Re: re: Disurbing article

February 13, 2004

---

The dictionary indicates religion is: any specific system of belief,

worship, conduct, etc, often involving a code of ethics and a

philosophy? Dennis

In , " Byron "

<anthony.byron@d...> wrote:

> I'm not religious on any level.

>

> What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us

spending so much

> time " worshiping him "

> eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>

> He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

>

> But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

>

> _____

>

> From: the scorpio [mailto:rawbabymama@h...]

> Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 2:46 PM

>

> Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>

> And exactly why I never walked it. I believe there is energy which

gives

> life and keeps it all going. I believe that energy is inherently

positive,

> love energy, if you will. Love is unconditional, so all that

judgement going

>

> on in many organized religions is human to human, nothing more. I

don't

> believe in heaven, hell, or that there is a plan. I make my own

decisions,

> live my life according to a basic sense of right and wrong.

>

> Saying " we're all sinners " is just an excuse to screw up, IMO. I

don't need

> a saviour, if need be, I'll save myself. With belief in love, my

own

> strength, and a confident, positive outlook on life, alll things

are

> possible. When I know what I want, the path clears for me. I don't

need a

> book to give me direction.

>

> Love is right. Punishing or denying rights to people based on who

they love

> is wrong.

>

> Best wishes to all,

>

> Michele

>

> >From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

> >Reply-

> >< >

> >Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:19:23 -0500

> >

> >And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

> >

> >Judith Alta

> >

> >-----Original Message-----

> >From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@y...]

> >

> > > > For the Bible Tells Me So

> > >

> > > <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

> >Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

> >birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

> >eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But

with

> >God all things are possible. Dennis>

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.

> http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

>

February 13, 2004

>

> >I'm not religious on any level.

>

> >What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us

spending so

> >much

> >time " worshiping him "

> >eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>

> >He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

>

> <><>><><><><><><><><><>There's your religion of choice. BTW

the " whole world loves a nut " ( the almond joy candy bar commercial)

> Dennis

Very well said!

>

> >But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

>

> Sometimes you feel like a nut.

>

> Michele

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN

Dial-up

> Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

February 13, 2004

Ah really. Seems very much feeble doesn't it?

What I mean is almost anything could be classed as a religion based on

simple belief in something.

If I believe our way of governments suck. I can start a governments suck

religion ?

Hehehe

_____

From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@...]

Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 3:16 PM

Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

---

The dictionary indicates religion is: any specific system of belief,

worship, conduct, etc, often involving a code of ethics and a

philosophy? Dennis

In , " Byron "

<anthony.byron@d...> wrote:

> I'm not religious on any level.

>

> What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us

spending so much

> time " worshiping him "

> eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>

> He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

>

> But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

>

> _____

>

> From: the scorpio [mailto:rawbabymama@h...]

> Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 2:46 PM

>

> Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>

> And exactly why I never walked it. I believe there is energy which

gives

> life and keeps it all going. I believe that energy is inherently

positive,

> love energy, if you will. Love is unconditional, so all that

judgement going

>

> on in many organized religions is human to human, nothing more. I

don't

> believe in heaven, hell, or that there is a plan. I make my own

decisions,

> live my life according to a basic sense of right and wrong.

>

> Saying " we're all sinners " is just an excuse to screw up, IMO. I

don't need

> a saviour, if need be, I'll save myself. With belief in love, my

own

> strength, and a confident, positive outlook on life, alll things

are

> possible. When I know what I want, the path clears for me. I don't

need a

> book to give me direction.

>

> Love is right. Punishing or denying rights to people based on who

they love

> is wrong.

>

> Best wishes to all,

>

> Michele

>

> >From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

> >Reply-

> >< >

> >Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:19:23 -0500

> >

> >And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

> >

> >Judith Alta

> >

> >-----Original Message-----

> >From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@y...]

> >

> > > > For the Bible Tells Me So

> > >

> > > <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

> >Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

> >birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

> >eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But

with

> >God all things are possible. Dennis>

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.

> http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

>

February 14, 2004

In a message dated 2/14/04 9:23:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Statutory definition refines dictionary definition of rape in order to

> create a legal separation of childhood and young adulthood for purposes of

> protection and responsibility.

