a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050323505427544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-03 23:09:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050218325643658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...


Certainly I am ranting in the heat of debate.
I recognize there are those who get much from their faith.
However we are talking of a group who are held in distain by
their religion, and are denied the sacrament of marriage within
that religion because their own religion deems them "sinners."

Their own religion does not tolerate them in anyway. Once that
faith betrays them in that way, why should they continue to
follow that faith if it leaves them in emotional and
psychological torment. The question remains. If they are betrayed by a
faith which will
not support them, why not consider leaving that religion?

...and I know many people of faith, Christian, Jew, Muslim, who
are disappointed in the lack of tolerance in the upper echelon,
and fundamentalist elements of their religions. I also know many
followers of those faiths who believe themselves to be tolerant
of all others, but who are blind to their own bigotry.

I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one
religion over another.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

At least you have a home, since many of your political brothers
are also atheists, and tolerant of same. But I am truly a, "Man
without a country". My conservative heroes, like Rush, are
intolerant of atheists, and insult us on a regular basis. To me
this is the one place where their normal ability to think
logically breaks down. I can listen to, and agree with, their
point of view for hours, and then, seemingly out of nowhere, they
will reach out and insult my intelligence by calling me a, "bad
citizen", because I don't accept their stupid Christian myth, and
believe the whole universe, (with more galaxies in it than there
are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth), was created by
some mean looking old bearded man in the sky that created man "in
his own image". This is sure a crazy world.........

Bill,
I think the time has come for you to consider the torment, those of
your own political leanings are subjecting you to by not allowing
you to find peace in your atheism.
So let me rephrase two paragraphs of what I wrote above;

Their own crazy right wing group, led on by Goebbels, posing as a
radio

GOEBBELS?! I'm reasonably sure that Goebbels, like his leader, was
left wing. In other words, YOUR kind of people, Duck.

Not even close.

I don't really think you are, no. Yet you describe yourself as left-leaning,
and seem to feel some obligation in that direction.



talk show host, with a low center of gravity, does not tolerate
them (them in this case being atheists) in anyway. Once that crazy
right wing group betrays them in that way, why should they continue
to follow that crazy right wing group, if it leaves them in
emotional and psychological torment?

I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but I'm
thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read
faithfully every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts,
infuriating them all the more by raking in millions while
aggravating them. Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the
liberals
foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms,
which is a delight to see.

However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be
left scratching one's head in bewilderment.

Then you're missing something. She is a bit uneven at times, not surprising
for someone who has to do a column a week, but when she's on her game she's
absolutely matchless at making her point. And some of her one-line zingers
are the best you will ever see, though obviously not much appreciated by
leftist-liberals.



The question remains. If they are betrayed by that crazy right wing
group, which will not support them, why not consider leaving that
crazy right wing group?

Because the right wing, some peculiarities aside, is still a much
saner side to be on than the left wing.

Define saner. I give you Hannity & Beck as a counter argument. (and
maybe Coulter, but she is crazy like a ...er fox.)

I have nothing much to say for Hannity, though I think his heart is in the
right place in a general way. I'm not really that familiar with Beck, and
I've already said I'm not a big Rush fan though I'm glad he's there. I've
seen Beck make some good points on the few occasions I've watched him,
though I don't much care for his manner of presentation, especially when
he's in mugging-for-the-camera mode which is just annoying.

On your side you have Olbermann and some other foaming-at-the-mouth loonies.

My kind of conservatives are Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. Neither is a NEOCON,
which is the important thing. Neocons have been far too successful in
insinuating themselves into what can loosely be called the conservative
movement. We need more Buchanans and Pauls, fewer of the others.


(And who wants to be in the middle? That'd be
boring and dull.)

...but sometimes warm and fuzzy can be so comforting.

And safe, I suppose.

Peter wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050409111538165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:


I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but
I'm thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read
faithfully every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts,
infuriating them all the
more by raking in millions while aggravating them.

Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the liberals
foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms,
which is a delight
to see.

However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be
left scratching one's head in bewilderment.


But she is one good looking woman.

Even better looking is Monica Crowley. She's usually on O'Reilly's show
Tuesdays, doing the good fight against the liberal Alan Colmes -- who is
actually her brother-in-law, though this is rarely mentioned.

Monica is also a regular on The McLaughlin Group, weekends. (I get it
Sundays on a couple of different channels, though I understand it's
Saturdays elsewhere. These are PBS channels and evidently each station
arranges its own schedule.)

