Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
The gay marriage debate has caused me to reconsider government sponsorship of straight marriage. Marriage is a religious concept and government laws about _per se_ marriage violate the no-establishment clause. Government does need to regulate child custody, inheritance and so forth. Therefore, I favor civil recognition of domestic partnerships and government agnosticism about marriage. Domestic partnership laws should further the interests of the commonwealth. Now the question remains, is government legitimation of homosexual domestic partnerships in the interest of the commonwealth or not ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Canaan Colonies (was Tg Territories)
GU2 Defines them as Horst and Deemi. We could probably add Easter to this list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Canaan Colonies
Trent Shipley wrote: GU2 Defines them as Horst and Deemi. Yack! That escaped my grep! It's in Uplift War, Chapter 6 We could probably add Easter to this list. Maybe. Or maybe not. Canaan bears the meaning of a fertile place _after_ a desert. It would be a good name for colonies that Earth got just behind the Ash. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Canaan Colonies
I wrote: GU2 Defines them as Horst and Deemi. Yack! That escaped my grep! It's in Uplift War, Chapter 6 But then it contradicts Heaven's Reach, where the Canaan Colonies were taken by the Soro and Horst by the Tandu :-/ [another item for my list of contradictions... http://www.geocities.com/albmont/brin_typo.htm ... that I will update some day] Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Tom Beck wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). Well, add me to list of dolts then, Tom. I find myself in that very boat; I believe gays should have the right to official unions. Hell, why shouldn't *they* have to have the prospect of giving up half their stuff and arguing over who gets the coffee table if they break up same as straight people? :) Not to mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been together for some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants, that what I want for her. But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. If it makes me a dolt that 36 years of being told that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't easy to just shrug off, so be it. Jim Gay divorce is sure to follow Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
I know we have some music fans here, and I thought this might interest you: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7948-1000282,00.html An excerpt: A documentary about a heavy metal band, even one that has sold 90 million albums since 1991, is hardly steak and chips for the art-house predators who roam the market ...the opening blizzard of scenes in which the band are interrogated by brain-dead hacks is a masterclass in rock journalism. 'Youve been together for 22 years, eight world tours, and 11 albums. Give me one word to sum it all up,' demands an interviewer. 'One word to span our career?' asks the frontman James Hetfield. 'What a f***ing stupid question.' There is a delicious sense that things will only get worse. Berlinger and Sinofsky were contracted to shoot the making of Metallicas new album, St Anger. What they capture is a band in fabulous crisis. There is nothing quite so exciting as watching a documentary turn into Spinal Tap before your eyes. Jim Saw them four times in concert Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:43:12AM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, Why should we care about your vague feeling? What gives you the right to take your vague feeling of uncomfortable that you can't explain and impose it on someone else? What makes your vague feeling more important than someone else's strong feeling that they can explain? How in the hell is your vague feeling more important than rational, logical arguments that others have made? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Beck wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). Well, add me to list of dolts then, Tom. I find myself in that very boat; I believe gays should have the right to official unions. Hell, why shouldn't *they* have to have the prospect of giving up half their stuff and arguing over who gets the coffee table if they break up same as straight people? :) Not to mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been together for some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants, that what I want for her. But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. If it makes me a dolt that 36 years of being told that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't easy to just shrug off, so be it. You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't that lend you to think that your belief is likely an irrational one. No offense intended, but should we bend towards an irrational belief simply to make holders of that irrational belief feel more comfortable or should we stand firm in the belief that everyone should be treated equally? Jim Gay divorce is sure to follow Maru Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: Why should we care about your vague feeling? Where did I say you should? What gives you the right to take your vague feeling of uncomfortable that you can't explain and impose it on someone else? And when did I do that? What makes your vague feeling more important than someone else's strong feeling that they can explain? How in the hell is your vague feeling more important than rational, logical arguments that others have made? And where did I say it is? And Michael Harney wrote: You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't that lend you to think that your belief is likely an irrational one. No offense intended, but should we bend towards an irrational belief simply to make holders of that irrational belief feel more comfortable or should we stand firm in the belief that everyone should be treated equally? I think I implied in my original post that I understood it wasn't rational. Perhaps I wasn't direct enough. And never did I say that others should bend to what I think. Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what? See, that signoff was called humor, Michael. I have no reason to think that gay divorce will be more or less likely, and I don't care either way. Eric, Michael, I was ruminating on the idea of gay marriage, and where I stand. I never once said, or even hinted, that if gay marriage came to a vote, especially an all-or-nothing prospect, that I would oppose it; I'm pretty certain I wouldn't. There are a number of laws and concepts that I don't heartily agree with that I also do not oppose, since I realize any difficulties with it are my problem. A*** comes immediately to mind. It's not something I think everyone ought to be doing in place of smarter alternatives, but I support the rights of others to do it. Honestly, the fact that I don't *like* something doesn't mean automatically that I would stop others from doing it. Place some weights on your knees so that they won't jerk so quickly next time. Jim That's enough words placed in my mouth by others for today Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Jim wrote: But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. I know the feeling, I used to feel that way. But after going over the feeling again and again in my head and being unable to come up with any logical justification for the it, my discomfort has faded away. Listening to fundies rant about it on TV and elsewhere helped. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Well, add me to list of dolts then, Tom. I find myself in that very boat; I believe gays should have the right to official unions. Hell, why shouldn't *they* have to have the prospect of giving up half their stuff and arguing over who gets the coffee table if they break up same as straight people? :) Not to mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been together for some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants, that what I want for her. But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. If it makes me a dolt that 36 years of being told that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't easy to just shrug off, so be it. I can't stop you feeling what you feel, but you need to ask yourself why you are so important that your feelings should be permitted to ruin the lives and happiness of people you don't even know. As I said, there are still people who are uncomfortable on some vague level with interracial marriage. Should they be permitted to impose their prejudices on the rest of society? Why? Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:46 AM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Beck wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. If it makes me a dolt that 36 years of being told that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't easy to just shrug off, so be it. You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't that lend you to think that your belief is likely an irrational one. Whoa!! Lets not jump the gun here. An admission that someone is unsure why they feel the way they feel about a subject is not automaticly an admission of irrationality. Jim says he is vaguely uncomfortable with calling a gay union marriage. Why should that be reason to criticise? I think his honesty is to be praised. And I also think his comments are a good starting point for discussion, but not cause to lay even moderate criticism. Why do I say this? Well this is a paradigm breaking shift in its own way. We are asking people to view marriage in a way they are not used to. And not everyone is going to adopt the meme at the same rate, especially when there are many reactionary types making great effort to reinforce opposing memes. (Frex: Michael Savage claiming Gay Marriage is a communist plot to destroy America and the family) At worst Jim is proposing denying Gays the use of a word, and I do not in any way think that is how Jim feels considering what he wrote. In any case I see no evidence that Jim will feel vaguely uncomfortable for any great length of time. Indeed, I think we all should know Jim better and should have a bit more faith in someone we have good reason to trust. No offense intended I'm sure you intended no offense. But I can also see where what has been written to day by several people, who write with good intention, could be seen as shaming, and I think that is not where most of you wanted to go. That sort of shaming is often accidental, and in some ways incidental, but should be avoided anyway. but should we bend towards an irrational belief simply to make holders of that irrational belief feel more comfortable or should we stand firm in the belief that everyone should be treated equally? I think your criticism would be more appropriately pointed elsewhere. Not that I don't agree with what you are saying, but there are people much more deserving of such commentary, but none of them have popped up on Brin-L as of yet. xponent Just An Observation Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Tom Beck wrote: I can't stop you feeling what you feel, but you need to ask yourself why you are so important that your feelings should be permitted to ruin the lives and happiness of people you don't even know. Is there some bizarre meme that's infected the members of this list that dictates that every single person who dislikes something would *automatically* impose his will on others because of it? Do you all simply have that low of an opinion of everyone else that you assume that no one on the planet can use his brain to realize that just because something's wrong for him, it's not (always) right to make it wrong for others? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Is there some bizarre meme that's infected the members of this list that dictates that every single person who dislikes something would *automatically* impose his will on others because of it? Do you all simply have that low of an opinion of everyone else that you assume that no one on the planet can use his brain to realize that just because something's wrong for him, it's not (always) right to make it wrong for others? Sorry if we misread you. But most people weighing in on the anti-gay marriage side of things appear that they very much WOULD impose their views on the world. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Bryon Daly said: That said, while the MA SJC ruling is an amazing breakthrough, I wonder if it will in some ways harm the gay marriage cause almost as much as help it. I've thought about this too, and I've come down on the side of So what? Would Rosa Parks have sat tight if she'd thought, I wonder if this might set the cause back as much as it helps it? Sometimes, you just have to say, What the Eff... The effect that the ruling is having is that it is having a polarizing effect and getting gay-marriage opponents stirred up and prosposing anti-gay-marriage legislation at the state level in many states and at the national level. As our commander in chief has said, Bring it on! My concerns is chiefly about timing, in several ways. Yeah, I know. Most of us work in corporations and we carefully jockey and time and plan things and come to believe that this kind of strategizing is applicable to everything. My other timing concern is that this is happening right in the middle of the presidential election cycle. The current I thought gay marriage was going to be a huge issue, but the Democrats are cutting and running too. I could be wrong, though that's never happened before, but I think this is going to fizzle as an issue and a constitutional amendment is DOA. Nobody wants to go near this. Denial will buy time and serve gays well. I think there's a tipping point coming soon. By the way, I'm not gay, but some of my best friends are. -Mike ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Tom Beck wrote: Sorry if we misread you. But most people weighing in on the anti- gay marriage side of things appear that they very much WOULD impose their views on the world. Fair enough, Tom. But I'm not one of those people. Recall from my first message that my sister's been in a comitted gay relationship for some time. I understand that statement *may* smack of a Some of my best friends are gay kind of statement, but I think it is relevant. I've always been a believer in people's rights to do what they want in their private lives as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. That doesn't mean that I have to like it, or champion it. It just means that I have to allow it to happen. So me saying using the word marriage for gay unions makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean that I'd oppose it, and it doesn't mean that I'll never change my mind. Heck, I grew up in a pretty racist household and I dodged that meme. I think I can live with gay marriage. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 10:31 AM 2/15/04, Jim Sharkey wrote: There are a number of laws and concepts that I don't heartily agree with that I also do not oppose, since I realize any difficulties with it are my problem. A*** comes immediately to mind. It's not something I think everyone ought to be doing in place of smarter alternatives, but I support the rights of others to do it. Adultery? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
=-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm a conservative. But I can always rely on you to remind me... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Honestly, the fact that I don't *like* something doesn't mean automatically that I would stop others from doing it. Place some weights on your knees so that they won't jerk so quickly next time. Place a button on your lip (or a tie on your typing fingers) so it doesn't flap so inanely next time. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
In a message dated 2/15/2004 10:43:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why should we care about your vague feeling? What gives you the right to take your vague feeling of uncomfortable that you can't explain and impose it on someone else? What makes your vague feeling more important than someone else's strong feeling that they can explain? How in the hell is your vague feeling more important than rational, logical arguments that others have made? This was an honest expression of concern and confusion that is shared by many. I suspect and hope that over time people will get used to the idea but for now it does not do the cause of gay union any good to sharply casitgate someone for honestly expressed feelings. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
In a message dated 2/15/2004 10:46:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 11:31 AM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Honestly, the fact that I don't *like* something doesn't mean automatically that I would stop others from doing it. Place some weights on your knees so that they won't jerk so quickly next time. Place a button on your lip (or a tie on your typing fingers) so it doesn't flap so inanely next time. Well, this conversation certainly degenerated in a hurry . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
In a message dated 2/15/2004 10:46:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what? My bet would be that lesbian marriages would last longer and gay male marriages would last for shorter periods of time given the differences biological differences between men and women. Not that men can't or won't form long term stable relationships or that women can't or won't move from partner to partner. But I think the mean and median will be different for each sex ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
In a message dated 2/15/2004 11:58:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry if we misread you. But most people weighing in on the anti-gay marriage side of things appear that they very much WOULD impose their views on the world ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
In a message dated 2/15/2004 11:58:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry if we misread you. But most people weighing in on the anti-gay marriage side of things appear that they very much WOULD impose their views on the world Sorry for the inadvertent send. I can't see how you could have misread Jim's post in this way. It was clear to me what he meant. It was clear he knew it was irrational. We need to allow people to describe their feelings without jumping down their throats ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:14:16 -0500 (EST) A documentary about a heavy metal band, even one that has sold 90 million albums since 1991, is hardly steak and chips for the art-house predators who roam the market ...the opening blizzard of scenes in which the band are interrogated by brain-dead hacks is a masterclass in rock journalism. 'Youve been together for 22 years, eight world tours, and 11 albums. Give me one word to sum it all up,' demands an interviewer. 'One word to span our career?' asks the frontman James Hetfield. 'What a f***ing stupid question.' There is a delicious sense that things will only get worse. Berlinger and Sinofsky were contracted to shoot the making of Metallicas new album, St Anger. What they capture is a band in fabulous crisis. There is nothing quite so exciting as watching a documentary turn into Spinal Tap before your eyes. Jim Saw them four times in concert Maru Metallica fan eh? Care to divulge any other bands you like? -Travis it's all about the Guns and the Roses Edmunds _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: FOOLish
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FOOLish Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:12:43 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:58 AM Subject: FOOLish People of the list, Bully for you Travis (I wouldn't let it bother me too much. There's forest and there's trees, and I think you have made friends here already :) ) xponent He Stuck An Arm In And Brought It Out Bloody Maru rob Thanks Robert. Now seeing as how your my friend...could you lend me $5?...American? -Travis _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?
