Just curious what people think about this topic in the news.

Will there be a correlation between which OS we prefer?

Me: Prefer Mac OS. See no strong reason to not allow gays to marry. Do see
reasons to allow it.

Also see *most* people who are against it as being against it for reasons of
bigotry ... though I am open to hearing other reasons.

In article <BC654FBE.40AD5%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

Well that's a nice quiet topic :O
--
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."

"StormDrain" <Liberty@MS-Free.com> wrote in
Liberty-F26D86.19030427022004@cnews.newsguy.com on 2/27/04 8:03 PM:

Well, I am sure it will be handled in a mature and respectable way by all
parties.

In article <BC654FBE.40AD5%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

Personally, I think those people are welcome to their lifestyles as long
as they don't shove them down my throat. (I'm talking about the
Leviticans. See http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/archives/000662.html )

I'd be willing to accept that most people who are against gay marriage
feel that way out of strong beliefs in their religion which, despite
historical research to the contrary, they believe thinks homosexuality
is evil. They also feel that Biblical rules should apply to everyone.

I think the Leviticans are welcome to their beliefs, but they should not
restrict other people's civil rights.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <BC654FBE.40AD5%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit wrote:
There were some hilarious observations on this on "The Daily Show", when
Bush came out in support of an Amendment. After all, Prohibition worked so
well (that's why the 20's are widely known as "The Sober Decade"). Still,
isn't this just going to lead to organized crime moving in and running
gayeasies? They also said the real reason for this is so Dick Cheney won't
have to pay for his daughter's wedding.

I think Andrew Sullivan summed it up well:

The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay
citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war
to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the
contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought
over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their
course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this
president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election
campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of
American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message
could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America.
Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself.
The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to
divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself,
and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying
legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such
a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who
supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly
during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who
trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider,
now know the truth.

I got that quote from Wil Wheaton's site, who quoted it with a citation
here:

http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/001544.php#001544

....
A lot of people seem to think that it will "weaken" their heterosexual
marriages in some vague and unspecified way. Unless there are a *lot* of
people out there who think their spouse chose them only because they
couldn't go with the same-sex spouse they really wanted, this makes no
sense.

--
--Tim Smith

"Woofbert" <woofbert.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote in
woofbert.spam-A551A8.19410427022004@typhoon.sonic.net on 2/27/04 8:41 PM:

Sounds pretty accurate to me...

In article <vDU%b.12540$aT1.5163@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that anyspecific mixed marriage
will be weakened by legalizing the tousands of gay marriages thathave
already occurred. What I suspect they're really saying is that the
"institution" of marriage will somehow be cheapened or even further
reduced in its significance if gay people are allowed to participate.

The first gay couple to be married recently in San Francisco had been
together for 51 years. Most of the thousands of couples who got married
had been together for decades. The instability argument doesn't wash.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

----------
In article <woofbert.spam-96A643.00222028022004@typhoon.sonic.net>, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:


Well said, My view is that ANYTHING that helps address the imbalance wrt
property rights, or next of kin rights, or any other legal absurdity that
exists between same sex couples has to be a good thing, if the solution to
that is the term Marriage then so be it, unfortunately some groups appear to
be pushing for a more watered down term such as *Friendship* so I suspect
that is what will ultimately happen, but hopefully common sense will
prevail.

In article <BC654FBE.40AD5%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

Me: Liberal OS X user. I have no problems with gay marriages. I'm not
sure I see the point of gay marriages within the Xtian church though,
since Xtianity is a homophobic religion.

Are there any non-bigoted reasons?

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

Snit wrote:

Are you sure you want to be "handled" in *any* way by the minority in
this issue?

Nicolas

Woofbert wrote:

I prefer the term Civil Union between gays. Marriage is too strong a
word for our backwards culture at this point in time in our evolution as
a culture. Maybe in a few generations the term marriage will not evoke
so many polerized and polemical arguments from both sides of the issue.
One thing is for sure: It must *not* be left to the judiciary branch and
parliamentarians should be free to vote on the issue freely and
according to their conscience.
My 2 c

Nicolas

"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote in
clund-AF3EAE.11102728022004@amstwist00.chello.com on 2/28/04 3:10 AM:

Not that I can think of - and I have to say I am impressed with the almost
complete lack of opposition in this discussion. While I realize it is
nowhere near a random sampling, etc... it brings me a bit of hope for
humanity.

