This piece of law [which I haven't read so can't comment on accurately] could change the laws in all of the states.

Vermont

This is not meant to be a statement for or against the law, just a recognition that it will all have to be settled in the Supreme Court.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 16, 2000

Answers

Re-link please-doesn't work!

-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), March 16, 2000.

Can't link internally to AP. Title is Vt. House OKs Civil Unions for Gays .

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 16, 2000.

Bee:

Here is a link to the story in the Globe. It should work.

Vermont, try two

I forgot about AP

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 16, 2000.

Thanks Z! Much better. At the risk of being flamed, I hope someday this is possible for every human being, regardless of their orientation. I once heard a priest say, when God said "Come all my children," he didn't say come all my straight children. Surely there will be some equity in the new millenium, for all.

-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), March 16, 2000.

The homosexual community wants what is not in our power to give them...to turn nature upside down.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), March 16, 2000.

I've always wondered...why can homosexuals drive around with rainbow bumper stickers & flaunt what they do in bed....when I'd be hassled for driving around with a picture of a penis going into a vagina on the bumper sticker of my car?

-- IN (IN@dot.com), March 16, 2000.

Nancy, I don't know what you mean, "upside down". Is it like the story of the woman whose daughter told her she was going to marry a Frenchman? The mom was horrified, but finally agreed not to prohibit the union after making her daughter promise that she would NEVER, NEVER "switch ends".

The daughter got married, and everything went along ok for a few years, until one night, in a fit of passion, the Frenchman said, "my darling, let's switch ends". The girl immediately jumped out of bed, and started crying, and said, "my mom warned me about this. I'll NEVER, NEVER switch ends." The husband, flabbergasted, cried out, "but, my darling, I thought you wanted to have CHILDREN!"

There are other interesting tales about different cultural practices. I'll tell you one, at the risk of sounding like a bigot. I assure you that I am no bigot. Here goes: (don't read this, Nancy, if you are easily offended)

Did you hear about the little Greek boy who ran away from home?

He finally returned. He couldn't stand to leave his brothers behind.

(Add your own punctuation)

My point, Nancy, if there is one, is that it takes all kinds. We all have our different interests, and, yes, sexual orientations. You probably think I'm a homosexual man. I'm not. I consider myself a "flaming heterosexual"

Live and let live, people!

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), March 16, 2000.

Jump off Joe (hope I got that handle right), the homosexual community has been with us since the beginning of time. In these thousands of years they have never tried to force public acceptance of their values on society or demand from society lawful recognition of their bonds. Not till just recently...in the last 20 years. Why? Because homosexuality defies nature, and the homosexual knows it.

Please don't throw ancient Greek history at me unless you want me throw it back....I know Greek History.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindsppring.com), March 16, 2000.

The day when my hard earned tax dollars are used to pay benefits for rump rangers and bull dykes in so-called legal marriages is the day I stop paying taxes. Next, it will be socially acceptable for pedophiles to marry 9 year olds. I suspect that most of you bleeding heart gay huggers have not had the pleasure of getting a good look at the homosexual lifestyle.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 16, 2000.

BTW, the good people of California had the good sense to pass Prop 22 last week that states that only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized. California is already supporting over 6 million illegals so they dont need to become a cash cow for the gay community. Live and let live, Si. Live and let live on my money, Nada.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 16, 2000.

My dear Ra...

I cannot believe it! You and I actually agree on a subject. LOL..If we can, then there is hope for the world (just so long as one of them don't ask me to pick up their bar of soap)!

And to think, I once religated your mentality to that of Arche Bunker! (Just kidding now)

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), March 16, 2000.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Why should it matter who does what behind closed doors as long as they are consenting adults? Is anyone making you go to their homes and watch them have sex? I thought not.

If they are in a long term committed relationship why shouldn't they benefit the same way a man-woman would? They pay income taxes don't they? They pay property taxes don't they? They work in 'normal' jobs don't they? They serve on police forces and in the military don't they? What difference does it make to you who has what sexual organs? They are Citizens just like you and me. I'm so sick of this crap. Give it up.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), March 16, 2000.

Hey there Shakey, we have more in common than you know. During the 80s I ran a drilling and production company out of Abilene, Texas. Punched and completed over 100 holes from Sweetwater to Stamford to Granbury to Eden. Theres not much about the oil and gas business that I dont know well. Never did get any of that Midland/Odessa action however. BTW, this board is the one, huh.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 16, 2000.

They may be citizens like you but they are not citizens like me. I have no problem what they do behind closed doors but Ill be damned if I will ever sanction legal marriages between two males or two females. Ive enjoyed reading your posts for many months now but I got to oppose you on this issue.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 17, 2000.

The greatest lie the homosexual community has been able to foist on the unsuspecting public...and has been bought...is that homosexuality is just a sexual preference.

Homosexuality is a way of thinking and perceiving that permeates every aspect of thar person's being. The sexual practice is only a small part of the expression of the homosexual.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), March 17, 2000.

Rational (not): your post amuses me to no end. Since you have already labeled the gay community as "them", you think you have separated them (bigot that you are) from other folks you think are "ok" like your paranoid homophobic self. No doubt that this comes across with people you deal with in everyday life. If you were to open your eyes, you might be totally amazed at how many human beings you encounter every day who are "gay". Unfortunately, (or fortunately for them) you have yet to label them (or recognize them for who they are-which is just like you and me) as "untouchables". What goofy thinking. You probably think the couple on welfare with 17 kids in 17 years are good for "America" and you are willing to pay for their support, healthcare, food, and childcare, while the working loving, gay couple next door, are helping to support all these irresponsible people. Perhaps it is time for a little self- reflection on the true value that your fellow humans contribute/deduct from society. Or is that a little too uncomfortable for you?

-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), March 17, 2000.

The debate is insane. Those who continue to fight tooth and nail need to research a bit on the "licensing of marriage" by governments,when that actually started and why...and what exactly that means, rather than parrot some politician's jargon or some cleric's dogma...before you do that you cannot even have an intelligent conversation on the subject, beyond spouting "true belief" or religious dogma. Better yet, do a web search on the "history of marriage" in modern time...Or go to the library...

Take two aspirin..find another hobby. Learn to be less fearful of chimera. (for the dictionary deprived: "chimera; a groundless or impracticable conception or fancy") Come from a a non-emotional place in your argument or be without support.

-- Donna (moment@home.com), March 17, 2000.

Nancy,

Why? Because homosexuality defies nature, and the homosexual knows it.

Did you realise that in many animal species homosexual behavior is common during times of over-population? And so far as natural behavior goes, while homosexual behavior isn't natural for most folks the estimates say that about 10% of people are gay, and that estimate of roughly 10% has remained pretty constant over the centuries. Perhaps since it has always been with us, and most likely will always be with us, we should realise that it IS natural behavior for a small percentage of the population. And your latter statement:

Homosexuality is a way of thinking and perceiving that permeates every aspect of thar person's being. The sexual practice is only a small part of the expression of the homosexual.

Well if what you just said is true, that would lead me to believe that they are not just acting out some sort of sexual perversion, but are in fact different from you and I. Why do you hate folks just because they are different?

PS, I know why some folks do, but I'll save it for later.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

Homosexuality is a way of thinking and perceiving that permeates every aspect of thar person's being. The sexual practice is only a small part of the expression of the homosexual.

What a bunch of nonsense. The vast majority of gays I've met *are* just like you and me (ie. they act no differently other than their choice of a same-sex partner). You are saying that being gay means you stop being a Citizen and no longer have the same rights and protections as the rest of us. Simply because you don't want to have sex with a different gender. Sorry, I can't accept that. Notice I didn't say 'extra' rights here, I said the SAME rights as the rest of us.

Do you really believe they stop being Citizens with *equal* rights? Because if you do you should ask your Congresman to introduce legislation to waive the collection of taxes from all gay persons. How can you ask them to foot the bill when you won't let them sit at the same table? -TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), March 17, 2000.

Unk -

You might want to check your sources on some of those items you cited. What little research I've ever seen on animal homosexual behavior shows minimal incidence in critters other than us humans, regardless of population pressures.

In addition, that Kinsey "10%" number has been shown to be too high by a factor of at least 3. Kinsey's research methods and statistical work don't stand up to modern evaluation, though they are defended by "true believers" as ardently as the terra-centric view was defended by Galileo's opponents. More recent studies, which have been cited in periodicals such as The Wall Street Journal (March 31, 1993) and Science(July 3, 1992), indicate a percentage more in the 1-3% range.

As Mr. Twain said so cogently, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), March 17, 2000.

Homosexuality is a way of thinking and perceiving that permeates every aspect of thar person's being. The sexual practice is only a small part of the expression of the homosexual.

Well, think about this for a minute. Being a heterosexual man vs. being a heterosexual woman is about more than just a difference in what sex one is attracted to. It can be argued that being a heterosexual man vs. being a heterosexual woman is also about a way of thinking and perceiving that permeates every aspect of a person's being ('Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus').

As a group, and generally speaking only, I think there are some differences between gays and straights, but I don't see these differences as being any greater than the differences between heterosexual men and heterosexual women. People are people.

Some say that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals (some say that about men compared with women). Whether that's true or not, I'm not going to debate here. However, for those worried about what they may see as gay promiscuity, the 'civil union' (not marriage) bill that Vermont is considering would add to the stability of committed gay relationships.

And for those worried about these civil unions leading to making homosexuality more widespread, they need to know that gay men and women do not choose to be gay any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual.

-- A (friend@of.Dorothy), March 17, 2000.

It's possible that what happens in Vermont might not decide law in other states.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/marriage000316B.html

Susan Murray, one of the lawyers in the Supreme Court case, said its an open question whether couples from another state might be able to enter civil unions in Vermont and have them recognized in their home state.

It totally depends on what state laws say in that other state and what courts would interpret in that other state, Murray said. Other states have structures called marriage that they already recognize. They dont have structures called civil unions.

-- (from@a.distance), March 17, 2000.

I served with 2 gay Seals. If someone had ever had a problem with that he would have had a problem with the whole unit. They were both great Operators. If you have a problem with Blacks, Muslims, Chicanos or any other minority you did'nt stay long.

Don't remember any dimwits with 10 kids and a 3rd grade education though.

Get over the fear.

-- Chief (bmc@sealret.com), March 17, 2000.

We watched the rented movie "Sling Blade" last night. I thought it was well done....one of those movies that make ya think. Last weekend I saw a movie on cable entitled "Simon Birch." [at least I THINK that was Simon's last name.] Both movies, IMO, reflected a great deal on the character of folks who tolerate differences and those who don't.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 17, 2000.

Loved Simon Birch!

DeeEmBee,

You should start a rap group with a name like that! ;-)

Tell you the truth I don't remember exactly what my source was, but like many (perhaps incorrect) things it stuck in my mind. So for the sake of argument lets discount the non-human animals and stick with the humans.

I think that it would be tough to get a true count simply because the hatred expressed above is typical of the rhetoric directed towards gay people. I cannot think of his name right now, but there is one kooky Rev. who is so homophobic that he posts pictures on his website of things like "Dancing on the grave of a fag."

Those of us who are secure in our sexuality are not threatened by gays, hence a clue behind the thinking of the bigots.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

Oh, and since I'm feeling a bit grumpy this morning I'll add one last dig at the bigots before I Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho.

I cracks me up when the bigots say things like: "Gays aren't born that way, they chose to be gay."

Translation: "I struggle with feelings I don't like, I hope I don't meet the right guy who will send me over the edge!"

And now, as Dennis Miller used to say.....I am out of here!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

I respect those of you that have expressed pro gay sentiments on this thread. My strong opinions were directed at the main subject of this discussion, legalizing same sex marriages that would make the participants eligible for various tax-supported benefits. I dont know any of you personally so your life experiences are a mystery to me. Ive had more exposure to the gay community than most people so my mindset was not developed from cute little magazine articles, humorous TV shows, or stylish movies that put a positive spin on the lifestyles of homosexuals.

Aunt Bee

No, I most certainly do not think that welfare recipients with 17 children are good for America. Thats another whole subject all together. The loving gay couple next door? Where in the hell do you live to have seen that? Mayberry?

Uncle DeeDah

No, I have no problems dealing with my own sexuality. This always seems to be the stock retort from those who support the gay lifestyle. I respect your viewpoints but wonder how much of this is based on political correctness or I we hearing your true feelings. Forget the bigot angle Unc, aint so.

TECH 32.

My repetitive reference to they was in response to your post.

Chief.

I spent 10 years in the Navy (60's) and my friend there were no gay seals of public knowledge. Homosexuals were cashiered out, period!

Donna.

The mechanics of formal marriage become the legal portal to the world of tax supported benefits. That is my complaint.

Im not afraid of gays I just dont want them in my lifestyle. Im not out there campaigning for any anti-gay movements. However, I will speak my mind when there are any attempts to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 17, 2000.

If everyone answers the census accurately, we will have a much better idea of the actual number of gays who live together.

The short form has an option starting with person number two:

2. How is this person related to person 1? Unmarried partner.

If both person 1 and person 2 are the same sex, well then there is your answer.

And there is the .gov's ammunition to hunt them down....

ya wanna bet that a lot [if not most or all] will select another answer?

-- Count them now (huntthem@ll.later), March 17, 2000.

Where in the hell do you arrive at the conclusion that the government is 'hunting down' homosexuals? I may not support the gay lifestyle but I don't sanction that kind of stupidity. The logic of people like 'count them now' would be laughable if it were not so friggin' stupid.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 17, 2000.

I hate no one and am for all individuals being counted as full citizens and paying taxes. I never said otherwise. You are projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto me.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), March 17, 2000.

>i>Where in the hell do you arrive at the conclusion that the government is 'hunting down' homosexuals? I may not support the gay lifestyle but I don't sanction that kind of stupidity. The logic of people like 'count them now' would be laughable if it were not so friggin' stupid. -- Ra (tion@l.1), March 17, 2000.

And where did you draw the conclusion that I drew that conclusion?

All I said was that the ammunition would be there. I didn't say they were actually doing it, or going to do it, or even intended to do it.

But, they apparently did it to the Japanese-Americans, if the recent posts/threads are to be believed. See this one for an example -- http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002nJN

Imagine, just as a hypothetical exercise, that a law was passed in 2003 making it illegal across the land to live a homosexual lifestyle. Do you think they would NOT use the info from the census to find these people?

All I was saying in my post above is that the ammo would be there if TPTB wanted it. IF gay couples follow the mandate for truth on the census, that is.

-- Count them now (huntthem@ll.later), March 17, 2000.

Rational,

No, I have no problems dealing with my own sexuality. This always seems to be the stock retort from those who support the gay lifestyle.

I don't SUPPORT the gay lifestyle, I just cannot fathom where all of the HATRED towards them comes from...well, other that that good old book of tolerance The Bible. Also, my comments were not directed at you in particular, but at homophobics in general. You mostly seem like a rational man to me, at least until this came up.