> Is this definition of de facto reasoning for separation from statutory

> definition?

> adj.

> 1.. Actual: de facto segregation.

> 2.. Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or

> officially established: a de facto government; a de facto nuclear storage

> facility.

You're right, I wasn't using the correct word.

What I'm saying is that if two consenting parties have sex, it could be

considered effectual rape without being actual rape, if one party has some

serious

impariment in their capacity to consent, because even though there was no

force involved, there was no true consent either.

Chris

February 14, 2004

In a message dated 2/14/04 10:24:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Marriage has also been a civil contract for a very long time. You're just

> choosing to ignore that.

No, I'm saying I disagree with it. I've said numerous times that I don't

think government should be granting marriages. Besides, aren't civil unions

supposed to be equivalent civil contracts?

> >As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

> >hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations.

>

> Right, so you're rushed into the hospital in a coma after a car accident,

> and you should sit up and tell the hospital who can and can't see you, who

> can and can't make decisions for you, etc.

This is analagous to being rushed in a hospital in a coma and getting married

on the spot, and really has nothing to do with what I said.

Chris

February 14, 2004

Excellent idea, Heidi.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>It is not the same as being married by a Justice of the Peace. Personally,

I think that all unions should be civil unions, and marriages should be

religious ceremonies.

Actually, I'd go a step further and allow " civil unions " for any group that

wants to make them -- it would be a set of rights etc. that are now found

for " marriage " , but you could form such a union with your sister or anyone

else that you might be living with long term ... it would not say anything

about sexual activity or lack thereof, just that you are sharing your

financial and emotional lives.

-- Heidi

February 14, 2004

So right you are!

Religion, as such, was created by humans for humans to answer the

unanswerable questions.

So there is no reason why any person cannot create their own religion from

their own beliefs encompassing any, all or none of the following. Their own

deity, or lack thereof, their own moral code, belief in: prayer, magick,

spells, a particular diet, etc.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Byron [mailto:anthony.byron@...]

Ah really. Seems very much feeble doesn't it?

What I mean is almost anything could be classed as a religion based on

simple belief in something.

If I believe our way of governments suck. I can start a governments suck

religion ?

Hehehe

February 14, 2004

What about determining " spouse " for insurance purposes?

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

I agree that that is a better system than what we have now. It think the

idea that gay's have a " right " to be " married " is just stupid. Marriage is

a

religious ceremony, and whether you have a right to one depends on the rules

of

the religion you choose to adhere to. If no religion will marry you, start

your own. That goes for hetersexuals, polygamists, and anyone-- you can't

have a

" right " endowed by the state to acquire something from a private

institution.

However, I really don't see the point of state-sanctioned civil unions. Of

course you should be able to share your finances or share anything you want.

As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations. Just like you

do for

who can use your bank account, credit card, or video rental card.

People should be able to eat carrots, sheep, or love whoever they want. But

they don't need an official recognition from the State to do so.

Chris

February 14, 2004

> Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in

> Christ's birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as

> saviour. Live in eternity forever.

How does one force oneself to believe in something? In my case,

you're telling me to believe something that, for me, simply does not

resonate as truth.

February 14, 2004

Statutory definition refines dictionary definition of rape in order to

create a legal separation of childhood and young adulthood for purposes of

protection and responsibility.

Is this definition of de facto reasoning for separation from statutory

definition?

adj.

1.. Actual: de facto segregation.

2.. Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or

officially established: a de facto government; a de facto nuclear storage

facility.

> Lierre said that someone in their 20s having sex with someone in their

teens

> is " by definition rape. "

>the judgment capacity differential is so

>extreme it could constitute a de facto form of rape, it is certainly not

rape " by

>definition. "

Wanita

February 14, 2004

Chris-

>It think the

>idea that gay's have a " right " to be " married " is just stupid. Marriage is a

>religious ceremony, and whether you have a right to one depends on the

>rules of

>the religion you choose to adhere to.

Marriage has also been a civil contract for a very long time. You're just

choosing to ignore that.