And what are they doing with the Palestinians every day? They're killing them. They're doing the same thing that was done to them It's exactly like what Hitler did to the Jews. Thsi guy is being investigated for anti-semtic remarks and will most likely lose his job. However, how exactly can this remark be called anti-semetic. Just becouse one group has been a victem in the past does not make everything they do afterwards acceptable. Simply disagreeing with, being appaled by, or having beliefeds contradictory to a persecuted group, does not mean that one is racist, or religionist or both. It is in fact a Jewish comunity and Jewish leaders who are calling for this investigation. This sounds like these leaders are saying that all non-jews must condone everything they do, or they are ant- semetic. How is this not in it'self raceist. The statement is factualy untrue. The Nazis systematically murdered 8 million jews just for being jews. They were german citizens and then later citizens of other countries. They were not a threat; they had no arms. the elderly, the women and the children were intentionally killed along with the men. In Palestine the killings however regretable or ill-advised are the result of retaliation for suicide bombings. The Israelis do not round up all palestinians. They could just bomb the palestinians indiscriminantly but they do not. The comparison of israeli actions to Nazis is bound to inflict pain on jews. It is meant to do so. It is hateful. Only someone who is callous to the past and current plight of the jews could make such a claim. It is anti-semitic ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ)
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:04:58 -0800 Travis Edmunds wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah yes. You believe. I for one, believe that views like that, hold back any sort of honest discourse. I'm unclear on the antecedent of views like that. Theirs, or mine? Yours of course. After all you said you believe. Now it seems as though you object to my having beliefs, or having beliefs in general. Goodness no! What I meant, was that by someone believing something, it doesn't necessarily render that particular something true. There's plenty of room for that Nick. But when your beliefs interfere with the open discourse of this forum, you become just as bad as those you despise. I don't believe that I said I despised anybody. I said that polarizing important issues is self-evidently harmful, in my opinion. I spoke of the people behind those quotes that you evidently don't like. Furthermore, I hesitate to think that the cause of religiously fanatical hate mongering is being furthered by someone quoting so-called evil comments. Especially on this forum. For that matter, we probably shouldn't talk about anything other than good wholesome sci-fi, with no more than an action based plot which never deviates from space battles, and which certainly doesn't bring forth controversial ideas. It's safer that way right? I don't believe that I suggested that there are topics that don't belong here, which is how I read the paragraph above. My objection was to the quoting of hate-mongers as though their venom contributed anything to the discussion at hand. Forgive me. That's what I read into you comments. -Travis if only we were telepathic Edmunds _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
This was an honest expression of concern and confusion that is shared by many. I suspect and hope that over time people will get used to the idea but for now it does not do the cause of gay union any good to sharply casitgate someone for honestly expressed feelings. If you don't confront people and call them on their prejudices, they will get the idea that it's okay to feel the way they do. In the long run, that does not lead to them abandoning their dislikes. It's easy to walk away when you hear someone express feelings of dislike and even hatred based not on knowing a particular person but just on the group that person belongs to. How many of us, when we hear someone say something negative about the Jews or the blacks or the Muslims, simply decide to take the easy way out and not cause a scene? But how does that advance the cause of increasing rights for all of us? I'm not saying jump all over people who express these thoughts, but we also don't have to let them think there's nothing wrong with being biased. Because there is something very much wrong with it. If we don't object, we are complicit; they may even feel we agree with them. It doesn't have to be vicious or rancorous, but I think we need to let them know. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:04:47PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for the inadvertent send. I can't see how you could have misread Jim's post in this way. It was clear to me what he meant. It was clear he knew it was irrational. We need to allow people to describe their feelings without jumping down their throats How is the person espousing a viewpoint knowing something is irrational sufficient that one shouldn't criticize the viewpoint? If one promulgates an irrational viewpoint, knowing it is irrational, it can still cause harm. In fact, it may be even worse if the person knows the viewpoint is irrational but still states it as if it has some value. It wasn't like he said, my feeling is irrational but I am using my intellect to fight that feeling and to take a position that is rational, or I am explaining this just to give an example of the irrational feelings of a large number of people so that you know what you are up against in opposing people who want to make an anti-gay marriage amendment. No, the irrational feeling was presented as having some intrinsic importance. I have yet to see a clear statement from him that Although I have irrational feelings about gay marriage, by my words and actions I do NOT support anti-gay marriage laws or constitutional amendments. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Personally, I favor the idea of gay marriage. From my perspective, it strengthens the concept of marriage by extending it. By accepting, one broadens the acknowledgement of the lifetime commitment made by two people (yea I know the commitment is often broken). Different types of families are affirmed in their commitment to be a family; and to live a life that intimately involves others. Having said that, I acknowledge that this is a radical redefinition of marriage. I cannot think of a society without marriage or with same sex marriages being common. One of the reasons is that, while marriage has involved politics and business, the very foundation has been the care of children. A woman would have children by one man, and that man will provide for those children. In addition, the man saw often saw himself living on in his sons. Redefining this requires people to redefine their most important relationship. It, quite literally, strikes home. It is not surprising that resistance would be found to such a fundamental redefinition. In addition, I've been meditating on the difference between gay civil unions and gay marriages. If the civil unions give all the rights and privileges of marriage, then the difference is the blessing of society on the union. I strongly believe that gay people have the right to choose a partner that they share everything with and who is designated as having the final say as to what their best interests are if they are incapacitated. But, I don't really think the approval of society is a right. I think it is a darn good idea, but not a right. So, I would suggest that, for now, the state approval of civil unions guarantee rights for gays is the best way to go. Religious marriages can add the affirmation of community to this; and I also support that. For those who are not religious, there could still be a community ceremony that affirms the union. My hope would be that, after years of folks knowing that nice gay couple down the street, society could honestly give its general affirmation, and the gay civil unions would be acknowledged as marriages by society as a whole. But, I don't think we're there yet; and saying we are would just be a lie. Further, it would also be a distraction from real attacks on the American families. I do think there are trends in the US now that are anti-family and that are dangerous to societythe most important of which is the increased social acceptability of men abandoning the responsibility they have towards their children. Dan M, ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 12:32 PM 2/15/04, Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It doesn't have to be vicious or rancorous, Unfortunately, referring to most of the American public as lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts comes across as vicious and rancorous, whether that was your intention or not. but I think we need to let them know. Now you know. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:57:32PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/15/2004 10:43:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why should we care about your vague feeling? What gives you the right to take your vague feeling of uncomfortable that you can't explain and impose it on someone else? What makes your vague feeling more important than someone else's strong feeling that they can explain? How in the hell is your vague feeling more important than rational, logical arguments that others have made? This was an honest expression of concern and confusion that is shared by many. I suspect and hope that over time people will get used to the idea but for now it does not do the cause of gay union any good to sharply casitgate someone for honestly expressed feelings. If my questions were sharp castigation, then his statement was a lot more than an expression of concern. The implication in his statement came through fairly strongly to several people, that it was okay for a gay civil union, but if they call it marriage, then it makes him uncomfortable, and by implication, then he is against it. His gay sister can do what she wants, but if she wants to talk about being married to her loved one then it makes him uncomfortable. If that wasn't what he meant, then he could have replied to my questions and explained it wasn't what he meant. Instead, he replied to questions with questions and says that we are putting words in his mouth and having a knee-jerk reaction. Fine, he is entitled to his opinion, but I am damn well going to reply sharply to people who make posts implying that their unexplainable feeling of uncomfortable has any bearing on what others should or should not be allowed to do. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
