- Original Message -
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
> Russell Chapman wrote:
> >
- Original Message -
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
>
> > --- Rober
Kevin Tarr wrote:
I am 100% not trying to say anything bad. I am only pointing this out
because I know two people who went through this, separate cases. You
say, the custody of the children is just a casual agreement; then say
you put a statement in your will, that is as much as you can do.
Ar
This is something that keeps me awake at night... My ex-wife is a
fruit-loop who has no concept of responsibility at any level, and can't
cope with the children for more than an overnight visit every few months.
My second wife, despite having been thrown in the deep end with no
preparation and
Julia Thompson wrote:
Is there some age at which children of divorced parents can have a say
in where they live?
Various states in the US have that, and the age varies from state to
state. It's 14 *somewhere*. Don't know anything beyond that.
The courts in most Australian states will listen to c
Russell Chapman wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> >Just thought of a scenario not handled by this:
> >
> >Woman & man marry
> >Woman & man have baby
> >Woman & man get divorced
> >Woman gets custody
> >Woman marries another man
> >Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old
> >
>
Julia Thompson wrote:
Just thought of a scenario not handled by this:
Woman & man marry
Woman & man have baby
Woman & man get divorced
Woman gets custody
Woman marries another man
Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old
Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or th
At 16:31 2003-07-31 -0500, Julia wrote:
Just thought of a scenario not handled by this:
Woman & man marry
Woman & man have baby
Woman & man get divorced
Woman gets custody
Woman marries another man
Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old
Who gets primary custody at *this* point?
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > ...my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent:
> >
> > In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done
> > in a similar fashion in
> > the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a
> > "child of tender years" (age
> > 9 and un
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ...my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent:
>
> In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done
> in a similar fashion in
> the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a
> "child of tender years" (age
> 9 and under in Texas) is auto
--- "Adam C. Lipscomb" wrote:
> You've taken the classic boob's line, "God created
> Adam and Eve, not
> Adam and Steve!" and slapped a new coat of pain on
> it, but it's still
> bereft of real substance, and just as ridiculous.
> While a man and a
> woman are required for the initial act, it do
Jon Gabriel wrote:
> >You deserve a medal for reading Ann Coulter on a regular basis. :)
>
> LOL! I didn't buy her books though.
Don't blame you - I was gifted one of her books years ago.
*shudder*
I had to make it disappearit was polluting the other books on my
shelf.
> She is just vi
From: "Ritu " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:32:30 +0530
Jon Gabr
Jon Gabriel wrote:
> I agree that shaking people up and exposing them to an
> alternative worldview
> is a good thing. I read AlterNet and Ann Coulter on a
> regular basis for
> that precise reason. :)
You deserve a medal for reading Ann Coulter on a regular basis. :)
Ritu, who spaces ou
Erik Reuter wrote:
>Saturday Night Live completely neutered?
SNL neutered itself a long time ago. :-)
Jim
___
Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.
_
Erik wrote:
Are
you really suggesting that people should limit their satire to trivial
issues? ... Saturday Night Live completely
neutered?
You mean they aren't now?
Reggie Bautista
Smiley Maru
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 06:03:40PM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
> I think people naturally take some of the topics you choose to lampoon
> very seriously. People rarely think bashing their belief system is
> funny. If something offends, why continue to do it?
Now that's a silly question. Obviously
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:49:28 -0400
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 06:31:52PM -07
Doug Pensinger wrote:
> I know, I know, but we've got a lot of smart people here and I'm
> guessing that most of them are aware of Erik's libertarian views, not to
> mention his tendency to use sarcasm (especially when dealing with
> intolerance), so the statement:
>
> "Catholics have a distorted
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 06:31:52PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's
> heads the way Erik's comments did.
I think the reason it seems so obvious to you is that you think about
what my viewpoints are likely to be on various issues, and
Julia Thompson wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post
better than you did.
I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
> > I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post
> > better than you did.
>
> I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over peop
Julia Thompson wrote:
Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post
better than you did.
I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads
the way Erik's comments did.
Doug
__
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 07:34:35PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> In that case, I think that I got Erik's post (both the cheeky and the
> serious content) better than you did.
No, you did not, JDG, based on your earlier comment which was exactly
opposite.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
>> >Erik Reuter wrote:
>> >
>> >> You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me!
>> >
>> >Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots.
>>
>> Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil,
>> and unapologetic f
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
> Wow! That's quite a list!
>
> Now, who *should* be allowed to reproduce, in your opinion?
Did I miss someone?
> And what happens if someone reproduces and *then* gets an SUV
They have a choice: SUV or junior? Could be a tough ch
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
> >Erik Reuter wrote:
> >
> >> You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me!
> >
> >Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots.
>
> Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil,
>
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:51:27PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote:
>
> > 2) You condone a law that would prevent 62 million American citizens
> > from being able to get married and have children? How ironic.
> > Apparently you only support freedom of speech, not freedom of t
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:17:56PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> I am solidly opposed to women priests,
That is unnatural! There should be a Constitutional amendment banning
such aberrant views!
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:05:07PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive,
> uncivil, and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with
> prejudice against Catholics and homosexuals.
