I apologize in advance for the didactic tone of what follows.
Yes, God IS speaking through me.
The closer one gets to the dictionary-making enterprise, the less one
is
inclined to use a dictionary to codify anything. Dictionary makers
are at
pains to capture usage, and usage is nothing if not ephemeral. The
kings
english does not, in general, come from listening to the King ... or
any
other authority ... speak.
When somebody says, "I think we ought to keep close to the defnition"
they
are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course,
is a
fairly silly claim.
These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with
respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether
we
are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how
swiftly
we are going to change it.
The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live
amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument
about
whether to call these arrangements "marriages" is a sign of magical
thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it
still
is magical thinking.
Think about the crisis in telephone land that occured when dials were
replaced by keys.
Or think about the strain in the language that has been produced by
feminism and the grammatical construction "each .... {she/he/they)".
Gloria Steinem suggested in the first issue of Ms Mag, that we
introduce
the neologism "ter" as a singular neuter possessive. "Each man/woman
to
ter own opinion." I wish we had done it. Because we didnt have the
courage or discipline to do it, I still have to suffer, 40 years
later,
"Each man to their own opinion." "Their" has ceased to become a
plural
possive and become a singular neuter possesive. I can hate it all I
like,
but it is still contemporary usage.
Once we fully accept gay couples into our communities, the language
will
just .... change.
Ok. That's all He told me to say.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[Original Message]
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <friam@redfish.com>
Date: 11/11/2008 10:00:22 AM
Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13
Send Friam mailing list submissions to
friam@redfish.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
2. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
3. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
4. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Scott R. Powell)
5. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
6. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
7. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
8. Are your skills obsolete? (Tom Johnson)
9. Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds (Jochen Fromm)
10. Obama, Proposition 8 (peggy miller)
11. Fewer "subscription required"s (Robert Holmes)
12. Re: Obama, Proposition 8 (glen e. p. ropella)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:52 -0700
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly
good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming?
One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into
account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out
the
work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's
actual
significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already
got the
largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
volunteer
efforts.
Robert
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, Jack.
If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the
field
of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do
work in
cosmology-related fields..
At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
meeting
George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small
group of 5 of
us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us
about
cosmology for over an hour.
--Doug
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:22:30 -0700
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
calculated to the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem
to take relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done
but not mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly
good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not
overwhelming?
One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into
account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry
out the
work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And
it's actual
significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've
already got the
largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
volunteer
efforts.
Robert
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, Jack.
If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in
the field
of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who
do work in
cosmology-related fields..
At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
meeting
George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small
group of 5 of
us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us
about
cosmology for over an hour.
--Doug
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:46:14 -0700
From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Owen, two suggestions:
1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
--Doug
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
calculated to
the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly
good
book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming?
One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
bang
is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into account
the time
extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not mentioned in the
popular
books.
-- Owen
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry
out
the
work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And
it's
actual
significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've
already
got
the
largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
volunteer
efforts.
Robert
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, Jack.
If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in
the
field
of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who
do
work
in
cosmology-related fields..
At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
meeting
George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small
group
of
5 of
us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us
about
cosmology for over an hour.
--Doug
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/
5ff2481
b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:04:08 -0700
From: "Scott R. Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello, All,
Just to be clear George is not Oliver - Although Smoot attended MIT,
he
was
not the same Smoot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot> who was laid
end
to
end to measure the Harvard
Bridge<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge>
between Cambridge
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Massachusetts>
and Boston <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Massachusetts>;
this was
his cousin Oliver R. Smoot
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_R._Smoot>,
an MIT alumnus who served as the chairman of the American National
Standards
Institute<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
American_National_Standards_Institute
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot
Scott Powell, creeping back into his Liberal Arts den
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Hi, Jack.
If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the
field
of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do
work in
cosmology-related fields..
At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
meeting
George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small group
of
5 of
us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us
about
cosmology for over an hour.
--Doug
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Jack Leibowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Doug,
May I boast for a minute that my wife, retired from NASA, worked
on
the
HUBBLE and WMAPS. The deep field picture and many other Hubble pics
were
made possible by her group. She was an analyst and programmer in
those
projects. A number of those pics, such as the deep field one, are in
the
book we spoke of in our e-mail exchange.I am moved, as you are, by
those
pictures.