I respect your viewpoints but wonder how much of this is based on political correctness or I we hearing your true feelings. Forget the bigot angle Unc, aint so.

You are hearing my true feelings. I don't hate people because they are different. No, actually I do, well, maybe not HATE, but I dislike intensely people who DO hate people who are different. Substitute the word "Nigger" for the word "Gay" when reading the rhetoric and you will see it for what it really is.

PS, Like you, I don't like supporting any able bodied person with my tax dollars, regardless of whatever else they may be. Now, must finish lunch and then back to the grind for me. Ta Ta!

*snicker*

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

I believe Sam Kinnison said it best.

"How can one grown man look at another grown man's hairy ass and call it true love??"

It's "exit only"......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 17, 2000.

Unfortunately, it is pointless to debate with hatred, and especially with people who deny their hatred. I am not going to repeat what anyone has said to debunk the people here who speak from fear, but I will say that it is intolerance which has escalated violence in America.

It took woman over 130 years to get the vote in this country, and with that an equal standing in this white-boy dominated America. This country has a history of denying any one other than White men their basic rights. It is the kind of thinking expressed by the fearful on this thread which keeps america from evolving spirtually.

It is not the Bible, or fundamentalist christians, that will make this country a safer place. It is a spiritual evolution, sparked by people making choices based on love.

When we are confronted with a choice in life we can make it from only two places-- Love or Fear. It is that simple.

It is so sad that there is so much fear on this thread. I expect that because all these posters are unaware of this fear, I will be flamed for this post.

If you want the real reason for the degradation of the society, it is the lack of tolerance and opportunity for those that are different- Woman still make lower wages than men in similar jobs, on average. It is not a lack of "good christian values and smacking your kids for discipline" that has led to the rise in violence.

If we could be more tolerant of one another this would be a happier place to live.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 17, 2000.

If the 'family values' crowd really wanted to look sincere about their beliefs, then they would make it illegal for divorced people to remarry. Adultery for whatever reason is well tolerated in the heterosexual community.

-- My quip (of@the.day), March 17, 2000.

Quip, you said,

"Adultery for whatever reason is well tolerated in the heterosexual community. "

Speak for yourself. You don't represent me or my views in the "heterosexual community".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 17, 2000.

Bashing quip in head with double shot-glass....define 'your version' of adultery? better yet....never mind....

{glancing around looking for the dog, letting dog OFF leash}

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

Ra,

The mechanics of formal marriage become the legal portal to the world of tax supported benefits. That is my complaint.

Well that's a pretty weak basis for an argument. As I pointed out, gays pay taxes too. If you don't really care about what they do behind closed doors why do you want to pick their pockets in public?

All they are asking for is to be able to benefit from the same rules that everyone else benefits from. They ARE paying for it like everyone else aren't they?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), March 17, 2000.

They don't procreate new taxpayers. They can't add to the 3.4 workers it now takes to pay for social security benefits for one retiree.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 17, 2000.

They don't procreate new taxpayers. They can't add to the 3.4 workers it now takes to pay for social security benefits for one retiree. -- Ma Kettle

So eventually it will work out that only 2.1 or less workers will be needed to pay for the social security benefits for one retiree.

Remember, just because they prefer same-sex partners doesn't mean they are unable to procreate! I know a female couple who recently had a son by artificial insemination.

Heck, if necessary two couples could marry each other's partners to get the marriage benefits referred to in the article.

-- They can do it (iftheyw@nt.to), March 17, 2000.

They, I didn't say they couldn't. I said they don't. The exceptions that occur are just that, exceptions as far as I know. What's with the 2.1 thingy? Where did that stat come from if you would be so kind?

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 17, 2000.

I'm really glad that this subject has come out! My first reaction was anger at all the bigotry, but then I started reading some really thoughtful posts. I'm also glad I took the time to read them all instead of going to the end and yelling out my feelings about gays, because most of my points have been made by others, and in most cases, better than I could have stated them. Thanks to all of you who have taken the time and effort to support our fellow human beings.

Let me make it clear from the start that I am a flaming homosexual. I get grossed out thinking about putting my penis in some other man's orifices. But I think realize (and it took me a long time) that lots of homosexuals are equally grossed out by what my wife and I do in the privacy of our own home.

As far as whether a gay is born that way, or bonds with someone at a critical period in his/her life, or just chooses to be a gay, I suppose there are all types of situations. I knoow a lot of lesbians who have been married, or have had other heterosexual relationships in teh past. Many were abused by their partners. Perhaps this had an influence on them. I don't know. I also know quite a few lesbians who tell me that they have known that they were lesbians for as long as they can remember.

I personally doubt that there are very many gays who CHOOSE the lifestyle, though, because to do so would be voluntarily putting themselves into a life of discrimination (from some of the very people on this board), and hardship. Think about it--would YOU deliberately choose to be a gay? Would you voluntrarily choose to be a member of some other minority who is treated as a second class citizen? I wouldn't. I have enough problems without adding one which is such an integral part of ones life.

Nancy, you tell me that " the homosexual community has been with us since the beginning of time. In these thousands of years they have never tried to force public acceptance of their values on society or demand from society lawful recognition of their bonds. Not till just recently...in the last 20 years. Why? Because homosexuality defies nature, and the homosexual knows it.

My late 84 year old father gave me his idea on this. It was his belief that the gays have gotten so brazen about their sexual orientation recently because they finally got SICK of having to deny their sexuality, and have chosen to shout it from the roof tops--in PRIDE. After all, for all those centuries, a man could tell all his office buddies about some babe he'd bedded the night before; the women could share giggles about how hung some dude was. But the gays? They could no say one damn thing about who they had sex with, who they lived with, they could not make comments about how "cute" someone was to them. They could get FIRED for it, for the love of christ! Now through some miracle, the gays have begun coming out of the closet, and they are coming with a roar; all the years of bottled up frustration is coming out at last, and I say POWER TO THEM!

Ra, the dykes and gays are paying their hard earned taxes to pay benfits for you and your ilk. They are even paying to pay for your kids to attend school, etc, but they don't receive any benefits for THEIR kids, because they rarely have any. And they don't get tax breaks for their kids, like heterosexuals do.

I don't know about being a "bleeding heart", but I am a "gay hugger"; yes, I hug gays.I have some wonderful friends who are gay. Big deal. You appear to be equating being gay with being "illegal". Why?

Tech 32, well said. Thank you. Irrefutable arguments, I would say.

Donna, you say, "Those who continue to fight tooth and nail need to research a bit on the "licensing of marriage" by governments,when that actually started and why...and what exactly that means, rather than parrot some politician's jargon or some cleric's dogma". I disagree. I don't believe that I need to do research on why some damn government licenses marriage to know what is right, and what is bigoted.

Deano, how can any man look at any woman's (enter the orifice of your choice) and call it love? I think you have a misguided sense of what love is. There is a bit more to it that putting tab A into slot B. How could a woman look at your hairy dick and call it love? It pees into a toilet and drips all over the floor afterwards. Get a life.

Ma Kettle, you're kidding, right? I hope so. I don't think you really want us all to produce 3.4 kids to support you in your old age, do you? That is a pyramid scam extraordinaire. Gays are helping to preserve the earth by NOT reproducing themselves. All the rest of us, who have chosen to have a kid or more, are contributing to the problem.

How many folks here are willing to admit they are gay? I have't seen any yet. Do you suppose that ten percent of the posters are gays, but not comfortable in admitting it? (Gee, I wonder why that would be) Sorry, DMB, maybe it's only 1-3% Moot point, the percentage; even you admit that there are SOME people who are apparently born gay.

I personally doubt that any of our arguments are going to change any minds, unfortunately. I think it's probably necessary to get to know some gays to realize they are more similar to us than they are different. Who knows? Maybe some of your best friends, or fellow church goers, will finally feel comfortable enough to tell you of their true leanings.

Jumpoff Joe

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), March 17, 2000.

They, by the way, my thought is this: decreased population as a result of non-procreating couples and increased longevity and an aging population=less workers for the tax pool so the number of workers taxed to pay for each individual benefits program increases. Maybe I've got the math wrong.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 17, 2000.

No, jump off joe, no kidding here. I said what I thought. I didn't say anyone had to have 3.4 children. I said homosexuals who don't procreate don't add to the pool of workers, now 3.4 workers whose tax witholdings go to pay for social security benefits for one retiree. That's a statistic I read once while doing a search on SS benefits. It's what I think. It may offend some. That's life.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 17, 2000.

Al:

Well said. [I particularly like the tab a into slot b part.]

When my kids were young, we had a toy carpet sweeper. It worked extremely well on those small spills of dirt or crumbs, and you know how toddlers enjoy those push toys. A neighbor man stopped by one day while my son was pushing the carpet sweeper and said, "Don't let him do that. You'll make a sissy out of him."

On our next visit to the pediatrician, we were exiting the doctor's office into the waiting room when I said, "Doc...one more question: Homosexuality...nature or nurture?" Every conversation in the waiting room came to an abrupt halt, and nurses gathered around, as everyone wanted to hear his reply. Summarizing his remarks, he led me to believe that it was like a color preference. Some folks like red more than green and some folks like green more than red. He DID say that there was nothing I could do to prevent homosexuality in my children, nor would anything I do encourage homosexuality. His final words on the subject were "Just love them."

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 17, 2000.

Ive read some thoughtful input from both sides of the fence on this thread. I find myself in agreement with a little bit of everyones position. Not to be left out I would like to present the following:

(1). While it is certainly true that people of the homosexual persuasion pay taxes, so do rapists, child molesters, wife beaters, murderers, drug addicts, white collar criminals, drunk drivers, and on and on and on. My point being that this argument holds no water.

(2). Lets just take SEX out of the equation and extend these partnership benefits to ANY couples that live together. Why should sex be the glue that binds? Any two people that co-habitat and enter into a formal agreement should be legally recognized for the purpose of tax, social, and employment benefits. That way who gives a shit if two guys living together are gay or not? Same for a couple of gals that are sharing a nice apartment and splitting expenses. Why should they be required to have sex with each other in order to qualify? If we want to abandon the traditional family structure than do it right.

Get the drift? If we allow Gays to acquire this special status then we are discriminating against all other straight couples, regardless of the mix. This removes the gay bashing from the picture and levels the playing field for all.

I hope this concept will placate those of you that are so ardent in your support of the gay community. If not, well fu*k you and the butt pirate you rode in on.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), March 17, 2000.

Actually, the amt of taxes paid by workers would increase as the number of individuals taxed decreased. Uugh! As if they weren't emough already. I'm for responsible procreation by responsible individuals. From what I've seen of those that practice alternative lifestyles, acceptance of personal responsibility doesn't just jump into my mind as a general attribute.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 17, 2000.

Well you all noticed I only jumped in once....see above...didnt care much for the 'adultery' comment...Some very good points are made here. I take objection to the one however who said how many here will admitt being gay? believe it was Al. Doesnt matter. All I know is I am a mother have 3 sons. 21, 19 and 16. Put one thru bible college. Found out recently he has/is struggling with this issue. I can tell you one thing, it HURTS like hell to even discuss this issue. Till you have lived it, you just never know. As for the whole issue, I hope it doesnt get to the point where we 'recognize' the marriage issue. For the simple fact that what we 'know' as marriage is cut and dry...male and female. period. Let us NOT put a question mark where a period belongs. It is a personal nightmare, and NO I do not consider myself a homophobic. Most here have NEVER heard me be so passionate about any subject. This one I can be. I live it EVERY SINGLE DAY....I see the sadness in my son, his inability to be happy. I've met many of his friends, they are not happy. It is sad. This folks have issues. To date, I have not met one gay person who is in fact, gay. Enough said, flame away.

BTW, Al, you need to relook over your post, I believe you said you WERE a flaming homosexual., tis okay, as I smile, I know what you meant.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

consumer,

A clue as to why they are so unhappy while struggling with feelings like that is to look at the NASTINESS directed towards gays. They understand that to be gay is to be HATED!!!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

Sifting:

I am the kind of person who tries to be open-minded, and who tries to never draw permanent conclusions. I have not made any statement regarding the specific law mentioned at the head of this post.

My previous post was to address the fear in those who would make "gays" somehow inferior or aberrations of God.

So I am reading your first few points, and you are getting me to think a little-Then you come up with this:

"If not, well fu*k you and the butt pirate you rode in on."

Do yourself a favor and read my first post again. Why are you so afraid??

Ma Kettle-I am sorry you feel so terrible-but what is there to deal with?? Did you always love your son?? Why do your feelings change one iota since he is gay?? Are you feeling guilty?? Your son's sexual preference should have no bearing on your love for him-Or is it that your husband has made life miserable since he found out(forgive me in advance if you have lost him or he is not there).

And BTW, I know many HAPPY gay people. Some of the wisest people I know are gay and I have learned much from them.

I pray for all of you that have a "problem" with homosexuality as I leave you with this: God's love is UNCONDITIONAL-

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 17, 2000.

Ma Kettle said:

I didn't say they couldn't. I said they don't..... What's with the 2.1 thingy? Where did that stat come from if you would be so kind? -- Ma Kettle

Well, if you think about it, eventually the retirees are going to number less than the worker/taxpayer class if you hold with the idea that the gay population doesn't procreate. So, it should take less taxpayers to pay the retirees. Unless the breeders decide to make up the shortage. So I chose a number that was less than the one you mentioned.

They, by the way, my thought is this: decreased population as a result of non-procreating couples and increased longevity and an aging population=less workers for the tax pool so the number of workers taxed to pay for each individual benefits program increases. Maybe I've got the math wrong.

Well, if there is increased longevity, then the worker/taxpayer class will be working and paying taxes longer. The retirement age isn't set in stone, you know.

You should also consider the trend of healthy living that is growing now. Healthy eating, healthy exercise, etc. This goes a long way to allowing the retirees of the future to continue being a productive part of the worker/taxpayer class past the current retirement age.

With a healthier population living longer the taxpayer base is then extended. So I don't see a minority of homosexuals making a big difference there.

I said homosexuals who don't procreate don't add to the pool of workers, now 3.4 workers whose tax witholdings go to pay for social security benefits for one retiree. That's a statistic I read once while doing a search on SS benefits. It's what I think.

I really don't think that you can lay the problem of the benefit program on gays. Last time I checked, I pay taxes along with all my brothers and sisters. There are heterosexual couples out there who do not procreate and people that remain single their whole lives.

I tell ya what. I pay a school tax as part of my property taxes every year. Since I do not have and am not planning on having any children in my life time, why don't you take that tax and add it to your social security program?

It may offend some. That's life.

It does. It is.

-- They can do it (iftheyw@nt.to), March 17, 2000.

Actually, the amt of taxes paid by workers would increase as the number of individuals taxed decreased. Uugh! As if they weren't emough already.

