What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?


When they divorce, whom pays alimony to whom?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

When they divorce, whom pays alimony to whom?


If there were to ber any alimony payed I would suspect that it would be payed
by the one who made more money to the one who made less money. That's usually
how it works in California.

Sandman said:

What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?

Kind of reminds me of when farmers in Eastern Kentucky were able to improve
their local economies and their own standards of living tenfold when they
starting growing marijuana, until the Feds stepped in and threw them in jail.

Boon

Mr. Phillips wrote:


Sandman said:

What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?

Kind of reminds me of when farmers in Eastern Kentucky were able to improve
their local economies and their own standards of living tenfold when they
starting growing marijuana, until the Feds stepped in and threw them in jail.

Boon







Jah, mahn!

A while back, a group of Rastafarians rented a multimillion-dollar waterfront
estate in Miami Beach, and toked on the biggest spliffs ever photographed,
probably. Naturally, they claimed it was part of their religious observances.
Unfortunately for them, the feds disagreed.

Isn't ganja permitted in California with the "medical MJ clubs"? We need more
health care like this

From an advocate of alternative medicine methodology, and confirmed Melatonin
user:



Bruce J. Richman

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" emitted :

What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire
City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?

I think it's fantastic.

Is it legal to get married on roller skates?


Yes, if your spouse is of the opposite sex.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

When they divorce, whom pays alimony to whom?

The ones who know the difference between "who" and "whom" collect
twice as much as those who don't.



I used to know, but in my dotage I forgot. I guess I guessed wrong.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Sandman said:

What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire
City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?

Kind of reminds me of when farmers in Eastern Kentucky were able to
improve
their local economies and their own standards of living tenfold when they
starting growing marijuana, until the Feds stepped in and threw them in
jail.

Boon

It reminds me of all 'em redneck moonshiners.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" emitted :

What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire
City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?

I think it's fantastic.

Then you'll love this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/17/sa...age/index.html

Is it legal to get married on roller skates?

If Elvis impersonators can marry people in Vegas, who cares about the
footwear?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?


It's illegal, but about time. There is no logical reason why gays should be
prohibited from marrying.

This will no doubt wind up in the state Supreme Court.
Could it be Massachussetts all over again?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:07:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Sandman" wrote in message
...
What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?


It's illegal, but about time. There is no logical reason why gays should be
prohibited from marrying.

On this, we agree.

Dr. Richman said:

Mr. Phillips wrote:


Sandman said:

What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?

Kind of reminds me of when farmers in Eastern Kentucky were able to improve
their local economies and their own standards of living tenfold when they
starting growing marijuana, until the Feds stepped in and threw them in
jail.

Boon







Jah, mahn!

A while back, a group of Rastafarians rented a multimillion-dollar
waterfront
estate in Miami Beach, and toked on the biggest spliffs ever photographed,
probably. Naturally, they claimed it was part of their religious
observances.
Unfortunately for them, the feds disagreed.

Isn't ganja permitted in California with the "medical MJ clubs"? We need
more
health care like this

From an advocate of alternative medicine methodology, and confirmed Melatonin
user:

Basically, all of the progress individual states have made in terms of allowing
medical marijuana have been systematically superceded by federal laws. The
best the states can do is decriminalize possession under an ounce, which most
of the states around here have done. California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska
and Hawaii have very lenient laws when it comes to marijuana...it must be those
mellow Pacific currents. You can still get twenty years in Texas for a single
seed. And strangely enough, Nevada has some of the toughest marijuana laws in
the nation. You can bang prostitutes, gamble away your children's college
fund, and drink booze around the clock, but if you're caught smoking a joint,
you're ****ed.

Boon

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:07:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Sandman" wrote in message
...
What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire
City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?


It's illegal, but about time. There is no logical reason why gays should
be
prohibited from marrying.

On this, we agree.