>As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

>hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations.

Right, so you're rushed into the hospital in a coma after a car accident,

and you should sit up and tell the hospital who can and can't see you, who

can and can't make decisions for you, etc.

-

February 14, 2004

Heidi,

Insurance interests are involved with civil unions. Don't know how strong

their lobby but if its part of employer health insurance. Insurance

companies don't want it because coverage of more people will eat at their

profits and up their premiums.

When my husband was hit on his motorcycle the taxi company was underinsured,

even though a corporation they were allowed to carry the same insurance as a

private citizen which was gone in the first few days of his hospital care.

We weren't married then as it was our first year together, were living

together and he wouldn't be allowed home without someone there. Lawyer said

to go to my auto insurance company and file a claim for household loss of

income under my underinsured portion. The definition of household member

included every relative imaginable but not our situation. Dropped that

insurance company as I'd paid them for 12 years and never had a claim.

Heterosexual families in this example are treated the same as same sex

families. Like you've said Heidi, mutual caring for the group and its

survival makes a family. Families have always been egalitarian in sharing

of resources and are meant to be hierarchial only in conveying ethics. Any

resources to wellbeing held outside of family will always make contention.

> Actually, I'd go a step further and allow " civil unions " for any group

that wants to make them -- it would be a set of rights etc. that are now

found for " marriage " , but you could form such a union with your sister or

anyone else that you might be living with long term ... it would not say

anything about sexual activity or lack thereof, just that you are sharing

your financial and emotional lives.

Wanita

February 14, 2004

>Heidi,

>

>Insurance interests are involved with civil unions. Don't know how strong

>their lobby but if its part of employer health insurance. Insurance

>companies don't want it because coverage of more people will eat at their

>profits and up their premiums.

BINGO! I think that is a BIG part of the wrangling (besides those on the

religious right,

who for some reason are currently allied with big business in a lot of issues,

though

I don't think Jesus was particulary in favor of big business in the Bible).

>The definition of household member

>included every relative imaginable but not our situation. Dropped that

>insurance company as I'd paid them for 12 years and never had a claim.

>Heterosexual families in this example are treated the same as same sex

>families.

I almost brought that up too ... I knew a couple that had lived together 13

years,

he was laid up badly in an accident. She couldn't handle any of the household

stuff

until she spent some time with a lawyer getting set up as a " common law "

situation.

" Marriage " exists in all societies, and it basically means " setting up a

household together "

and it isn't alway primarily religious, it is part of tribal or village life. I

think the church

kind of took it over fairly recently (or partially took it over), like they also

took over

burials and baptisms. If there is no formal ceremony, than a small village would

just accept that Sally and Tom live together and have kids, so everyone would

consider them a family. And there would be conventions about if Tom had

officially

joined Sally's clan or vice versa. The conventions and traditions are what make

it WORK to structure a society ... the traditionalists are correct, marriage IS

very important to define a society. It's important the same rules apply (in

general)

to everyone, because that gives coherance to the society. And makes it possible

for, say, insurance companies to set their rates. That is why individual

contracts

won't work (though one can ADD them to the marriage contract, and some

folks do). If all the contracts were individualized, you'd have to ask each

couple

what their arrangement is, you couldn't make any assumptions, and those

assumptions are what help society funciton.

Having said that, I don't see why same-sex couples can't be part of the rules.

And, if I happen to be living with my ex's mother-in-law because he was

a putz and ran away with a bimbette but she's been helping me raise

the kids, I should be able to set up an 'xxxx-union' to say, 'we are a couple

committed to raising these kids, and she has all the rights my husband

would have, if I had one'. In historical times it was common in some

situations to " adopt " someone as part of the family, which made them

part of " your clan " legally, which was a similar idea.

-- Heidi

February 14, 2004

>> People should be able to eat carrots, sheep, or love whoever they want. But

they don't need an official recognition from the State to do so. <<

I have no problem with this, as long as everyone has the same rights or lack

thereof. But as long as heterosexual citizens can have legal marriage, I want to

be able to have it too. I'm not going to accept having a different set of rules

applied to me. But it would actually, in my view, be better that the government

just get out of the marriage business altogether.

