I don't disagree with you. I would prefer to see marriage legalized for homosexuals even if people want to call it something else, but I also would like to see a day when all positive and loving relationships are valid and equal if so desired by those undertaking the union.
Liz -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isparklaria Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 2:43 PM To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Subject: Re: This comes close to my Philosophy On Oct 13, 10:44 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If by calling gay unions > "marriages" it > soothes the hearts and minds of millions of people all over the world, > I'm > for it. While I personally don't care if gay unions are called marriage, I wish that gay activist would be happy to get the same rights with a different name for now. Unfortunately there is a segment of the voting public that takes such strong offense to the idea of gay unions being called marriages that they would vote for Bush for a third term if he could preserve the current traditional use of the word. Politics is about many things, and one of them is compromise. On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