You seem to really be stuck on this tax issue. Face it, you will pay taxes till you die. Same for all of us, except for that guy in Nevada. And the IRS may get him yet.

I'm for responsible procreation by responsible individuals.

Well, that is all well and good, however, with gays I suppose it would more accurately be called recreation. Since we don't breed, ya know.

From what I've seen of those that practice alternative lifestyles, acceptance of personal responsibility doesn't just jump into my mind as a general attribute.

Was that you outside my window? Get a life! lol

Actually, those that practice alternative lifestyles is a rather sweeping discription, since there are other lifestyles than straight and gay. Are you including the swinger set? The wife-swappers? Anyway, what you have seen of the gay community is apparently a very small part. Believe me, we accept personal responsibility. We have to. There are no handouts from the government to supplement our lives like unwed mothers get. Or battered housewives. We cannot even expect help from most churches in times of need. We HAVE to accept personal responsibility for ourselves. No one will do it for us. Mom and Dad? Honor thy mother and thy father. But if you're gay, they disown you. We must perforce create our own support networks. Society in general would not mind in the least if we all died tomorrow. Of course, it would probably grumble about the mess.

Ma Kettle, if you had a gay son as another poster mentioned, I would feel sorry for him. I can see that he would not get much help/love/support from his mother. I would suggest he get in contact with a local support group for gays.

The other poster had you confused with consumer.

-- They can do it (iftheyw@nt.to), March 17, 2000.

RA,

News Flash for you, Gays have in the past and are now serving with Honor in all branches of the Military. They don't tell and the Military does not ask. If you do come "out" then you will be discharged.

Would not a "married" Gay couple pay more tax than 2 single Gays? Is not the debate over the "marriage tax" been going on in congress for years?

Get over the fear.

-- Chief (bmc@sealret.com), March 17, 2000.

Would not a "married" Gay couple pay more tax than 2 single Gays? -- Chief

You know, I tried our taxes last year as a joint return. We would have ended up paying. By doing our taxes separately, we were refunded.

Also, health insurance is cheaper. We pay about 27.00 a month total on our separate medical insurance policies. If we were both on one together 70.00.

It isn't tax breaks and lower insurance, obviously. It's the rights.

The right to be able to visit in the hospital as an immediate family member, for instance.

Just imagine, you and your SO are alone together because you have both been disowned by your families. Then one day your SO goes to hospital for something. Car accident, appendicitis [sp?] or whatever. And the hospital says you cannot visit because you are not immediate family. Fifteen years together!

And then, and then, the immediate family shows up. And it turns out SO dies. Even though a will leaves it all to you, they contest it, and you end up going broke fighting. Or worse, there is no will, and you end up out on the street with nothing and SO's 'family' takes it all!

And yet, that is how it is in most of this country.

-- They can do it (iftheyw@nt.to), March 18, 2000.

They can,

Have seen first hand a situation like the one you described. Man had AIDS, died. His SO also has AIDS now and is dying. Let me say this, many things you say I feel. But, I saw a church which supported the SO, helped him go to retrieve his things from a very irate family, the man was hurt, dying, and left with nothing.

For the record, I will try real hard not to respond from this point forward as to the love for my son, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING AND NEEDS NO EXPLANATION. ALWAYS have I loved him, and ALWAYS I shall.

Uncle Dee, I concur, wholeheartedly.

I dont even know why I posted in the first place other than to say this, someone stated nobody on here would come forward admitting, so I did.

For what its worth....

======consumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 18, 2000.

Go back and read consumer's post, then see who is confused. *hint* It's not me.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

Consumer,

Just to clarify, I was not commenting on your situation with your son. Been in that situation, different shoes though.

What I was referring to was Ma Kettle, and the reference to her in the post by Future shock. That poster had gotten the two of you mixed up.

So, in answer to the question of how many would admit to being gay, I guess it would be one present and another by proxy.

As Chief said, "Get over the fear." Not always easy, but definitely worth it.

-- they can do it (iftheyw@nt.to), March 18, 2000.

Consumer,

My wife's sister is gay. It can be tough on a family to support a loved one with an alternate lifestyle. One sister unfortunately gave the family an ultimatum. We disown the gay sister or she and her children would never see us again. We ddo miss her and hope she changes her mind but it's been 15 years and we have kinda given up hope.

My daughter called of her wedding ten years ago when her fiance said he would not want her Aunt at the wedding because she was gay. Her Mother and I were sad for her but very proud.

Try to find a little humor so you can handle the darker times. The family joke is when I get a new issue of Playboy, I read the articles and Patty looks at the pictures.

-- Chief (bmc@sealret.com), March 18, 2000.

Ma Kettle-

My apology for confusing you with Consumer.

Cheif-

Thanks for sharing the story. It just gives weight to my previous posts on this thread.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 18, 2000.

Yep...good stories all around. I'll add another. My SO's niece decided to tell everyone she was gay at Thanksgiving dinner at OUR house. We'd suspected it for quite a while, as she first lived with two gay guys from her high-school class and later moved to a gay community in Dallas. I don't know whether she expected more conversation on the issue than she got, but her dad STILL refuses to acknowledge her choice. It's not important, really. She's living at home again with him now and he still loves her...just doesn't want to even THINK about this "gay" thing.

It's almost comical the way grown kids are still afraid to tell their parents the truth. SO's daughter got pregnant [by design] when she was 30 years old. AFTER she told us, she said, "I was afraid to tell you." "For goodness sakes, woman! You're 30 years old and you still CARE what WE think on such personal issues?"

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 18, 2000.

"For goodness sakes, woman! You're 30 years old and you still CARE what WE think on such personal issues?"

LOL Anita, I think it just shows how much she loves you.

-- They can do it (iftheyw@nt.to), March 18, 2000.

This appears to be one of those threads that solicit a wide range of comments from both sides of an issue. After carefully reading all of the posts I would like to add these thoughts:

* People like myself, that oppose the homosexual lifestyle are tired of hearing how afraid they are. Tired of hearing how their own sexuality is questioned. This reverse analysis is just a ploy to avoid the real issue and does nothing to bring the participants together.

* This live and let live attitude combined with an increased tolerance for alternative lifestyles has a price tag you may not be willing to pay.

* I dont think that the institution of marriage is the real issue here. Read what Mr. Sifting said about legitimizing all partnerships and we could have the answer.

Take SEX out of the mix and it all becomes a little more palatable. How many of you would like YOURE sexual practices to be made public knowledge? Yeah, I didnt think so, me neither. Its one thing to reach an acceptance of the gay lifestyle but to make it special and deserving of unique privileges will never fly.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 18, 2000.

Someone said the only choices to make in life are those between love and fear. Actually the only choices there are to make is that between love of the lie (subjective reality) and love of the truth (objective reality). The lie will support and tolerate any thing.......that is why why it is a lie. The truth will and can support and tolerate only the truth. The truth, by it's nature, is exclusionary....red is red not green...hot is hot, not warm or cold. The truth, by it's nature is intolerant of anything that is not true!!!

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), March 18, 2000.

Nancy, you said:

"Someone said the only choices to make in life are those between love and fear. Actually the only choices there are to make is that between love of the lie (subjective reality) and love of the truth (objective reality). The lie will support and tolerate any thing.......that is why why it is a lie. The truth will and can support and tolerate only the truth. The truth, by it's nature, is exclusionary....red is red not green...hot is hot, not warm or cold. The truth, by it's nature is intolerant of anything that is not true!!!"

If I understand what you're saying, which sounds much like a riddle, the subjective reality is that my child/my friend [insert relationship of choice] is NOT gay. The objective reality is that he/she IS.

Are we on the same page of the hymnal, or have I missed your point?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 18, 2000.

NH-

Who has a monopoly on the truth?? What is the truth?? Scientific fact? THe bible? You sound like a fundamentalist christian, especially with your use of the word "lie". I bless your choice to choose your religion, but unfortunately I do not confer to you or yours what you think is the "truth". There is no humility in someone who says the know the absolute truth of things-If you are following Christ, then please examine what he is reported as saying about humility in the new testament. And please do not come back and quote biblical, anti-gay verse-been there, read that. Certainly christ would not have said it.

Ra:

"This reverse analysis is just a ploy to avoid the real issue..."

What IS the real issue, that it goes against your religion? Sorry, I would not want to be part of any religion which is exclusionary for ANY reason. As I said before, it IS fear at a deep level-not fear of the homosexual, or the lifestyle, but fear of what you do not understand-you would not know it as fear because it does not "feel" like fear-but it is the fear that makes you angry about this issue.

and this quote: "This live and let live attitude combined with an increased tolerance for alternative lifestyles has a price tag you may not be willing to pay. "

What price Ra? Eternal damnation?? see notes above to NH. Anyone, anyone at all who presumes to judge for God or CHrist, or whoever, is guilty of the greatest spiritual crime-spiritual pride-there could be another whole thread on that alone. Are you equal to God-Can you possibly believe that simply being a biblical scholar gives you a lock on the truth, that you understand the nuances of the mind of God?

Thanks for your input, but the spiritual threats have got to go.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 18, 2000.

Since the topics of subjectivity, objectivity, and spirituality have been introduced into this thread, I'll take this opportunity to pass along an internet story:

Two nuns went out of the convent to sell cookies. One of them is known as Sister Mathematical (SM) and the other one is known as Sister Logical(SL). It is getting dark and they are still far away from the convent.

SL: Have you noticed that a man has been following us for the past half-hour?

SM.: Yes, I wonder what he wants.

SL: It's logical. He wants to rape us.

SM: Oh, no! At this rate he will reach us in 15 minutes at the most. What can we do?

SL: The only logical thing to do of course is that we have to start walking faster.

SM: It is not working.

SL: Of course it is not working. The man did the only obvious thing to do. He started to walk faster too.

SM: So, what shall we do? At this rate he will reach us in one minute.

SL: The only logical thing we can do is split. You go that way and I'll go this way. He cannot follow both of us.

So the man decided to go after Sister Logical. Sister Mathematical arrives at the convent and is worried because Sister Logical has not yet arrived. Finally, Sister Logical arrives.

SM: Sister Logical! Thank God you are here! Tell us what happened!

SL: The only logical thing happened. The man could not follow both of us, so he followed me.

SM: So, what happened? Please tell us.

SL: The only logical thing to happen. I started to run as fast as I could.

SM: So what happened?

SL: The only logical thing to happen. The man also started to run as fast as he could.

SM: And what else?

SL: The only logical thing to happen. He reached me.

SM: Oh, no! What did you do then?

SL: The only logical thing to do. I lifted my dress up.

SM: Oh, Sister. What did the man do?

SL: The only logical thing to do. He pulled down his pants.

SM: Oh, no! What happened then?

SL: Isn't it logical, Sister? A nun with her dress up can run faster than a man with his pants down.

(And you thought it would be dirty! Say two Hail Mary's...)

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 18, 2000.

LOL anita.

Thanks.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 18, 2000.

Future Shock you are way off on your own trip....it is not enough to read, one must be able to understand what one reads. Your responses are typical of everyone I have ever met in the homosexual movement---- knee jerk responses, don't take time to savor the full thought, condemn anything you think challenges your position immediately in the harshest terms you can....all the while revealing lack of logical thinking processes in your own arguments.

Anita, it's easier than what "is is".

I was hoping to find intelligent life in this thread. Reason. Use of logic. Sorry to say it sure doesn't exist here.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), March 18, 2000.

Thanks Nancy, you have said it much better than I. My comments and opinions are strictly from the heart and have no spiritual or religious alignment. Future Shock, I suggest that your support of the gay community would have more validity if you would separate the church from the process. I can assure you that I have.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 18, 2000.

Well, Nancy, I guess I was wrong in my interpretation of your "riddle."

You could have simply stated that and elucidated on your thoughts so that I might gain understanding. Instead, you said:

"Future Shock you are way off on your own trip....it is not enough to read, one must be able to understand what one reads.

I thought that was what *I* was trying to do

Your responses are typical of everyone I have ever met in the homosexual movement---- knee jerk responses, don't take time to savor the full thought, condemn anything you think challenges your position immediately in the harshest terms you can....all the while revealing lack of logical thinking processes in your own arguments. Anita, it's easier than what "is is".

IS...third person singular form of "to be." *I* AM, however, he, she or it IS.

I think this may be the crux of it, Nancy. Until homosexuality hits YOU, it's simply something that affects THEM.

I was hoping to find intelligent life in this thread. Reason. Use of logic. Sorry to say it sure doesn't exist here."

Heh. It's funny that you should say this after saying condemn anything you think challenges your position immediately in the harshest terms you can....all the while revealing lack of logical thinking processes in your own arguments.

Outside of the folks I know that are gay, homosexuality hasn't affected my life. I understand that some folks think it's incorrect behavior. I understand that some folks believe that these folks have a choice. Unlike Uncle Deedah, I tolerate intolerance. Life's just too short to condemn folks based on one difference of opinion.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 18, 2000.

Anita, I think Nancy was hoping that someone would explain her post to her, since it is not her original thought but someone else's. Ergo, she was peeved when you tried to understand it and then confused her even more.

Ration@l1, your post reeks of 'snootiness.' I get this image of you in a suit pacing a drawing room, martini glass in hand, bifocals pushed up onto your bald cranium, aristocratic nose high in the air, as you dictate to a small mousy woman huddling in a corner over a laptop typing furiously and aching to get home after a 16 hour day of working for you for a measly tuppance. If you could just tone it down, it would be easier to read and understand, and your arrogance and self-assumed importance wouldn't be so obvious.

I also would like to try and keep religion out of the discussion. However, it never fails that someone will bring it up and try to use it as a weapon against the gay lifestyle. "Homosexuality is a tool of the devil." You will burn in hell for that!" The Christian Coalition comes to mind now.

Give me a break! Heard it before. I don't believe in the devil. If they want to, fine. They can be straight.

nancy,

Subjective reality is what you make of it. You can think that getting beat up for your sexual preference is nothing and doesn't hurt.

Objective reality is when your SO is beat-up, raped, and left tied to a fence in the middle of nowhere naked in -10 degree weather at night by wholesome Christian people who believe in God. And by association, believe in the devil as well. And then your SO dies.

-- They can do it (iftheyw@nt.to), March 18, 2000.

"I once heard a priest say, when God said "Come all my children," he didn't say come all my straight children"

Romans 1:22-28 "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchange the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;"

Leviticus 18:22-24 "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you."

I realize that many people's personal faith allows for homosexuality, but clearly orthodox Judaism and Christianity does not. There are those who prefer to splice these religions into piece meals of preference, but then logically, a pedophile could do the same.

"Next, it will be socially acceptable for pedophiles to marry 9 year olds."

Ra has made an important statement here. There are many who are hoping to legally do just that. If you think 'that's different', then explain logically how so. Civilization has upheld the traditional standard of marriage for more reasons than disliking something 'different'.

