Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William T Goodall wrote: > >> On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote: >> >>> So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay- >>> marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' >>> Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics. >>> >>> Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing >>> closeted gay? >> >> Republican senator Larry Craig, with a staunch record of anti-gay and >> 'family values' voting, arrested with his pants down cottaging in a >> public toilet... >> >> Liars Maru > > John Shelby Spong came to the conclusion that Paul was a homosexual > who'd > been raised in a tradition of loathing homosexuals. It explained a > number > of things, anyway Generally, I find that Spong is better at explaining what he's _against_ in Christianity than what he's for (I like Marcus Borg for that), but his explanation of the vehemence of Paul's writings against homosexuality. Quite enlightening, but must be viewed through the lens of "scripture as a human product" rather than "scripture as a divine product". Doing so marks one as a lefty Christian. Dave Sinister Faith Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote: > >> So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay- >> marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' >> Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics. >> >> Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing >> closeted gay? > > Republican senator Larry Craig, with a staunch record of anti-gay and > 'family values' voting, arrested with his pants down cottaging in a > public toilet... > > Liars Maru John Shelby Spong came to the conclusion that Paul was a homosexual who'd been raised in a tradition of loathing homosexuals. It explained a number of things, anyway Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote: > So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay- > marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' > Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics. > > Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing > closeted gay? Republican senator Larry Craig, with a staunch record of anti-gay and 'family values' voting, arrested with his pants down cottaging in a public toilet... Liars Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If so, then Microsoft would have great products." - Steve Jobs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Julia Thompson wrote: >Horn, John wrote: >> "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. >> Rivers and seas boiling. >> Forty years of darkness. >> Earthquakes, volcanoes... >> The dead rising from the grave. >> Human sacrifice... >> Dogs and cats living together..." > >Mass hysteria. >Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru Heck no! Mass Hysteria's the best part! :-) Jim ZUUL!! Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay marriage in the closet
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Julia Thompson > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:10 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet > > Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > >> JDG wrote: > >> > > >> > As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages > >> > (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships > >> > were fertile, (...) > >> > > >> Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time > >> to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever the > >> pair is infertile, and subsidize only gay marriages or > >> marriages between infertile people. > >> > >> Alberto Monteiro > > > > > > What is the truth value of "If p, then q" if p is false? > > Indeterminate. > Actually, not. In terms of symbolic logic p->q (if p, then q) is identical to ~p ^ q ((not p) or q). If A is a true statement, then A ^ B is a true statement. If p is false, then ~p is true, and ~p ^ q is then true Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG said: Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation Even the children? I'm not sure I'd agree with such laws. Rich GCU Raising The Pedantry Stakes ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
At 04:00 PM Saturday 11/11/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/10/2006 5:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they just seem to enjoy barking and hissing at each other. Sounds like my marriage Have you tried offering her some catnip? Meow Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
In a message dated 11/10/2006 5:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they just seem to enjoy barking and hissing at each other. Sounds like my marriage ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Ronn! wrote: > Julia wrote: > >Mass hysteria. > >Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru > > Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on the scale? I thought she meant a particularly moving Catholic service. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:38 AM Saturday 11/11/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Mass hysteria. Julia Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on the scale? Possibly. I figured out awhile back that the number on the scale doesn't matter so much, it's how I *feel*, and I can feel crappy or great at one particular number, depending on stuff. (If I do weight training for 3 months, I end up feeling great, and the number doesn't move! It's amazing.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
At 09:38 AM Saturday 11/11/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Mass hysteria. Julia Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on the scale? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of pencimen What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay marriage? "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice... Dogs and cats living together..." Mass hysteria. Julia Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
At 04:58 PM Friday 11/10/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:32 AM Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet > Dogs and cats living together..." In and out of civil unions.. As I said earlier: Some of them are civil to each other. Others are not. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
So...are we to be greeted by the grand sight of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man? -- Matt - Original Message From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:32:32 AM Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet > On Behalf Of pencimen > > What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of > allowing gay marriage? "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice... Dogs and cats living together..." Someone had to say it. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
- Original Message - From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:32 AM Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet > Dogs and cats living together..." In and out of civil unions.. xponent Also Had To Be Said Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 11/11/2006, at 3:32 AM, Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of pencimen What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay marriage? "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice... Dogs and cats living together..." Someone had to say it. And well said too. :-) Charlie It's The End Of The World As We Know It And I Feel Fine Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay marriage in the closet
