> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society
is
> > the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
> > ...[This] convention protects them, and so they proceed
Jon Gabriel wrote:
Then have some respect for the rest of us innocent bystanders and take
your bashing offlist and out of our mailboxes.
If you and all the others who were so vehemently bashing fools virtual
head in would kindly remember to come forward and as zealously defend
other victims of
Reggie said:
> So you think freedom of speech should protect use of the word "fuck"
> but shouldn't protect the right of people to talk about their
> religious beliefs?
I think that freedom of speech should protect both, but I think that
using "fuck" et al shows a lamentable lack of articulacy in
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16523
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat
grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling
_
- Original Message -
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Complaint (Was: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?)
>
> - Original Message -
> F
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Complaint (Was: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:17:46 -0600
> From: Jon Gabriel <
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Complaint (Was: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?)
> xponent
> I'm Not Afraid If
- Original Message -
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Complaint (Was: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?)
> > From: Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
> I'm not going to sit back and let JDG make extremely
> homophobic and
> misogynist remarks without calling him on it.
> Because that's what he's
> writing. He's an apologist for homophobes and he
> and his arguments lend
> a veneer or legitimacy to the hate movement. All he
> does is feed the
> From: Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What exactly does it take to get The Fool to stop attacking brinellers?
> It's happened in at least 3, possibly more emails in less than 30 days.
I'm
> tired of opening my mail and seeing Kneem spew hate-filled insults at
JDG.
>
> All the other peop
o: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:16:00 -0600
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
&g
Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> >Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >>Don't you watch Hollywood movies? For every group of _n_ identical
> >>twins, _n-1_ are Evil.
> >wondering if the Olsen twins are the exception to that rule.
>
> Only in that they are *both* evil. :-D
>
> Jim
> Hated Fu
Julia Thompson wrote:
>Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>>Don't you watch Hollywood movies? For every group of _n_ identical
>>twins, _n-1_ are Evil.
>wondering if the Olsen twins are the exception to that rule.
Only in that they are *both* evil. :-D
Jim
Hated Full House Maru
_
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like,
> >> for example, clones or twins] don't have a soul, so they should
> >> not have human rights :-)))
> >
> > What about twins that *are* produced by a mother and a
Michael Harney wrote:
>
> Actually, I think religion is necessary to keep less enlighted individuals
> honest and lawful.
>
Like those in the Islamic countries? :-P
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>> But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like,
>> for example, clones or twins] don't have a soul, so they should
>> not have human rights :-)))
>
> What about twins that *are* produced by a mother and a father? :)
>
Don't you watch Hollywood
At 11:37 PM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Can you even listen to yourself here?
>"we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational thought would
>reasonably expect"
>This very clearly shows that this is not the child's expectations, but your
>expectations for that child. That's t
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:35:59PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> I can just imagine the outrage if I ever said that "one of the most
> irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the
> effect that the opinions of homosexuals should be respected"
A statement in that res
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>
> > >One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is
> > >the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
> >
> > I c
> Just because _YOU_ are a homophobe and a bigot and
> an apologist for other
> homophobe bigots doesn't change that fact the
> religion is the worst
> disease that has ever existed. I can almost feel
> the HATE emanating from
> your extremist religious rants.
As opposed to the HATE coming from y
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 09:34 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
> >Children don't know where children come from until they are told,
therefore,
> >it is not the child's expectation, but yours.
>
> Nevertheless, we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rati
At 12:16 AM 2/29/04, The Fool wrote:
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> >One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is
> >the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
>
> I can just imagine the
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> >One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is
> >the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
>
> I can just imagine the outrage if I ever said that "one
At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:>
>One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is
>the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
I can just imagine the outrage if I ever said that "one of the most
irrational of all the conventions of modern s
At 09:34 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Children don't know where children come from until they are told, therefore,
>it is not the child's expectation, but yours.
Nevertheless, we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational
thought would reasonably expect. After all, every
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Erik Reuter wrote:
> >
> > Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then
> > you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples
> > anymore, JDG, huh?
> >
> But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like,
> for
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then
> you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples
> anymore, JDG, huh?
>
But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like,
for example, clones or twins] don't have a sou
In a message dated 2/28/2004 9:45:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yes, but there are traces of Neaderthal and "Sinanthropus" erectus that
> are similiar to the sapiens populations that came to the region that they
> lived, suggesting that they _might_ have traded genes.
>
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 09:35 PM 2/27/2004 + Richard Baker wrote:
> >JDG said:
> >
> >> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there
somehow
> >> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
> >
> >If we start from the premise that m
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:49:18AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> Given that every child is produced by a mother and a father...
Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then
you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples
anymore, JDG, huh?
--
Erik
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
> >"that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father"
> >
> >How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how
many
> >orphans or other children put up for adoption
At 12:58 PM 2/25/2004 -0600 Horn, John wrote:
>> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there
>somehow
>> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
>
>Has it been established that there is a universal "right
At 08:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>"that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father"
>
>How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how many
>orphans or other children put up for adoption or are in foster care? I
>think it's far more important
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And of course, an infertile heterosexual couple can adopt a child while
> meeting that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father.
A
> homosexual couple, by definition, cannot.
>
"that child's reasonable expectations for a mother an
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
> Speaking of strange and probably unintended consequences of changing the
> subject line . . .
>
Unintended? No, it was intended :-P
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bob Z wrote:
>
> the current trend seems to be to view the hominids of the last millenia as
> seperate species. the dna evidence suggests that neanderthal was a seperate
> species and erectus was pretty different from sapien.
>
Yes, but there are traces of Neaderthal and "Sinanthropus" erectus th
Richard Baker wrote:
>
> Even if we disregard polyamorous relationships
> or whatever, surely friendship is one of the bases of civil society -
> so why not formally recognise friendships in law?
>
And what prevents a group of people to create a new firm
whose purpose is just to share their hourse
At 06:05 AM 2/26/2004 -0800 Richard Baker wrote:
>I seriously find it very hard to imagine being freaked out by the idea
>of gay marriage.
I think a lot of people consider marriage to be the fundamental building
block of society.
At this time, this buidling block is, in their minds, being profou
At 05:12 PM 2/26/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>>A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Constitutional
>>Amendment:
>>
>>"Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are
>>amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press]
>>casts the President's decision
At 09:35 PM 2/27/2004 + Richard Baker wrote:
>JDG said:
>
>> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there somehow
>> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
>
>If we start from the premise that men and women should have equal
>rights, then it's obvious, is
At 02:15 PM 2/26/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation
>> > Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the
>> > same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you
At 02:49 PM 2/27/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Are sterile heterosexual couples denied marriage? What if the couple does
>not want children? IOW, is having children a requirement for marriage?
Of course not. if it were, that would necessitate a post facto way of
invalidating childless ma
David said:
>> Rich, who has, however, argued elsewhere that he thinks that states
>> ought to introduce a kinship registry and cease recognising marriages
>> altogether, leaving them as a private and/or religious matter.
>
> Interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean. (Where's "elsewhere"?)
E
Richard Baker wrote:
> I seriously find it very hard to imagine being freaked out by the idea
> of gay marriage. It's in the same category as "seriously believes in
> Creationism". I suppose that's more evidence that those of us on this
> side of the Atlantic are godless degenerates.
Hey, I belie
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
> In a message dated 2/27/2004 5:41:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
Speaking of strange and probably unintended consequences of changing the
subject line . . .
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Michael Harney wrote:
> >
> >> It depends on how you define "humans". If we consider the separation
from
> >> the chimpanzee(s), it would be _much_ earlier, 1 to 7 million years
ago.
> >
> > I was speeking of humans as a species (homo sapiens),
>
Bryon wrote:
I believe these legal rights and standings aren't provided by the
government to reward baby production, or even as a "reward" at all, but
because the government is recognizing that marriage joins two people
together as next of kin for all legal intents and purposes.
We get a deduct
Bryon Daly wrote:
> I'm not a tax expert, but AFAIK, there aren't any tax breaks for being
> married
> here in the US. In fact, it's generally been the opposite, where married
> people
> can end up paying more tax than two equivalent single people would. I think
> Bush's recent tax cuts may have
In a message dated 2/27/2004 5:41:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> But we don't know _for sure_ if Homo erectus was a race of Homo
> sapies or a different species. There are some hints that it was possible
> to exchange genes from H. erectus to H. sapies - this would place
From: Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
patents. In the one case, the state gains the benefit of new citizens
by granting tax breaks and other advantages to married couples. In the
I'm not a tax expert, but AFAIK, there aren't any tax breaks for being
married
here in the US. In fact, it's genera
Michael Harney wrote:
>
>> It depends on how you define "humans". If we consider the separation from
>> the chimpanzee(s), it would be _much_ earlier, 1 to 7 million years ago.
>
> I was speeking of humans as a species (homo sapiens),
>
But we don't know _for sure_ if Homo erectus was a race of H
Michael said:
> Are sterile heterosexual couples denied marriage? What if the couple
> does not want children? IOW, is having children a requirement for
> marriage? The answer: No, it is not.