"I suspect that most .... have not had the pleasure of getting a good look at the homosexual lifestyle. "

Another good point Ra. Setting AIDS aside, there are many health problems associated with the sexual activities of homosexuals. Promiscuity is not only rampant, but generally considered desirable. Fisting, rimming, golden showers, defacation and other bizarre things are practiced. It is not NATURAL or healthy, to say the least. You will often find that 'married' homosexuals still acquire AIDS and other STD's, because they are normally not monogamous.

"Why should it matter who does what behind closed doors as long as they are consenting adults? "

The homosexual community wants much more than to be left alone behind closed doors. A good example is Gay Pride month in the California public schools. This is observed from kindergarten on up. They don't want to be left alone, they are militantly aggressive to promote their lifestyle.

"Do you really believe they stop being Citizens with *equal* rights?"

They have basically the same rights now. The issue is whether or not it is a good thing for society to change the traditional standard for marriage. History should be weighed in the balance here, and it does not weigh on the side of the homosexual community.

"In addition, that Kinsey "10%" number has been shown to be too high by a factor of at least 3. Kinsey's research methods and statistical work don't stand up to modern evaluation, "

This is an understatement. Kinsey was a very sick individual who used pedophiles and criminals to molest children and produced skewed and fraudulent results. He has been thoroughly discredited. The most accurate estimates of the homosexual population have been around 2-3%.

"However, for those worried about what they may see as gay promiscuity, the 'civil union' (not marriage) bill that Vermont is considering would add to the stability of committed gay relationships."

This statement shows a certain lack of knowledge about the homosexual community. They have their own 'marriages' and 'weddings' now, albeit not legal, but this does not deter 'infidelity' or promiscuity.

"Get over the fear. "

This is a common misperception. Those who disagree with homosexuality are not necessarily afraid of 'it' or those who choose to practice it. To make this kind of accusation seems to be a diversionary tactic.

"there is one kooky Rev. who is so homophobic that he posts pictures on his website of things like "Dancing on the grave of a fag."

This is simply wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. I abhor that kind of behavior towards any person. On the other hand, let me ask how many of you watched the homosexual gathering in DC on CNN? There was constant hateful mocking and obscenities spewed toward heterosexuals. It was very eye-opening. The cameras had to be careful to avoid the people who were naked and engaging in sexual practices openly.

"Those of us who are secure in our sexuality are not threatened by gays, hence a clue behind the thinking of the bigots. "

Again, this is an assumption without factual basis. I am not 'threatened' in my sexuality because I feel that the homosexual lifestyle is unnatural and harmful. It is avoiding the issue again, and attacking the messenger rather than their message/viewpoint.

"I cracks me up when the bigots say things like: "Gays aren't born that way, they chose to be gay."

With all due respect, have you heard of groups such as Exodus, or the successful practice of Dr. Nicolosi? Have you studied the common factors when a personal profile and history is considered?

"No, actually I do, well, maybe not HATE, but I dislike intensely people who DO hate people who are different."

Again, it is an assumption without basis to state that all or even most who disagree with homosexuality and are against the legal recognition of such unions "hate" homosexuals. I'm sorry, but this is drivel.

"All they are asking for is to be able to benefit from the same rules that everyone else benefits from"

I'm sorry, but I find this statement hopelessly naive. Have you read their publications? Listened to their radical speakers? Did you see the homosexual man who walked a boy with a dog collar on his neck with leash attached openly in their parade? Do you understand that their national organizations will not disaffiliate from NAMBLA? (North American Man Boy Lovers Assoc)

"I don't believe that I need to do research on why some damn government licenses marriage to know what is right, and what is bigoted. "

Donna pointed out a pivotal aspect of this issue. If you truly don't care about this, then you are simply part of heated and emotional rhetoric without weighing what is in the balance.

"Sorry, DMB, maybe it's only 1-3% Moot point, the percentage; even you admit that there are SOME people who are apparently born gay. "

No.....it is simply stating that is the estimate of the population who practices homosexuality.

"He DID say that there was nothing I could do to prevent homosexuality in my children, nor would anything I do encourage homosexuality."

Many professionals now disagree with this. If you condone homosexuality on this basis, on what basis will you deny legal sanction to pedophilia? Or incest? Or polygamy?

"A clue as to why they are so unhappy while struggling with feelings like that is to look at the NASTINESS directed towards gays"

I really don't think so. Those who live immersed in gay communities and who have supportive families still struggle. I believe it has more to do with the inherent nature of their lifestyle and all its ramifications. Promiscuity is a big factor, and bonding is therefore superficial and fleeting.

"They understand that to be gay is to be HATED!!! "

It seems you are beating a dead horse. Most people who disagree with homosexuality are even afraid to say so, because they will be accused of "hate". Do you "hate" any person who has committed adultery? Do you "hate" every person who has been drinking alcohol and then gotten behind the wheel of a car? Doubtful, but I would imagine that you would not condone adultery by your spouse or someone driving while intoxicated.

"And BTW, I know many HAPPY gay people"

How intimately do you know them? My best friend from high school is a homosexual. My girlfriend's father was a homosexual. Two of my cousins are homosexuals. I almost married a homosexual. Behind the scenes, there was sadness.

"But if you're gay, they disown you"

I'm sure it happens to some, but of the six homosexuals that I know personally, they were supported, not disowned.

"Society in general would not mind in the least if we all died tomorrow."

This sounds like inflammatory and unfounded pity-party rhetoric.

"The right to be able to visit in the hospital as an immediate family member, for instance"

I believe there are already legal means of addressing this, if they take the time and legal steps to do so. It is not justification for changing the legal status and definition of marriage.

". One sister unfortunately gave the family an ultimatum. We disown the gay sister or she and her children would never see us again.....My daughter called of her wedding ten years ago when her fiance said he would not want her Aunt at the wedding because she was gay. "

This is not the same issue. I would certainly not agree with such shunning. It is poor behavior and lack of love in someone who would disown a loved one.

"Certainly christ would not have said it"

Is it significant that you used the lower case? Jesus said..."Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

"What IS the real issue, that it goes against your religion? "

Whether there are sound reasons and historical precedence for upholding the traditional marriage.... one man and one woman....

"it is the fear that makes you angry about this issue."

Not fear of homosexuals, not fear of sexuality in general, but a fear of an upheaval that society could not withstand, a disintegration of the foundation that holds it together, a further deterioration in a country that is already struggling. I still remember the abortion rhetoric....'every child a wanted child'. It was practically guaranteed to almost eliminate child abuse. Reality? Abuse has skyrocketed. We live in a nation of escalating violence with a throw- away mentality. Yes, there is a fear. I have listened to the militant and radical homosexuals. I watched the public gathering in DC. I have seen the pain and havoc that accompanies the lifestyle. Yes, there is a fear, but you have misread it.

PS. I correspond with an extremely nice poster who has a same sex relationship. We have been able to continue our correspondence with the knowledge that we disagree on this issue.

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), March 18, 2000.

Nancy-

"... all the while revealing lack of logical thinking processes in your own arguments."

I wish I understood what you meant by this. I would be more than happy to admit faulty "logic" if you could indeed point out exactly where and how I did this.

Also: What is the "homosexual movement"? Why do you assume, if there is such a thing, that I belong to it?? The only "movement" I belong to is the one which treats EVERY human being equally-the movement that urges corporations to pay women the same as men for the same position, the movement which rails against racial profiling...Simple. I apologize if I mistook your post as having to do with your religion- I am just careful of anyone who shouts about the "truth".

Ra: you said: "My comments and opinions are strictly from the heart..."

I went to find the derogatory remark you made about gays to post it back to back with the above, but the sysop deleted it and my prior reference to it-I will not repeat it here out of respect to the sysop- but you know what you said, and those who have been following this thread know what you said. So sad, that that kind of vitriol comes straight from you heart.

To you I also apologize if I mistook your zeal for religious zeal-BUT I am not in this thread to explicitly support the gay community-I am here to support the dignity and choices of all human beings.

Mumsie:

I appreciate the time you took to go through this thread and answer all the comments you felt were in error. You do seem sincere in your feelings. BUT

Do you really want to start quoting the old testament?? Really? We could go back and forth with this, and your God will come out awful poorly if judged by today's normal standards-especially if we were to list that behavior without reference to the time,place, or person- there are nasty things in that there old testament.

Again, I say that I do not believe the Christ I know would have said the things qouted in your post-of course this shows I do not believe every word in the bible is the revealed word of God-Fundamentalism, wether it occurs in religion, or in a hall of the Knights of Columbus, is dangerous-It is that "truth" thing again-A fundamentalist thrives on having a "truth" on which to judge others- this truth has led to a myriad of persecutions-

The bible in parts also stated that the black people are inferior, and that is what white supremists quote and what hitler quoted-so do you really want to say that every word in the bible is the revealed word of God??

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 18, 2000.

Let's get a few things STRAIGHT before we move on with this discussion, eh?

I can tolerate a reference ONCE, but I've seen this one MORE than once on this thread:

There are HUGE differences between homosexuality and pedophilia or incest. Pedophilia and incest are akin to RAPE. If you think RAPE is acting on a SEXUAL desire, you'll see pedophilia or incest in the same way. You're WRONG! Rape, pedophilia, and incest are POWER-based. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual desire. I never studied polygamy, so I don't understand the base like I do the other two. Perhaps a polygamist can come forth and present some views?

Regarding the biblical references, what about those that said something about "Judge NOT, lest YOU be judged", "Let the one without sin cast the first stone", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" If these are mooted by the others, I suspect we have a problem. I suspect we have a problem on this thread ANYWAY, but problems indicate we're still alive.

We now return to the standard bickering associated with folks who don't agree on a subject and choose not to simply state "I agree to disagree."

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 18, 2000.

Mumsie

As always, I thoughtful and intelligent post from yourself.thanks.

Futile Shmuck

What are you babbling about? The sysop has not deleted any of my posts, on this thread or any others. Are you referring to my disparaging descriptions of gay lovers that went something like rump rangers and bull dykes? Scroll up, they are still there. Just about what you would expect from a snoot like me, huh?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 19, 2000.

Ra- LOL. that was a really funny parody of my handle. As Anita said, I think I will just agree to disagree. You feel the way you do and I feel the way I do.

In parting, I hope and pray that your heart and your world view serve you and your family well in leading you to all the blessings and happiness you seek.

We have nothing more to discuss.

Take care A-rational.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 19, 2000.

Thanks FS, my life and my familys are just great. I appreciate your response and respect your opinion. Like you said, time to move on to another issue. The best to you.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 19, 2000.

Mumsie

If the Biblical nonsense you posted meant anything to Jews or Christians why do they not follow these "laws" too?

Lev 19:27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard

Lev 20:9 If anyone curses his mother or father he must be put to death

Exo 31:15 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death

Exo 35:3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day

Deut 15:1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.

I also do not see any burnt offerings going on these days either, but yet the same old tired Biblical rhetoric gets dragged out to show how "evil" gays are. The Bible is full of silly nonsense, your quotes among them.

how many of you watched the homosexual gathering in DC on CNN? There was constant hateful mocking and obscenities spewed toward heterosexuals.

Is it any wonder? How many times does an individual have to be reminded that they are "sick" before they get POed?

With all due respect, have you heard of groups such as Exodus, or the successful practice of Dr. Nicolosi? Have you studied the common factors when a personal profile and history is considered?

Who cares why, if they aren't hurting non-consenting others let them do as they please.

Many professionals now disagree with this. If you condone homosexuality on this basis, on what basis will you deny legal sanction to pedophilia? Or incest? Or polygamy?

Anita addressed this one, and franky I'm surprised that you do not support polygamy. Who the hell are you to tell three or four people that want to be married that they cannot? How un-Christian, it is perfectly acceptable in the Bible afterall. But I guess that is just more of that same old selective sin meistering.

Is it significant that you used the lower case? Jesus said..."Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

So my "sin list" above must still be in effect. Golly, I sure hope that you do not risk the wrath of God Almighty by shopping on Sunday, from what I read, I hope you do not cook on Sunday either. Why did not Jesus see fit to addresss this gayness issue? If it really was so important in the grand scheme of things surely he would have.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 19, 2000.

Woo-hoo!

I've got nothing to add to the argument, just to say that count me on the side that thinks gay people are just people, that gay sex is no more disgusting than any other sex, and that there are enough laws against truly immoral acts, and too many against consenting acts between adults.

As for the inane comment a few dozen posts ago trying to equate pedophilia with homosexuality -> bzzzzt! Wrong! Consenting adults aren't children. Not now. Not ever. Get a fricking brain, fer christsake!

Now, get on with it! Best two out of three falls takes the trophy!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 20, 2000.

Good morning Brian,

I went back over this thread and could not find any words of advocating laws against homosexual activity. My complaint is based on laws that make gays special and give them benefits that are not available to everyone else (you know, kinda like affirmative action). I dont sanction or support the homosexual lifestyle but they should have the same rights to engage in sexual activities as do the rest of humanity. Just do not elevate them to some privileged status.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 20, 2000.

I had to go back and reread the article Z presented to understand what you might be saying, Rational.

I didn't see anything to indicate that a civil union would only be available to same-sexed couples. It would certainly INCLUDE them, but I didn't see anything that indicated that this was anything more than an option outside of current marriage laws. You might want to look it over again.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 20, 2000.

Jumpoff Joe,

I see you don't have much of a sense of humor. Ya see, Sam Kinnison was a comedian. Hence, it was a joke. I'm very suprised I had to explain that to you.

But to answer your question on how a woman could look at a man at call it true love? Probably because it's natural.....

Get a life?? You're a funny 'man' Joe...........

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 20, 2000.

>> My complaint is based on laws that make gays "special" and give them benefits that are not available to everyone else (you know, kinda like affirmative action). <<

In which case, I believe you have nothing to complain about. There are no such laws that specially benefit homosexuals above or beyond heterosexuals.

The example of marriage is a good one to illustrate this. The state allows heterosexual couples to obtain a license that defines a special status under the law. This status includes both responsibilities and benefits. Those benefits are available exclusively to couples whose sexes are heterogenous. Even homosexuals may marry, provided they do not marry someone of the same sex. Further, a large number of business policies and benefits are conditioned on that status.

In what way would extending that status to couples whose sexes are homogenous be an example of "a benefit not available to everyone else?" I don't think you can reasonably argue that it is.

Ra, can you cite any actual laws of the sort you are arguing against? Or even bills introduced with more than a snowball's chance of passage and enactment into law? I can't.

I believe you have swallowed a red herring and have been misled by people whom you trusted to tell you the truth. The special rights slogan is a canard. Ask for details. Get to the truth. You may be surprised at the amount of emotional squink thrown over the details as you try to probe deeper into them.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 20, 2000.