At 10:32 AM Friday 11/10/2006, Horn, John wrote: > On Behalf Of pencimen > > What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of > allowing gay marriage? "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice... Dogs and cats living together..." Someone had to say it. I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they just seem to enjoy barking and hissing at each other. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay marriage in the closet
> On Behalf Of pencimen > > What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of > allowing gay marriage? "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice... Dogs and cats living together..." Someone had to say it. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote: > >> What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ? >> partner's >> relationship is recognised too. > > You were just advocating marriages between three or more people > What's wrong with that? Historically, marriage _was_ between three or more people. OTOH, the problems with the total or partial dissolution of such marriages would be heaven for lawyers. I think that any "civil union" that gets established should not discriminate it to fscking pairs. What if an old man decides to "civil union" with his old sister? Or if a brother-sister pair decides to "civil union" with the brother's girlfriend? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Charlie Bell wrote: > > Neither will gay marriage. The actual numbers of marriages will be, > obviously, small compared to straight marriages, but the security > and protection that life partners and children of gay people who > choose to marry receive is vital to those people. > Until the point where lesbians have such an enormous biological advantage over heterosexual women that every newborn baby will be a lesbian :-) 10 GOTO 10 Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
- Original Message - From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:04 AM Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet > > On 10/11/2006, at 4:58 PM, pencimen wrote: > >> JDG wrote: >> >>> Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, >>> talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal >>> structure. >>> I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking >> about, > but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a >> grand > scale with children as the little white laboratory >> mice. >> >> What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay >> marriage? > > No no! It's all about polygamy! Apparently. > And jack-off buddies and soft swinging too it would seem to me. xponent Out Of The Loop Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote: I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, To answer this bit - "provision for the children" means inheritance and child support in case of one partner leaving the relationship through divorce or death. And support for surviving partners, so that they are able to take care of offspring who are still minors. Which is, after all, the purpose of civil marriage laws in the first place. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 10/11/2006, at 4:58 PM, pencimen wrote: JDG wrote: Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, > but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a grand > scale with children as the little white laboratory mice. What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay marriage? No no! It's all about polygamy! Apparently. :-S Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote: > Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, > talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. > I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, > but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a grand > scale with children as the little white laboratory mice. What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay marriage? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 10/11/2006, at 3:23 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell wrote: The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ? partner's relationship is recognised too. You were just advocating marriages between three or more people JDG Only from a US-centric-vocabulary point of view. In the places Charlie has lived, "mate" means "buddy", not "fuck- buddy". Further back, John had mentioned polygamy, which is where I replied "why not?", allowing John to divert to tangent. I can see how you think John might have misread my last statement, but I don't think he did, I think the relevant reference to which he referred was snipped. It was a minor point though. I'm far more concerned about the rights of the couple right now than I am the rights of the triad, as I think it's a far more pervasive and important issue. Most people know openly gay people these days, and many of those will be affected by the recent movement to prevent them marrying. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 10/11/2006, at 2:35 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell wrote: The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ? partner's relationship is recognised too. You were just advocating marriages between three or more people And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare, but they do exist in "the West", and in other parts of the world they're more common. I'm not advocating such marriages as I don't think they'd work for many people, I just think that legally recognising such things, rare as they are, provides more social cohesion that banning them (just as while I'm made uncomfortable by overt body piercing and by certain types of sexual behaviour, I am not so arrogant to suggest that either of those are "wrong"). I still don't see how allowing a tiny minority of people to formalise an unusual domestic relationship makes for a "dramatic reordering" of anything. I happily admit that few will see it that way, though. I also don't see that actively seeking bans on gay marriage does anything other than foster more bigotry and cause pain for gay couples and their children. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell wrote: The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ? partner's relationship is recognised too. You were just advocating marriages between three or more people JDG Only from a US-centric-vocabulary point of view. In the places Charlie has lived, "mate" means "buddy", not "fuck-buddy". Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: JDG wrote: > > As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages > (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships > were fertile, (...) > Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever the pair is infertile, and subsidize only gay marriages or marriages between infertile people. Alberto Monteiro What is the truth value of "If p, then q" if p is false? Indeterminate. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell wrote: > >> The former of your definitions has only recently been added to > >> marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* > >> Provided > >> people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, > >> fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. > > > > > > Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, > > talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal > > structure. > > What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ? > partner's > relationship is recognised too. You were just advocating marriages between three or more people JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his partner's relationship is recognised too. I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a grand scale with children as the little white laboratory mice. What? How? Gay people have kids already. Gay people can adopt, as can single people. Not stopping those gay people who already have kids or who have adopted from forming full "civil unions" -or, in other words, marrying - protects those kids. It promotes strong relationships. By the way, both those arguments were made about mixed-race marriage. As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships were fertile, and provided the best structure for the raising of the next generation. Now, pedantic types will point out that the State also provided the incentives of marriage to elderly and infertile couples, but prior to modern times, the number of such marriages was small (one rarely if ever knew if a couple would be infertile beforehand, and there were much fewer elderly remarriages), and in any case, such marriages didn't alter the basic societal structure. Neither will gay marriage. The actual numbers of marriages will be, obviously, small compared to straight marriages, but the security and protection that life partners and children of gay people who choose to marry receive is vital to those people. In other words, such marriages are historical artifacts, rather than the result of any conscious intent. All marriage is a historical artefact. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: JDG wrote: > > As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages > (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships > were fertile, (...) > Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever the pair is infertile, and subsidize only gay marriages or marriages between infertile people. Alberto Monteiro What is the truth value of "If p, then q" if p is false? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
At 06:47 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The former of your definitions has only recently been added to > marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided > people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, > fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a grand scale with children as the little white laboratory mice. As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships were fertile, and provided the best structure for the raising of the next generation. On that basis, then, what did they have against polygyny? Or if the laws against that have no basis except that a sufficient fraction of the populace finds the practice by a minority "icky," why is that reasoning not sufficient for the practice being debated here? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Damon wrote: > > Alberto, have you been reading Haldeman's _Forever War_? > No, but after I sent the message I remembered a _South Park_ episode where South Park was invaded by immigrants from the Future, and they decide that, to prevent superpopulation, they would all become gay. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Alberto, have you been reading Haldeman's _Forever War_? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:04:07 To:Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet JDG wrote: > > As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages > (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships > were fertile, (...) > Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever the pair is infertile, and subsidize only gay marriages or marriages between infertile people. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote: > > As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages > (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships > were fertile, (...) > Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever the pair is infertile, and subsidize only gay marriages or marriages between infertile people. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The former of your definitions has only recently been added to > marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided > people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, > fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a grand scale with children as the little white laboratory mice. As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships were fertile, and provided the best structure for the raising of the next generation. Now, pedantic types will point out that the State also provided the incentives of marriage to elderly and infertile couples, but prior to modern times, the number of such marriages was small (one rarely if ever knew if a couple would be infertile beforehand, and there were much fewer elderly remarriages), and in any case, such marriages didn't alter the basic societal structure. In other words, such marriages are historical artifacts, rather than the result of any conscious intent. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
> Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote: > >> Charlie wrote: > >> Still got a long way to go, especially in > countries where they're > >> specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay > marriage. Round and round we go. > > I agree, but younger people have more tolerant > attitudes and are more > > likely to ask why we discourage loving > relationships. > Yep. > >> Seeing friends with legal marriage from one > country recognised in > >> another, and other friends with legal marriage > from that country > >> *not* recognised in the other, purely on gender, > upsets me greatly. > > > > Yes, but twenty years ago we probably wouldn't > even dream of having > > this conversation so at least we seem to be making > good progress. > > To drag this back to the start of this thread and > Ted Haggard's > spectacular self-destruct, it's the closet itself > that's the problem, > and with more and more GLBTs out of the closet, > we're all learning > acceptance. The only way to genuinely combat > discrimination is > exposure to differences. You're right on the > progress, it's just > disheartening to keep having to refight the same > battles over and over. I'm not sure who put Referendum I on our ballot (gays for real civil rights? evangelicals to get the base out?), but I voted for it [granting legal status for gay couples who wish to be legally bound]. Rehashing old battles does seem to devour a great deal of time and energy. Debbi Off For A Lesson Maru (and what a lovely day it is!) Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms https://www2.nextag.