NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9983

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 3.4 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!news.univie.ac.at!chx400!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!athena.cs.uga.edu!tedr
From: [e-mail] (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:01:49 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In <[e-mail]>, Mitchell Watnik writes:
>
>>Dear Rush Limbaugh fans, foes and others:

This probably doesn't belong in this group, but I would like to respond.

>Well, first keep in mind that the government grants special privileges to
>married couples that it doesn't give to single people (lower tax brackets,
>survivor benefits, and so on).  From the Libertarian and 14th Amendment point
>of view, that seems unconstitutional to me.

There is nother unconstitutional in giving families tax breaks.  These are
intended to counteract the financial difficulty in raising a family, and the
special treatment is there to recognize the importance of the family,
without which our society would crumble. Actually, however, if you examine
the welfare and AFDC policies of the last 30 years, you will find
dicrimination "against" the family.  The mother cannot receive federal aid
"iff" a man is living with her or she is married.

>>For example:  My friend argues that the 14th Amendment provides that all
>>citizens should have the same rights and privileges.  He says that gays'
>>14th Amendment rights are violated since they do not enjoy the privilege
>>of marrying the person of their choice.
>>I've argued against this point 3 ways.

As you point out, legal marriage in almost every state is the union of male
and female.  In short, each state should decide for itself whether it wants
to recognize the legal marriages of homosexuals. That's the Federalist
approach.  The communities decide because 1) homosexual marriage is nowhere
to be found in the constitution, and 2) the prevailing culuture in American
was and still is the recognition and support of hetersexual marriage.  This
is not to say it is a "right" belief, just as to say the slavery was not
"right" belief in the 19th century because it was widely accepted. As you
said, you did not want moral or metaphysical arguments, although, I must
say, there is much good rational arguing to be done in these areas over
homosexuality.

>>Once again, I wish to emphasize that we are NOT discussing morality or
>>judgment.  The words "fag" and "homophobe" do not make for good arguments.
>>I hope to get good responses, both pro and con, so that the two of us will
>>have more ammunition with which to waste our free time.

Good point, but be reminded that many good arguments can be made from the
moral and metapysical perspectives.  Let's not fall for the, "since no one
can agree on anything there, then there must not be any use in deciphering
the truth.

>I know what you mean.  I'm sick of all the name calling and knee-jerk stereo-
>typing based on ideology...

Agreed, definetly; but what does one do when one is called a homophobe
because one thinks homosexuality is not a genetic trait and should be
discouraged becaused it is not right behavior?

====================================
Ted Kalivoda ([e-mail])
University of Georgia
UCNS/Institute of Higher Ed.