Actually, you were the one who just equated pr
At 01:44 PM 7/25/2003 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>FYI, I'd love to see married and female priests, and yes, even a female
>pope. Note I didn't mention homosexual priests, because it's unnecessary
>as I already have seen them - there's quite a lot. I heard a seminarian
>state that gays far outnum
At 06:19 PM 7/24/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>As will hardly surprise anyone, I could not possibly disagree more. By this
>logic, the Supreme Court should not have decided as it did in Brown vs
Board of
>Education. If it were left up to states, there would still be legal
>discrimination in
JDG wrote:
> My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women
and men
> are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be
effects of
> both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural
roles.
Well, duuuh! Differences in biology do not, hoever, e
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
> At 12:06 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Adam
At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
>Erik Reuter wrote:
>
>> You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me!
>
>Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots.
Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil,
and unapologetic for equating prejudice again
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:51:27PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote:
> 2) You condone a law that would prevent 62 million American citizens
> from being able to get married and have children? How ironic.
> Apparently you only support freedom of speech, not freedom of thought
> or freedom of religion.
Erik wrote:
Obviously,
there should be a law that requires both a female AND a male Pope.
Separate but equal, huh?
(Just for the record, I have no problem with a female being Pope or with a
female being a priest.)
Reggie Bautista
_
Erik wrote:
I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't
healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally
marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent
parents.
1) Don't judge all Catholics based on JDG. Many Catholics are tolera
Erik Reuter wrote:
> You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me!
Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots.
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bryon, all children are produced by a man and a woman. But there has
never been a female Pope. How can a male-only Pope provide good guidance
and nurture to his flock when it is so unnatural? I find this offensive,
and I am offended that you cannot tolerate my
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:42:45PM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
> And if I want to make a point that insulted Erik, I wouldn't do it my
> making an obnoxious broad general statement about all physics experts
> or atheists, because either of those would also attack other people on
> this list.
Really?
David Hobby wrote:
> The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship
> terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness. Sibling, parent and
> child are all "halves". Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
> nephew, half-sibling, and so on are "quarters". And you know you
From: "Jon Gabriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Bryon Daly
> >From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't
> >healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to l
At 18:29 2003-07-24 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
>The family is not in any danger.
I differ with
> Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give
> consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of
> the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable
> expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no
> w
At 01:46 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>>From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>At 11:09 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
>> >I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two
>> >adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and
>> >state governments must
At 12:06 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
>JDG poured an a$$load of gasoline on the fire by writing:
>
>> I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a
>father, I
>> think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for
>adoption
>> with a very good mother and fa
At 06:13 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>> > > I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a
>father,
>> > > I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for
>> > > adoption with a very good mother and father.
>> >
>> >I disagree. Catholics have a distorted vi
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:14:22AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
> I know you're trying to troll him, but 1) he never stated anything
> about Catholicism is his remark, did that need to be dragged in?,
> and 2) it's intolerant and offensive to me and perhaps to any other
> Catholics who might be on thi
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Bryon Daly
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:14 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
>
> >From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >On F
From: "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So you would deny adoption to single people as well? What of children that
would otherwise go unadopted? Would you rather see them in an orphanage
than with a loving single parent of gay couple?
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:59AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father,
> I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for
> adoption with a very good mother and father.
I disagree
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 11:09 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
>I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two
>adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and
>state governments must grant all the privileges of marriage,
>and you have my suppo
JDG poured an a$$load of gasoline on the fire by writing:
> I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a
father, I
> think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for
adoption
> with a very good mother and father.
With all due respect, I think you're way out of touc
At 02:43 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 Jean-Louis Couturier wrote:
>I do agree that the laws permitting or restricting marriage should be
>passed by elected officials rather than appointed ones. However, the
>courts have there part to play. With such thorny issues, legislators
>have the bad habit of looking
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:59AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father,
> I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for
> adoption with a very good mother and father.
I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote:
>
> At 07:26 2003-07-24 -0400, John D Giorgis posted a text containing the
> following:
> >Gay marriage would cut the final cord that ties marriage to the well-being
> >of children. It is a step we should not take. Our cultural forgetting of
> >the meaning of marriage h
At 11:09 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
> I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two
>adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and
>state governments must grant all the privileges of marriage,
>and you have my support.
I disagree. Since every child is p
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> While I am sure that many of you will not support the first half of the proposed
> ammendment, (although I would point out that this first half does not rule out civil
> unions - such as the ones currently embraced by the gay community in Vermont.)
> Nevertheless,
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
>The family is not in any danger.
I differ with this statement. I think that the family is
> Nevertheless, I would hope that everyone would be in favor of the second
> half. I think that this issue is so important and controversial that it should
> be decided by the State Legislatures and Congress, which are elected by the
> people, and not written by unelected judges.
>
As will ha
At 07:26 2003-07-24 -0400, John D Giorgis posted a text containing the
following:
Gay marriage would cut the final cord that ties marriage to the well-being
of children. It is a step we should not take. Our cultural forgetting of
the meaning of marriage has already had too many sad consequences
While I am sure that many of you will not support the first half of the proposed
ammendment, (although I would point out that this first half does not rule out civil
unions - such as the ones currently embraced by the gay community in Vermont.)
Nevertheless, I would hope that everyone would be
63 matches
Mail list logo