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 07/11/2006, at 11:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote: They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're being treated differently. But that's only for a definition of marriage as a "partnership between any two people", that's not true for a definition of marriage as "a partnership between a man and a woman", or even as "a partnership between three people." The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. You're also being obtuse. I have attempted to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair enough, you don't want that wider discussion. First, in fairness, I find you to be equally obtuse on this issue. For example, when you write: Which you've said before, and I agreed that judicial activism is a bad thing. But the "liberal vs conservative" thing is a waste of time, John. The world doesn't divide that way in real life, because some conservatives want judicial activism too (witness the post-Dover furore where a conservative judge who showed due process was accused of judicial activism by people who wanted him to be an activist judge... *brain explodes*), and liberals who respect the role of the courts and the role of the legislature in making law. Your paragraph would have had exactly the same sense if you'd substituted "liberals" and "conservatives" for "people", because there are a range of views across the US political spectrum. it seems clear to me that you are wasting my time. Of course there is diversity within Party Labels and Ideological Labels, but these labels nevertheless represent broad generalities about those groups that are useful. When people start arguing about not using labels to discuss the views of broad groups of people, I generally get the sense that they are not being serious about the discussion. I'm being serious, I just think your characterisation of both liberals and conservatives are straw men, and your generalisations are vastly too broad. It's the whole "dems think they're smarter than reps, reps think they're more moral than dems" thing, and that's not true either. In my experience the label is rarely actually useful - the sorts of people described as "liberal" in the States seem to me to be a pretty broad bunch who actually think all sorts of things. It doesn't seem to be a useful term any more at all. As I said, the last lot of people I saw coming out in favour of an activist judiciary were pro-IDers, who I'd be guessing would be "conservative" by your measure as they were all for Judge Jones, Republican appointee, before the trial. (He's a class act, by the way, his recent talks on the need for an independent judiciary were top notch). Secondly, I've said twice now that I support civil unions. I don't know what more you want. Like I said, the server issues may have sent some of that thread into the aether. But I've also asked why if you're in favour of civil unions for gay people, you'd be against civil marriage for those same people (as the mechanism is there). I fully respect the right of churches to marry or refuse to marry anyone they choose, but I don't see the point of inventing a new class of civil union when we've got a perfectly good set of civil union laws already, in the form of a marriage down the registry office or by a civil celebrant. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Or is it moral, just > >> and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual > >> orientation? > > > > Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is > > free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation > > They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're > being treated differently. But that's only for a definition of marriage as a "partnership between any two people", that's not true for a definition of marriage as "a partnership between a man and a woman", or even as "a partnership between three people." > You're also being obtuse. I have attempted > to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in > the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair > enough, you don't want that wider discussion. First, in fairness, I find you to be equally obtuse on this issue. For example, when you write: > Which you've said before, and I agreed that judicial activism is a > bad thing. But the "liberal vs conservative" thing is a waste of > time, John. The world doesn't divide that way in real life, because > some conservatives want judicial activism too (witness the post-Dover > furore where a conservative judge who showed due process was accused > of judicial activism by people who wanted him to be an activist > judge... *brain explodes*), and liberals who respect the role of the > courts and the role of the legislature in making law. Your paragraph > would have had exactly the same sense if you'd substituted "liberals" > and "conservatives" for "people", because there are a range of views > across the US political spectrum. it seems clear to me that you are wasting my time. Of course there is diversity within Party Labels and Ideological Labels, but these labels nevertheless represent broad generalities about those groups that are useful. When people start arguing about not using labels to discuss the views of broad groups of people, I generally get the sense that they are not being serious about the discussion. Secondly, I've said twice now that I support civil unions. I don't know what more you want. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote: Charlie wrote: Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and round we go. I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more likely to ask why we discourage loving relationships. Yep. Seeing friends with legal marriage from one country recognised in another, and other friends with legal marriage from that country *not* recognised in the other, purely on gender, upsets me greatly. Yes, but twenty years ago we probably wouldn't even dream of having this conversation so at least we seem to be making good progress. To drag this back to the start of this thread and Ted Haggard's spectacular self-destruct, it's the closet itself that's the problem, and with more and more GLBTs out of the closet, we're all learning acceptance. The only way to genuinely combat discrimination is exposure to differences. You're right on the progress, it's just disheartening to keep having to refight the same battles over and over. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Charlie wrote: > > Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're > specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and > round we go. I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more likely to ask why we discourage loving relationships. > Seeing friends with legal marriage from one country recognised in > another, and other friends with legal marriage from that country > *not* recognised in the other, purely on gender, upsets me greatly. Yes, but twenty years ago we probably wouldn't even dream of having this conversation so at least we seem to be making good progress. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 07/11/2006, at 5:08 PM, pencimen wrote: JDG wrote: Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word "free" is somewhat misplaced. In any case, it's heartening to see that, despite the best effort of Bush, Rove and their evangelical friends, attitudes are changing. Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and round we go. Seeing friends with legal marriage from one country recognised in another, and other friends with legal marriage from that country *not* recognised in the other, purely on gender, upsets me greatly. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 07/11/2006, at 4:15 PM, jdiebremse wrote: Or is it moral, just and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual orientation? Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're being treated differently. You're also being obtuse. I have attempted to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair enough, you don't want that wider discussion. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote: > Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is > free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word "free" is somewhat misplaced. In any case, it's heartening to see that, despite the best effort of Bush, Rove and their evangelical friends, attitudes are changing. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate > > judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint. > > The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven > > by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that > > the Courts should stick to interpreting the law; recognizing that > > the law may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad > > idea; but that under our system of government, the writing of laws > > is reserved for the legislative branch of government. > > > >From what you say, I take that if, somehow, science proves without > any doubt that human life - soul - sentience - whatever begins > before, say, 6 months, then the courts should *not* immediately > outlaw any abortion of 6-month-old fetuses, but wait for the congress > to outlaw it? It is my position that the USSC should overturn Roe v. Wade, and leave the issue to Congress or to the several States, respectively. In the unique thought experiment you provide, the plain text of the 14th Amendment would apply: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan wrote: > > > I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that > > sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas. > > Yes, I misread the post, sorry. First, thank you to Dan for explaining my point with a "quote" from one of my personal heroes >Of course I couldn't disagree more. > What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court > that is nothing but a rubber stamp? > > As far as the quote goes, I'm not sure it's applicable. No one is > proposing "cutting down" the laws, what is proposed is that they be > revised or replaced with better ones. I'd argue that it is still rather similar. The net effect of the NJSC ruling is to twist the highest law, the Constitution, so completely around itself as to be unrecognizable.If one can generate that NJSC ruling out of the law, then I'd argue that it becomes possible to generate almost any possible ruling out of the law - at which point, the law has ceased to exist as a meaningful institution, and all you are left with is the will of the Court JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > recognizing that the law > > may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea > > So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit? No. > Or is it moral, just > and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual > orientation? Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 07/11/2006, at 2:49 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage. Except that the previous thread didn't discuss that question at all. The question was not whether legalized gay marriages were a good idea, the question was whether legalized gay marriages should be imposed by the courts. That was one question. I asked the other as well: "So you disagree with the way the decision was made. Do you disagree that gay couples should be allowed civil unions?" This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint. The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that the Courts should stick to interpreting the law; recognizing that the law may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea; but that under our system of government, the writing of laws is reserved for the legislative branch of government. Which you've said before, and I agreed that judicial activism is a bad thing. But the "liberal vs conservative" thing is a waste of time, John. The world doesn't divide that way in real life, because some conservatives want judicial activism too (witness the post-Dover furore where a conservative judge who showed due process was accused of judicial activism by people who wanted him to be an activist judge... *brain explodes*), and liberals who respect the role of the courts and the role of the legislature in making law. Your paragraph would have had exactly the same sense if you'd substituted "liberals" and "conservatives" for "people", because there are a range of views across the US political spectrum. What courts are for is *justice*, and that means overturning or preventing enacting of unconstitutional or illegal laws (as the British courts have had to do when the UK government has infringed European Human Rights laws), and I doubt you'll disagree with that. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay marriage in the closet
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of pencimen > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:44 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet > > Dan wrote: > > > I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that > > sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas. > > Yes, I misread the post, sorry. Of course I couldn't disagree more. > What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court > that is nothing but a rubber stamp? I think the question at hand is "what is interpreting the constitution" vs. reading one's own views into the constitution. > As far as the quote goes, I'm not sure it's applicable. No one is > proposing "cutting down" the laws, what is proposed is that they be > revised or replaced with better ones. The law that would be cut down would be the separation of powers. If justices are allowed total freedom in interpreting the constitution, then what would stop conservative Supreme Court justices from overturning Social Security as unconstitutional? Back in the '30s, much of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Dan wrote: > I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that > sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas. Yes, I misread the post, sorry. Of course I couldn't disagree more. What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court that is nothing but a rubber stamp? As far as the quote goes, I'm not sure it's applicable. No one is proposing "cutting down" the laws, what is proposed is that they be revised or replaced with better ones. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay marriage in the closet