-Travis it's all about the Guns and the Roses Edmunds Eeee!!! Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: Fine, he is entitled to his opinion, but I am damn well going to reply sharply to people who make posts implying that their unexplainable feeling of uncomfortable has any bearing on what others should or should not be allowed to do. Your interpretation of my initial statement was incorrect. Period. There was, in my opinion, no implication that I opposed the rights of others. However, since those who have responded have been about evenly divided in their interpretation of my statement, I will concede that despite my own read of my words, it is possible to interpret it as the vehement opposition to gay marriage that you seem to have taken it as. Would you then concede that it is possible that you misinterpreted my statement as being more fraught with negative meaning than it was? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] And Michael Harney wrote: You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't that lend you to think that your belief is likely an irrational one. No offense intended, but should we bend towards an irrational belief simply to make holders of that irrational belief feel more comfortable or should we stand firm in the belief that everyone should be treated equally? I think I implied in my original post that I understood it wasn't rational. Perhaps I wasn't direct enough. And never did I say that others should bend to what I think. Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what? See, that signoff was called humor, Michael. I have no reason to think that gay divorce will be more or less likely, and I don't care either way. Eric, Michael, I was ruminating on the idea of gay marriage, and where I stand. I never once said, or even hinted, that if gay marriage came to a vote, especially an all-or-nothing prospect, that I would oppose it; I'm pretty certain I wouldn't. There are a number of laws and concepts that I don't heartily agree with that I also do not oppose, since I realize any difficulties with it are my problem. A*** comes immediately to mind. It's not something I think everyone ought to be doing in place of smarter alternatives, but I support the rights of others to do it. Honestly, the fact that I don't *like* something doesn't mean automatically that I would stop others from doing it. Place some weights on your knees so that they won't jerk so quickly next time. From your original post, I got the distinct impression that you would support the concept of gay civil unions, but was opposed to gay marriages. This was reinforced when taken in context to the message that yours was a reply to. If this was a misunderstanding on my part, I appologise. There is a possibility that the issue of gay marriage may be presented before the citizens of the United States for a vote. In such a situation it doesn't take a big leap from not feeling comfortable with gay marriages to voting against gay marriages. If you really would vote in support of gay marriage even though you feel uncomfortable with the idea, then I think that is very commendable of you. If only all people were willing to do the same on all issues (voting for what thier mind says is right rather than voting their personal prejudices)... Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:55:30 -0800 (PST) -Travis it's all about the Guns and the Roses Edmunds Eeee!!! Damon. They're the center of my musical world. But I love coherent sound in the broad spectrum of things. -Travis Mozart to Slayer Edmunds _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: I have yet to see a clear statement from him that Although I have irrational feelings about gay marriage, by my words and actions I do NOT support anti-gay marriage laws or constitutional amendments. This was not sufficiently clear? I've always been a believer in people's rights to do what they want in their private lives as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. That doesn't mean that I have to like it, or champion it. It just means that I have to allow it to happen. So me saying using the word marriage for gay unions makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean that I'd oppose it, and it doesn't mean that I'll never change my mind. Do I need to join GLAAD and wear a pink triangle to satisfy you, Erik? Is it okay with you if I have to actually figure things out for myself, rather than take your word for it? What is your litmus test to determine when a person is respectful enough of others' beliefs to satisfy your standards? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:11:26PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] If my questions were sharp castigation, then his statement was a lot more than an expression of concern. Nah. Yah. You are applying a double-standard. Literally, I was asking questions. Literally, he was stating his feelings. One had to read the implications to come up with more. And the implications were definitely there in both cases. Your double standard sounds like the response I often hear from religious people who can't reconcile their rationality with their irrationality. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:03:13PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: However, since those who have responded have been about evenly divided in their interpretation of my statement, I will concede that despite my own read of my words, it is possible to interpret it as the vehement opposition to gay marriage that you seem to have taken it as. Would you then concede that it is possible that you misinterpreted my statement as being more fraught with negative meaning than it was? Vehement? Now who is putting words in others mouths? I said you made an implication. Where did I say or imply you are vehemently opposed? I had the impression you were opposed, and due to your uncomfortable feeling that you may very well vote against using the word marriage for gay unions. I didn't write or imply that you were vehemently opposed. Yes or no question: would you vote against legislation or amendments which would ban using the word marriage to refer to gay unions? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Michael Harney wrote: There is a possibility that the issue of gay marriage may be presented before the citizens of the United States for a vote. In such a situation it doesn't take a big leap from not feeling comfortable with gay marriages to voting against gay marriages. If you really would vote in support of gay marriage even though you feel uncomfortable with the idea, then I think that is very commendable of you. I would vote against a law or Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. But I will be honest with you. It would not necessarily be a vote in favor of gay marriage per se, but it would be a vote against telling people what they can and cannot do. I think it's important to make that distinction. I don't know that I am in favor of gay marriage, but I am opposed to treating a group of people (who are not harming others) differently because of who and what they are. Jim Is that clear enough for everyone? Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:15 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:11:26PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] If my questions were sharp castigation, then his statement was a lot more than an expression of concern. Nah. Yah. You are applying a double-standard. Literally, I was asking questions. Literally, he was stating his feelings. One had to read the implications to come up with more. And the implications were definitely there in both cases. Your double standard sounds like the response I often hear from religious people who can't reconcile their rationality with their irrationality. Read what he wrote that was unacceptable to you. He literally said he had no right to impose his feelings, but that wasn't good enough for you. I think you and I have quite different definitions of rationality. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sloan3D Store Update -- Black shirts now available
Julia Thompson wrote: I don't know what's common these days. Do the dark colors include one somewhere between green and blue? :) (And would that color be available in XL?) I can certainly look. Last time I was in the local Hobby Lobby, a few weeks ago, they had some XL shirts in some unusual colors, so they might have a dark blue-green shirt. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:10:59PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: I have yet to see a clear statement from him that Although I have irrational feelings about gay marriage, by my words and actions I do NOT support anti-gay marriage laws or constitutional amendments. This was not sufficiently clear? I've always been a believer in people's rights to do what they want in their private lives as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. That doesn't mean that I have to like it, or champion it. It just means that I have to allow it to happen. So me saying using the word marriage for gay unions makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean that I'd oppose it, and it doesn't mean that I'll never change my mind. No, it was not. Why did you leave the wiggle room about doesn't mean I'd oppose it? Would you oppose it? Change your mind about what? Opposing it? See my yes or no question in another email. Do I need to join GLAAD and wear a pink triangle to satisfy you, Erik? Is it okay with you if I have to actually figure things out for myself, rather than take your word for it? What is your litmus test to determine when a person is respectful enough of others' beliefs to satisfy your standards? I'd like to see you talking about rational reasons instead of vague feelings that you can't explain. I'd like to know whether you would vote against imposing your unexplainable feelings on others. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:32:45PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Read what he wrote that was unacceptable to you. He literally said he had no right to impose his feelings, but that wasn't good enough for you. You're the one that needs to read more carefully. This is what I was concerned about: Jim: Not to +mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been together for +some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants, that what I want for +her. But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague +level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. The implication here is pretty strong: the sister can live with her girlfriend, but if she calls it marriage, then that could be a problem. Dan again: I think you and I have quite different definitions of rationality. I don't. But I think you have mental blocks about your occasional irrationality. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:19:53PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: I would vote against a law or Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. But I will be honest with you. It would not necessarily be a vote in favor of gay marriage per se, but it would be a vote against telling people what they can and cannot do. I think it's important to make that distinction. I don't know that I am in favor of gay marriage, but I am opposed to treating a group of people (who are not harming others) differently because of who and what they are. Jim Is that clear enough for everyone? Maru Yes! Thanks for the clarification. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Travis Edmunds wrote: Metallica fan eh? Care to divulge any other bands you like? Sure. I'd say my all-time favorite bands are Rush, TOOL, Metallica, Yes, Iron Maiden, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam and Queensryche. I dig some of the current bands like Disturbed, Outkast, and No Doubt; I like the occasional dance tune, and I'm always up for some good classical music. I find something appealing in most musical genres, but I can find a lot that sucks in the same. Bad hip-hop, bad metal, and bad country are the banes of my auditory existence. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:27 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:32:45PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Read what he wrote that was unacceptable to you. He literally said he had no right to impose his feelings, but that wasn't good enough for you. You're the one that needs to read more carefully. This is what I was concerned about: Jim: Not to +mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been together for +some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants, that what I want for +her. But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague +level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. The implication here is pretty strong: the sister can live with her girlfriend, but if she calls it marriage, then that could be a problem. Right, the problem would be that Jim would be uncomfortable. That is a problem, because she is his sister. I think it would be useful in this regard to consider what the difference between a civil union and a marriage is. I proposed one possibility that I have yet to see contradicted. Dan again: I think you and I have quite different definitions of rationality. I don't. But I think you have mental blocks about your occasional irrationality. Whenever I disagree with you? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Whenever I disagree with you? No, when you are irrational and do not realize it, which occasionally occurs when religion is part of the discussion. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Right, the problem would be that Jim would be uncomfortable. That is a problem, because she is his sister. And if he has a problem with his sister, who he has just said (or strongly implied) that he has good feelings for, one must at least wonder, if not conclude, that it would be a bigger problem for someone who he wasn't biased to be in favor of. Apparently, your interpretation was it would be a problem because it was his sister, but it wouldn't be a problem for someone he was unrelated to. From his later clarification, this appears to be close to what he meant. If that was your original interpretation (I mean before the clarification), then I concede that you read his meaning more accurately than I did. In either interpretation, though, it is not a rational position, so this was really a choice between two (or more) irrational thought processes -- a queer ;-) thing to have a rational argument about. And I wonder whether his position clarified a little bit in his mind as the discussion proceeded. I think it would be useful in this regard to consider what the difference between a civil union and a marriage is. I proposed one possibility that I have yet to see contradicted. I didn't think it was so useful. I think it would be more useful to discuss whether the word marriage should be used legally at all. For legal purposes, why not call all unions as civil unions and then people can call it marriage (or not) off the record. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
In a message dated 2/15/2004 1:34:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: many. I suspect and hope that over time people will get used to the idea but for now it does not do the cause of gay union any good to sharply casitgate someone for honestly expressed feelings. If you don't confront people and call them on their prejudices, they will get the idea that it's okay to feel the way they do. The problem is that the post in no way indicated that he thought it was ok. He expressed personal misgivings while acknowledging them for what they were, the product of his upbringing. You confront people for their actions not their thoughts. In the long run, that does not lead to them abandoning their dislikes. I suspect that for many there will be no walking away from the unease about this. We come to adulthood with baggage and beliefs and we must live with them. You cannot make someone less uneasy about this by calling them biggots. You just alienate people trying to honestly deal with a dilemna It's easy to walk away when you hear someone express feelings of dislike and even hatred based not on knowing a particular person but just on the group that person belongs to. How many of us, when we hear someone say something negative about the Jews or the blacks or the Muslims, simply decide to take the easy way out and not cause a scene? Wonderful; I completely agree but it is irrelevent to this particular post and poster. I'm not saying jump all over people who express these thoughts, but we also don't have to let them think there's nothing wrong with being biased. Because there is something very much wrong with it. If we don't object, we are complicit; they may even feel we agree with them. But you did jump all over someone who expressed personal discomfort with the notion of gay marriage at the end of a post that strongly supported gay unions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:03:08PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you did jump all over someone who expressed personal discomfort with the notion of gay marriage at the end of a post that strongly supported gay unions. No. The post did NOT strongly support gay unions. It would be closer to the truth to say it damned with faint praise. It came off a lot like some of my best friends are black. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
In a message dated 2/15/2004 2:05:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, since those who have responded have been about evenly divided in their interpretation of my statement, I will concede that despite my own read of my words, it is possible to interpret it as the vehement opposition to gay marriage that you seem to have taken it as. Would you then concede that it is possible that you misinterpreted my statement as being more fraught with negative meaning than it was? You are too generous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sunday 2004-02-15 12:19, Jim Sharkey wrote: Michael Harney wrote: There is a possibility that the issue of gay marriage may be presented before the citizens of the United States for a vote. In such a situation it doesn't take a big leap from not feeling comfortable with gay marriages to voting against gay marriages. If you really would vote in support of gay marriage even though you feel uncomfortable with the idea, then I think that is very commendable of you. I would vote against a law or Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. But I will be honest with you. It would not necessarily be a vote in favor of gay marriage per se, but it would be a vote against telling people what they can and cannot do. I think it's important to make that distinction. I don't know that I am in favor of gay marriage, but I am opposed to treating a group of people (who are not harming others) differently because of who and what they are. Jim Is that clear enough for everyone? Maru Why should government recognize marriage at all? Why not have domestic partnersihps or civil unions for everyone? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Right, the problem would be that Jim would be uncomfortable. That is a problem, because she is his sister. And if he has a problem with his sister, who he has just said (or strongly implied) that he has good feelings for, one must at least wonder, if not conclude, that it would be a bigger problem for someone who he wasn't biased to be in favor of. Apparently, your interpretation was it would be a problem because it was his sister, but it wouldn't be a problem for someone he was unrelated to. From his later clarification, this appears to be close to what he meant. To settle the sister issue: Of my entire family, I am probably the one who is the most comfortable with her sexuality. She and her girlfriend are both welcome in my home, and my children love them; they call her girlfriend Aunt Diane and my sister is my son's godmother. In truth, her relationship has little bearing on where I stand on the word marriage for gay unions, other than that I want for her what she wants for herself. I always imagined that at some point Charlene and I would face some questions from the kids about why they live together, etc., but it hasn't happened yet. Possibly because we don't treat their relationship any differently than anyone else's, or possibly because even though our oldest is pushing eight years old, it hasn't occurred to her to ask. I'll keep you posted. :) I apologize if this seems like I'm putting forth my tolerance bona fides here, but I've had a lot of accusations flung at me today that I felt were unfair, and I thought maybe a little more information might give some of you a better picture of me. I'd like to thank the folks who gave me the benefit of the doubt for their words. Those who disagreed, I just want to say that I don't have any hard feelings; this kind of discourse is what makes Brin-L great. Jim It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be unpopular Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
I always imagined that at some point Charlene and I would face some questions from the kids about why they live together, etc., but it hasn't happened yet. Possibly because we don't treat their relationship any differently than anyone else's, or possibly because even though our oldest is pushing eight years old, it hasn't occurred to her to ask. I'll keep you posted. :) Expect the question when the child in 6th-9th grade, but more toward the lower end. Jim It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be unpopular Maru It is? I thought it was just a way to have fun! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Jim Sharkey wrote: Gay divorce is sure to follow Maru Hm. I wonder what the gay divorce rate will be compared to the straight divorce rate in 30 years. I imagine it'll be lower for awhile if gay marriages are permitted. Not sure when it would catch up. And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it now? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on this list earlier today. And doing it more gently will get you a more positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the prejudices. Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them to really think about an issue. I would agree that the approach you explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always, maybe not even usually. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 03:43 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on this list earlier today. And doing it more gently will get you a more positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the prejudices. Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them to really think about an issue. I would agree that the approach you explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always, maybe not even usually. I agree with Julia. As far as evidence goes: the next time you have a disagreement with your spouse, try the strong statement method. Then, the next time after that, try the soft answer approach. Assuming there is a next time after the first one, that is . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? At 03:43 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on this list earlier today. And doing it more gently will get you a more positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the prejudices. Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them to really think about an issue. I would agree that the approach you explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always, maybe not even usually. I agree with Julia. As far as evidence goes: the next time you have a disagreement with your spouse, try the strong statement method. Then, the next time after that, try the soft answer approach. Assuming there is a next time after the first one, that is . . . A particularly singular experiment would be telling one's spouse that they are acting irrationally, implying of course that you are rational. It is singular because it lowers the chance that there will be another disagreement. ;-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:55:58PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I agree with Julia. Boring. As far as evidence goes: the next time you have a disagreement with your spouse, try the strong statement method. Then, the next time after that, try the soft answer approach. Assuming there is a next time after the first one, that is . . . Yawn. You try it, I've got better things to do. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:32:36PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? Yawn. You try it, I've got better things to do. Than getting along with the people you love? What could be more important than a good intimate relationship? N/A. Yawn. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Gautam wrote: =-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm a conservative. But I can always rely on you to remind me... So name-calling, now that you're done with it, is characteristic of liberals? -- The Fanatic ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on this list earlier today. And doing it more gently will get you a more positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the prejudices. Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them to really think about an issue. I would agree that the approach you explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always, maybe not even usually. It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation and much gentler prods over the course of 6 months or so, the gentler prods will have caused more of a change in mindset 12 months after the initial event. Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50 people I've been in close contact with over the course of my life, but it turned out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the cynical engineer as it was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained artiste. And sometimes there is just no way a mind will be changed on a particular subject if you keep arguing with that person; when that happens, the best thing to do is move on and try not to discuss that subject. Saying things that are tangental to that subject in discussions of other things might help some, but confronting a subject head-on with someone who has their position very deeply entrenched is more likely to make them dig in deeper with it. (I have seen this most notably in a couple of people significantly older than myself.) Julia post didn't come through on the account I made the original commend on, sigh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it now? Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a factor that would increase the divorce rate. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 03:20 PM 2/15/2004 -0500 Jim Sharkey wrote: I apologize if this seems like I'm putting forth my tolerance bona fides here, but I've had a lot of accusations flung at me today that I felt were unfair, and I thought maybe a little more information might give some of you a better picture of me. I'd like to thank the folks who gave me the benefit of the doubt for their words. Those who disagreed, I just want to say that I don't have any hard feelings; this kind of discourse is what makes Brin-L great. Jim It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be unpopular Maru I second your opinions about what makes Brin-L great. Also for what it is worth, I think that it is useful to take this opportunity to remind everyone that many of the ListMembers read this List on different schedules.For example, I have just now had probably 40 posts on this subject dumped into my BrinBox.Thus, a day's worth of reactions on Brin-L particularly over the weekend, is very often not necessarily completely representative of the reactions of the List as a whole. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 02:29 PM 2/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: Gautam wrote: =-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm a conservative. But I can always rely on you to remind me... So name-calling, now that you're done with it, is characteristic of liberals? For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it now? Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a factor that would increase the divorce rate. You could look at the *very* small set of fundamentalists who have said something public about it and look at just *their* divorce rate. And you're right, there is no way to really tell. So I could wonder for the rest of my life. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:50 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it now? Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a factor that would increase the divorce rate. I know a number of divorced fundamentalists who had accepting gays as a leave the church issue. My sample is small, but it is large enough to conclude that more than half of divorced and remarried fundamentalists have very strong opinions against accepting gays but think divorce is quite another matter. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives. I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I would say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than conservatives (not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are lovely people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking in rage). Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:18:46PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: common among conservatives. We don't know The One Truth. Ha! that would be a good start. If John ever did the same (and I don't think he ever would, because he's a _lot_ more polite than the people on this list who abuse him constantly and then whine and whimper when he snaps back) Ha, ha! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 04:52 PM 2/15/04, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 02:29 PM 2/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: Gautam wrote: =-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm a conservative. But I can always rely on you to remind me... So name-calling, now that you're done with it, is characteristic of liberals? For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives. Someone brought that up this week on another list I'm on. FWIW, someone then told me that I'm a moderate, not a conservative. (YOMV.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:48:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation Although that would be an exaggeration of what I am talking about... Yes, but in conversation, that's what it can feel like if you're on the receiving end of it. and much gentler prods over the course of 6 months or so, the gentler prods will have caused more of a change in mindset 12 months after the initial event. On an email list? I can't imagine that working on an email list. But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either. If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is wrong, offensive or intolerable. That sort of thing has worked on *me*, at least in getting me to think about my position. And I've had my positioned changed at least somewhat as a result. Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50 people I've been in close contact with over the course of my life, but it turned out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the cynical engineer as it was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained artiste. So, not on an email list? I think there is quite a difference between an email list and people you have close contact with in daily life. It's worked on *me*, at least to some degree. I think that if you ask around, you'll find that it's worked to a greater or lesser degree on some other folks here. (Of course, I could be wrong on this.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 05:59 PM 2/15/2004, you wrote: For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives. I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I would say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than conservatives (not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are lovely people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking in rage). Tom Beck I hate allegories but can't resist using them. In my immediate family three are liberal, three are conservative and two I don't know about (damn kids, keeping their thoughts to themselves). The shrieking rage typifies the one lib to a T, all of the time. I have been fearful of physical violence against myself or others; or their heart attack when confronting this person about their views. Confronting is not the right word. You could mention the weather, a flat tire, a bad hair day and it's blamed on repubs/conservs. Anything good is only because of dems/libs fighting and overcoming the evils of the other side. Mention one word counter to that view and it quickly blows up. That may read like an exaggeration but it isn't. It does color and distort my views. Do I think all libs are that way? Of course not, it'd be a stretch to say 1% are as bad.. And I know cons that are as bad but none that I meet everyday. So you think libs are nicer people in their politics? I don't. Kevin T. - VRWC That reads bad at the end. I'm smiling through this whole e-mail; only saying you opinions are yours to make, mine are different. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Changes in moral culture (was Thoughts on gay marriage?)
On Sunday 2004-02-15 16:07, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:50 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it now? Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a factor that would increase the divorce rate. I know a number of divorced fundamentalists who had accepting gays as a leave the church issue. My sample is small, but it is large enough to conclude that more than half of divorced and remarried fundamentalists have very strong opinions against accepting gays but think divorce is quite another matter. Dan M. And that is in itself an interesting index of change in the moral culture. There was a time when conservative Christian folks were *very* strongly opposed to divorce. Divorce--and definitely remarriage after divorce--was ample reason to bar people from church and public leadership and even reason to deny communion. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives. I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I would say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than conservatives (not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are lovely people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking in rage). But, your post sounded like a conservative parody of liberal position. You cannot persuade people because, unlike you, most Americans are either stupid or bad? I've argued with conservatives for years. Some of them are selfish, others don't think very carefully, and still others are caring, thoughtful individuals who just happen to be wrong on a point or two. :-) I've noticed that there are selfish, thoughtless individuals who think like me tooas well as others who have thought things through carefully. I would submit that it helps to understand opposing positions well, and to see where reasonable people can differ with you. I get very upset as fellow Christians who think folks like Gautam are damned for worshiping false gods. I also get upset at fellow liberals who insinuate that those who differ with them are either heartless or thoughtless. I would like to suggest that reasonable people can differ on a number of subjects. One of the comments on sci.physics was that there were few strong discussions on physics between the professionals. The answer was, with physics, reasonable people had few passionate disagreements. A theory was falsified, supported by data, or the data were still inconclusive. Rational people do not question the validity of special relativity; only crackpots do. But, in politics, things are so multi-causal that it is impossible to actually prove things. One only sees indications of various strengths, and reasonable rational people can weigh these differently. For example, I have tremendous respect for Gautam's views, even though I differ significantly with a number of them. I also know that some of the top liberal thinkers in his field also have that opinion. It is hard for me to fathom how liberal professors at Harvard can think well of him if he is a closed minded or evil conservative. It seems more likely that they value an original well thought out analysis that differs with them more than agreement that merely regurgitates their teachings. Finally, as far as persuading people, I found your post offensive and we agree on the basic issues. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Communitcation tactics(was Thoughts on gay marriage?)