Of course, there is no logical reason why three gay guys could not
marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason why two men and a
woman could not marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason
why three women and one man can't marry each other. Nor is there
a logical reason why reason why Arny can't marry a goat.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Yustabe said:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:07:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Sandman" wrote in message
...
What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire
City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?


It's illegal, but about time. There is no logical reason why gays should
be
prohibited from marrying.

On this, we agree.

Of course, there is no logical reason why three gay guys could not
marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason why two men and a
woman could not marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason
why three women and one man can't marry each other. Nor is there
a logical reason why reason why Arny can't marry a goat.

Well, it all seems to be an argument about semantics...ON THE SURFACE. Here is
one dictionary definition:

To unite in wedlock or matrimony; to perform the ceremony of joining, as a man
and a woman, for life; to constitute (a man and a woman) husband and wife
according to the laws or customs of the place.

Many people seem to be locking onto the "man and woman" part, which is the crux
of their argument, which is why terms such as "civil union" have appeared.
And, if it didn't mask an ulterior motive, this might be a reasonable argument.

However, there are other ways to use the words "marry" and "wed," such as "the
tarragon and the garlic are wedded together through the marination process,"
and "it was a splendid marriage of two completely different companies."

I think the important thing is for gay couples to receive all the same benefits
as straight couples, and to have the union legally recognized through some sort
of documentation. I think it's also just as important for gay people to be
treated as if such unions are normal, and that such unions should be celebrated
in ceremonies, just like straight people. Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?

This is just one of those non-issues that continue to waste our time. It's
time to stop worrying about what other consenting adults are doing behind
closed doors, and start solving some real problems.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

You can bang prostitutes, gamble away your children's college
fund, and drink booze around the clock, but if you're caught smoking a
joint,
you're ****ed.


I know, that's why I do all the other stuff.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Fragrant ****flaps; "The" wrote in message
news:ng1830hkolgdlnp97u75eie4f806lvv7ho@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:27:12 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes

You're a ****, Art.


Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person. We can 'imagine' and
presume all we want. But it is obvious the straight
and gays think about sex differntly, and have different
sexual desires from each other. So, I could 'imagine'
that their emotions regarding gay coupling could be
somewhat different of those between straight couples.
Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each. And, for a man,
there is the emtional bonding of seeing your wife giv birth to
the child you impregnated her with. As it is phyisically
impossible for gay couples to experience this, their
emotional attachments would not include the emotions of
this experience, and thus their emotions would be somewhat differen,
missing this component, as well as for the other reasons stated.

My objection to Boon's comment is that he is just
projecting what he would wish the answer to be.

I left my original answer short and sweet, knowing that
someone would jump the gun with a presumption
that it was a blanket anti-gay statement, which it is not.
I wondered who it would be.

I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little different
than straight people. Hell, if they weren't different, they would
be straight!. I support equal rights for gays. They can marry
one of the opposite sex, like a staright person, or form some
other type of civil union with a person of the same sex. Of course,
a straight person could do likewise. As far as discrimination in housing,
employment, public facilities, etc, they should no havve to face that
at all. Rights of survivorship, critical life/death decisions, insurance,
health care, etc. should be recognized for gay couples.

I don't dislike gays, I have been around a number of them, and
I know some very well. But my experience is that typically they
are not qite like typical straight people. Some might say
vive la difference, and that is ok with me, I would agree with that.
But let's not pretend that they are the same. And I think that
the difference is the way we think and feel about
certain things.



..






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:07:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Sandman" wrote in message
...
What do people here think of the acts of "civil disobedience" being
engaged
in not only by the Mayor of San Francisco, but San Francisco's entire
City
Hall staff in issuing marriage certificates to thousands of gay
couples
who
have traveled to San Francisco to get married during past four days?


It's illegal, but about time. There is no logical reason why gays
should
be
prohibited from marrying.

On this, we agree.