Homosexuality is WRONG! I don't need to debate this issue. What you do behind closed doors ain't my business, so don't make it so by publicizing it. Our society was built on marriage between a man and a woman. I don't see no need ta change that. Works well.

I work hard at the plant every day and I don't need to come home and watch a bunch of whinny fudge packers on TV telling me they need more rights. We all have the same rights per the Constititution. Period. No group needs extra. Then we wouldn't all be equal.

Us regular Joes vote. And we aint' never gonna vote this as normal. Vermont always been a bit bizarre. I hear tell they got a socialist in there legislature. Besides they just got more people than cows last year. Wunder what they been doing with them.

It's WRONG cause it's always been wrong. And it'll always be WRONG!! Damn disgusting if you ask me. Keep it behind closed doors where it belongs.

Don't bother us, we won't bother you. Shoot, Just ran outa bud.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.com), March 20, 2000.

Outta beer, even though the chances are that you are writing satire with a slightly crooked smile behind the (*ahem*) straight face, the following comment seemed to need a reply, since there are plenty of people who think that way, whether or not you do.

>> We all have the same rights per the Constititution. Period. No group needs extra. Then we wouldn't all be equal. <<

It took 120 years for women to get the Constitution amended so they could vote. Slavery was "right" until 1864. Jim Crow laws were enforced in the South until 1965. Blue laws remained in some states until the 1970s. The deed to my house excludes me from selling it to a Chinese or a Negro.

These got changed because people whined about needing more rights.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 20, 2000.

Thanks Brian.

I thought I was out of this thread, but I want to thank you for your comments-I also referred to women's rights in an earlier post here.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 20, 2000.

Brian, I took the mask of the average Joe. My interpretation could be wrong. I can't say I disagree with my interpretation though. I am not a moral relativist. Was WRONG, is WRONG and will be WRONG. Nothing will convince me otherwise. ....except maybe....free beer.

An amendment to the Constitution on this matter is a long way off, if ever. As I recall there was an Equal Rights Amendment that was introduced back in the 70's on the behalf of women that never passed.

Still, I try to treat everyone with respect and dignity even if I disagree with thier lifestyle.

Damn, store outta bud, had to buy coors.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.com), March 20, 2000.

>> I am not a moral relativist. Was WRONG, is WRONG and will be WRONG. Nothing will convince me otherwise. <<

Hmmm. WRONG in the sense that it harms someone else? No. Can't be that. Or is it WRONG in the sense that it just feels WRONG?

I suspect that for many heterosexuals, the deep abiding sense of wrongness about homosexuality is based on the fact that they imagine themselves engaging in a sexual act with someone of the same sex, and it feels grotesquely inappropriate and repellant to them.

As a heterosexual, I can well understand that. But the crux of the issue for me is that no one is asking me to do any such thing. I am only being asked to recognize that, if someone else feels differently, it is no skin off my nose if they do.

>> Still, I try to treat everyone with respect and dignity even if I disagree with thier lifestyle. <<

I think any homosexual would be pretty content with that. But inherent in "respect and dignity" is granting them all the basic rights that are automatically granted to heterosexuals. I have known several longterm, committed marriages-in-all-but-name between homosexual partners.

They live discreet and blameless lives, as worthy of respect as any other couple. And yet the weight of social opinion actively demands that they deny their identity in public. Why? For all I can see, it is save themselves from the trouble of having to come to grips with the issue.

It would be like saying that, since I can't stand the idea of death, I forbid you to ever mention it when anyone close to you dies, and you must hide your grief from everyone. If I ask you how your now-deceased father is doing, you must answer, "fine".

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 20, 2000.

Brian, I believe our society has come a long way in regards to co- existing with the gay community. Yes, we still hear about occasional acts of violence against homosexuals but all and all most people are more than happy to let them do their own thing. What pisses many folks off is the continued effort to shove the homosexual lifestyle down our throats (no pun intended), insisting that its normal. I may be in the minority here but same sex sex will never be normal to me so save your words of reason for someone else. The gays have gained much in the last 25 years or so and could find themselves going backwards by asking for too much. Two men screwing each other has NEVER been normal and will NEVER be normal. Now, two females getting it on, that I can live with.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), March 20, 2000.

I'm pissin myself over that last one. Hee hee hee.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

>> What pisses many folks off is the continued effort to shove the homosexual lifestyle down our throats [...] <<

You use violent imagery here to convey the sense of violation you feel when you actively imagine the sex act between men. But if you actually evaluate what gays have done to you, you'll probably find that it is pretty danged far from violence.

I won't presume you have never been physically violated by a gay person. Homosexuals are not immune from criminal behavior any more than straight folk are.

Some of them use crude or foul language, too. But, when you are exposed to crude language and sexual innuendo from heterosexuals, I suspect you simply define that as crude and disgusting behavior by this or that individual and not as shoving the heterosexual lifestyle down your throat. Yet they're the same thing, really.

>> ...save your words of reason for someone else. <<

Gee. Is this how you would talk in front of children as an example for them to follow as they grow up?

What is so valuable about your feelings of revulsion that you pamper them and spare them and want to protect them from being reasoned away?

Sexuality is a sometimes dark and always powerful force. It can be used for many ill purposes and lead people into many passionate mistakes and emotional turmoils. It is difficult to channel and a source of many hurts and crimes. But that is the nature of sexuality in general, not the exclusive property of any sub-species of sexuality.

In my view, when it comes to condoning or condemning sexuality, it is far better to examine the nature and quality of the relationship between the partners than to examine their genitalia. This is the basis of true morality, in my book.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 20, 2000.

Sifting, to understand what Brian is trying to say, you must first confront your own "abnormality". Lets examine it, shall we?

You said "I may be in the minority here but same sex will never be normal to me so save your words of reason for someone else."

As brian said, you're avoiding confronting this issue. It is evident that you feel very uncomfortable doing so from your statement above.

"The gays have gained much in the last 25 years or so and could find themselves going backwards by asking for too much."

This sounds like an implied threat. As if you meant to say "push me any harder to confront this issue, and I'll lash back harder."

"Two men screwing each other has NEVER been normal and will NEVER be normal. Now, two females getting it on, that I can live with. "

So here is the crux of your fear to confront this issue. Two men having sex, to you is sick and abnormal. That makes sense, since you're a heterosexual and feel disgust at the thought of having sex with another man. (I know a gay man who told me the thought of having sex with a woman made him sick.) But then you say "now, two females getting it on, that I can live with." You can live with that because, as with most healthy heterosexual men, you have fantasies of "pleasing two women" at one time. Very common fantasy theme among hetero men; they fantasize that such women would turn hetero in a heart beat if they could just have the chance to get between the two of them. So therefore, that's not threatening to you, and it is not a sick thought to you (but in fact a turn on) of two females having sex with each other. Do you see yet how your double standard is "abnormal"?

Now turn this around. I am a hetero female. The thought of having sex with a woman turns my stomach. BUT, the thought of two lesbian together does NOT threaten me, nor does it disgust me because I don't visualize them having sex with each other. It's not my business and I don't make it my business. I'd turn away a lesbian making a pass at me the same way I'd turn away a man making a pass at me. I'd tell them I'm married (and maybe to buzz off, depending on the situation.)

-- Chris (!@#@pond.com), March 20, 2000.

Ok, someone brought up the image of two women together, in bed, doing funky things. hmmmm I admit it doesnt' disgust me but it still isn't natural.

If we take a libertarian viewpoint; then anyone can marry anyone else provided they are of a certain age. It's just a contract, correct. Churches can ban whatever they want and from a libertarian viewpoint you can't and shouldn't try to change that. Now, why can't a man marry two women. The Mormons practiced bigamy and it worked for them. If homosexuals can marry then why not two woman and one man or even vice versa. As long as each wife and husband knows of the others and consents what harm would that cause? Variety, eh?

If you're going to let homosexuals marry allowing multiple spouses should be allowed also. I'm taking applications for wife #2 and #3 right now.

... and that's cause wife #1 bought coors light, damnit!

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.com), March 21, 2000.

LOL, you're ahead of your times here Outta....one thing at a time. First lets get the gays their rights, then you guys can start your movement and not have to compete with the gay right's movement.

I could use 3 or 4 more husbands too. This one won't take out the trash and fix the plumbing. Won't massage my feet either.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 21, 2000.

Chris,

LOL....ditto, but I CAN REALLY use my imagination for what I'd do with my 'male slaves', opps, I meant husbands.....

----consumer, who is passing uncle deedah a depends....shame on you dirty old man...lol.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

Gee Chris, why do you assume that I should deal with my fears and abnormalities due to my opposition to the homosexual lifestyle? The majority of the human race, if the truth were known, considers the gay community to be abnormal. So what? My complaint is very simple: Why do gays need special rights? If gays want the rest of the straight world to accept them as normal, why would they seek special status that would separate them from everyone else?

Chris, neither of us is going to alter our position on the issue so I would ask you to reply to this concept:

Outside of the traditional man/woman marriage, why not legitimize any formal partnership, regardless of sexual orientation? Not just gays but any two people that are living together under contract.

I will be interested in your reply.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), March 21, 2000.

>> My complaint is very simple: Why do gays need special rights?? If gays want the rest of the "straight" world to accept them as normal, why would they seek "special" status that would separate them from everyone else? <<

As far as I can see, "they" don't want any "special" rights. Another reply (about six or eight up) asserted this same canard. I asked for some proof of this claim. I got none. Would you like to provide some proof that gays are seeking some form of special rights - some kind of rights that I do not have before the law?

>> ...why not legitimize any formal partnership, regardless of sexual orientation? Not just gays but any two people that are living together under contract? <<

Essentially, that is exactly what the Vermont law referenced at the top of this thread proposes to do - to create a contract of "civil union" that is distinct from "marriage" in name, but carries the civil rights and responsibilities that apply to marriages. Also, there already is the concept of common law marriage that legitimizes the status of heterosexual couples living together.

I think the proposed Vermont law is a good idea and should be promulgated throughout the USA.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 21, 2000.

Brian, could you post the Vermont legislation for us to read. Ive gone to the link at the start of this thread and have not been able to locate the article. I will take the time to read it very carefully. Thanks!

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), March 21, 2000.

Cold link to text of the bill:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2000/bills/intro/H-847.HTM

Attempting a hot link:

Text of the Vermont bill for civil unions

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 21, 2000.

As Mr. Twain said so cogently, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I believe that was Disraeli.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

"Gee Chris, why do you assume that I should deal with my fears and abnormalities due to my opposition to the homosexual lifestyle?"

Because it is your fears (emotions) that prevent you from researching this issue in depth. You're in effect closing your mind. Once you've confronted "the monster", you can see he is not that ugly nor dangerous. I've had to confront my own fears in the past about gays and lesbians. Now I count some of them among my friends.

"The majority of the human race, if the truth were known, considers the gay community to be abnormal."

What is abnormal? Anything that isn't practiced/thought/followed by the majority. So yes, in that sense homosexuality is abnormal. That's not the real issue though. The real issue is, is homosexuality dangerous in anyway to you and me or heterosexuals in general?

"So what? My complaint is very simple: Why do gays need special rights? If gays want the rest of the straight world to accept them as normal, why would they seek special status that would separate them from everyone else? "

I've never heard of gays wanting to be accepted as "normal" by the rest of the population. You don't HAVE to view them as normal, only to accept that they deserve the SAME rights as other human beings. No more, no less. And no one forces you to associate with them.

" Chris, neither of us is going to alter our position on the issue so I would ask you to reply to this concept:

Outside of the traditional man/woman marriage, why not legitimize any formal partnership, regardless of sexual orientation? Not just gays but any two people that are living together under contract. "

I'm all for this too. Anyone two people that live together, man and woman, or woman and woman or man and man, who consider themselves a family and share family obligations and ordeals, should be able to live together under a contract to protect each other's rights, and their children if they have any, just as marriage does.

" I will be interested in your reply. "

I'm not trying to force you into accepting my views, just trying to show you that our fears sometimes are unjustified and prevent us from thinking rationaly.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 21, 2000.

Thanks for the link Brian. Ive printed out all 22 pages and will read it thoroughly this evening. In glancing over the salient points, it would appear that only two persons of the same sex would be eligible for this civil union. I could not see where a formal ceremony of any kind is required, simply apply for this as one would for a permit or such. How would this work if one partner or the other had gone through a sex change operation? Also, this would not allow for a gay man and a gay woman to participate. Cut it anyway you want, the act of sexual intercourse is directly tied to this bill.

I tell ya, I can just see it now. One fine morning at the Rutland County Clerks office. Old Mr. Vincent, an employee of thirty-nine years looks up to see the following group before him to apply for civil unions:

Missy, age 22, 411, 103 lbs.,petite, penniless, and subservient. Beautiful and bashful, very apprehensive. Wearing a cute little off- white spring dress with matching purse.

Joe Beth, age 37, 54, 167lbs., powerful, petulant, and scary. Butt- ugly and boastful, very aggressive. Wearing a studded black denim suit with a matching strap-on dildo.

Francine (AKA, Frank the Spank), age 44, 511, 148lbs, Fresh from surgery, anxious to began his/her new life as a ? Wearing $200.00 Brookss running shoes with matching silk shorts (way too small) and a T-shirt cut off at the midriff.

Rocco, age 29, 63, 230lbs (sound familiar?), Fresh from incarceration, anxious to become a dominate force. Wearing $2100.00 of designer threads purchased for him yesterday by Francine.

UUUUMMMMM, help you folks?

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), March 21, 2000.

oh gawwwwd Sifting! You suffer from a terrible case of stereotyping of the gays.

Just like the Canadians who think all Americans are dumb yanks wearing fishing hats and their wives blonde with beehive hairdoos, both with cameras dangling from their necks.

Please spare me the stereotypical Canadian ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 21, 2000.

>> In glancing over the salient points, it would appear that only two persons of the same sex would be eligible for this "civil union". <<

I noticed the reference to "same sex" in the header to the bill, too. IMHO, it would be far preferable for the civil union to have no particular reference to the sexes of the participants. I'll have to read the bill myself to see how this is handled.

>> I could not see where a formal ceremony of any kind is required, simply apply for this as one would for a permit or such. <<

>> How would this work if one partner or the other had gone through a sex change operation? <<

Other than as an implementation detail, is this somehow signifigant?

>> Also, this would not allow for a gay man and a gay woman to participate. <<

I suppose they could have a civil marriage in Vermont under current law. BUt as I said, I can't see any reason why this law should be explicitly confined to same sex unions. That muddies the waters more than helping.

>> Cut it anyway you want, the act of sexual intercourse is directly tied to this bill. <<

Not unless the law requires it, which I can't imagine what the sexual intercourse provision of the bill would read like...