Jack.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group<Friam@redfish.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:15 PM
*Subject:* [Norton AntiSpam] [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of
heaven
Here's a nice, long glimpse back towards our beginnings. *Much*
further
back than 6.000 years ago, I might add. All the way back to when
our
observable universe was a mere 2 billion hears old. You should pull
down
the image & stare at all the galaxy dots for a minute or two. It's
good for
the soul...
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-39-08.html
My favorite photo in this class, however, is still the Hubble
ultra-deep
field, in visible light looking back about 13 billion years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field
--Doug
------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/
37bc2f1
d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:09:21 -0700
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Owen, two suggestions:
1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
--Doug
Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel,
thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant,
huge problems.
And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted
and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the
expansionary universe discoveries.
But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of
"time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass
distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the
universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems
at odds with relativity.
Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after all,
the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems
cancel out, so to speak?
-- Owen
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
calculated to
the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:12:04 -0700
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Damn. s/expanson/inflation/ below re: Weinberg.
-- Owen
On Nov 10, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Owen, two suggestions:
1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
--Doug
Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the
Nobel, thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming
constant, huge problems.
And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted
and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the
expansionary universe discoveries.
But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem
of "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/
mass distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the
universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems
at odds with relativity.
Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after
all, the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational
problems cancel out, so to speak?
-- Owen
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
calculated to
the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:20:31 -0700
From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
A few years ago I had an email exchange with Weinberg in which I
asked him
if he planned to write a second edition of the "The First Three
Minutes"
where he might address some of the new observational data that has
been
published since the first edition was released, such as the sudden
(cosmologically speaking) apparent acceleration in the rate of
expansion
of
the universe, dark matter, dark energy, Smoot's COBE findings, etc.
Unfortunately, Weinberg said that he had no such plans. I did greatly
enjoy
talking with Smoot on these topics last year, though.
--Doug
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Owen, two suggestions:
1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
--Doug
Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel,
thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant,
huge
problems.
And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted
and
wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the
expansionary
universe discoveries.
But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of
"time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass
distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the
universe
uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems at odds
with
relativity.
Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after
all,
the
entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems cancel
out,
so to speak?
-- Owen
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
calculated
to
the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/
b7459f7
e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:35:04 -0700
From: "Tom Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Are your skills obsolete?
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] com" <friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
All:
Some of us may recall Bruce Sterling's fun site, "Dead Media,"
technologies that no longer are necessary or exist.
http://www.deadmedia.org/
The human side of all that can now be found at "Obsolete Skills"
http://obsoleteskills.com/Skills/Skills
Build your personal timeline of obsolescence, friends.
-tom
--
==========================================
J. T. Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
www.analyticjournalism.com
505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete."
-- Buckminster Fuller
==========================================
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:06:35 +0100
From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<Friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Do you have lots of Tequila in Santa Fe?
http://www.physorg.com/news145255770.html
-J.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:07:50 -0700
From: "peggy miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8
To: friam@redfish.com
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is
extremely
important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which
includes
"to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and
wife"
-- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet
these
two
requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the
husband
and
generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a
legal
marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and
ignores the
definition of marriage itself.
Peggy Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/
096cb46
7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:51:47 -0700
From: "Robert Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Fewer "subscription required"s
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
A neat little tip (via lifehacker) that improves the odds of avoiding
those
"subscription required" messages when you are searching for academic
papers:
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-google-scholars-
integration-wi
th.html
Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/
b41c919
8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:55:52 -0800
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thus spake peggy miller circa 11/11/2008 08:07 AM:
Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is
extremely
important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which
includes
"to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and
wife"
-- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet
these two
requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the
husband
and
generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form
a
legal
marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and
ignores
the
definition of marriage itself.
But if we argue from the dictionary we may end up with arguments like
the following.
While all the below agree with your point:
1) "marriage" generally refers to a spousal relationship and
2) "spouse" is a term meaning things like vow, pledge, ritual, etc,
and
3) "husband" generally means master of the house,
"wife" really is defined to be a female. So, while lesbian couples
can
choose who is the husband and who is the wife; gay male couples can't.
They can choose the husband; but neither can be a wife.
Personally, I think marriage is an obsolete concept. We should
completely separate legal contracts from religious ceremonies and
purge
"marriage" from the law entirely. It should be in the exact same
category as baptism.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
Friam@redfish.com
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
End of Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13
*************************************
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