Of course, there is no logical reason why three gay guys could not
marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason why two men and a
woman could not marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason
why three women and one man can't marry each other. Nor is there
a logical reason why reason why Arny can't marry a goat.




As long as it's a consenting goat.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes


How, aside from loving people with the same plumbing.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes


How, aside from loving people with the same plumbing.


Answered elsewhere.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Of course, there is no logical reason why three gay guys could not
marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason why two men and a
woman could not marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason
why three women and one man can't marry each other. Nor is there
a logical reason why reason why Arny can't marry a goat.



There certainly is a reason why Arny can't marry a goat. He'll never find a
goat that wants him.

Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person.

You certainly can have such knowledge. It just takes a little communication.
One does not half to walk i another's shoes to have some knowledge of what they
are going through.

We can 'imagine' and
presume all we want. But it is obvious the straight
and gays think about sex differntly, and have different
sexual desires from each other.

When you get down to it all people think a bit differently from one another. So
there is a level of presumption anytime one speculates about the emotions of
another individual.

So, I could 'imagine'
that their emotions regarding gay coupling could be
somewhat different of those between straight couples.

And it could be more or less the same. It is fair to say that gay guys share
much of what women feel towards men and lesbians share much of what straight
guys feel toward women.

Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each. And, for a man,
there is the emtional bonding of seeing your wife giv birth to
the child you impregnated her with.

For some couples yes but not for all.

As it is phyisically
impossible for gay couples to experience this, their
emotional attachments would not include the emotions of
this experience, and thus their emotions would be somewhat differen,
missing this component, as well as for the other reasons stated.

Nah. I hope you don't say this around kids who were adopted.



My objection to Boon's comment is that he is just
projecting what he would wish the answer to be.


No. I think he is expressing a sincere belief in the way he thinks things are.



I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little different
than straight people.

I don't. It's the first step to a Jim Crow mentality

Hell, if they weren't different, they would
be straight!.

So all straight people are same and all gay people are different form all
straight people? I don't think so.

I support equal rights for gays. They can marry
one of the opposite sex, like a staright person, or form some
other type of civil union with a person of the same sex.

That is an equal right because it ignores the desires of gays. One could make
the same rationalization for banning inter-racial marriages. One could claim
that everyone has the equal right to marry within their race under such laws.
Equality under one ideal amoung many isn't real equality.


I don't dislike gays, I have been around a number of them, and
I know some very well. But my experience is that typically they
are not qite like typical straight people.

The ones you know are gay. You may be surprised about the ones you don't know
about.

Some might say
vive la difference, and that is ok with me, I would agree with that.
But let's not pretend that they are the same.

No one is the same. We are all individuals.

And I think that
the difference is the way we think and feel about
certain things.

Like what?

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Fragrant ****flaps; "The" wrote in message
news:ng1830hkolgdlnp97u75eie4f806lvv7ho@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:27:12 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes

You're a ****, Art.


Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person. We can 'imagine' and
presume all we want. But it is obvious the straight
and gays think about sex differntly, and have different
sexual desires from each other. So, I could 'imagine'
that their emotions regarding gay coupling could be
somewhat different of those between straight couples.
Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each. And, for a man,
there is the emtional bonding of seeing your wife giv birth to
the child you impregnated her with. As it is phyisically
impossible for gay couples to experience this, their
emotional attachments would not include the emotions of
this experience, and thus their emotions would be somewhat differen,
missing this component, as well as for the other reasons stated.

My objection to Boon's comment is that he is just
projecting what he would wish the answer to be.

I left my original answer short and sweet, knowing that
someone would jump the gun with a presumption
that it was a blanket anti-gay statement, which it is not.
I wondered who it would be.

I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little different
than straight people. Hell, if they weren't different, they would
be straight!. I support equal rights for gays. They can marry
one of the opposite sex, like a staright person, or form some
other type of civil union with a person of the same sex. Of course,
a straight person could do likewise. As far as discrimination in housing,
employment, public facilities, etc, they should no havve to face that
at all. Rights of survivorship, critical life/death decisions, insurance,
health care, etc. should be recognized for gay couples.

