[Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:33:35 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Mr. Wilson,</P>
<P>Not only is your argument completely unrelated to the notion of Gay Marriage, but it is also illogical in itself.</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Polygamy is a violation of human rights in numerous levels. </P>
<P>First, marriage requires that you place all loyalty to one person. How can you do that when you are married to multiple people? </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Second, it allows the spread of disease, against the interests of the state and the community. One of the members of the union engages in sexual relations with someone outside the marriage and it goes to everyone, and could spread to many more children.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Third, it allows the suppression of women.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Fourth, it creates confusion in matters of divorce. Can the divorcing women sue all the ones he is married to also? If so, why is that fair? If not, he can transfer all his wealth to the others he is married to as well, leaving the women with nothing to raise her children on?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Fifth, how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one person? Is this not an important part of marriage? </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Sixth, who gets the benefits of life insurance, health insurance, and other benefits? If you have 20 wives, which one gets the dental benefit, which one gets the medicine? You could argue that businesses should provide health insurance for all the wives and children, but which children are his if they each have 20 husbands? You would also have bickering between the different health insurance companies as to which should pay for the costs of medical expenses.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Seventh, how is it fair to a spouse if one decides to marry another when they don't have a say in manner?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I could name about 50 more, but I don't see how this relates in any way to the gender of two people getting married. Polygamy is a heterosexual thing that was knocked down to protect the rights of women that were being abused in the relationship.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Donovan J Arnold <BR><BR></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Douglas <DOUGWILS@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:55:00 -0700
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Dear visionaries,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Okay, Ralph. This should be fun.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>marriage is a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>me! Now, let's follow this out. What interest does the state have,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>and what basis does it have, for limiting said contracts to two
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>parties? We have thought for a long time it should be just two, but
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>of course, we thought *that* back in the day when we thought it
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>should man and woman, one each. What benighted troglodytes we were
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But now, if three or
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary arrangement, a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the state
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>(which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>chains?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>be consistent.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Cordially,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Douglas
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote:
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>> Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>nothing about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>pointed out that AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>secular legal contract.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>> If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>perfectly free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>also makes provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>to be moral or not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>folks believe divorce is a sin, but that is of no concern to the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>state.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>> I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>loom large in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>Doug implies. In fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>e.g., Gideon, who had 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>8:30).
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>> I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>place those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>And don't forget that they would be under the same rules if they
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>wanted to get divorced. We have laws to protect social stability
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>and I think same-sex marriage will do just that.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>From: Douglas <DOUGWILS@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>have the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>morality that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>and we base this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>"secular legal contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>secular legal contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need around
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote:
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>difference between church and state, so he gives us a homily
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>about hypocrisy and sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>far as the state is concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>secular legal contract binding on the two parties concerned. He
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>illogically equates monogamy with polygamy and, even more
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>illogically, pretends that polygamy is a matter of how many
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>people can physically fit into a bedroom.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>with building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>Wilsonian "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>is.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>> Ralph Nielsen
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>From: Douglas <DOUGWILS@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>our nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>condemns publicly, and the tragic way of removing that
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>hypocrisy, which is to bring yourself to approve the sin
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>we always need to remember there are two ways to get out of a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and the other is
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of pursuing
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break,"
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>and is no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>talking about homosexual unions. We are also talking about
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>polygamy, as long as more than two can physically fit into the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>privacy of the bedroom. What kind of sexual unions will have to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>be permitted as soon as the courts learn the rudiments of logic?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>He who says A must say B.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>the bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>wanted to tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>in the bedroom, how the electric outlets had to be placed, how
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>big the windows had to be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>>>>of the bedroom, aye.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>_____________________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>> http://www.fsr.net
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>_____________________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.fsr.net
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Protect your PC - <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMWENUS/2755??PS=">Click here</a> for McAfee.com VirusScan Online </html>