>> I tell ya, I can just see it now. One fine morning at the Rutland County Clerks office. Old Mr. Vincent, an employee of thirty-nine years looks up to see the following group before him to apply for civil unions: <<

Sifting, I just gotta tell you, that the county clerk is not paid as a fashion critic. Consenting adults are consenting adults. Are you mayhaps implying that some heterosexuals don't wear weird costumes?

Heck, just take a gander at those skydiving marriages performed in midair complete with tuxedos and full wedding dresses, and tell me with a straight face that all straight folks are models of decorum.

If straights can do it, if they have a perfect right to make perfect arses of themselves on their wedding day, then what's your point, exactly?

BTW, of the dozen or so gay people I have known as friends, only one was bit fruity in a subdued sort of way. None were screaming wierdos. My 22 year old niece dresses weirder than any gay person I ever met.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 21, 2000.

Can't believe I just got around to reading this thread today--and boy, what a thread!!!

Well, I've known lots of gay people, both men and women. I've never met one that I didn't like, but then I always figured they were just human beings like me, and what they do behind closed doors bothers me not at all.

RA, I can't believe we don't agree on this--but that's ok. BTW, I lived in Odessa for years, a zillion years ago, my husband worked at an oil patch supply company and my brother-in-law was a rig builder. Long time ago.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 21, 2000.

Brian, I always liked you during the Y2K debate. Always thorough and salient comments. You were in my top 5 of most intelligent posters. And of course I agreed with you on most discussions though I didn't post. You're still good, but we ain't gonna agree on this one.

I waver back and forth between conservatism and liberterianism. Part of me says this is morally wrong. But part of me says live and let live. But when people want to start changing the institutions of this country I lurch to the right. Regardless of the 50% divorce rate, marriage between a man and woman has been good to this world and this country. To change this institution I would need to be convinced that this change will have massive overwhelming positive effects on our society because of the risk of collateral moral corruption.

On the moral front; would God condemn a homosexual union? I can't speak for God of course but only from my sinful cheap beer soaked self, by saying that from my perspecitve the bible mentions sins of the flesh in numerous spots. And if God created man to perpetuate then this would be against original plans. But if two people, regardless of their sex truly loved on another I dont' believe that God would disapprove of that love. After all, love, next to the creation of man himself is probably the greatest creation and mystery of all. God couldn't and wouldn't disapprove of love. But when it takes on a physical nature against the grand design it's a different ballgame.

--Outta beer but switched to cheap red homemade wine

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.com), March 21, 2000.

Hey, sifting, don't you know most of the gays live further north in Burlington? what with UVM and all. Rutland County is probably too conservative, or rather was. Don't know if it is now. Castleton State College used to be a rather square place, don't know if the locals would tolerate it, except perhaps for the money the students would bring in to that little old town. Probably just as true for Rutland town thesedays. Lived there many moons ago.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 21, 2000.

>> I agreed with you on most discussions though I didn't post. You're still good, but we ain't gonna agree on this one. <<

Thanks for listening respectfully. That is worth a ton.

On this subject, my Dad (78) agrees with me, but my Mom (75) just can't. At the same time, my Mom would never, ever purposefully hurt anyone she actually knew by saying such things about them as she tells me about them -- she just claims she has never known anyone who was gay! I tell her she is mistaken, but she doesn't believe me.

So you see, there's plenty of room for latitude here. I can't even persuade my own mother.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 21, 2000.

Uncle Deedah, loved your answer on March 17, I'm just now getting around to reading this thread. Your answer reminded me of something that happened back in my salad days.

Many years ago when I was going to a feminist meeting, one of my husbands friends asked him why he would *let* me go to something like that. My husband replied. "Only sexually insecure men worry about that sort of thing."

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 22, 2000.

Ma kettle,

you'd best trot your conservative little ass back to bed and quit doing all that weird stuff with Mumsie. I know you two can't help having feelings for each other, and you get all pissed off whenever anybody talks on the subject, since you're in such denial, but, hells bells, girlies; I've gotta lotta need, too, ya know. Come back to bed!

-- Pa Kettle (under@the.covers.again), March 25, 2000.

Pa Kettle:

I MUST thank you for throwing this discussion to the top of new answers; however, I cringe when I hear ANYONE mention the 'D' word these days. DENIAL...how many times did I hear that last year during the Y2k discussion?

Brian:

I doubt that MY [almost 87 years old now] mom even KNOWS the current meaning of GAY. My dad's been dead almost 10 years now, but he was ALWAYS tolerant of differences. HOWEVER, I DO remember him saying that he felt it necessary to stop hugging and kissing my older brother at one point for fear of encouraging an alternative sexual lifestyle. He didn't exactly SAY that, but I gleaned that from our conversation. That seems sad to me in retrospect.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 25, 2000.

Gilda:

I knew you said something important, but forgot what it was by the end of my last post. It's interesting that some still see the male/female relationship controlled by the male. I could SORTOF see the purpose in this philosophy in days past when the female stayed home and the children needed an ultimate authority figure. I've even read posts on another forum wherein folks mentioned confusion regarding roles when women began working outside of the home. Roles were clearly defined at one time, and folks who grew up in the era wherein those roles modified were DEFINITELY confused, male and female alike.

These stereotypes still exist today, married or NOT. Even if the MALE in the relationship is secure, there are certain expectations in a relationship by OTHERS that are hard to buck without defining specific limits. I'm not interested in marrying again, but have lived with a man now for quite some time...10, 12 years? It took a LOT of work to define our roles to outsiders, and we had to step on some toes in so doing. We've typically both worked outside the home, and saw ourselves living in harmony together with each paying an equal share of bills, each engaging in domestic activities, etc. Outsiders, however, would come over on weekends and EXPECT that *I* would make a meal for them while my mate shared a sporting event on T.V.[for instance.] This got old REALLY fast, and we had to modify expectations by modifying the role. We now refer to each other as roommates rather than girl/boyfriend.

This status [or role] puts us both in the same situation as the gay folks who share a life together without the ABILITY to get married. If a medical emergency comes up, we're NOT family. We CANNOT benefit from shared insurance, nor can we LOSE benefits based on a marital status. It's a choice, to be sure, but one that retains MY independence from societal pressures to conform to expectations by those who haven't kept up with the times.

It WAS my hope that the "union" presented by Z in this thread would offer an alternative to the marital laws for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. This doesn't seem to be the case, but even if it did, I'd not be willing to go so far as the law requires for this union. Why would I want to be responsible for someone else's debts, for instance? Why would I want my children to possibly be excluded from the inheritance that is duly theirs? I'm not convinced that laws [new or old] are the answer. At some point, common sense SHOULD take over and suggest to hospital staff that a roommate of 10 years SHOULD have the same visitation rights as a married partner of 2 months, minus the financial responsibility.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 25, 2000.

I have worked in close relationships over the years with both gay and straight men and women. Paramedics HAVE to get close or things simply do NOT work in the squad (you're always collecting an elbow in the gut or one in the head as you try to "do the dance" in the coinfines of the squad). I have NEVER had problems with anyone in terms of their sexuality (one or two who didn't have a sense of humor, on the other hand.....). I never seemed to care what they did or whatever on their own time (ANY partner), so long as they were able to lift and do their part in the squad.

Having said this I have several problems with tax support of the lifestyle. Nothing bigotted about it. Just don't want to have my taxes support the lifestyle. (BTW several of my friends now are of alternative lifestyles, not limited to sexual preference).

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 29, 2000.

Chuck, you have said it best....thanks!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 29, 2000.

Deano, you dip stick, I didn't ask how a woman could look at a MAN and fall in love (although I would suggest that to fall in love by LOOKING at someone is a pretty watered down idea of love). I said "How could a woman look at your hairy dick and call it love? It pees into a toilet and drips all over the floor afterwards. Get a life."

Get a life.

Mr. Driver, sir, I agree with you that it is difficult to support giving gays our hard earned tax dollars, just because they are gay. But I'm not aware of any such suggestion. Could you fill me in?

On the other hand, we currently reward heterosexuals for having lots of kids, through tax breaks, breaks on airfare, busfare, rides at Dissinessland, and in many other ways. This, in SPITE of the fact that every time a new baby is born, the planet gasps in pain, as it's already stretched to the max in terms of the environmet.

Maybe we SHOULD give the gays a tax break; nay, let's give ANYONE WHO CHOOSES NOT TO REPRODUCE a tax break. It's just that gays reproduce so much less often.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), March 31, 2000.

It's just that gays reproduce so much less often.

And what brought you to that conclusion Joe?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 31, 2000.

Hey Rational1,

like, duh!...

-- dumbass (big@mouth.too), March 31, 2000.

Hey Dumbass,

Does the word satire have any meaning to you? Take your time and research this before you get back to me.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 01, 2000.

I can only say that I am bemused by the naive idea that "my tax dollars" are supporting the gay lifestyle. To the best of my knowledge, gays do not receive a disproportionate share of government benefits, nor do do they fail to pay their taxes.

Yup. That's right homosexuals pay taxes! You heard it here first!

And no matter how often I ask for someone to name a "special right" given to homosexuals, I never get any answer at all. Yet, the very issuebeing discussed in this thread -- of heterosexuals being able to marry (with a great many rights inhering in the married state in the eyes of the government) proves that hetoerosexuals have "special" rights not granted to gays.

Can it be any plainer that homosexuals have a well-founded right to complain about their tax dollars going to support the heterosexual lifestyle?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 01, 2000.

Calm down Brian and stop being so afraid. Why do you have so much fear and anger built up inside of you. Are you upset that the heterosexual lifestyle is the accepted variety, adapted since the beginning of time? Does it make you furious that society in general refuses to certify homosexuals as normal and like everybody that isnt? Are you afraid that as a gay man you will never be looked on as a regular guy? You must learn to accept and be comfortable with your own sexuality and stop being afraid and angry with your inner self.

Venting your anger at the straight community will not alter your own sexuality. You are very different and you must accept that you are not like most men. The sooner you learn to deal with yourself it will become easier for you to interface with normal folks, so to speak.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 01, 2000.

Aha! More bigotry from Rational1.

Typical.

-- Ra is abnormal (ra@idiocy.stupid), April 01, 2000.

Rational:

I KNOW you're trying to throw back at Brian what you feel was thrown at YOU, but sometimes it's just a good idea to DROP IT .

Human sexuality is OBVIOUSLY still a hot topic, even in the HETEROSEXUAL arena. I've been debating Will Continue on the EZBOARD forum on Planned Parenthood. SHE thinks they're WRONG, and *I* think they serve a function when parents are too timid to approach the topic. WHO'S right? Hell, *I* don't know, but when she thought their TEEN chat was a result of her arch-enemy Clinton providing more money to Planned Parenthood, I couldn't keep quiet. Now that she's posted that OUTERCOURSE [which includes dry-humping] is an example of our tax dollars gone to waste, I've decided to drop it. SHE doesn't think it's FUNNY, but I'm LONG past my teen years and I STILL think dry-humping is fun. LOL.

There's just NO HOPE for those of us who have been long-time perverts, I suppose. It doesn't MATTER whether we're HOMOSEXUAL or HETEROSEXUAL perverts, there's gonna be SOMEONE,SOMEWHERE, who disapproves of what we're doing. I kindof like that thought, myself.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 01, 2000.

JOJ

Dude, no humour or intelligence huh. You must lead a tough life.....

I understood your question perfectly and answered it as simply as I possibly could. I'll try it again just for kicks (and you).

A woman can look at a man (any part of a man) and call it love, lust or whatever because it is NATURAL. 'NATURAL' is the keyword here 'dipstick', not 'love'.

Homosexuality is not normal or natural behavior. Never has been and never will be.

If you feel the need to taste a dick or take a ride on the hershey highway, go for it 'man'!!!

I've got an awesome life my friend. Thanks for the concern though...

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 03, 2000.

This is starting to get comical...reminds me of my first semester at University. I had a psychology professor who stated in no uncertain terms that homosexuals were NOT engaging in sex. The term she used was "mutual masturbation." [Clinton could have used her on his side during the fellatio scandal.]

I ALSO had a BIOLOGY professor who put a diagram of female orifices on the board, labeling them [from front to back] urethra, anus, vagina. [Kindof gives new meaning to "What's wrong with this picture?"] I wonder if some of her male students ran into problems later on. I can imagine Tom saying, "But Marge, I studied BIOLOGY. I KNOW this is where it should be!"

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 03, 2000.

>> You are very different and you must accept that you are not like most men. <<

Ra, I don't need you to tell me that. The look of love in my wife's eyes tells me all I need to know in that regard. And my daughter simply adores me. They both think I am tops.

But, I never expected such adulation from you! Why, sir, you hardly know me!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 03, 2000.

there has been a lot of good writing for both sides of the issue, i couldn't add much with my experience. i am a Christian heterosexual, and my best friend is gay. we don't discuss his behavior, and i'm pleased with the fact that, after his family, my wife and myself were the first straight people he opened up to.

since most of the steam has run out of this thread, i hope no one minds if i throw in a legal twist.

if (and i realize this is a big if) this kind of contract becomes legal in vermont, the big issue becomes reciprocity in other states.

all i want to know is, if this law is afforded reciprocity in all states, will vermont's unlicensed carry law also be afforded the same reciprocity? i'll be fighting for that one.

just a thought

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), April 03, 2000.

Deano, you said: "If you feel the need to taste a dick or take a ride on the hershey highway, go for it 'man'!!!"

Being a flaming HETEROsexual, I'm going to have to take a rain check. But thanks for the offer, Deano, baby.

If I ever change my orientation, you'll be the first to know. Meanwhile, mind if I give your name, and your message, to a few of my polygamous gay friends?

joj

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), April 04, 2000.

JOJ

You're obviously not the brightest bulb in the box. How you've drawn that conclusion from what I wrote tells me you cannot read a simple sentence. Simple, day to day life must be a real challenge. I wish you luck in overcoming your difficulties.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 05, 2000.

Not the brightest bulb in the box??????

Never heard that one before, and I like it....I got what the dude meant, he meant he wasnt into homosexuality...he is hetro........

Brightest bulb in the box, LMAS

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 05, 2000.

Attention, Mr. Brian McLaughlin . . .

I have not ill will towards you, or to any individual homosexual man or lesbian woman. I have gay friends and gay co-workers, and I lived next door to a nice lesbian couple fro two years in college. Never have I passed an angry word to any of these folks -- at least not an angry word dealing with their sexual preference.

However, I feel compelled to point out an error and a logical fallacy in one of your earlier posts. The fallacy is one that I have often pointed out to my gay and lesbian associates, and as one of them put it, "I hate it, but it's a damn good point."

Here is the portion of your post to which I refer, with my comments appended within:

"And no matter how often I ask for someone to name a "special right" given to homosexuals, I never get any answer at all."

You are in error here. If the Vermont legislation were to pass as written, then you would certainly have your example of a "special right." Heterosexual couples are excluded from the language. Apparently, heterosexual men and women are allowed to marry, but not to form domestic partnerships such as the bill would explicitly permit for gays and lesbians.