I don't dislike gays, I have been around a number of them, and
I know some very well. But my experience is that typically they
are not qite like typical straight people. Some might say
vive la difference, and that is ok with me, I would agree with that.
But let's not pretend that they are the same. And I think that
the difference is the way we think and feel about
certain things.


Still no good reason to prevent gay people from getting married to each
other. It harms nobody. It does nothing to diminish the institution of
marriage.

People with body piercings must have different thoughts or emotions from
other people or they would be non-pierced.

There are as many examples of sexuality as you can imagine and probably some
you can't, but these people can marry each other if they are of the ooposite
sex, no matter how ****in' wierd you think they are.

Being a homosexual, for whatever reason, (genetics, choice, who knows) is
not a reason to not be allowed to express you commitment in marriage.






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Of course, there is no logical reason why three gay guys could not
marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason why two men and a
woman could not marry each other. Nor is there a logical reason
why three women and one man can't marry each other. Nor is there
a logical reason why reason why Arny can't marry a goat.



There certainly is a reason why Arny can't marry a goat. He'll never find a
goat that wants him.







I'm not so sure of that. Perhaps there is a goat that out there that likes to
eat tubes and vinyl. (While listening to computer-generated music).



Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Still no good reason to prevent gay people from getting married to each
other. It harms nobody. It does nothing to diminish the institution of
marriage.

People with body piercings must have different thoughts or emotions from
other people or they would be non-pierced.

There are as many examples of sexuality as you can imagine and probably some
you can't, but these people can marry each other if they are of the ooposite
sex, no matter how ****in' wierd you think they are.

Being a homosexual, for whatever reason, (genetics, choice, who knows) is
not a reason to not be allowed to express you commitment in marriage.

Well put.

GZ

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Fragrant ****flaps; "The" wrote in message
news:ng1830hkolgdlnp97u75eie4f806lvv7ho@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:27:12 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes

You're a ****, Art.


Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person. We can 'imagine' and
presume all we want. But it is obvious the straight
and gays think about sex differntly, and have different
sexual desires from each other. So, I could 'imagine'
that their emotions regarding gay coupling could be
somewhat different of those between straight couples.
Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each. And, for a man,
there is the emtional bonding of seeing your wife giv birth to
the child you impregnated her with. As it is phyisically
impossible for gay couples to experience this, their
emotional attachments would not include the emotions of
this experience, and thus their emotions would be somewhat differen,
missing this component, as well as for the other reasons stated.

My objection to Boon's comment is that he is just
projecting what he would wish the answer to be.

I left my original answer short and sweet, knowing that
someone would jump the gun with a presumption
that it was a blanket anti-gay statement, which it is not.
I wondered who it would be.

I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little different
than straight people. Hell, if they weren't different, they would
be straight!. I support equal rights for gays. They can marry
one of the opposite sex, like a staright person, or form some
other type of civil union with a person of the same sex. Of course,
a straight person could do likewise. As far as discrimination in
housing,
employment, public facilities, etc, they should no havve to face that
at all. Rights of survivorship, critical life/death decisions,
insurance,
health care, etc. should be recognized for gay couples.

I don't dislike gays, I have been around a number of them, and
I know some very well. But my experience is that typically they
are not qite like typical straight people. Some might say
vive la difference, and that is ok with me, I would agree with that.
But let's not pretend that they are the same. And I think that
the difference is the way we think and feel about
certain things.


Still no good reason to prevent gay people from getting married to each
other. It harms nobody. It does nothing to diminish the institution of
marriage.

People with body piercings must have different thoughts or emotions from
other people or they would be non-pierced.

There are as many examples of sexuality as you can imagine and probably
some
you can't, but these people can marry each other if they are of the
ooposite
sex, no matter how ****in' wierd you think they are.