There's a rough analogy here between state-supported marriage and
patents. In the one case, the state ga
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Doug said:
>
> > Do you oppose SSM and if so, why?
>
> I don't oppose it, but there's at least one reasonable argument against
> it: marriage is not just an agreement between two people but also an
> agreement by which the government (at least the UK g
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 09:16:47PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
> I don't oppose it, but there's at least one reasonable argument
> against it: marriage is not just an agreement between two people
> but also an agreement by which the government (at least the UK
> government!) provides tax benefits
JDG said:
> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there somehow
> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
If we start from the premise that men and women should have equal
rights, then it's obvious, isn't it? After all, women have the right to
marry men, th
JDG said:
> Another difference that I anticipate will develop will be the
> incentives for producing and raising children. These incentives will
> be applied to marriages, but not to civil unions. Civil unions, will
> however, acquire many of the rights of marriage that currently
> formalize the i
Doug said:
> Do you oppose SSM and if so, why?
I don't oppose it, but there's at least one reasonable argument against
it: marriage is not just an agreement between two people but also an
agreement by which the government (at least the UK government!)
provides tax benefits for married couples in
JDG wrote:
>
> A much closer analogy would be a society that had always only
> permitted same-sex unions... alas, any such ociety would now no
> longer exist.
>
I think this is common in some animal groups: there are bands of
same-sex animals and rogue individuals of the other sex, who
[during the
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Harney wrote:
> >
> > Humans, by contrast, have only been around for about 200,000 years.
> >
> It depends on how you define "humans". If we consider the separation from
> the chimpanzee(s), it would be _much_ earlier, 1 to 7 million years a
Michael Harney wrote:
>
> Humans, by contrast, have only been around for about 200,000 years.
>
It depends on how you define "humans". If we consider the separation from
the chimpanzee(s), it would be _much_ earlier, 1 to 7 million years ago.
Alberto Monteiro
_
A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Constitutional
Amendment:
"Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are
amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press]
casts the President's decision in purely political terms -- rather
than a response to
JDG said:
> "Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are
> amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press]
> casts the President's decision in purely political terms -- rather
> than a response to the tens of millions of real Americans who are
> fund
> From: Michael Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It can't be too
> bad of an arrangement, because bottlenose dolphins have been arround a
lot
> longer than our species has.
I like to think my DNA strands go all the way back to the Progenitor
Molecule.
___
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation
> Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the
> same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you consider
> that "equal protection"? How would you feel abou
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 06:40:05PM -, iaamoac wrote:
> A much closer analogy would be a society that had always only
> permitted same-sex unions... alas, any such ociety would now no
> longer exist.
Wrong again.
--
Er
From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation
> > Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the
> > same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you consider
> > th
From: "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:15:56 -0700
From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL P
From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:55:17 -
A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Consti
At 05:12 PM 2/26/2004, you wrote:
From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:55:17 -
A great quote fro
> From: iaamoac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Constitutional
> Amendment:
>
> "Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are
> amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press]
> casts the President's decis
From: "Jon Gabriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: Thou
At 02:26 PM 2/24/04, Jan Coffey wrote:
Just out of curoiosity Doug, what opinion do you hold on marriages
envolving more than one person?
I'm not Doug, but I've found that marriages which don't involve more than
one person can be rather lonely.
-- Ronn! :)
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 02:26 PM 2/24/04, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> >Just out of curoiosity Doug, what opinion do you hold on marriages
> >envolving more than one person?
>
> I'm not Doug, but I've found that marriages which don't involve more than
> one person can be rather lonely.
:) I
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:25:09 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> the precise roll of the judiciary was not well
> spelled out by the
> constitution. It was George Marshall who made the
> court what it is by defining its roll
> as the
In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:25:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Suffice to say, it
> was not intended for the judiciary to be writing the law as if it had the
> democratic legitimacy of a Legislature.
>
the precise roll of the judiciary was not well spelled out by th
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there
somehow
> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
Has it been established that there is a universal "right" to marry a
person of the opposite sex?
- jmh
Ser
> From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I know. My point is that unlike the anti-choice crowd, the
> homophobic
> crowd will dissipate over the years. Especially as same sex
> marriage is
> unlikely, IMO, to have any negative affect whatsoever whereas
> abortion has
> the effect
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Again, not to be flip about it, but homosexuals remain free to marry
> someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
>
> In my mind, this is at minimum a very salient *legal* difference,
> especially given the current reliance upon "equal prote
John wrote:
I think that an important difference is the name. You may scoff, but it
seems quite clear that reserving the name of "marriage" for heterosexual
unions clearly seems to be very important to a very large segment of the
body politic.