On Sunday 2004-02-15 15:48, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on this list earlier today. And doing it more gently will get you a more positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the prejudices. Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them to really think about an issue. I would agree that the approach you explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always, maybe not even usually. It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation and much gentler prods over the course of 6 months or so, the gentler prods will have caused more of a change in mindset 12 months after the initial event. Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50 people I've been in close contact with over the course of my life, but it turned out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the cynical engineer as it was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained artiste. And sometimes there is just no way a mind will be changed on a particular subject if you keep arguing with that person; when that happens, the best thing to do is move on and try not to discuss that subject. Saying things that are tangental to that subject in discussions of other things might help some, but confronting a subject head-on with someone who has their position very deeply entrenched is more likely to make them dig in deeper with it. (I have seen this most notably in a couple of people significantly older than myself.) Julia post didn't come through on the account I made the original commend on, sigh 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. Nevertheless, my feeling has long been that the non-confrontational techniques taught in psychology, social work, communication, and marketing classes are highly manipulative. They are overtly manipulative political tactics designed to move from argumentation to conversationalism. I too prefer being on the recieving end of an I-message ... until I notice my interloculator has changed from a socratic exchange to manipulative psycho-therapy. There are times where socratic engagement is stupid but optimally persuasive engagement is immoral. Is there a difference between marketing and debate? When, if ever, does an economically rational person opt for socratic debate over friendlier, more persuasive diological engagement? Is there a conflict between standards for honesty and truth on the one hand and satisfying relationships on the other. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: FOOLish
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:20 PM Subject: Re: FOOLish From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FOOLish Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:12:43 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:58 AM Subject: FOOLish People of the list, Bully for you Travis (I wouldn't let it bother me too much. There's forest and there's trees, and I think you have made friends here already :) ) xponent He Stuck An Arm In And Brought It Out Bloody Maru rob Thanks Robert. Now seeing as how your my friend...could you lend me $5?...American? Sure, anything else I can do for you? G xponent Obligatory Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 05:59 PM 2/15/04, you wrote: At 05:59 PM 2/15/2004, you wrote: For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives. I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I would say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than conservatives (not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are lovely people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking in rage). Tom Beck I hate allegories but can't resist using them. In my immediate family three are liberal, three are conservative and two I don't know about (damn kids, keeping their thoughts to themselves). The shrieking rage typifies the one lib to a T, all of the time. I have been fearful of physical violence against myself or others; or their heart attack when confronting this person about their views. Confronting is not the right word. You could mention the weather, a flat tire, a bad hair day and it's blamed on repubs/conservs. Anything good is only because of dems/libs fighting and overcoming the evils of the other side. Mention one word counter to that view and it quickly blows up. That may read like an exaggeration but it isn't. It does color and distort my views. Do I think all libs are that way? Of course not, it'd be a stretch to say 1% are as bad.. And I know cons that are as bad but none that I meet everyday. So you think libs are nicer people in their politics? I don't. FWIW, I took that statement not to mean that liberals necessarily act nicer when presenting their views, but that their views are nicer than what the conservatives stand for and (as has been mentioned in this thread) want to force on others. If I am incorrect, I would appreciate a gentle correction . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:46:09PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either. Sometimes it does. At least as well as... If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is wrong, offensive or intolerable. ...which very rarely happens. In fact, if you hadn't said it happened to you, I'd say it never happens. What were you talking about that had an email thread that went for 6 months? That sort of thing has worked on *me*, at least in getting me to think about my position. And I've had my positioned changed at least somewhat as a result. But your contention appeared to be that your way is ALWAYS better. Saying that it worked once on you is hardly strong evidence. I've seen many examples on this email list and others where the subtle approach is just ignored or lost in the noise. Many of the threads that get the most responses are the noisy ones. In fact, one of the people arguing the same as you, Dan M., has been prone to get involved in obnoxious threads at least as often as the reserved threads over the past year. Now, you might argue that getting responses isn't the same as changing minds. True. The loud approach doesn't have a high success rate. But getting little or no response to a reserved post probably does have a strong correlation with people not really thinking about it. And I've seen this happen a lot. So the success rate is likely to be even lower in with the reserved approach. In practice, it surely depends mostly on the person or people who are the intended audience. I think that both approaches may be successful depending on the person and circumstances. For example, even before I read your post I would have said the reserved approach would be more successful on you (Julia). Alas, not everyone is like Julia! ;-) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Communitcation tactics(was Thoughts on gay marriage?)
At 06:14 PM 2/15/04, Trent Shipley wrote: Is there a conflict between standards for honesty and truth on the one hand and satisfying relationships on the other. Be honest: Does this dress make me look fat? Yes I've Appeared Onstage In Drag But You Know What I Mean Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: For example, even before I read your post I would have said the reserved approach would be more successful on you (Julia). Alas, not everyone is like Julia! ;-) If they were, the accumulated niceness might just choke me. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Jim Sharkey wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: For example, even before I read your post I would have said the reserved approach would be more successful on you (Julia). Alas, not everyone is like Julia! ;-) If they were, the accumulated niceness might just choke me. :) Aw, heck, if everyone were *really* like me, I wouldn't restrain myself so often, and, well, I can be a bitch at times. :) I just try *very* hard not to *be* a bitch a good deal of the time, including on mailing lists. (If you could just *see* some of the posts I've deleted before sending) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:46:09PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either. Sometimes it does. At least as well as... If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is wrong, offensive or intolerable. ...which very rarely happens. In fact, if you hadn't said it happened to you, I'd say it never happens. What were you talking about that had an email thread that went for 6 months? There will be topics that come up one week, then come up again a month or two later, then again sometime later. Happens on some lists. Of course, I'm usually not the *target* of persuasion on most of those, but in reading the positions of the most vocal participants, my position *does* sometimes change. Or at least I find it challenged. Now, there's another email list that has *not* managed in 14 months to shake me from my relatively moderate position on _Dune_, but that's another story entirely. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? At 03:43 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on this list earlier today. And doing it more gently will get you a more positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the prejudices. Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them to really think about an issue. I would agree that the approach you explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always, maybe not even usually. I agree with Julia. As far as evidence goes: the next time you have a disagreement with your spouse, try the strong statement method. Then, the next time after that, try the soft answer approach. Assuming there is a next time after the first one, that is . . . Same here. If one is to start out making strong challenges to mild statements, then what is one to do when one encounters true extremists (such as Michael Savage) as I've mentioned before. How is it in any way consistent for Jim to be treated similarly to Savage, when his remarks are decidedly much different. xponent Measure By Measure Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 06:15 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:46:09PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either. Sometimes it does. At least as well as... If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is wrong, offensive or intolerable. ...which very rarely happens. In fact, if you hadn't said it happened to you, I'd say it never happens. What were you talking about that had an email thread that went for 6 months? Julia can speak for herself and correct me if I am wrong, but I would guess that it was not a thread that lasted continuously for six months but that it might have been a topic that came up repeatedly in the course of discussions over those six months, just as some topics come up repeatedly here or on other lists I am a member of. That sort of thing has worked on *me*, at