Being a homosexual, for whatever reason, (genetics, choice, who knows) is
not a reason to not be allowed to express you commitment in marriage.

Sure, to a person otf the opposite sex.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius wrote:


Glenn Zelniker said:


Being a homosexual, for whatever reason, (genetics, choice, who knows) is
not a reason to not be allowed to express you commitment in marriage.

Well put.


Mikey is responding to your clarion call for reasonableness.

It bothers me that somehow it's become okay for religion to interfere
with politics in the country lately. If you don't want to see such
a marriage as valid in your faith, so be it. The State isn't in the
religon game - or shouldn't be.

Q: What if a church is started where they consider such unions to
be perfectly valid? Say they get to be a million or two people
strong. How does The State deal with this conflict? If a recognized
religon says that it is okay, and another one does not - who is
The State to declare that one faith is valid and the other is
a sham?

Expect this to happen sooner or later - and it getting to The Supreme
Court, on a claim of violation of First Ammendment rights.

Sooner or later, The State will be forced out to accept all marriages
as valid, so the trogolodytes who are still living in the 1800s should
get over their desire for a puritanical America.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...
George M. Middius wrote:


Glenn Zelniker said:


Being a homosexual, for whatever reason, (genetics, choice, who knows)
is
not a reason to not be allowed to express you commitment in marriage.

Well put.


Mikey is responding to your clarion call for reasonableness.

It bothers me that somehow it's become okay for religion to interfere
with politics in the country lately. If you don't want to see such
a marriage as valid in your faith, so be it. The State isn't in the
religon game - or shouldn't be.

Can we say 'polygamy'?


Q: What if a church is started where they consider such unions to
be perfectly valid? Say they get to be a million or two people
strong. How does The State deal with this conflict? If a recognized
religon says that it is okay, and another one does not - who is
The State to declare that one faith is valid and the other is
a sham?


Can we say "polygamy"?


Expect this to happen sooner or later - and it getting to The Supreme
Court, on a claim of violation of First Ammendment rights.


It 'alreadsy' happened. quite a while ago, can we say "polygamy"?

Sooner or later, The State will be forced out to accept all marriages
as valid, so the trogolodytes who are still living in the 1800s should
get over their desire for a puritanical America.


You mean all those old polygomous 1800's trogolodytes?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote

Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person.

What unique emotions are you referring to?


Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each.

"emotional bonding"... that’s a “health illusion,” one
that serves society. The reality is that half of all marriages
end in divorce leaving a significant portion of all children
with single parents who suffer economic hardships.


And, for a man, there is the emtional bonding of seeing
your wife giv birth to the child you impregnated her with.

"emotional bonding"... tell that to the Friend of the Court.
A significant portion of all divorced men fail to pay child
support to the extent of their obligation. You're living
under a false illusion.


As it is phyisically impossible for gay couples to experience
this...

So if a couple adopts a child they have missed an
important component, straight or gay, of marriage?


I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little
different than straight people.

Yea, so? This country was founded on diversity
which is thought to strengthen society.


Some might say vive la difference, and that is ok with
me, I would agree with that. But let's not pretend that
they are the same. And I think that the difference is the
way we think and feel about certain things.

What is certain is that you are living under a false
illusion .

I’m uncertain about how you personally feel
threatened by this and/or how society would be
threatened. The core issue for the government
is whether or not to give gay couples a *legal
bundle of rights” that married couples have.

"Marc Phillips" wrote

This is just one of those non-issues that continue to waste our time.
It's
time to stop worrying about what other consenting adults are doing behind
closed doors, and start solving some real problems.

Right on. But because Dubya not only attacked "gay marriage" in his SOTU
address, and in the Russert interview, and has been squawking like a stuck
pig about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, what's happening in San
Francisco represents the gay community's (and civil rights proponents')
protest to Dubya's shameless pandering to his "Christian Coalition" type of
constituency. It is Dubya's way of avoiding (distracting us from
distraction by distraction) all the other really serious issues he's
created, and which he has no articulate or rational or even honest answer
for, and which will haunt him for the next 8-9 months and which will drive
him out of office.