Sure it is. Now. Give them a chance to get used to
John wrote:
Indeed, while there are many pro-lifers having six children, there are
plenty of pro-choicers having childless marriages, or two children max.
Eventually, I expect that the pro-choicers will be outpopulated.
Sounds like wishfull thinking to me.
Whether the young people of "Generation
John wrote:
I wouldn't describe it as conjecture. If you feel that one of my
assumptions was false, I think that I can fairly convincingly prove them.
I'd like to see that as I'm not sure any of your reasons are unequivocal.
I know that you promised a response to both of my posts of that weeke
Gautam wrote:
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 05:18 PM 2/23/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>But, and correct me if I am wrong here, aren't the
three branches of
>the FedGov supposed to be relatively equal in
overall power?
U... No.That was never envisioned at al
>Doug wrote
>I have a few questions that I wonder if anyone here has the answers to.
>What is the substantive difference between marriage and civil union? If
>they are for all intents and purposes synonymous other than the
>same/opposite sex angle, will the effect of an amendment prohibiting
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think that an important difference is the name. You may scoff, but
it
> seems quite clear that reserving the name of "marriage" for
heterosexual
> unions clearly seems to be very important to a very large segment of
the
> body politic.
I think t
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:18 PM 2/23/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >But, and correct me if I am wrong here, aren't the
> three branches of
> >the FedGov supposed to be relatively equal in
> overall power?
>
> U... No.That was never envisioned at al
At 05:18 PM 2/23/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>But, and correct me if I am wrong here, aren't the three branches of
>the FedGov supposed to be relatively equal in overall power?
U... No.That was never envisioned at all by the Founding
Fathers as near as I can tell. I think that
At 12:34 AM 2/23/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>I would argue the opposite, especially considering that same sex marriage
>_is_ a civil rights issue.
Well, feminists believe the same thing about the abortion-rights movement.
>One salient point might be that younger people are generally in fav
At 04:30 PM 2/24/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>Not if they can come up with a rational reason for opposing it. On the
>list, JDG had some well thought out reasons, but they were based on
>conjecture as far as I can tell. I don't believe that conjecture should
>be the basis for withholding
At 02:47 PM 2/16/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
>The wording of the current FMA does seem ambiguous
>enough to negate potential state-sanctioned 'civil
>unions.'
Of course, any Court that interpreted such a FMA as prohibiting civil
unions enacted at the initiative of a State Legislature would
At 09:16 PM 2/23/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>I have a few questions that I wonder if anyone here has the answers to.
>What is the substantive difference between marriage and civil union? If
>they are for all intents and purposes synonymous other than the
>same/opposite sex angle, will th
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan wrote:
>
> > Just out of curoiosity Doug, what opinion do you hold on marriages
> > envolving more than one person?
>
> I don't know that I've formed a solid opinion, to be perfectly
dishonest.
> 8^)
>
> Certainly any ki
> Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julia, everything I know about persuasion as a
> science confirms that you are
> correct. Non-confrontational persuasion works best.
> Outright attacks hardly work at all.
Agreed. Yet the shock value of an attack/open
confrontation does occasiona
Jan wrote:
Just out of curoiosity Doug, what opinion do you hold on marriages
envolving more than one person?
I don't know that I've formed a solid opinion, to be perfectly dishonest.
8^)
Certainly any kind of marital relationship has to respect the rights of
all those involved. As long as thi
Ronn! wrote:
So anybody who thinks SSM is not a good idea for any reason is
"homophobic" by your definition?
Not if they can come up with a rational reason for opposing it. On the
list, JDG had some well thought out reasons, but they were based on
conjecture as far as I can tell. I don't beli
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's probably true that it is beneficial for
> a child to have both
> male and female roll models, but I'd like to see the
> empirical evidence
> that proves that children raised by same sex parents
> have more problems
> than children i
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julia wrote:
>
> > I think he's arguing it on a courts vs. legislatures standpoint.
> >
> > Looking *just* at how court rulings went and how legislation was
> > written, which is it paralleling better at present?
> >
>
> I know
At 11:16 PM 2/23/04, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Julia wrote:
I think he's arguing it on a courts vs. legislatures standpoint.
Looking *just* at how court rulings went and how legislation was
written, which is it paralleling better at present?
I know. My point is that unlike the anti-choice crowd, the
Julia wrote:
I think he's arguing it on a courts vs. legislatures standpoint.
Looking *just* at how court rulings went and how legislation was
written, which is it paralleling better at present?
I know. My point is that unlike the anti-choice crowd, the homophobic
crowd will dissipate over the
1 - 100 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