"Nashton" <ndk@NOSPAM.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in
z710c.106353$IF6.3232300@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 2/28/04 6:57 AM:

I am curious to hear the reasoning from the "other side"... assuming there
are only two sides.

In article <BC654FBE.40AD5%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

Why fight the inevitable?
Might as well allow it. It's GONNA happen.

--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, Wine, food, cars and motorcycles:
"Made in Italy"

"Nashton" <ndk@NOSPAM.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in
bd10c.106354$IF6.3232622@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 2/28/04 7:03 AM:

As long as this Civil Union gives them *all* legal rights and
responsibilities associated with heterosexual marriages, I can see this as a
compromise.

"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-8EED4B.07492528022004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 2/28/04 8:51 AM:

Do you think it should? I cannot think of a reason against it?

In article <clund-AF3EAE.11102728022004@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

To be fair, there are plenty of mainline and liberal Christian sects
that already bless gay marriages. Even the Quakers have published
statements in favor of gay marriage.

The reasons are either bigoted or stupid. But that statement is non-PC.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <z710c.106353$IF6.3232300@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Nashton <ndk@NOSPAM.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

If you're in a desperate situaton that requires a fireman, paramedic,
nurse, or doctor to handle you, I suspect that you'll you'll be grateful
for their presence. If you care about anything, you'll care more about
their credentials than their sexual orientation.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <bd10c.106354$IF6.3232622@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Nashton <ndk@NOSPAM.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

Our "Culture" is not a Borg Collective and we do not speak with one
voice. Several other Western countries (and even Taiwan!) have legalized
gay marriage and none, to my knowledge, have collapsed yet.

In other words, the gay people alive now, living in stable
relationships, can go fuck off. Maybe their grand-nephews can enjoy the
civil rights that we all deserve.

You know, maybe the term "Independence" was too strong a term for the
backwards culture of the late 1700s. Maybe the Colonials should have
waited a few generations for England's Mad King George to fuck off and
die, to be replaced by someone else who might then be nicer and repeal
all those taxes and grant all those civil rights. Yeah, right.

Black people waited politely almost a hundred years for civl equality to
be granted. It took polarized arguments, civil disobedience, and a few
riots to change things for the better. What lesson do you draw from this
history? The lesson I draw is that there's no point in waiting.

Democracy cannot be relied upon to grant civil rights to minorites. For
instance, until 1968, it was illegal in Alabama for a black person to
marry a white MOTOS. The Alabama Pariament would have been happy to
maintain that state of affairs for many years after the Supreme Court
ruled otherwise.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <vDU%b.12540$aT1.5163@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
Thanks for the pointer. Andrew Sullivan's cri de coeur was also linked
by Eric Alterman, and I jumped over to Sullivan's site from that.

There were numbers in a recent NY Times article that I found surprising.
According to the Times (or maybe it was CNN), something like 75% of the
gay voters went for Gore last time out, and 25% for Bush. It was then
suggested that this was about a million votes, indicating that four million
or so voters in the last presidential election were cast by gay folk.
IIRC, there were 47 million votes for Gore and Bush each, which suggests
that the gay vote is on the order of 5 or 6% of the total, and also that
if every one of those gay voters who supported Bush now does not, it will
be more than one percent of the vote. That is probably not trivial this
time around.

For the record, I am strongly in favor of the legalization of gay marriage.
I don't really care what the various religions decide (though I would like
to see at least one major faith welcome it, if for no other reason than to
serve as a model of how to behave.) The arguments advanced to support a ban
on gay marriage are essentially identical to those used to prevent marriage
between people of different races. If we had had a constitutional amendment
fifty years ago to ban that, wouldn't we all be ashamed of that now?

I think that the Bushies are doing whatever they can to muddy the waters
and keep people from thinking about the death of Social Security, the
catastrophe in Iraq, the dismal economy, the failure to put an end to
al Qaeda, the deficits, on and on and on and on... This absurd effort to
stigmatize people who just want the same rights and responsibilities as
everyone else may shore up the Republicans' base among fundamentalists,
but it will succeed no better, in my opinion, than George H.W. Bush's
attempt to rile people up with a constitutional ban on burning the flag
(remember that one?)

It is sad that a diehard gay Republican conservative like Andrew Sullivan
has to be slapped in the face before he realizes that he really has no
friends among those currently running the country. I hope the Log Cabin
Republicans defect en masse to the Democrats.

Hey, the way things are going, George is gonna need governor brothers in
four or five states to steal this one ...

David Derbes