On 12 Nov 2004 07:11:07 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

But there's more to it than that, more to it than the conservative
Right's hatred of same-sex marriage

I cut out the rest of this typical bull**** rant just point something
out.

Just this morning I read an article that was a very interesting - it
concerned the whole gay marriage/civil union thing. It would appear
that the gay community itself is in something of a quandary about what
to do. As one gentleman who headed a national group (can't remember
which one) was quoted in the article "There wasn't any choice - it was
a vote on one aspect of the issue with no other considerations".

There was also an interesting comment hidden in the article about
moving too far too fast which is pretty much my viewpoint. And it is
also my view that one can't make a conclusion about "culture
war"without examining the data more closely - it's one hell of a lot
more complicated that who voted for Kerry and Bush. I noticed that in
this rant, the writer didn't mention that Kerry wasn't for gay
marriage either. :) Hmmm - let me amend that - I didn't quite get
through the whole thing because my eyes glazed over - I wasn't sure if
it was an article or a demonstration of how to call people names
without using any.

Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe
that gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would
prefer that the term be reserved for those who can propagate the
species, but that's not completely necessary. I do believe that those
who are part of the gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of
civil recognition as in civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

Get it - wedded to it? :)

I'm more concerned about activist judges like Maggie Marshall who
should be sent back to Civics 101 and made to repeat 10,000 times
"Rule of the majority - not rule by a Judge".

By the way, I'm confused about something and perhaps one of the more
progressive members of this august body can enlighten me.

A male homosexual is considered gay and a female homosexual a lesbian.
But the homosexual community, male and female, is considered gay.

How come? I'm just a simple red county country bumpkin so use words
of one syllable please.

Later,

Tom

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 12 Nov 2004 07:11:07 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

But there's more to it than that, more to it than the conservative
Right's hatred of same-sex marriage

I cut out the rest of this typical bull**** rant just point something
out.

Just this morning I read an article that was a very interesting - it
concerned the whole gay marriage/civil union thing. It would appear
that the gay community itself is in something of a quandary about what
to do. As one gentleman who headed a national group (can't remember
which one) was quoted in the article "There wasn't any choice - it was
a vote on one aspect of the issue with no other considerations".

There was also an interesting comment hidden in the article about
moving too far too fast which is pretty much my viewpoint. And it is
also my view that one can't make a conclusion about "culture
war"without examining the data more closely - it's one hell of a lot
more complicated that who voted for Kerry and Bush. I noticed that in
this rant, the writer didn't mention that Kerry wasn't for gay
marriage either. :) Hmmm - let me amend that - I didn't quite get
through the whole thing because my eyes glazed over - I wasn't sure if
it was an article or a demonstration of how to call people names
without using any.

Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe
that gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would
prefer that the term be reserved for those who can propagate the
species, but that's not completely necessary. I do believe that those
who are part of the gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of
civil recognition as in civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

Get it - wedded to it? :)

I'm more concerned about activist judges like Maggie Marshall who
should be sent back to Civics 101 and made to repeat 10,000 times
"Rule of the majority - not rule by a Judge".

By the way, I'm confused about something and perhaps one of the more
progressive members of this august body can enlighten me.

A male homosexual is considered gay and a female homosexual a lesbian.
But the homosexual community, male and female, is considered gay.

How come? I'm just a simple red county country bumpkin so use words
of one syllable please.

Later,

Tom

Maybe the men are *real* happy, so when they're part of the group, the
whole group's happy.

It still doesn't answer the question about how the trash gets taken
out in a gay or lesbian household.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe that
gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would prefer that
the term be reserved for those who can propagate the species, but that's
not completely necessary. I do believe that those who are part of the
gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of civil recognition as in
civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

What I find interesting, the term "gay marriage" makes a difference. Use
the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and the issue isn't
nearly as divisive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:37:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe that
gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would prefer that
the term be reserved for those who can propagate the species, but that's
not completely necessary. I do believe that those who are part of the
gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of civil recognition as in
civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

What I find interesting, the term "gay marriage" makes a difference. Use
the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and the issue isn't
nearly as divisive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

I totally agree with that and it was pretty much the point of the
article.

Hell, I'm like everyone else - I have pejudices that influence my
immediate reactions to concepts and ideas, but let's try and solve
this one without trying to rip each groups throats out. Get it
written into law and let it go.

In MA, Tom "I never met a contribution I didn't keep" Finneran almost
got it done, but couldn't keep the consensus because the Supreme
Judicial Court ordered gay marriage into law. What folks reacted to
in MA was the absolute arrogance on the part of Margaret Marshall who
was going to have gay marriage and she didn't give a damn about what
the citizens thought or said.

If the bozo politicians worked at it, I'd bet we can get it done
quickly with no muss or fuss. Just have to keep the judicial fiats
out of the mix.

And don't give me any crap about masses of red Christian coalitions -
they don't exist. It's little advocate groups that make the most
noise, not the great unwashed proletariat.

Later,

Tom

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:01:48 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


If the bozo politicians worked at it, I'd bet we can get it done quickly
with no muss or fuss. Just have to keep the judicial fiats out of the
mix.

This state, New Jersey, along with several others, has done it. It was a
blip on the local news when it was done, but since that time I haven't
heard anything about it. It wasn't called "marriage", and to be honest,
I'm not sure what "legalities" go with it.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:37:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe that
gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would prefer that
the term be reserved for those who can propagate the species, but that's
not completely necessary. I do believe that those who are part of the
gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of civil recognition as in
civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

What I find interesting, the term "gay marriage" makes a difference. Use
the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and the issue isn't
nearly as divisive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

I thought the whole damn thing revolved around the word 'marriage'.
With all this fighting about what to call the 'union' of gays or
lesbians, imagine the fighting that will happen over what we call the
'disunion' of gays and lesbians. They sure as hell better not call it
'divorce' ! That word should be reserved only for a man and a woman.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:44:29 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:37:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe that
gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would prefer that
the term be reserved for those who can propagate the species, but that's
not completely necessary. I do believe that those who are part of the
gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of civil recognition as in
civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

What I find interesting, the term "gay marriage" makes a difference. Use
the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and the issue isn't
nearly as divisive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

I thought the whole damn thing revolved around the word 'marriage'.
With all this fighting about what to call the 'union' of gays or
lesbians, imagine the fighting that will happen over what we call the
'disunion' of gays and lesbians. They sure as hell better not call it
'divorce' ! That word should be reserved only for a man and a woman.

Not another discussion around the discussion discussing the original
discussion that went off-topic eight discussions ago!!!!!!!

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................. ..........

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004