a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

"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.
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.

--
Peter

"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.
--
Peter

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050408521837709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-04 08:32:15 -0700, "Peter" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050406322177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-04 04:20:04 -0700, "Peter"
said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050323253911272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-03 22:51:19 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:



Actually, the supreme court has decided some years ago that driving
is a right.....

Huh!

This privilege, but not a right crap is just an old wives tale.
Driving is the natural mode of transportation between states, and we
have the right to do that without any special license or passport.
There have been many court decisions that uphold this over the
years.....I have a list of them in my files that I will be glad to
send to anyone who is interested.

OK Bill, this cite I have to see. Time for you to give us some
substance.



As posted, I too await his proof with bated breath.

Here is one of my cites supporting my statement.
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw....fl60603opn.pdf


Peter: 1 Bill: 0

That was interesting, in that the basis for the suit was religious and
the Court upheld the "compelling interests of the State" regarding photo
ID requirements for the DL.
The plaintiff had no claim regarding driving as a "right".



Some States have tried to ban driving with the face covered, but
political pleasure from Muslims has prevented such enactment. While not
wishing ill on anybody, it will take some major accident to give the
political courage to enact a ban that will prevent more such accidents. I
am waiting to see what happens if they commit a traffic violation and the
driver refuses to unveil.

"political pleasure?"

Regarding a traffic stop or violation requiring positive ID and subsequent
refusal to unveil, would in my opinion as a peace officer, result in
detention. Processing at a police station, or County jail and would
probably be completed according to procedure, and I have no doubt, would
end up in court to answer your question.



Strange it has not happened here. Or, reports have been suppressed.
But it is happening all over France. Guess our veiled Muslims are excellent
drivers. (cough, cough)


--
Peter

"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.

--
Peter
Good thing looks can't kill, or can they?

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"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.
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. --
Peter

I tried to make sure in my will that the house would be left to
my partner. I couldn't (he would need to "buy out" my half
upon my death, and only a complicated method of gradual
transfer *may* work). All of my "cash" assets are in both
our names, since I can't will them to my partner without
probate (not a fun, quick, or cheap process, as I understand
it). My SS will not transfer. We must file taxes as individuals.
Etc. (WITHOUT CHOICE!!!). In the end, we may not choose
to marry, BUT IT SHOULD BE ***OUR*** CHOICE!
(I'm hollering at the "dense" "NH", not you Peter...;-)
--DR

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"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.

This reminds me of the faculty meetings at the college I taught
at for several years. It would take years, or even decades, to
change single words in the faculty manual! (And this was at a time
when the survival of the college was in doubt...)

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

The good, basic question, isn't it?
--DR

On 5/4/2010 11:42 AM, David Ruether wrote:
"Chris wrote in message
...
In , David Ruether
writes
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.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

This does require, though, that a religious marriage ceremony
alone can no longer be considered legally binding... It can't
be both ways for equality - either all must have the civil union
(with an optional religious "marriage"), or all must have access
to legal marriage.

A religious marriage in the US has not been legally binding for a long
time unless accompanied by the appropriate paperwork and fees, including
a duly executed marriage license. A priest saying the words does't make
you married in the eyes of the law. Filing the right form makes you
married.

Chris H wrote:
In message , Neil
Harrington writes

SO you are telling me it is correct to marry a 13 year old girl?

Men have certainly married 13-year-old girls, using "marriage" in the
correct and traditional meaning of that word. Whether it is
"correct" in some other sense to do that is irrelevant to the
discussion.

No, God (in the form of a Christian Priest)

Ah, so THAT'S what He really looks like!

has married men to 13 year
old girls... That was the Age of consent in England at one time. There
was a big debate when it went up from 12 and the Church wanted to keep
it at 12.

I think it's still 13 or thereabouts in one or two of our southern states,
but I'm not sure. In some primitive societies I've read that boys and girls
pair off to set up housekeeping at age 10 or so. In Haiti today, they
typically become sexually active at about age 12. It's pretty much a "when
you're ready you're ready" thing. I've read of a girl becoming pregnant at
age 7, though that I daresay is quite unusual.


So what was condoned by God a couple of 100 years ago is now not just

Did God tell you Personally what He condoned? :-)

illegal but a mortal sin (unless you are a Catholic :-)

I'm a lapsed Catholic, but I don't recall that being a mortal sin. Maybe it
is, or was, and they just felt it indelicate to mention. It's too long for
me to remember; my Catholicism lapsed about 65 years ago.

Missing Mass was a mortal sin, I remember that. That may be different now
for all I know. Catholics can even eat meat on Fridays now, I believe.


The same applies to gay marriages. Especially as there are gay priests
in all Christian denominations these days (and still pedophiles in
the Catholic Church.)

It's a sinful world all around. C'est la vie. What we need is to be more
creative and come up with some new perversions, as the old ones are just
getting tiresome.


There is no way out. Gay Marriages have been with us since the dawn of
time and accepted in most cultures even if not a main stream activity.

So you say. I'd still like to see (with cites) an ENGLISH-LANGUAGE example
of same-sex "marriage," so we can be sure something hasn't been seriously
tinkered with in the translation. You can tell me that 2300 years ago in
West Bongo-Bongo they had a form of homosexual union they called "walla
walla magumbo" and that meant "marriage," but I just don't find that very
convincing.

There has been a recent restriction by some to limit "marriage" to
partners of different sexes but the reality is there is no mandate to
do that.

It's what the word has meant all along, and therefore requires no mandate
("recent restriction" my gluteas maximus).

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.

Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news

"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.


We probably agree on a lot of things. Please tell me how you would
ensure that gay people have them with respect to lifetime committed
partners.

Gay people have them and morose people do too, as well as people not
experiencing any emotional extravagance in any direction. There is nothing
to "ensure" as far as I can see. Everything is fine already.

Heterosexuals will get those rights only by getting
married. Why are gays not effectively denied those rights in most
states?

Marriages should always be gay, and in my experience they generally are.
Lots of rice throwing, a bouquet tossing, and reception afterward with
pretty girls in pastel dresses lining up to be photographed with the
principals etc., then eating, drinking and dancing afterward. Nothing could
be gayer than all that, none of the gay people are denied anything and it
all works out very well.