On Oct 13, 10:44 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just tried to post a response I wrote to S on the OBA board, but I > couldn't highlight it so I ended up forwarding the whole thing. Sorry all. > I just thought it was a pertinent comment. > > I'm having technical difficulties this morning! :-) > > Liz
I pasted Liz's response in line so that we could more easily keep the thread going. From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liz Purkrabek Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [skeptics-145] My Philosophy Many gay couples feel the symbolic nature of the word "marriage" would be validating. I think many gay couples wouldn't care what you call their relationships except that marriage has become a symbol of acceptance and legitimacy for the gay community. If by calling gay unions "marriages" it soothes the hearts and minds of millions of people all over the world, I'm for it. If calling gay unions "marriages" helps to heal the thousands of years of cruelty, fear, and ignorance that have been heaped on gays, I'm for it. Liz On Oct 13, 10:44 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just tried to post a response I wrote to S on the OBA board, but I > couldn't highlight it so I ended up forwarding the whole thing. Sorry all. > I just thought it was a pertinent comment. > > I'm having technical difficulties this morning! :-) > > Liz > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clogtowner > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:08 AM > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > Subject: Re: This comes close to my Philosophy > > Hi y'all - bogus! > I haven't stated that marriage is necessary to procreate. My point is > that the term marriage has been traditionally accepted in the west to > describe, for most (but not all) people, the lifetime relationship > constructed for reproduction and nurture. It has worked for me and I > like it. > I totally support gay unions - call them lifetime partnerships or > whatever. Give them legal rights - no problem. Nevertheless their > formation cannot be the same as the traditional definition of a > marriage, as reproduction is not involved. Therefore a name change, > and nothing else, is required.If we are not going to change semantics, > how do we introduce gays? "Hi I'm Mrs. Smith and this is Mrs. Smith." > It is not really a big deal - just an accurate description. > > I don't think gay "marriage" is a threat to heterosexual unions. In > fact, I welcome it. I'm still searching for enough evidence to > convince me that gay adoptions are as successful as heterosexual. If > that proves to be the case (and I'm sure there are many cases that > don't require evidence) then I think, like Michael, that it should be > positively encouraged to reduce the number of orphans. Jason has > provided a paper in the past but I think a comprehensive study is > several years away. > > On Oct 12, 11:40 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bogus argument. > > > 1) Marriage isn't necessary to procreate, which throws out the biology > > argument, and > > 2) Gay marriage isn't a threat to heterosexual unions, since only a > > very small percentage of the population will be interested in same sex > > unions.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