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of pencimen > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:20 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet > > JDG wrote: > > > recognizing that the law > > may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea > > So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit? Or is it moral, just > and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual > orientation? I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas. There's the classic statement by Sir. Thomas Moore in "A Man for All Seasons" that addresses this: Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!" Sir Thomas: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" Roper: "Why, yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" Sir Thomas: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it, Roper!--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" "Yes," Sir Thomas concludes: "I'd give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" I think JDG's argument is that we should not undermine democratic principals by letting unelected judges make laws by reading what they know is right into constitutionseven thought we think that what they do is supporting fundamental morality. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote: > recognizing that the law > may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit? Or is it moral, just and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual orientation? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote: > > This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate > judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint. > The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven > by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that > the Courts should stick to interpreting the law; recognizing that > the law may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad > idea; but that under our system of government, the writing of laws > is reserved for the legislative branch of government. > >From what you say, I take that if, somehow, science proves without any doubt that human life - soul - sentience - whatever begins before, say, 6 months, then the courts should *not* immediately outlaw any abortion of 6-month-old fetuses, but wait for the congress to outlaw it? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the > previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good > argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage. Except that the previous thread didn't discuss that question at all. The question was not whether legalized gay marriages were a good idea, the question was whether legalized gay marriages should be imposed by the courts. This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint. The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that the Courts should stick to interpreting the law; recognizing that the law may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea; but that under our system of government, the writing of laws is reserved for the legislative branch of government. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:06 PM Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet > Robert Seeberger wrote: >> - Original Message - >> From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Brin-L" >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:40 PM >> Subject: Gay marriage in the closet >> >> >>> So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical >>> anti-gay-marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New >>> Life Church' Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and >>> rent-boy antics. >>> >>> Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing >>> closeted gay? >> >> OK everyone.sing along with me: >> >> Gay people are really neat >> They're all filled with beefy meat >> And Conseeervatives are carnivores! > > Oy. I'm hearing this in Tom Lehrer's voice in my head > Should be Joel, Tom Servo, and Crow, shouldn't it? xponent Kaiju Karols Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a religious concept, should be involved in civil partnerships. Tradition. That's the strongest and probably the last-to-fall argument, when all other arguments fail. If half the Earth's GNP still use feet and pounds, how can you expect people to think with reason and drop Evil Traditions? How many planes have to crash or refineries blow up before... wait... we are arguing about Gay marriage, right? Alberto Monteiro Hm. You may have something there. Where have the last few refinery blowups happened? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Gay marriage in the closet So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics. Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing closeted gay? OK everyone.sing along with me: Gay people are really neat They're all filled with beefy meat And Conseeervatives are carnivores! Oy. I'm hearing this in Tom Lehrer's voice in my head Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 06/11/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote: I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage. I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a religious concept, should be involved in civil partnerships. Well, that's one solution I offered - separate the legal from the ceremony *entirely* (which would have made me happier, instead of the mish-mash of required ceremony even in a non-religious marriage). But anyway, marriage is not a religious institution, even if it was originally a religious concept (and that is uncertain, it has meant so many things over the millenia). It's a legal institution. This "civil partnership" distinction is a red herring - *all* marriages are civil partnerships. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Andrew Crystall wrote: > > I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a religious concept, > should be involved in civil partnerships. > Tradition. That's the strongest and probably the last-to-fall argument, when all other arguments fail. If half the Earth's GNP still use feet and pounds, how can you expect people to think with reason and drop Evil Traditions? How many planes have to crash or refineries blow up before... wait... we are arguing about Gay marriage, right? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote: > I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the > previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good > argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage. I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a religious concept, should be involved in civil partnerships. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
- Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Gay marriage in the closet > So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical > anti-gay-marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life > Church' Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy > antics. > > Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing > closeted gay? OK everyone.sing along with me: Gay people are really neat They're all filled with beefy meat And Conseeervatives are carnivores! xponent Metaphors Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 06/11/2006, at 7:40 AM, William T Goodall wrote: So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay- marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics. Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing closeted gay? That's probably slightly over-stating the case, but it's amazing how spectacularly some people self-destruct. I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
At 02:40 PM Sunday 11/5/2006, William T Goodall asked: Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing closeted gay? Yes. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Gay marriage in the closet
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics. Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing closeted gay? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