least in getting me to think about my position. And I've had my positioned changed at least somewhat as a result. But your contention appeared to be that your way is ALWAYS better. Saying that it worked once on you is hardly strong evidence. I've seen many examples on this email list and others where the subtle approach is just ignored or lost in the noise. Many of the threads that get the most responses are the noisy ones. In fact, one of the people arguing the same as you, Dan M., has been prone to get involved in obnoxious threads at least as often as the reserved threads over the past year. Now, you might argue that getting responses isn't the same as changing minds. True. The loud approach doesn't have a high success rate. But getting little or no response to a reserved post probably does have a strong correlation with people not really thinking about it. And keep in mind that just because someone does not agree with you on a topic does not mean that s/he has not thought about the topic, perhaps at least as much as you have. I believe it was Dan who mentioned that issues in politics are frequently so complex that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the same issue. And I've seen this happen a lot. So the success rate is likely to be even lower in with the reserved approach. I think that if your primary goal is to convince other people that your position on a contentious issue is correct and theirs is wrong, you are already on the wrong track. If you want them to come around to agreeing with your way of thinking, the best -- and in many cases the only, unless frex you are in a position of authority where you can order them to do what you tell them regardless of what they themselves think -- way is to first show them that you are genuinely interested in having a conversation and a relationship with them. Then they are not going to killfile you immediately (or just ignore you) as they may do if you start off shouting that they are wrong. In practice, it surely depends mostly on the person or people who are the intended audience. I think that both approaches may be successful depending on the person and circumstances. For example, even before I read your post I would have said the reserved approach would be more successful on you (Julia). Alas, not everyone is like Julia! ;-) No. But a significant number of people will be more willing to listen to the reserved approach than the loud approach . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:48 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? At 03:20 PM 2/15/2004 -0500 Jim Sharkey wrote: I apologize if this seems like I'm putting forth my tolerance bona fides here, but I've had a lot of accusations flung at me today that I felt were unfair, and I thought maybe a little more information might give some of you a better picture of me. I'd like to thank the folks who gave me the benefit of the doubt for their words. Those who disagreed, I just want to say that I don't have any hard feelings; this kind of discourse is what makes Brin-L great. Jim It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be unpopular Maru I second your opinions about what makes Brin-L great. Also for what it is worth, I think that it is useful to take this opportunity to remind everyone that many of the ListMembers read this List on different schedules.For example, I have just now had probably 40 posts on this subject dumped into my BrinBox.Thus, a day's worth of reactions on Brin-L particularly over the weekend, is very often not necessarily completely representative of the reactions of the List as a whole. What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to basically agree about Gay Marriage. This focus on microscopic points of difference is amazingly like a Monty Python sketch. Maybe the listname should be changed to The Argument Clinic. xponent Or Maybe One Should Be Started Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Robert Seeberger wrote: What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to basically agree about Gay Marriage. This focus on microscopic points of difference is amazingly like a Monty Python sketch. Maybe the listname should be changed to The Argument Clinic. No it shouldn't. :-D Jim Python, still funny after 30+ years Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 06:40:28PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: And keep in mind that just because someone does not agree with you on a topic does not mean that s/he has not thought about the topic, perhaps at least as much as you have. I believe it was Dan who mentioned that issues in politics are frequently so complex that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the same issue. And I almost never listen to you because usually your posts are so inane or else totally miss the point, such as this comment. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
(no subject)
Gautam wrote: Done with it? I certainly didn't _start_ it. Not only did you start it, but that between the two of us, you're the only one that has engaged in it. But more characteristic? Certainly. That sort of arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less common among conservatives. We don't know The One Truth. That's not our job, after all, so a conservative who pretends he does is behaving in a fundamentally aconservative manner. Saying that most Americans are, I forget the charming turn of phrase, but arrogant fools was the sense, I think, isn't something you're going to catch John, Kevin, or me doing. Ever. Well brin-l isn't directly representative of this country but: If I _wanted_ to debate with fanatics, there are probably more interesting places to do it. Sounds like arrogant contempt to me. I submit that the fact that I was (I believe) one of only two people to note and comment upon that particular statement supports my earlier contention that has got you all upset. The fact that you're more upset at my response to it that the statement itself does so even more. But you misread me. I'm not upset, I just thought your comments ironic in light of recent events. As far as Tom's comments go, I would not have put it as vociferously as he did, but if a poll of the American public reveals that most of them are bigots, I would not be afraid to point it out. Are you saying that conservatives would always go along with the majority opinion, no matter what? So the question is, what does it say about you that what Tom said didn't bother you enough to object to it? Want to prove me wrong? I'm willing to accept that I was. I was pretty pissed at your comment, since I was trying to have fun and you were being very rude. But I'll accept that my statement was easily misinterpreted. If you were just being flip, I did misread you. As far as being rude, your comments to me going back over the last few weeks have been consistently rude. What's more they seldom even made an attempt to address the topic that was being discussed. But if you want to prove me wrong, saying something when someone on _your_ side of the political line says something like that would be a good start. If John ever did the same (and I don't think he ever would, because he's a _lot_ more polite than the people on this list who abuse him constantly and then whine and whimper when he snaps back) I'd call him on it. In fact, he has and, as best I can recall, you didn't, but I want to give credit where it is due; John's debating in recent months has been polite and to the point and as a result much more effective. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 06:47 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to basically agree about Gay Marriage. That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me to collect my thoughts on the subject. That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-) JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SciFi site
Does anyone else like Orion's Arm? http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 5:18 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? Done with it? I certainly didn't _start_ it. But more characteristic? Certainly. That sort of arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less common among conservatives. We don't know The One Truth. That's not our job, after all, so a conservative who pretends he does is behaving in a fundamentally aconservative manner. Are you arguing that the religeous right contains people who are not true conservatives? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: (no subject)
Sorry about the lack of a subject line. My email bombed on me and I had to copy the text from a backup and I forgot to title it. 8^P -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:06 PM Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? At 06:47 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to basically agree about Gay Marriage. That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me to collect my thoughts on the subject. That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-) Now there is a debate. Ogre Marriage? I must say though, that if you come out against Gay Marriage, it will certainly illuminate today's conversation with a different sort of light. (Don't expect rational responses G) xponent I Want To Buy A Fish License Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
John wrote: That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me to collect my thoughts on the subject. Well don't keep us in the dark - I'd very much like to refu... I mean _hear_ your side of the arguement. 8^) That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-) Good movie, hope you don't have to watch it on network... -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi site
- Original Message - From: Trent Shipley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:16 PM Subject: SciFi site Does anyone else like Orion's Arm? http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html I'm on their List. Been there for about a year. Very OnTopic xponent Sophotech Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi site
Does anyone else like Orion's Arm? http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html IIRC didn't someone on the list go fishing for RPG ideas for this? Were you that person? Damon, looks familiar... = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
In one error and out the otter
In a message dated 2/15/2004 6:23:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry about the lack of a subject line. My email bombed on me and I had to copy the text from a backup and I forgot to title it. 8^P -- Doug A possible subject line. It relates to What happens when a tytlal mistakes a bar of Exlax for a bar of chocolate. William Taylor - This email has no redeeming social value. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