"Yet, the very issue being discussed in this thread -- of heterosexuals being able to marry (with a great many rights inhering in the married state in the eyes of the government) proves that hetoerosexuals have "special" rights not granted to gays."

It most certainly does not. Straight women can marry men. So can lesbians. Straight men can marry women. So could a gay man, if he were to choose to. There are no "special" rights evident there. Discrimination or unequal rights under the law are not proven simply because someone does not wish to _exercise_ a given right.

"Can it be any plainer that homosexuals have a well-founded right to complain about their tax dollars going to support the heterosexual lifestyle?"

Not to me. However, I do feel that there are other legal remedies to this situation. But you're barking up the wrong tree here.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 05, 2000.

Sal, if you are not already a law student or a lawyer, you are missing your calling.

>> Straight women can marry men. So can lesbians. Straight men can marry women. So could a gay man, if he were to choose to. <<

This reminds me of a saying attributed to Henry Ford, about the options available with the Model T. "You can have any color, as long as it's black."

The same applies to marriage as defined by the states. You can have any marriage partner you want, so long as they are not of the same gender as yourself. The trouble is, a marriage partner of the same sex is rarely the preferred choice among homosexuals, where that is almost exclusively the preferred choice among heterosexuals.

I believe that there is another old saying. "What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?" You might take a somewhat less lawyerly and impartial view of the rights of homosexuals, if the present marriage law were precisely the opposite of what it is today.

Imagine! You could choose any marriage partner you wanted, provided they were of the same gender as yourself. Under your theory, this should present no trouble at all to the convenient arrangement of your life and your pursuit of happiness. You would feel no justifiable resentment toward gay people who had the option of marrying the partner of their preference.

After all, you have nothing to complain about in this particular use of state power, since it is equally open to your use and you can derive equal benefit from the ability to marry a same sex partner.

Yeah, right.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 05, 2000.

Sal:

Next I will address another of your arguments:

>>If the Vermont legislation were to pass as written, then you would certainly have your example of a "special right." Heterosexual couples are excluded from the language. Apparently, heterosexual men and women are allowed to marry, but not to form domestic partnerships such as the bill would explicitly permit for gays and lesbians. <<

OK. Please read this carefully. There will be a quiz.

As I read you here, the exclusive right of a man to form a civil union with a man, or a woman with a woman is a "special right", because of the exclusive nature of the right. Seems plain enough.

Just below this you quoted me:

"[...]heterosexuals being able to marry [...] proves that hetoerosexuals have "special" rights not granted to gays."

And you replied:

>> It most certainly does not. Straight women can marry men. So can lesbians. Straight men can marry women. So could a gay man, if he were to choose to. There are no "special" rights evident there. <<

OK. I am amazed. With a straight face you have just reversed course 180 degrees and now argue that the exclusive right of a man to form a marriage with a woman, is not a "special right", even though it is exclusive in exactly the same way, in both kind and degree, as the civil union law.

The only way you can make this argument is to misrepresent the Vermont law, by saying "Heterosexual couples are excluded from the language [of the law]." They are not. The law does not require the participants in a civil union to declare their sexual orientation or sexual intent, any more than a marriage does. If the language of the law excludes heterosexuals, as you purport, then please quote the exclusion. I can't find it.

If we accept your argument, that the fact a gay man could marry a woman under current marriage law, renders the right to marry as "certainly not" a "special right", then the same argument applies with equal force to the civil union law.

Congratulations. You have earned your spurs as a lawyer. These arguments are pure double-talk. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 05, 2000.

Hey Brian, what part of the word normal do you not understand? The more you write the more I am convinced that you are somewhat thick or fucking pig-headed. Dont blame the rest of the world for the ills of the gay community. I wont waste anymore time debating with you as your reasoning doesnt hunt too well.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 05, 2000.

Don't worry, sifting, you've summed him up just right. Maybe next year they can name the whole car after him.

-- Brian's a dipstick (alwayswas@always.willbe), April 05, 2000.

>> Dont blame the rest of the world for the ills of the gay community. <<

OK. I won't. I will also stop beating my wife and turn over a new leaf on my heroin habit. Any other advice?

>> ...your reasoning doesnt hunt too well. <<

Thanks for the insight on my reasoning. I will take it to heart.

After all, as any [rational being / well-informed person / popular guy with the opposite sex / noble thinker] knows: anyone who says what I say on this subject is just a [fuckwad / idiot / amoralist / poopy head]. I just needed this fact brought properly to my attention by a concerned citizen.

I promise not to do it again... for as long as your wise words resound in my heart. Or the horse you rode in on refrains from dumping a load. Whichever comes first.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 05, 2000.

Brian:

Hang in there-I am with you in your fight. I thought I had left this thread for dead two weeks ago-somehow it will not die.

You did cleverly splice words with the attorney/attorney wannabe. The new legislation mentions nothing about sexual orientation, per se; What is the liklihood, though, that two people of the same gender will marry and not be gay?? BUT, as for scoring the point, I think you win!

I think this legislation is progressive and it's time has come-I unfortunately do have a problem with it in that it does not create a legal unit for hetersexual, common law unions, as they have in Pennsylvania(I know, I ran out of a relationship there after 6 years- 7 years would have conferred legal status upon it).

As for the anti-gay banter-so what. All I can say is-DID YA SEE AMERICAN BEAUTY?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 05, 2000.

Comes now the poster, one Sal Monella . . .

>> Straight women can marry men. So can lesbians. Straight men can marry women. So could a gay man, if he were to choose to. <<

This reminds me of a saying attributed to Henry Ford, about the options available with the Model T. "You can have any color, as long as it's black."

That's irrelevant, Mr. McLaughlin.

The same applies to marriage as defined by the states. You can have any marriage partner you want, so long as they are not of the same gender as yourself. The trouble is, a marriage partner of the same sex is rarely the preferred choice among homosexuals, where that is almost exclusively the preferred choice among heterosexuals.

The gender of the _preferred_ choice does not enter into the argument. The fact of the matter is that males have the legal right to marry females, and vice versa. The law is applied absolutely equally in this regard.

I believe that there is another old saying. "What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?" You might take a somewhat less lawyerly and impartial view of the rights of homosexuals, if the present marriage law were precisely the opposite of what it is today.

I might, but this is not moot court.

Imagine! You could choose any marriage partner you wanted, provided they were of the same gender as yourself. Under your theory, this should present no trouble at all to the convenient arrangement of your life and your pursuit of happiness. You would feel no justifiable resentment toward gay people who had the option of marrying the partner of their preference.

I said nothing earlier about justifiable resentment, which, you might be surprised to learn, I recognize and understand. Resentment on the part of gay and lesbian individuals _is_ justifiable in this area, yet that does not impact on the requirement (or lack thereof) for a legal remedy. I resent Bill Gates for his great wealth; one might even say that, given the disparity in our incomes, my resentment is justifiable. Yet no legal remedy is available to me, or even called for, in that case. However, I _agree_ that some legal remedy should be made available to gay and lesbian citizens, though I do not think that the proposed Vermont legislation is a particularly effective way to go about it. If you would control the jerking of your knee, you might have noticed that in my earlier post. We simply appear to differ on methods.

Further, you have stumbled into another fallacy. You are guaranteed to be able to _pursue_ happiness in this country. You are not guaranteed to _catch_ it.

After all, you have nothing to complain about in this particular use of state power, since it is equally open to your use and you can derive equal benefit from the ability to marry a same sex partner.

Legally speaking, you are quite correct in this assertation. And were that the case, I would very likely pursue a legal remedy, just as gay and lesbian groups are doing. But the Vermont legislation is the wrong approach. I find it curious that you did not ask me what remedies I would seek as alternatives to the Vermont language.

Yeah, right.

If you calm down a bit, I think you will find we have more common ground than you think. But Im not going to talk with you if you continue to take that tone.

Next I will address another of your arguments:

>>If the Vermont legislation were to pass as written, then you would certainly have your example of a "special right." Heterosexual couples are excluded from the language. Apparently, heterosexual men and women are allowed to marry, but not to form domestic partnerships such as the bill would explicitly permit for gays and lesbians. <<

OK. Please read this carefully. There will be a quiz.

As I read you here, the exclusive right of a man to form a civil union with a man, or a woman with a woman is a "special right", because of the exclusive nature of the right. Seems plain enough.

Just below this you quoted me:

>>[...]heterosexuals being able to marry [...] proves that hetoerosexuals have "special" rights not granted to gays.<<

"And you replied:"

>> It most certainly does not. Straight women can marry men. So can lesbians. Straight men can marry women. So could a gay man, if he were to choose to. There are no "special" rights evident there. <<

OK. I am amazed. With a straight face you have just reversed course 180 degrees and now argue that the exclusive right of a man to form a marriage with a woman, is not a "special right", even though it is exclusive in exactly the same way, in both kind and degree, as the civil union law.

Who says you have to be straight to marry an opposite-sex partner? Im sure we could come up with many verified and presumed examples. Cole Porters arrangement immediately comes to my mind.

Further, now ***I*** am amazed. You define marriage laws and qualification for legal marriage as exclusionary. Providing we accept that, you have just posited that the solution to an exclusionary law is to pass another exclusionary law. Thats sloppy legal work, Mr. McLaughlin. Very poorly done.

The only way you can make this argument is to misrepresent the Vermont law, by saying "Heterosexual couples are excluded from the language [of the law]." They are not. The law does not require the participants in a civil union to declare their sexual orientation or sexual intent, any more than a marriage does. If the language of the law excludes heterosexuals, as you purport, then please quote the exclusion. I can't find it.

Here you go: >>For a civil union to be established in Vermont, it shall be necessary that the parties to a civil union satisfy all of the following criteria: (1) Not be a party to another civil union or a marriage. (2) Be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this state. (3) Meet the criteria and obligations set forth in 18 V.S.A. chapter 106.<<

Did you pay special attention to item #2? Therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this state. That constitutes implicit acknowledgement of sexual orientation, which could easily be argued in court. Further, I dont think I would have much of a problem getting a Vermont judge (or, in fact, any judge) to recognize that whatever the _letter_ of the law may be, the _spirit_ of this law was to permit civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, and, incidentally, to exclude heterosexuals. I can provide additional language within the body of the bill itself, if you like. If we accept your argument, that the fact a gay man could marry a woman under current marriage law, renders the right to marry as "certainly not" a "special right", then the same argument applies with equal force to the civil union law.

You are incorrect. A new right, that of civil union, is being promulgated, from which straight individuals are implicitly excluded. Remove all references to gender from this bill, and my objections evaporate. Incidentally, in doing so, you also strengthen the law considerably, which would help defend it in any legal challenge.

Congratulations. You have earned your spurs as a lawyer. These arguments are pure double-talk. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

Well, Id say that given the sloppy method with which you have defended an exclusionary, discriminatory proposed law, youve earned yours, as well. Further, this double-talk, as you put it, is eminently defensible in court. I doubt I'd have much trouble getting a judge to recognize it.

I actually agree with FutureShock that allowing any couple, of any combinations of sexual orientation and gender to form a domestic partnership would be a huge step in the right direction. Try to calm down a bit, Mr. McLaughlin, and we might have a pleasant and stimulating conversation.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 06, 2000.

Sal:

I always appreciate responses that are well-thought-out.

Thanks for your input to this thread.

Now you and brian can continue your fun unabated.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 06, 2000.

Don't the marriage laws in Vermont, written for heterosexuals, allow for the civic union by the use of prenuptials?

Therefore, by using the existing marriage laws, heterosexuals could create the same civic union that is proposed for gays in this new law.

Isn't that the same? Then the removal of the second requirement wouldn't be necessary, but as you said it would be easier to defend it in court.

-- just wondering (whatch@think.folks), April 06, 2000.

Sal:

>> The gender of the _preferred_ choice does not enter into the argument. The fact of the matter is that males have the legal right to marry females, and vice versa. The law is applied absolutely equally in this regard. <<

>> Resentment on the part of gay and lesbian individuals _is_ justifiable in this area, yet that does not impact on the requirement (or lack thereof) for a legal remedy. <<

You appear to me to be mistaking the arena in which this argument is taking place. This is an argument about political remedies and not ajudicated remedies.

If you like, I will stipulate that the current marriage laws of all 50 states are constitutional and valid. I will further stipulate that, under those laws, any man or woman who wishes to marry an individual of the same sex is not presented with any legal remedy.

So, what usually happens when a group of citizens have a grievance for which there is no current legal remedy? Simple. They try to get the law changed. In the political arena the arguments I made that you dismissed as irrelevant were entirely relevant, in that they establish the injustice of current state of the law, which is very different from arguing the illegality of a particular law.

>> However, I _agree_ that some legal remedy should be made available to gay and lesbian citizens, though I do not think that the proposed Vermont legislation is a particularly effective way to go about it. If you would control the jerking of your knee, you might have noticed that in my earlier post. We simply appear to differ on methods. <<

Perhaps, Sal, the reason that I did not notice that we differ on methods is because in your earlier post you proposed no alternative legal remedy that you do support.

>> A new right, that of "civil union," is being promulgated, from which straight individuals are implicitly excluded. Remove all references to gender from this bill, and my objections evaporate.<<

Remove all references to gender from current civil marriage laws and the objections of homosexuals would evaporate.

As I have already stated in previous posts in this same thread, the "same sex" aspect of the bill seems to me unnecessary and complicating. If you had read this thread with more care you would have read this in a post from March 21, clearly marked with my name:

>> I noticed the reference to "same sex" in the header to the bill, too. IMHO, it would be far preferable for the civil union to have no particular reference to the sexes of the participants. <<

Sal: >> Incidentally, in doing so, you also strengthen the law considerably, which would help defend it in any legal challenge. <<

In my opinion, any successful legal challenge to the proposed Vermont law based on the grounds you set forward (that the spirit of the law is intended to exclude heterosexuals) applies with equal force to current marriage laws that, in spirit, exclude homosexuals. Any judge accepting your argument on the one law would be required to accept it in regard to the other.

This is not to say that a challenge on these grounds would not succeed, only that such a success would provide a precedent to challenge civil marriage laws and succeed. Few opponents to the civil union law would find that Phyrric victory worthwhile. You might be the exception.

You tell me I am incorrect. I, in turn, think you are incorrect.

As far as I can see, you may believe you have not argued on both sides of the case, but all I can see here are distinctions without differences and arguments that veer in circles.

I suppose what graveled me most is that you went out of your way in your first appearance on this thread to tell me I was wrong in my assertions in very positive language. You didn't say, "I disagree with you in your emphasis, or in some of the details." But rather I was most certainly wrong.

Now it turns out:

Sal: >> I think you will find we have more common ground than you think. <<

Sal: >> Remove all references to gender from this bill, and my objections evaporate. <<

All I can say is that politics are sloppy. it may be that the only politically feasible way to pass the bill is to create a parallel system of civil unions limited to same sex partners. It might be that some Vermont lawmakers believe that opening the civil union law to heterogenous couples would intrinsically weaken the civil marriage law.

