO understand the concept of 'partners' rights. I would love to have that concept applied to my (female) partner's rights. I doubt the mayor of San Francisco, or Rosie McDonnell gives a damn about my partner's rights. I am trying to illustrate the point that there is a right way to do this, and what is happening is not it.

I, for one, am getting tired of paying for someone else's disreguard of the laws on the books. This includes the sad state of our international borders. I cross other nations' borders every month. They do not tolerate 'aliens', why should we?

I hope that I have explained my 'flippant' diatribe of my 911's rights as compared to Rosie's partners' rights. Under the present situation, they are exactly the same.

Wow, well, OK. Singpilot, I have read through your post more than a couple of times, and I still don't get a clear picture of your objections to the homosexual marriage issue. More important, I'm having difficulty following your arguments.

I list what I conclude are the main points of your argument:

1. Common Good and Common Sense (Read: Everybody knows
this!)

2. Living next to an airport (Nuisance issue? or "You knew the
deal going in!")

3. Illegal immigration

4. Your 911's constitutional rights as compared to Rosie
O'(as opposed to Mc) Donnell's partner's constitutional
rights. Or is that your female partner's rights? You can only
marry one; that is a law in most states.

Can you see why I'm having so much trouble? But let me link it up for you. You are saying that "Marriage should only be defined as a union between a male and a female. That is the way it has always been, and it has served our society very well. So it should remain as such. Homosexuals knew the law before they became homosexuals, if they don't like it they should not have become homosexuals, or they should leave the country, or they should try to change the law, or they should break the law and suffer the consequences."

Now, I contend that as our nation and society grows and changes, the laws should be allowed to change with it. What you see taking place in California and in other states in the union is maybe more civil disobedience than anything else; it is an attempt to bring the homosexual's perception of being treated unequally to the forefront. They are trying to, peacefully, non-violently, get the same treatment and constitutional rights as your female partner would have, should you decide to marry her. There are other ways to do this; what way do you think is a more correct way?

Ed

PS I also think the president's supporting a constitutional amendment that excludes rather than includes, denies rather than affords, divides rather than unites, is one of the last acts of a man desparately hoping the religious right, a goose-stepping bunch of theocrats if there ever were any, can pull his pasty pale posterior out of the fire.

OK, I'll allow your paraphrase of my convoluted argument.

I don't know what the answer is. Yes, there SHOULD be a way to legitimize a union between two people.

The way it is being done in San Francisco is not it.

Apologies to Rosie O'Donnell, I didn't mean to mess up her last name.

I think in Tasmania (small island that Belongs to Australia) Gay folk are not even allowed to cuddle.............

Let's see here. . . The Big-Rosie-Oh said she got married(homosexually) to piss-off Bush. -solid reasoning, there. . .romantic too. :rolleyes:

I do believe there is a certain "drama-queen" element, which the gay community is latching on to here. After all, if they can claim the "right to marry"(homosexually) as the same persecuted status as, say, black Americans . . . well, wouldn't that be a coup!?

Also, theres kinda an "attention-whore" sort of thing, they're after. . . going to SF where the media is camped out . . . a bit of a woodstock-for gays. . . and maybe they'll be seen. . .or get to see a STAR. (homosexually)

Where does it all end? Where, indeed. Without taking sides in the debate in this public forum, which would no doubt be used later if I determined to run for office or clerk for the Supremes, I offer the following excerpt from Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Singpilot, your argument about "moving to the nuisance" no longer holds water since the case of Spur Industries v. Webb, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). Del Webb built Sun City next to a feedlot. Sun City residents complain about smell, sue feedlot. Court says, yes, there's a nuisance, but the remedy is, Sun City residents will pay to relocate the feedlot!

Thought you might find that interesting. By the way, if somebody tries to close an airport near me I will spend my own after-tax dollars litigating my right to practice wheel landings until you can't feel where sky ends and grass begins.

I feel as you do, I fly for a living. It pisses me off that people do move to the airport, then start calling in noise complaints.

I'd be out there with you, nosegear first if necessary.

Unless, of course, the mayor ordered bulldozers out to rip up the runways in the middle of the night. Mayor Daley did this with Meigs Airport in Chicago not too long ago. Said he was tired of the noise crap, tired of spending city money to support a private airport that was owned by the city, and plowed it up. The remaining airplanes there had to take off from the taxiway, which was torn up after the last plane left.

I believe he said "It's my airport, I can do with it what I want.... Sue me."

Daly is, unfortunately, right. AOPA tried to jump all over him, as did the feds, but he didn't take any federal improvement money so I don't think they had him.

I go out of my way to avoid connecting through ORD. A lot of good THAT does but it makes me feel better knowing I'm not encouraging him.