One gay man who recently got married in S.F. was quoted today as saying: "If
George Bush wants to turn gay marriage into a wedge issue, I'll give him a
wedgie." :-)

Jim Sanders wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote

This is just one of those non-issues that continue to waste our time.
It's
time to stop worrying about what other consenting adults are doing behind
closed doors, and start solving some real problems.


Absolutely. Agree 100 per cent.


Right on. But because Dubya not only attacked "gay marriage" in his SOTU
address, and in the Russert interview, and has been squawking like a stuck
pig about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, what's happening in San
Francisco represents the gay community's (and civil rights proponents')
protest to Dubya's shameless pandering to his "Christian Coalition" type of
constituency. It is Dubya's way of avoiding (distracting us from
distraction by distraction) all the other really serious issues he's
created, and which he has no articulate or rational or even honest answer
for, and which will haunt him for the next 8-9 months and which will drive
him out of office.


BINGO!!!!




One gay man who recently got married in S.F. was quoted today as saying: "If
George Bush wants to turn gay marriage into a wedge issue, I'll give him a
wedgie." :-)










Bruce J. Richman

Fragrant ****flaps; "The" wrote in message
news:eei93017j99693j0s2jb8esb1h0jsk8pok@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:44:57 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?

Yes

You're a ****, Art.

Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person. We can 'imagine' and
presume all we want.

You're not making any sense. Here you say we can't know, but can
'imagine' and 'presume' all we want, what it feels like to be a gay
person in love. If that's what you think, why did you answer Mark's
remark, 'Are their emotions really different than [those of] straight
people when it comes to love?' with 'Yes'?

If their emotions are unknowable to you, how do you justify saying
that their emotions are different? Either you know or you don't know.


I thinks gays are wired a little differently, and think differently
about a number of things.


But it is obvious the straight
and gays think about sex differntly, and have different
sexual desires from each other.

I thought this was about love, not sex. Mechanically, some sexual acts
will be different between gay people than between straight people. I
presume you know this. But do you really think that gay people feel
love differently than you or I do because their sexual behaviours are
different (or maybe not so different) to those of straight people?


Sex is more than about mechanics. Sex and love are intertwined. I
don't think they are compartmentalized.

So, I could 'imagine'
that their emotions regarding gay coupling could be
somewhat different of those between straight couples.

Maybe, maybe not--but that's a kind of empty statement, isn't it? And
you said we don't know how gay people feel love, remember, after you
had said they feel it differently to straight people. People may well
experience emotions in slightly different ways; they certainly have
different ways of demonstrating and coping with emotions. Do straight
couples who commonly engage in oral intercourse experience love for
each other in a different way to straight couples who engage in
vaginal intercourse only?

The difference between gays and strights is much more than the
differences between the mechanics of sex. The differences
certainly extend to desires. And desires are part of the
makeup of emotions.


Does what you do in bed fundamentally define
how you experience the emotion of love? Is that your argument?


It is part of it


Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each. And, for a man,
there is the emtional bonding of seeing your wife giv birth to
the child you impregnated her with. As it is phyisically
impossible for gay couples to experience this, their
emotional attachments would not include the emotions of
this experience, and thus their emotions would be somewhat differen,
missing this component, as well as for the other reasons stated.

We agree on this. But the awesomeness of bringing new life into the
world--and the subsequent horror of it as the little ****ers start to
grow up and get clever--is just one experience that can (and does not
always, by any means) strengthen partner bonding. Are you suggesting
that couples who choose not to raise a family experience a diluted
form of love for one another?

I am saying that they miss a facet of a meaning ful experience.
The question was 'different' emotions, not better/worse
emotions or more/less emotions.