Monica is really a knockout, as well as being very knowledgeable, articulate
and quick on her feet in an argument. Try to catch her some weekend.

She also does a regular column Wednesdays in the Washington Times.

Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Art Warner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 May 2010 18:58:31 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

What EXISTING
right is denied homosexuals? They have exactly the same rights as
anyone else.

Inheritance rights.
Visitation rights.
Insurance rights.
Adoption rights.
Patient-care rights.
Tax rights.
Alimony rights.
Custody rights.
Divorce rights.
Pension rights.
Etc. etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc
etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc. ....

Wow, all those "rights"! They sure do go waaaaaaaaay beyond the good
old "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," don't they!

Let's take a look at a few of them. "Inheritance rights"? If a
homosexual leaves his property to his partner in his will, that
works all right, doesn't it? Where's the problem?



You obviously know nothing about family law.

I don't, and that's a fact.

Look up rights of dower & courtesy. Hint, most states have laws
codifying these rights.
Check community property states. Maybe then, you will know what is
referred to.

Chris H wrote:
In message , David Ruether
writes

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201005031719258930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

[...]
...and as far as using the word "marriage" I'm just fine leaving
that to the religious conservatives stuck in the dark ages. Call
it what you will, just provide equal protection under the law to all
regardless of sexual preference.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

My first inclination was to accept "civil unions" in lieu of
"marriages" for homosexuals, but that lasted less than a day.
Anything less than full "marriage", *both* legally and in name,
represents (and is) less than full equality. Of course, if "civil
unions" became the standard for everyone, and "marriage"
were bestowed by an *additional* religious ceremony (but
only if desired), then this would be acceptable...
--DR

That is the way to go... state recognises "civil unions" and the
religions can do what they like with their rituals None of which have
any bearing on the state.

That sounds sensible to me.

David Ruether wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

[...]
But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal
protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether
they should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before, and
a redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't mean
before. It is this desire to corrupt the language, and to trash an
important concept in traditional values, that is bothersome.

["NH" just keeps repeating this nonsense...]

The IRS did that when they added a tax table for "married couples".
It is an indisputable fact.....This table has to be available to all
citizens in good standing....Homosexual couple so qualify. It may
take a little time, but eventually the US Supreme court will have to
allow gays to marry. It is chiseled on the wall....Sorry about
that.....

Unfortunately, the court has a way out, and that is to question the
"legitimacy" of homosexuality as an inherent characteristic rather
than as a choice. Given the lineup presently on the court, it could go
either way, but my guess is that it would go against equality now (a
couple
of more "decent" justices are needed for this to change, I think...).

By "decent" you mean more ACTIVIST justices who will manage to discover
things in the Constitution that no one who understands plain English can
find there, in order to support their political agenda. You've surely got
one in Sotomayor, of course.

When this happens (as it has happened in the past), there goes the vitally
important system of checks and balances -- you will have, once again,
justices effectively legislating from the bench, which is not the function
judges are supposed to have. The damage this sort of judicial activism has
already caused has been monstrous.

Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



You need to get around more, Bill. At least half of my friends
and relatives are thoroughly non-religious, and I think most if
not all of them would balk at any same-sex relationship being
regarded as a "marriage."

I am not "against" homosexuals doing whatever they want to do
with each other, as I thought I'd made clear before. They can
call any relationship "marriage" that they like, and have some
officiating person "now pronounce them husband and husband," or
whatever, and have husbandmaid boys in pretty pastel suits --
whatever they like. The same goes for the fellow who wanted to
marry his television set. I just do not accept something as
"marriage" that is not marriage in the standard and traditional
meaning of that word, unless the reference is clearly to
something entirely different, such as in pinochle. And in that I
think I am with the majority of American people (the
pecularities of this newsgroup notwithstanding) and beyond the
slightest doubt with the majority of people the world over. I am
generally against other misusages of language also, such as
calling cartridges "bullets" or magazines "clips." Those annoy
me a lot more than calling same-sex unions "marriage" as a
matter of fact. In photography (sorry if this is getting off topic) I
have
always been against the (now almost universal) misuse of "prime"
and of course the silly term "crop factor."

Words MEAN THINGS, and this is a principle that should be
respected.

this has nothing to do with mere words. It deals with rights
duties an obligations.
Bering married includes:
visitation rights when one partner is sick;
the right to participate in vital medical decisions,\;
the obligation in many cases, to pay significantly higher income
taxes; the obligation to take care of your partner when sick;
the obligating to be responsible for the care and feeding of your
partner.

