[PLUG-TALK] Freedom to Marry Week, continued - MRC

Tue Feb 17 21:56:54 UTC 2009

I am not gay myself, but I am coming to see the importance of gay rights. put into focus in a Leonard Pitts jr article here. 
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/02/joe_janice_what_the_difference.html
Mr. Robinson would most likely think the hospital was being firm and fair. 
never mind the anguish being caused, he'd rather be right. 
Me, I can't be that cruel. 

________________________________
From: MJang <mike at mommabears.com>
To: Off-topic and potentially flammable discussion <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:21:34 AM
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Freedom to Marry Week, continued - MRC

> > ******
> > 
> > Marriage is important for people who are committed to each other.
> > Denying that right is discrimination, pure and simple.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mike

First, I should thank Mr. Robinson. Before this series of conversations,
I was a man somewhat on the sidelines on this issue. His suggestion that
couples like myself (childless by choice) are also in his gun-sights has
energized me.

In my widowhood, I became the best of friends with a number of
conservative Christians in the Hampton Roads area (Pat Robertson's home
base). While I opposed their political goals, my friendships muted my
actions on such social issues. 

Mr. Robinson has demonstrated that my own rights are at risk if I don't
speak up. Thank you for re-awakening my activism, Mr. Robinson.

Now back to the show - 

> Following your logic Mike, I should be able to marry: my dog, my cat, 
> my horse, my brother, my sister, my etcetera. 

Not true. If that is your belief, then you do not understand marriage.

And if I understand your previous messages correctly, you have never
been married. If there is one thing that I've learned in widowhood, is
that you don't understand unless you've walked a mile in our shoes.

> It's discriminatory 
> to reduce the meaning of marriage for all the people who got into 
> male female marriages 

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not keep others from getting
married. Nobody else's rights are hurt. Thus, no discrimination.

> in accord with both natural law and God's law 

Neither natural law nor God's law is relevant, as this is not a
theocracy. Civil Rights makes it important that same sex couples be
granted the same rights in marriage as any other married couple.

> to being merely a special form of friendship.  

Once again, suggesting that you do not understand marriage. 

> As far as all these
> rights argument that some GLBT activists and you are screaming about,

I note that you used all caps in this recent note
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/2009-February/005309.html
which suggests that you are the only one screaming.

> civil unions are already available 

Which suggests that you accept the thought of "gay sex" in such
relationships, which is inconsistent from a number of your previous
messages. (Now how many inconsistencies is that from Mr. Robinson?)

If you are accepting of same-sex relationships between members of the
GLBT community, then perhaps you're only as right-wing as Sarah Palin.

But the "civil unions" backdrop suggests that if in fact you accept
monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, you believe in
separate and unequal, as suggested by Plessy v. Ferguson.

> and their are wills as well
> that can specify who can make major health decisions for you.  Why
> should two men or two women be extended special benefits 

It would just be the same benefits as all other married couples.

> when they
> cannot have children naturally on their own?  

And you would deny those right to me and my wife, as we choose to not
have children.

> They are going to be
> rich, not poor like the average family that will spend over a 
> million dollars caring for a child.  

First, it is not logical to assume that all childless couples are rich.
Second, is is not logical to assume that even if a family does spend
over 1 million dollars on a child, that they will be poor.

> As far as the property argument,
> the desire to share property is a desperate attempt on the part of
> many gays to stay together.  Join property ownership doesn't work
> forever as glue.  

Many heterosexual married couples also find this to be true.

> This statement is blatantly abusing the meaning 
> of the word family.  Family in this context merely means people
> that care about each other who are not blood related.  

Sounds like you're devaluing marriage here. "merely" "people who care
about each other"? Jeez. 

> Gays do
> not have to care for children unless they adopt

And many gay couples do choose to adopt. 

> which they should
> not be allowed to do IMO because it is not fair to children to
> deprive them of a strong male and a strong female role model.

Which disregards the numbers of successful children from single parent
families. 

Thanks,
Mike

_______________________________________________
PLUG-talk mailing list
PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20090217/4ae3f6b6/attachment.html>