What about couples who adopt?

Childbirth is just an emotional experience that they lack.
The emotional realtionship is just diffeernt, not more/less or
better/worse.

Or couples
who suffer a serious and protracted family illness? Would sharing an
experience like that not bring its own unique emotional seasoning to a
relationship, possibly strengthening it beyond what you or I think of
as love?

Very possible


My objection to Boon's comment is that he is just
projecting what he would wish the answer to be.

Boon's comment was quite sensible. Yours was not. You have no reason,
other than prejudice and fear, to make the argument that gay people
experience love in a different way to you.


I would say, on the whole, different form straight couples, this
has nothing to do with me in particular.


I left my original answer short and sweet, knowing that
someone would jump the gun with a presumption
that it was a blanket anti-gay statement, which it is not.
I wondered who it would be.

Sadly, I sometimes have to see in my son the effects of ignorant,
bigoted pigs like yourself.

I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little different
than straight people. Hell, if they weren't different, they would
be straight!

And you're different from a healthy person, right? You pig yourself on
junk food, support Imperialism and will invent all manner of cockeyed
rationalisations for discrimination.


Not quite, I am on a diet now.


I support equal rights for gays. They can marry
one of the opposite sex, like a staright person, or form some
other type of civil union with a person of the same sex.

And ******s to the back of the bus.

I don't want to read any more.


td




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

Basically, all of the progress individual states have made in terms of
allowing
medical marijuana have been systematically superceded by federal laws. The
best the states can do is decriminalize possession under an ounce, which
most
of the states around here have done.

There is one more thing that can be done, albeit by local authorities:
The PD can simply stop busting people for pot. This actually happened,
in Oregon I believe. The local chief said it wasn't worth the effort
and expense.

Oh, this happens everywhere. I've heard that the NYPD no longer busts people
for possession because it's too much trouble. I've heard that you can smoke a
joint walking down the street as long as you're not upsetting others, and as
long as you show the cops respect by cupping it in your hand as you walk past
them.

If a law enforcement entity becomes too lax in enforcing the laws, however, the
Feds WILL step in. Happens all the time.

Boon

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote

Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person.

What unique emotions are you referring to?


Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each.

"emotional bonding"... that's a "health illusion," one
that serves society. The reality is that half of all marriages
end in divorce leaving a significant portion of all children
with single parents who suffer economic hardships.


And, for a man, there is the emtional bonding of seeing
your wife giv birth to the child you impregnated her with.

"emotional bonding"... tell that to the Friend of the Court.
A significant portion of all divorced men fail to pay child
support to the extent of their obligation. You're living
under a false illusion.


As it is phyisically impossible for gay couples to experience
this...

So if a couple adopts a child they have missed an
important component, straight or gay, of marriage?


I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little
different than straight people.

Yea, so? This country was founded on diversity
which is thought to strengthen society.


Some might say vive la difference, and that is ok with
me, I would agree with that. But let's not pretend that
they are the same. And I think that the difference is the
way we think and feel about certain things.

What is certain is that you are living under a false
illusion .

I'm uncertain about how you personally feel
threatened by this and/or how society would be
threatened. The core issue for the government
is whether or not to give gay couples a *legal
bundle of rights" that married couples have.


I don't have any problem with their legal bundle of rights.
A civil union can confer just as many rights.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Yustabe said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes

Why?

Boon

Yustabe said:

Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person. We can 'imagine' and
presume all we want. But it is obvious the straight
and gays think about sex differntly, and have different
sexual desires from each other. So, I could 'imagine'
that their emotions regarding gay coupling could be
somewhat different of those between straight couples.
Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each. And, for a man,
there is the emtional bonding of seeing your wife giv birth to
the child you impregnated her with. As it is phyisically
impossible for gay couples to experience this, their
emotional attachments would not include the emotions of
this experience, and thus their emotions would be somewhat differen,
missing this component, as well as for the other reasons stated.

My objection to Boon's comment is that he is just
projecting what he would wish the answer to be.

I left my original answer short and sweet, knowing that
someone would jump the gun with a presumption
that it was a blanket anti-gay statement, which it is not.
I wondered who it would be.

I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little different
than straight people. Hell, if they weren't different, they would
be straight!. I support equal rights for gays. They can marry
one of the opposite sex, like a staright person, or form some
other type of civil union with a person of the same sex. Of course,
a straight person could do likewise. As far as discrimination in housing,
employment, public facilities, etc, they should no havve to face that
at all. Rights of survivorship, critical life/death decisions, insurance,
health care, etc. should be recognized for gay couples.

I don't dislike gays, I have been around a number of them, and
I know some very well. But my experience is that typically they
are not qite like typical straight people. Some might say
vive la difference, and that is ok with me, I would agree with that.
But let's not pretend that they are the same. And I think that
the difference is the way we think and feel about
certain things.

Every single individual, and every single relationship is comprised of an
entirely unique set of emotions. You're just generalizing and stereotyping.

Boon

Yustabe said:

Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes

By your rationale, Art, interracial couples should not be allowed to be
married, either, because of their very different circumstances and emotions and
feelings.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Yustabe said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes

Why?

Answered elsewhere




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Yustabe said:

Let's be honest, a straight person wouldn't have
knowledge of the emotions typical of a gay person, nor
would a gay person have any knowledge of the emotions
typical of a straight person. We can 'imagine' and
presume all we want. But it is obvious the straight
and gays think about sex differntly, and have different
sexual desires from each other. So, I could 'imagine'
that their emotions regarding gay coupling could be
somewhat different of those between straight couples.
Furthermore, in straight couples, one of the components
of their emotional bonding is the experience of birthing a child
that shares teh thenetic code form each. And, for a man,
there is the emtional bonding of seeing your wife giv birth to
the child you impregnated her with. As it is phyisically
impossible for gay couples to experience this, their
emotional attachments would not include the emotions of
this experience, and thus their emotions would be somewhat differen,
missing this component, as well as for the other reasons stated.

My objection to Boon's comment is that he is just
projecting what he would wish the answer to be.

I left my original answer short and sweet, knowing that
someone would jump the gun with a presumption
that it was a blanket anti-gay statement, which it is not.
I wondered who it would be.

I think that we need to recognize that gays are a little different
than straight people. Hell, if they weren't different, they would
be straight!. I support equal rights for gays. They can marry
one of the opposite sex, like a staright person, or form some
other type of civil union with a person of the same sex. Of course,
a straight person could do likewise. As far as discrimination in housing,
employment, public facilities, etc, they should no havve to face that
at all. Rights of survivorship, critical life/death decisions, insurance,
health care, etc. should be recognized for gay couples.

I don't dislike gays, I have been around a number of them, and
I know some very well. But my experience is that typically they
are not qite like typical straight people. Some might say
vive la difference, and that is ok with me, I would agree with that.
But let's not pretend that they are the same. And I think that
the difference is the way we think and feel about
certain things.

Every single individual, and every single relationship is comprised of an
entirely unique set of emotions. You're just generalizing and
stereotyping.


Gay people are different.
If they weren't, they wouldn't be gay.
With all the psychosexual and sexual desire
differences, it stands to reason there
are emotionalk differences. After, there are
emotional differences between men and women.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Yustabe said:

Are their emotions really different
than straight people when it comes to love?


Yes

By your rationale, Art, interracial couples should not be allowed to be
married, either, because of their very different circumstances and
emotions and
feelings.

I neither stated nor implied that the reason there should not be
same sex marraiges has anything at all to do with
emotional differences. That is pure rubbish, and you made it up.

My comments regarding emotional differences have been strictly to
that point, and have no bearing at all as to whether the
institution of marraige should be between a man and a woman, or
between two people of the same sex.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---