My position is, if the law substantially addresses an injustice, it is a worthwhile law. I won't turn up my nose at it, sloppy or not.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 06, 2000.

Sal, my mon,

What a brilliant orator you are! What an excellent piece of Quixotic Logic! You deserve some sort of medal. Perhaps a fish hook.

Mama, where did you put my chest waders?

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), April 07, 2000.

Mr. McLaughlin:

>>You appear to me to be mistaking the arena in which this argument is taking place. This is an argument about political remedies and not ajudicated remedies.<<

True, yet both the points to which you refer were raised by you. I merely addressed them.

>>If you like, I will stipulate that the current marriage laws of all 50 states are constitutional and valid. I will further stipulate that, under those laws, any man or woman who wishes to marry an individual of the same sex is not presented with any legal remedy.<<

Accepted, if we make the language  . . . is not presented with any legal remedy at this time.

>>So, what usually happens when a group of citizens have a grievance for which there is no current legal remedy? Simple. They try to get the law changed. In the political arena the arguments I made that you dismissed as irrelevant were entirely relevant, in that they establish the injustice of current state of the law, which is very different from arguing the illegality of a particular law.<<

Theres a rather wide gulf between establishing that injustice exists and establishing that a given remedy is the best possible  or even a desirable  solution. Proving the need for a remedy, which I in no way deny, does not defend a given remedy. I agree that a remedy is needed. I do not think the Vermont legislation is the best one, or even a satisfactory one.

>>Perhaps, Sal, the reason that I did not notice that we differ on methods is because in your earlier post you proposed no alternative legal remedy that you do support.<<

Do tell. You must have missed this passage in my first post: However, I do feel that there are other legal remedies to this situation. Wouldnt have hurt you to ask about them. Im not having a conversation with myself here, am I? :)

Sal>> A new right, that of "civil union," is being promulgated, from which straight individuals are implicitly excluded. Remove all references to gender from this bill, and my objections evaporate.<<

McLaughlin>>Remove all references to gender from current civil marriage laws and the objections of homosexuals would evaporate.<<

Thats impractical at best, and I suspect you already know that. Current marriage laws depend from common law, which depends from English common law, which, in the case of marriage law, depends from ecclesiastical law, if memory serves. The basis of American marriage laws therefore being religious in nature, I think we would find it exceedingly difficult to rework them; legal challenges would surround the matter like bees attacking a honey-hungry bear. Further, such a remedy would be overly broad, and quickly judged to be so, even if it were passed into law. But I dont think you were honestly proposing any of that; rather, I think youre using some hyperbole to illustrate the inequality in existing marriage laws. But thats not at issue here, Mr. McLaughlin. I think we already agree that theres some inequality there, and that we need a remedy of some sort.

For some reason, you also refuse to acknowledge the inherent inequality in the proposed Vermont legislation. But be that as it may, your defense is exceptional in its myopia. In creating a remedy to an existing injustice, it is grotesque in the extreme to create MORE injustice. Thats what the Vermont legislation would do. This is also the regrettable basis on which affirmative action programs are now being attacked. A better remedy must be found, in both arenas.

>>As I have already stated in previous posts in this same thread, the "same sex" aspect of the bill seems to me unnecessary and complicating. If you had read this thread with more care you would have read this in a post from March 21, clearly marked with my name<<

I found it, and readily admit my mistake.

Sal: >> Incidentally, in doing so, you also strengthen the law considerably, which would help defend it in any legal challenge. <<

>>In my opinion, any successful legal challenge to the proposed Vermont law based on the grounds you set forward (that the spirit of the law is intended to exclude heterosexuals) applies with equal force to current marriage laws that, in spirit, exclude homosexuals. Any judge accepting your argument on the one law would be required to accept it in regard to the other.<<

Surely you jest. As you indicated, thats your opinion. And yet no judge is compelled or required to accept your opinion. You suggest that marriage laws are unequal on a prima facie basis, yet you seem to be suggesting that the proposed Vermont law isnt? I dont wish to raise the temperature of the conversation, but arent you the one engaging in doubletalk here? Are you at all familiar with the body of case law that holds: marriage = male + female? Do you reject the state interest, held and reinforced in numerous court opinions, in encouraging such marriages? Would you throw that out? If so, for what legal reason? In what way would you attempt to convince the judge to act as you suggest? Im sorry, Mr. McLaughlin, but precedent and case law are overwhelmingly against you here. I simply dont see how your argument would hold up in court.

>>This is not to say that a challenge on these grounds would not succeed, only that such a success would provide a precedent to challenge civil marriage laws and succeed.<<

I think thats highly doubtful. Further, I havent read any legal opinions that would suggest that. Perhaps a gay and/or lesbian support organization has tried that legal tactic in the past? After all, if there were as much validity to it as you appear to think, then dont you suppose it would have been tried? Perhaps it was tried, and failed? If current marriage laws are as objectionably discriminatory as you suggest, then theres not really any need to wait for a precedent before proceeding with litigation, is there?

>>Few opponents to the civil union law would find that Phyrric victory worthwhile. You might be the exception.<<

I dont believe such a victory would be at all Pyrrhic, because I dont think your suggested other shoe would drop. I also believe that a drawn-out court challenge to such a poorly-written law would at all benefit the people that the remedy is for in the first place. There should be a well-written, cogent and defensible remedy proposed. I dont want to see existing marriage laws weakened, but I dont want to see a weak and easily voided remedy passed, (and later repealed) either.

>>You tell me I am incorrect. I, in turn, think you are incorrect.<<

Well, thats your opinion, Counselor. Id certainly meet you in a courtroom to argue it before a judge. :)

>>As far as I can see, you may believe you have not argued on both sides of the case, but all I can see here are distinctions without differences and arguments that veer in circles.

I think you may be arguing from personal belief and from conviction here. Theres nothing wrong with that, but you seem to be saying that it isnt fair is a sufficient defense. I disagree. I think a judge would, too.

>>I suppose what graveled me most is that you went out of your way in your first appearance on this thread to tell me I was wrong in my assertions in very positive language. You didn't say, "I disagree with you in your emphasis, or in some of the details." But rather I was most certainly wrong.<<

Im sorry that offended you. Ill certainly admit to an unfortunate choice of words on my part. In looking back, I can see that youre one of the more temperate posters on this thread. I regret having caused you any distress, and I apologize for coming on too strongly.

As a peace offering, Id like to say that I particularly liked this statement of yours earlier in the thread:

I suppose they could have a civil marriage in Vermont under current law. But as I said, I can't see any reason why this law should be explicitly confined to same sex unions. That muddies the waters more than helping. 

Very well said.

>>All I can say is that politics are sloppy.<<

Id accept that as axiomatic.

>>it may be that the only politically feasible way to pass the bill is to create a parallel system of civil unions limited to same sex partners.<<

Presented in that light, I fear you are correct. Unfortunately, such a separate-but-equal system wouldnt last long in the courts. Ive been discussing this issue (off and on) with a lesbian friend of mine, and I think Ive finally convinced her that marriage is too loaded a word for the American public to accept right now when it comes to gays and lesbians. Some legal status will have to be created  like a domestic or civil partnership  in order to present G&Ls with a satisfactory remedy. But at the same time, that status has to be available to ALL couples. If not, then weve remedied injustice with more injustice, and also created a patently illegal separate-but-equal legal status.

Ive also pointed out to my friend that this battle (yes, to her it appears to be a battle) wont be won all at once, in a blaze of glory. Rather, incremental victories must be won. In that vein, I would say that the American public simply wont accept gay or lesbian marriages at this time, but it might be possible to craft a civil status of partner that would be useful and satisfactory to gay and lesbian couples. Further, that status, if legally available to ALL couples, regardless of genders or sexual preference, might gain some favor among other segments of the population. Perhaps some atheists might prefer a civil partnership of this sort, with no religious overtones involved. Perhaps two members of a minority religion, who cannot find an appropriate religious leader, might wish to form a partnership like this. Perhaps straight couples who plan not to marry might wish to form a legally defined partnership in order to forestall default common-law marriage, which often occurs without a couples knowledge. Im sure there are other examples that I cant think of and that we cant predict.

At any rate, these incremental victories are what will win the battle for gays and lesbians, IMO.

>>It might be that some Vermont lawmakers believe that opening the civil union law to heterogenous couples would intrinsically weaken the civil marriage law.<<

Thats possible. I havent read any of the lawmakers discussions. That would certainly prove enlightening as to why the legislation was written as it was. Then again, it may be that some Vermont lawmakers _wanted_ to write a weak law that would be easily struck down in court.

>>My position is, if the law substantially addresses an injustice, it is a worthwhile law. I won't turn up my nose at it, sloppy or not.<<

Perhaps thats why Id never run for public office. I cant abide poorly-written laws. They seem a waste of lawmakers time and taxpayers money, to me.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 08, 2000.

I'm ready to barge back into this one, but first I want to see if we're all on the same page. There seems to be a certain amount of agreement that marriage [in the current sense of the word] just downright doesn't apply to couples of the same sex, and I think someone hit the nail on the head when they mentioned religion here. Marriage hasn't traditionally JUST been a legal bond, but a religious bond as well. Mother implies female just as father implies male, and since some religions see the institution of marriage as one set aside for legitimate reproduction, most wouldn't want to see the waters muddied by requiring a genital display to determine which was which.

So it seems that marriage [due to its somewhat unalterable association with religion, and religion's somewhat unalterable condemnation of same-sex relationships] is an unacceptable solution to the problems facing gay partners.

Moving along, we get to the "preferential treatment" portion of the argument. If we agree that the marriage contract is unacceptable based on the arguments provided above, we can no longer argue that marriage is in some way preferential treatment for those in a position to engage. We could as soon argue that fish aren't treated equally to humans because they're not covered under the marriage laws either. The buzzer will sound and DNA will flash intolerably if this suggestion is made. [In this case, DNA will reference Does Not Apply, versus the genetic alternative of the acronym.]

Still under the "preferential treatment" concept, there seems to be some agreement that the concept of a union [keeping a 10-foot pole between the word union and the word marriage] would be considered acceptable if these unions were offered to couples regardless of gender involved. Commitments would be legally binding until dissolved by the courts and the involved partners could benefit from this union, including but not limited to rights accorded to married couples for purposes of insurance, memorial planning of a partner deceased, distribution of the partner's worldly goods upon death, etc.

Is this what's been said so far?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Anita, I believe you have summed things up quite satisfactorily. Thanks much. :)

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 09, 2000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40050-2000Apr18.html

Link

Gay Civil Unions Near Legality in Vermont

By Pamela Ferdinand

Special to The Washington Post

Wednesday, April 19, 2000; Page A03

BOSTON, April 18  In another historic step forward for advocates of gay marriage, the Vermont Senate today approved giving same-sex couples the right to form "civil unions" and receive the broadest array of partnership duties and benefits in the nation.

Stopping just short of legalizing gay marriage, legislators nevertheless defeated two proposed constitutional amendments specifically designed to outlaw it by defining marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman. By a partisan vote of 19 to 11, state senators largely adhered to a bill that passed the House in March and approved a network of state rights and responsibilities for gay and lesbian couples ranging from hospital visits to inheritance privileges.

A final vote in the Senate is expected Wednesday, at which time the legislation will return to the House for reconsideration. Gov. Howard Dean (D) has indicated he will sign the measure, which would make Vermont the preeminent state in sanctioning same-sex unions and no doubt fuel what has become a nationwide civil rights debate.

The main difference between the House and Senate bills amounts to when same-sex civil unions should be implemented. The Senate proposed a starting date of July 1, and the House, Sept. 1. That date holds meaning for legal and sentimental reasons: Gay and lesbian couples would be allowed to apply for licenses from a town clerk and have their civil unions certified by a justice of the peace, a judge or a clergyman.

"It's fantastic. Again, it's not marriage, but we're very glad that we're moving forward with this," said Stacy Jolles, who with her partner and two other gay and lesbian couples filed suit against the state seeking rights equal to those of married heterosexuals. "It's really starting to hit home for me what a huge protection system this is going to be for our 5-month-old son."

For months now, Vermont legislators have charted their course in response to a state Supreme Court ruling in December that found gay couples were unconstitutionally denied the benefits of marriage. The high court left it up to the legislature to decide whether to allow gay marriages or create some kind of domestic partnership instead.

Under the legislation, partners in a civil union would be eligible for hundreds of state benefits given to married couples. They could transfer property, make medical decisions for each other, inherit estates and oversee burials. They also would be required to accept joint debts of their partners and to dissolve union in Family Court in a proceeding equivalent to divorce.

More than 30 states have tried to ward off the prospect of such unions through passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The federal government would not recognize same-sex civil unions with regard to issues such as immigration rights, Social Security benefits and federal taxes.

Opponents of gay marriage, meanwhile, say their struggle has not lost momentum even if most Vermont legislators seem intent on legalizing same-sex civil unions this year. There is still room for maneuver, and November elections always loom large, said Craig Bensen, an evangelical pastor and vice president of Take It to the People, a Vermont coalition that opposes gay marriage.

"There's no political will in the Democratic leadership to close the door to gay marriage," Bensen mourned. "The only political will we see is the survival instinct, and they are trying to see how much they can push through and still retain their seats."

) 2000 The Washington Post Company

-- (=@=.=), April 19, 2000.

Here we go once again on this thread,

Just about when you thought it was dead,

Homosexuals today,

In Vermont got their way,

Now butt pirates and lesbos may wed!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.

Ra:

I just have to say that you are one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and open-minded people on this forum.

NOT.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

Oh wait a sec, what have we here,

Ole FutureShock it would appear,

Is quite upset,

Because his pet,

Received by me a smear!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.

Thanks. Ra!

I was just trolling to get my own limerick.

Before you morphed into the poet laureate of this forum, you have provided some interesting and thoughtful posts.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

I agree, Future. I enjoyed Rational's posts much more before he/she decided to join "Dick of the Dale" in the limericks. Of course that's my personal opinion. I'm not into limericks. This doesn't mean that others shouldn't enjoy them, or that Ra should change his/her posting techniques. It simply means that I save a bit of time by skipping over Ra's limericks in the same way that I skip over Richard's.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 20, 2000.

Anita, Anita, youre breaking my heart,

Youve been my favorite right from the start.

Please say it aint so,

That my limericks must go,

Dont you think they are clever and smart?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.

There once was a man named Ration

Who loved his poems with a passion

Some people objected

(he felt rejected)

But he continued, as they were in fashion.

One for You Ra,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 20, 2000.

Why thank you Frank, you honor me,

Your words have spurned me on you see.

I shall aspire,

To aim much higher,

And reach your level of poetry!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.