Christie

February 14, 2004

>> And, if I happen to be living with my ex's mother-in-law because he was

a putz and ran away with a bimbette but she's been helping me raise

the kids, I should be able to set up an 'xxxx-union' to say, 'we are a couple

committed to raising these kids, and she has all the rights my husband

would have, if I had one'. In historical times it was common in some

situations to " adopt " someone as part of the family, which made them

part of " your clan " legally, which was a similar idea. <<

Not at all far fetched. In fact, this situation is in the Old Testament, in the

words of Ruth to her mother in law, Naomi - words that have been incorporated

into the marriage ceremony as " until death do us part " :

" Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after

thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge;

thy people [shall be] my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest, will I

die, and there will I be buried; the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought

but death part thee and me. "

Christie

February 14, 2004

,

To your comments below, you can set up power of attorney rights before to cover

in the event of emergencies. Just as wills can be set up and rights given upon

death to executors, specific people, etc.

It is in the event of the absence of such directions, that marital rights or

family relation rights as set by law kick in. Heterosexuals living together

without marraige are in exactly the same position.

<Right, so you're rushed into the hospital in a coma after a car accident,

and you should sit up and tell the hospital who can and can't see you, who

can and can't make decisions for you, etc.

February 14, 2004

Christie and others,

I am curious if you believe polygamy should be legal? That is a man's right to

have as many wives at one time as suits him. If so, should insurance companies

be obligated to provide insurance to all of those wives and all of the resulting

children? Would it be discriminatory to charge him more because he only follows

particular his religious beliefs? Should social security benefits be extended

to all?

I am curious if you believe that a man should be allowed to marry his daughter

or niece if that so suits him?

Do you think beastiality should be legal?

These are all issues of " rights " .

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've already

outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I cannot.

Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in a second

class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because you

couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality of this

situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because I'm a lesbian.

Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly what you and my

brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I

wasn't talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say

they support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same sex

couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or Arnold

Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support gay

marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get married

due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want,

but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on fitting in with someone's

religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

February 14, 2004

> I am curious if you believe polygamy should be legal?

Why not? And polyandry too (more than one husband). Love makes a

family. If government is going to get into the legal sanctioning of

relationships, it cannot discriminate.

> If so, should insurance companies be obligated to provide insurance to

> all of those wives and all of the resulting children?

Children, yes; they would be required to do that anyway. It would be

reasonable to charge extra for extra spouses (spice, as some

polyamorous people put it). Many policies charge extra for the one

spouse and resulting kids as things are.

> I am curious if you believe that a man should be allowed to marry his

> daughter or niece if that so suits him?

First cousins are allowed to marry if there is no chance of offspring.

Anyone who would bear the deep social condemnation of the rest of

society should be allowed to marry if there is also no chance of

offspring. Besides, the way you put it makes it sound like the daughter

or niece wouldn't have a say in the matter. Legislating against incest

hasn't stopped it ever before.

> Do you think beastiality should be legal?

1) Animals are not fully capable of consent.

2) Animals are not considered " people " under the law with the full

rights and responsibilities of a person.

3) Equating homosexual relationships with bestiality is inflammatory at

best, and that's what you're doing here. Up next: necrophilia, one

assumes.

Lynn S.

February 14, 2004

But that same argument can be used to marry a close relative...if you are

really in love. Where is the line drawn? Should age be a factor as well?

Or the number of people to be involved in a union?

This topic is starting to get a little too emotional for me so I'll bow out.

I'm not here to convince you anymore than you are able to convince me to

change.

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've

already outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I

cannot. Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in

a second class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because

you couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality

of this situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because

I'm a lesbian. Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly

what you and my brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I

wasn't talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say

they support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same

sex couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or

Arnold Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support

gay marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick

factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get

married due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe

whatever they want, but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on

fitting in with someone's religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if

not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

February 14, 2004

I think the argument against " blood " relations marrying has good reasons

behind it, as intermarriage can wipe out a society with birth defects, etc.