No, it is far more than words. A significant legal effect is what
gay people are entitled to an they are willing to assume the
requisite legal obligations.

All of those things can be arranged in the law, at least as easily
as trying to get all the states plus the Federal government to
recognize same-sex "marriage."


Really?
Gee, the power of one word!

I guess it is a pretty powerful word at that, or perhaps "sturdy"
would be the better term. Look at all the immense effort that has
gone into trying to change it, and to what little effect.


There is progress, which is all too slow.
Drops of water carved the Grand Canyon.

BTW how would it hurt you if gay people were permitted to marry each
other.

It would not hurt me in the least. My objection is simply to the misuse of
the word, not to whatever homosexuals may or may not be permitted to do.

In message , Neil
Harrington writes
Chris H wrote:
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal
protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether
they should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before,
and a redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't
mean before. It is this desire to corrupt the language, and to
trash an important concept in traditional values, that is
bothersome.



You would have a stronger argument if you wanted to deny giving a
gay person a driver's license, except for business driving. I
most States driving is a privilege, not a civil right.

I'm not getting into any narrowly defined "civil rights." I'm
saying that homosexuals, generally speaking, should have exactly
the same rights as heterosexuals (or people with no sexual
preference at all), and I would include a driver's license among
such rights.
I completely agree. Such rights include the right to participate in
medical decisions with a partner, the right to inherit from a life
partner and the right to visit a sick partner in a hospital, the
right to co-won a home and obtain a joint mortgage, and the right
to be a co-tenant under a lease. Did you notice I made a similar
statement earlier.

The rights are exactly the same for all, yes. This is as it should
be. No need to create any special "rights" for any group, nor should
that ever be done. I'm glad we agree on this.

SO we can relax the recent restriction that some people put on the
word "marriage" in recent years. So all groups get the same rights.

All groups already have the same rights, yes. They have for quite some time
now. So that's all settled.

So same sex marriages are now permitted. Good That's settled then.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , David Ruether
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , David Ruether
writes
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201005031719258930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

[...]
...and as far as using the word "marriage" I'm just fine leaving that
to the religious conservatives stuck in the dark ages. Call
it what you will, just provide equal protection under the law to all
regardless of sexual preference.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

My first inclination was to accept "civil unions" in lieu of
"marriages" for homosexuals, but that lasted less than a day.
Anything less than full "marriage", *both* legally and in name,
represents (and is) less than full equality. Of course, if "civil
unions" became the standard for everyone, and "marriage"
were bestowed by an *additional* religious ceremony (but
only if desired), then this would be acceptable...
--DR

That is the way to go... state recognises "civil unions" and the
religions can do what they like with their rituals None of which have
any bearing on the state.
This does require, though, that a religious marriage ceremony
alone can no longer be considered legally binding...

It never has been in the UK

It can't
be both ways for equality - either all must have the civil union
(with an optional religious "marriage"),

That is the case in the UK.




--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Neil
Harrington writes
Chris H wrote:
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal
protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether
they should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before,
and a redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't
mean before. It is this desire to corrupt the language, and to
trash an important concept in traditional values, that is
bothersome.



You would have a stronger argument if you wanted to deny giving a
gay person a driver's license, except for business driving. I
most States driving is a privilege, not a civil right.

I'm not getting into any narrowly defined "civil rights." I'm
saying that homosexuals, generally speaking, should have exactly
the same rights as heterosexuals (or people with no sexual
preference at all), and I would include a driver's license among
such rights.
I completely agree. Such rights include the right to participate in
medical decisions with a partner, the right to inherit from a life
partner and the right to visit a sick partner in a hospital, the
right to co-won a home and obtain a joint mortgage, and the right
to be a co-tenant under a lease. Did you notice I made a similar
statement earlier.

The rights are exactly the same for all, yes. This is as it should
be. No need to create any special "rights" for any group, nor should
that ever be done. I'm glad we agree on this.

SO we can relax the recent restriction that some people put on the
word "marriage" in recent years. So all groups get the same rights.

All groups already have the same rights, yes. They have for quite some
time
now. So that's all settled.

So same sex marriages are now permitted. Good That's settled then.

The same sexes as always, yes, man and woman. I think that's pretty much a
complete list of the available sexes.

On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:12:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

What do you believe to be the basis for the state having an interest in
marriage?

The basis is the law of the state. To be married, the couple must
apply to the state for a license to do so. If the state won't grant a
marriage license, then the couple cannot legally marry.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida