Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
Horn, John wrote: From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Then there's the trick where you remove your underwear without removing the shorts you're wearing over them. If you're not wearing underwear, you can't do that trick. :) I've seen that one with a bra but not with underwear. How does that one work? You need baggy, oversized shorts, such that you can pull the underwear down and around one knee (bend the knee to get it around the foot) and off the 1st leg. Then pull the whole shebang out through the shorts and down the other leg. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Shouldn't the sex crazed have their panties 'round their knees? At the least? Ro-BER-er-ert! bit of a lilt, there Now that's taking snippage too far! You've given some brand-new brineller the impression that I'm part of the VRWC! ;) And _boy_ did this thread sink to the gutter fast...that really was _not_ my intention... :P Debbi Also Not A Libertarian At 16 Points Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:43:28 -0600 - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Shouldn't the sex crazed have their panties 'round their knees? At the least? Ankles are better. Even better is flung across the room so they end up hanging half-off the TV. But hopefully not sticking to the wall. Better to simply go commando, which eliminates the need to remove them entirely. :D Well, I'd really prefer a cotton knit right next to my skin there than denim. Maybe that's just me. Then there's the trick where you remove your underwear without removing the shorts you're wearing over them. If you're not wearing underwear, you can't do that trick. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Then there's the trick where you remove your underwear without removing the shorts you're wearing over them. If you're not wearing underwear, you can't do that trick. :) I've seen that one with a bra but not with underwear. How does that one work? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Underwear Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
Horn, John wrote: From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Then there's the trick where you remove your underwear without removing the shorts you're wearing over them. If you're not wearing underwear, you can't do that trick. :) I've seen that one with a bra but not with underwear. How does that one work? Well, when I was able to get it to work, part of the trick was stretchy underwear and relatively thin legs. :) It worked best with bikini-cut, because there wasn't so much fabric to deal with. I'd put my bare foot up to my butt, work the underwear down around the foot, and then pull down to get it over the knee. Getting the second leg out was then a fairly trivial exercise. I did it at a party once (I'd been drinking a bit) and threw it at the guy most likely to get most embarassed by it. Nobody walked off with it, which was just as well. :) (I had a couple of changes of clothing with me, though, anyway.) Doing it with a bra is a little easier, unless you're dealing with a sports bra that doesn't have a clasp. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Underwear Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 05:05:27PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: I'd put my bare foot up to my butt, work the underwear down around the foot, and then pull down to get it over the knee. Getting the second leg out was then a fairly trivial exercise. Hmm, I don't think my underwear or my leg will do that. That's probably for the best, though... Mine won't do it anymore. I weigh almost 1.5 times what I did then. :) (Some of it is additional muscle.) Julia failed the last time I tried it, about 18 months ago ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:23:03 + On 11 Mar 2004, at 10:06 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most snipped Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate a `higher being'? That depends on whether the 'higher being' _is_ morally goodMost of the reasons that I have broken with established religion are related to the many acts and attitudes of dubious morality purported to be the desire or command of the Divine. I simply do not believe that a good and loving father would order such things; while I have known friends who take comfort in thinking that some terrible experience is somehow God's will, I sure-as-bloody-blazes do not. In fact, if I believed that God *wanted* frex, a man to get so drunk that he didn't comprehend that he'd run over and killed his 9yo child in front of her little friends, I'd be worshipping - well, 'the Evil One.' I don't have to admire anyone just because they're stronger, smarter and/or more powerful than me. [Now having said that, much of what people like Jesus and Buddha (sp?) did set a wonderful example for humanity, and to emulate their acts of kindness is highly admirable, and well worth doing.] Religion is about crazy people blowing stuff up. Dumber words were never spoken. Are we trolling for a reason? 'Higher beings' are by definition incomprehensible so there's no point thinking about them. (If they were comprehensible they'd be just like us, which isn't higher :) ) Sure. Because understanding the nature of their god isn't one of the important parts of any religion. rolls eyes Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as $29.95/month. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most snipped Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate a `higher being'? That depends on whether the 'higher being' _is_ morally goodMost of the reasons that I have broken with established religion are related to the many acts and attitudes of dubious morality purported to be the desire or command of the Divine...snip...I don't have to admire anyone just because they're stronger, smarter and/or more powerful than me. [Now having said that, much of what people like Jesus and Buddha (sp?) did set a wonderful example for humanity, and to emulate their acts of kindness is highly admirable, and well worth doing.] Religion is about crazy people blowing stuff up. Nonsense. Even *fanatacism* isn't necessarily about 'blowing stuff up,' although it certainly leans quite heavily toward that. Your refusal to see a difference between people of good faith and people who want to impose their narrow little mind-sets on the world is as foolish as calling all Republicans 'heartless money-grubbers' or all Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Debbi who thinks the world would be a much better place if everyone followed 'The Golden Rule' -- but is prepared to use lethal force on anybody who tries to maim or kill her or her friends :/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
At 03:25 PM 3/12/04, Deborah Harrell wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most snipped Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate a `higher being'? That depends on whether the 'higher being' _is_ morally goodMost of the reasons that I have broken with established religion are related to the many acts and attitudes of dubious morality purported to be the desire or command of the Divine...snip...I don't have to admire anyone just because they're stronger, smarter and/or more powerful than me. [Now having said that, much of what people like Jesus and Buddha (sp?) did set a wonderful example for humanity, and to emulate their acts of kindness is highly admirable, and well worth doing.] Religion is about crazy people blowing stuff up. Nonsense. Even *fanatacism* isn't necessarily about 'blowing stuff up,' although it certainly leans quite heavily toward that. Your refusal to see a difference between people of good faith and people who want to impose their narrow little mind-sets on the world is as foolish as calling all Republicans 'heartless money-grubbers' or all Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Debbi who thinks the world would be a much better place if everyone followed 'The Golden Rule' -- but is prepared to use lethal force on anybody who tries to maim or kill her or her friends :/ -- Ronn! :) whose thinking on this matter is very much like Debbi's ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Shouldn't the sex crazed have their panties 'round their knees? At the least? xponent Sex Crazed Pantyknees Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Shouldn't the sex crazed have their panties 'round their knees? At the least? Ankles are better. Even better is flung across the room so they end up hanging half-off the TV. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Shouldn't the sex crazed have their panties 'round their knees? At the least? Ankles are better. Even better is flung across the room so they end up hanging half-off the TV. But hopefully not sticking to the wall. xponent Undie Gunk Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:43:28 -0600 - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment) Democrats 'sex-crazed pantywaists.' :P Shouldn't the sex crazed have their panties 'round their knees? At the least? Ankles are better. Even better is flung across the room so they end up hanging half-off the TV. But hopefully not sticking to the wall. Better to simply go commando, which eliminates the need to remove them entirely. :D Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most snipped Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate a `higher being'? That depends on whether the 'higher being' _is_ morally goodMost of the reasons that I have broken with established religion are related to the many acts and attitudes of dubious morality purported to be the desire or command of the Divine. I simply do not believe that a good and loving father would order such things; while I have known friends who take comfort in thinking that some terrible experience is somehow God's will, I sure-as-bloody-blazes do not. In fact, if I believed that God *wanted* frex, a man to get so drunk that he didn't comprehend that he'd run over and killed his 9yo child in front of her little friends, I'd be worshipping - well, 'the Evil One.' I don't have to admire anyone just because they're stronger, smarter and/or more powerful than me. [Now having said that, much of what people like Jesus and Buddha (sp?) did set a wonderful example for humanity, and to emulate their acts of kindness is highly admirable, and well worth doing.] Debbi Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Emulation (was: Federal Marriage Amendment)
On 11 Mar 2004, at 10:06 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most snipped Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate a `higher being'? That depends on whether the 'higher being' _is_ morally goodMost of the reasons that I have broken with established religion are related to the many acts and attitudes of dubious morality purported to be the desire or command of the Divine. I simply do not believe that a good and loving father would order such things; while I have known friends who take comfort in thinking that some terrible experience is somehow God's will, I sure-as-bloody-blazes do not. In fact, if I believed that God *wanted* frex, a man to get so drunk that he didn't comprehend that he'd run over and killed his 9yo child in front of her little friends, I'd be worshipping - well, 'the Evil One.' I don't have to admire anyone just because they're stronger, smarter and/or more powerful than me. [Now having said that, much of what people like Jesus and Buddha (sp?) did set a wonderful example for humanity, and to emulate their acts of kindness is highly admirable, and well worth doing.] Religion is about crazy people blowing stuff up. 'Higher beings' are by definition incomprehensible so there's no point thinking about them. (If they were comprehensible they'd be just like us, which isn't higher :) ) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: big snip Reminds me of the advice not to attempt calculus while drunk. Don't drink and derive. Guess this would be a PUI (Posting Under the Influence)? Is that pronounced pyoo-ey, alternate spelling phewie? ;) Pepe LePew Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 10:19 PM 2/27/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote: What it says to me is that it is a ban on ALL new marriages both heterosexual and homosexual. It will remove all 1049 'marriage' rights that now exist for all existing married couples. Shirley, you can't be serious. There's the word require in the second sentence of the Musgrave Amendment. 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: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 09:42 PM 2/27/04, Doug Pensinger wrote: What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby second class citizens. IMO it is therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment. Furthermore, because there are religious aspects to the concept of marriage, the proposed amendment is also in conflict with the second amendment. So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the above-cited second amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Shooting Off My Mouth Again Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Ronn! wrote: So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the above-cited second amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Shooting Off My Mouth Again Maru D'oh... I guess that's what I get for writing a serious response with a pseudofed/cough medicine buzz. I ment the 1st ammendment. -- Doug excuses r us... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn! wrote: So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the above-cited second amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Shooting Off My Mouth Again Maru D'oh... I guess that's what I get for writing a serious response with a pseudofed/cough medicine buzz. I ment the 1st ammendment. -- Doug excuses r us... Reminds me of the advice not to attempt calculus while drunk. Don't drink and derive. Guess this would be a PUI (Posting Under the Influence)? Julia whose brain is working well for this sort of thing, but not for much else ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Federal Marriage Amendment
Culled from the MCMedia archive as my email program seems to be eating old messages in my brin-l folder. JDG wrote: As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is despite the fact, as noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay marriage is this imminent threat to heterosexual marriages. Anyhow, for those of you who are not familiar with it, the text of the only proposed Amendment with a chance of passage is here: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any State, nor state or Federal Law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups Despite the rhetoric of some opponents, I find it very difficult to read the above amendment is making civil unions unconstitutional. Rather, it says to me that no Constitution can be interpreted by the Courts as *requiring* civil unions, but that legislatures are free to instutiute civil unions through the appropriate democratic processes.At any rate, this is certainly the outcome I am advocating - and the outcome that is advocated by the Amendment's primary sponsors. What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby second class citizens. IMO it is therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment. Furthermore, because there are religious aspects to the concept of marriage, the proposed amendment is also in conflict with the second amendment. I support this amendment for the following reasons: As Dan Minette has noted earlier, any move to permit homosexual marriages would constitute a radical redefinition of marriage. Meanwhile, as I noted in a previous message, I think that the current judicial activism on this subject benefits noone - not even those who favor the eventual legalization of homosexual marriage.Thus, I support the above amendment because it takes this issue out of the Courts and into the Legislatures - where this issue very firmly belongs. There are times when some segment of the population requires protection from the tyranny of the majority. The civil rights struggles of the '50s and '60s was one such time. This is another. If laws that discriminate against homosexuality are unconstitutional then they should be wiped off the books. Furthermore, this isnt happening overnight, the change in attitude towards homosexuality has been going on for years and we have been moving towards its legitimacy. The liberalization of the definition of marriage is a logical next step towards normalization. The marriage amendment is a step backwards. Beyond that, due to the difficulty of the process, it has just about zero chance of being adopted anyway. The above amendment does go a bit further than that, however, in that it prevents Legislatures from ever considering homosexual *marriages* (while permitting civil unions) - barring a subsequent Constitutional Amendment. I do, however support this provision as well - although my case for it is quite complicated. 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of homosexual relationships will increase the number of these in-between people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be an insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend. Even if this is true, so what? 2) Marriages are recognized by governments and given special benefits by governments, because marriages promote the siring and raising of the next generation.I think that we are starting to see across Europe that there is perhaps a natural human tendency to not maintain the 2.2 births per women needed to sustain the next generation.As such, it strikes me as more important than ever for governments to produce incentives for parenthood and the raising of responsible adults. First of all, special benefits, such as deductions for dependants and credits for childcare and education are bestowed to people that raise children whether or not they are married. In fact the only special benefits for marriage that I can think of don't have anything to do with the raising children. Secondly, it may be the business of governments like the former Soviet Union or communist Cuba to stick their nose in the bedroom, but traditionally we don't do that kind of thing here 3) Homosexual
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Culled from the MCMedia archive as my email program seems to be eating old messages in my brin-l folder. JDG wrote: As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is despite the fact, as noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay marriage is this imminent threat to heterosexual marriages. Anyhow, for those of you who are not familiar with it, the text of the only proposed Amendment with a chance of passage is here: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any State, nor state or Federal Law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups Despite the rhetoric of some opponents, I find it very difficult to read the above amendment is making civil unions unconstitutional. Rather, it says to me that no Constitution can be interpreted by the Courts as *requiring* civil unions, but that legislatures are free to instutiute civil unions through the appropriate democratic processes.At any rate, this is certainly the outcome I am advocating - and the outcome that is advocated by the Amendment's primary sponsors. What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby second class citizens. IMO it is therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment. Furthermore, because there are religious aspects to the concept of marriage, the proposed amendment is also in conflict with the second amendment. What it says to me is that it is a ban on ALL new marriages both heterosexual and homosexual. It will remove all 1049 'marriage' rights that now exist for all existing married couples. It will make it so that _only_ religions can 'marry' people, and only heterosexuals. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted John as saying I stated plainly and simply that I believe that human life begins at conception. and then when on to say Give that somewhere between 50% and 80% of conceptions end in natural spontaneous abortions, that you think that human life begins at conception, and that you think ending a human life is wrong, do you also think that attempting to have children is a morally dubious position? ... I cannot speak for John, but a consequence of believing in an omnipotent God is to believe that He is the Great Abortionist. It does not mean that humans need favor abortion. Instead, a second belief, that `God behaves in mysterious ways' enables people to `do as my human representatives say, not as I do'. This combination of beliefs means, specifically, that people should not emulate God. I have heard it said that emulation of God or gods is a characteristic of humans, but with this combination of beliefs, such emulation is forbidden. Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said By that logic, its wrong to ever have children because they have a 100% chance of dying, even if you could guarantee the first 9 months.. ;-) which is a funny point, and intentionally skips the moral questions that surround the notions of self defense, `justified war', and infanticide whether in peace time or as collateral damage in a `justified war', all of which are humanly decided killings. Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate a `higher being'? (To bring in the `brights' and to avoid the problems that some have with beliefs in the supernatural, consider a `higher being' as either God, as in a monotheistic or trinitarian religion, or a god, one of many, or as a human who is more powerful than you.) Put another way, should a person who respects God or a god or a more powerful person feel morally obligated to be different from that entity if what that entity does is wrong for the person to do? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rather than talk about the human morality of killing humans, I am curious how many on this list think that it is morally good to emulate a `higher being'? It is Absolutely Morally Wrong to emulate the Evil Deities of the Bible, Koran, Jewish faith, Pagan Faiths, Indian Faiths, Ancient Faiths or any other being that murders people for thought crimes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 02:40 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that human life begins at conception. How do you feel about implanting only 3 embryos at a time? Or do you also object to leaving embryos in limbo, even if the plan is to implant the rest at a later date? I am certainly uncomfortable with the idea of placing those humans in stasis, but it is certainly preferably to killing them.Of course, I wonder how many women would really want to repeat the experience of triplets. (Also, I'm guessing that you object to IUDs as a form of birth control) Yes. 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: Federal Marriage Amendment
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 02:40 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that human life begins at conception. How do you feel about implanting only 3 embryos at a time? Or do you also object to leaving embryos in limbo, even if the plan is to implant the rest at a later date? I am certainly uncomfortable with the idea of placing those humans in stasis, but it is certainly preferably to killing them.Of course, I wonder how many women would really want to repeat the experience of triplets. Well, my friend I saw at the Mothers of Multiples meeting this evening probably doesn't want to. :) But the whole breastfeeding experience may have been as much a factor as the pregnancy itself. (Every time I go, I'm grateful that mine were not born prematurely and that they've always nursed reasonably well.) Generally, you can't depend on all the embryos surviving. Three is a reasonable number - chances are, one or two will survive, but probably not all three. And three has a much better chance of *not* being reduced than any number higher than that. (Also, I'm guessing that you object to IUDs as a form of birth control) Yes. Just wanting to confirm my suspicion. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 06:47 PM 2/17/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that human sexuality is non-binary. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of homosexual relationships will increase the number of these in-between people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be an insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend. I don't think the scientific evidence supports your claim at least for men. On the face your arguement seems innocuous but smell a bit of the discredited idea that people can be coerced or influenced to be homosexuals. Actually. I took that idea from a post by Adam Lipscomb, describing himself, several years ago. 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: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 06:49 PM 2/17/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:38 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) More than just artificial insemination, it is certainly possibly for a lesbian woman to have sex with a man who is not her partner to become impregnated. I've conceded that in those cases there may be a compelling interest for the child to be adopted by her biological mother, rather than be placed in a family that meets her expectation of having a father and a mother - but I don't believe that the government should *incentivise* such outcomes. My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that human life begins at conception. 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: Federal Marriage Amendment
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:36 AM Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment At 06:49 PM 2/17/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:38 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) More than just artificial insemination, it is certainly possibly for a lesbian woman to have sex with a man who is not her partner to become impregnated. I've conceded that in those cases there may be a compelling interest for the child to be adopted by her biological mother, rather than be placed in a family that meets her expectation of having a father and a mother - but I don't believe that the government should *incentivise* such outcomes. My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that human life begins at conception. Every sperm is sacred. xponent Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Small Minds Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 08:33 AM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: Every sperm is sacred. xponent Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Small Minds Maru rob The only hobgoblin is the inconsistent one-liner you posted above after leaving a gratuitous amount of quoted text. Mine's Bigger Than Yours, Maru JDG - My *Mind* (What were you thinking?) ___ 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: Federal Marriage Amendment
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:21 AM Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment At 08:33 AM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: Every sperm is sacred. xponent Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Small Minds Maru rob The only hobgoblin is the inconsistent one-liner you posted above after leaving a gratuitous amount of quoted text. Mine's Bigger Than Yours, Maru JDG - My *Mind* (What were you thinking?) I'm thinking the discussion is becoming a parody of itself. We are starting to see the same hairtrigger responses from various parties that never were effective in previous uses either. In this particular argument John, while I am with you philosophically, I am against you politically. But only because I oppose the forces of Authoritarianism. I have faith that many of the things you oppose (abortion issues in this case) will go away by themselves when technology catches up to the moral issue and makes it irrelevant. John, we both have faith, but we both view things differently and use our faith in different ways. I have faith that we as human beings are a work in progress and will overcome our weaknesses/problems/hypocrisies because we are born with a strong and diverse toolset and an entire world in which to work things out. I'm not sure you believe that let alone have faith in it. You seem very willing to use force and coercion to remake the world in your image. That's not the image of a freedom loving American that I grew up with. I'm not trying to demonize you John, but I am trying to convey the negatives I get from your rhetoric. And I'm trying to get you to understand why I would disagree with someone I consider a friend, and why I will throw in humorous one-liners from time to time. As to the question of consistency: I think it is every persons right to change their minds when they feel it is necessary. I also feel that another person sees or think they see an inconsistency in ones worldview, it is perfectly OK to point it out. In fact it is something of a duty for us to help each other through our various blind spots. And we all *do* have blind spots. xponent Screw Politics Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 12:18 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: As to the question of consistency: I think it is every persons right to change their minds when they feel it is necessary. I also feel that another person sees or think they see an inconsistency in ones worldview, it is perfectly OK to point it out. In fact it is something of a duty for us to help each other through our various blind spots. And we all *do* have blind spots. Indeed, blind spots like macking a mockery of deadly serious positions, and then calling those people whom you mock small-minded. I stated plainly and simply that I believe that human life begins at conception. You chose to mock my defense of that life in large part by suggesting that I logically should also want to defend the sacredness of every single human cell. The utter non-sequitur of that position should be readily apparent to you. If you truly want to point out my blind spots: then please, use fair representaitons of my positions, do not resort to mockery and insults, and deal with my arguments on the merits. In the meantime, I would ask you to consider too things: 1) If you were just mocking me, why does my post which mocked you back require such a serious response? 2) If you truly want to know how offensive I found your post, imagine someone writing Every Jew is Sacred Since I believe that human life really does begin at conception, that is how I took it. Now obviously Monty Python is in the business of fairly offensive humor but when you backed up your Monty Python quote with that hobgoblin and small minds stuff, you took it out of the realm of offensive humor and into the realm of ust plain offensive. JDG - Body Politic, Maru ___ 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: Federal Marriage Amendment
John said: I stated plainly and simply that I believe that human life begins at conception. Give that somewhere between 50% and 80% of conceptions end in natural spontaneous abortions, that you think that human life begins at conception, and that you think ending a human life is wrong, do you also think that attempting to have children is a morally dubious position? After all, it's something that's between 50% and 80% likely to result in the end of a human life within the next nine months. I certainly think that I'd find that performing any action on an adult that had a 50% chance of killing that adult within a year would be extremely immoral in most circumstances (but I also don't think that embryos are equivalent to foetuses, which aren't equivalent to children). Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment John said: I stated plainly and simply that I believe that human life begins at conception. Give that somewhere between 50% and 80% of conceptions end in natural spontaneous abortions, that you think that human life begins at conception, and that you think ending a human life is wrong, do you also think that attempting to have children is a morally dubious position? After all, it's something that's between 50% and 80% likely to result in the end of a human life within the next nine months. I certainly think that I'd find that performing any action on an adult that had a 50% chance of killing that adult within a year would be extremely immoral in most circumstances (but I also don't think that embryos are equivalent to foetuses, which aren't equivalent to children). By that logic, its wrong to ever have children because they have a 100% chance of dying, even if you could guarantee the first 9 months.. ;-) I think the morality of performing actions that have a 50% chance of killing someone depends on the alternatives one has. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
John D. Giorgis wrote: My problem with IVF is that a typical step of the procedure is selective abortion, and I am at least intellectually consistent about my belief that human life begins at conception. How do you feel about implanting only 3 embryos at a time? Or do you also object to leaving embryos in limbo, even if the plan is to implant the rest at a later date? (Also, I'm guessing that you object to IUDs as a form of birth control) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
I've said this privately and now I'll say it publicly. I admire John for his faith and for his willingness to make moral stands against great odds, even though I don't always agree with him. AFAIC, John is a friend and feel comfortable teasing him some, even risking him taking things the wrong way. In case it needs to be said, I feel the same way about most everyone here, excluding those I don't know very well. - Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment At 12:18 PM 2/22/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: As to the question of consistency: I think it is every persons right to change their minds when they feel it is necessary. I also feel that another person sees or think they see an inconsistency in ones worldview, it is perfectly OK to point it out. In fact it is something of a duty for us to help each other through our various blind spots. And we all *do* have blind spots. Indeed, blind spots like macking a mockery of deadly serious positions, and then calling those people whom you mock small-minded. Whoa John! You are misinterpreting me from the onset. The sig remark about consistancy was to only say that consistancy is not always of primal importance. It wasn't a comment directed at you with the intent to insult. How about: Don't worry too much about consistancy or people trying to trap you into inconsistancy, it's not always the big deal people make it out to be. I stated plainly and simply that I believe that human life begins at conception. You chose to mock my defense of that life in large part by suggesting that I logically should also want to defend the sacredness of every single human cell. The utter non-sequitur of that position should be readily apparent to you. I think your position is pretty clear to anyone who has been on the list for any length of time. I take it as a given, and after all these years I'm not about to begin criticizing you when morally, I sympathise with you. If you truly want to point out my blind spots: then please, use fair representaitons of my positions, do not resort to mockery and insults, and deal with my arguments on the merits. I wasn't mocking you John. I was parodying an argument (both sides truely) that has been done to death here and elsewhere. I think what we need here is an indepth analysis of Every Sperm Is Sacred. Let me look up a Monty Python compendium. In the meantime, I would ask you to consider too things: 1) If you were just mocking me, why does my post which mocked you back require such a serious response? Again, I was not mocking you, but I did feel explaining my personal position would be useful. and deescalating. I would think that you would realize after several years that, in regards to you, I am not unsympathetic, that our differences are political and not moral, and that I often inject humor into serious discussions at times that some may feel are inappropriate. Humor, well, I try to be sensitive in regards to others in the sense that I wouldn't intentionally make funeral jokes if I knew someone reading had just had a death in the family. But as far as political humor goes, if someone screams after being lampooned, it just shows they need some lampooning. There aint nothing worse than someone who takes themselves *too* seriously. Of course, this just more position talk and not directed your way. 2) If you truly want to know how offensive I found your post, imagine someone writing Every Jew is Sacred Since I believe that human life really does begin at conception, that is how I took it. I hear you, but then Every Jew Is Sacred could be pretty funny in its own right. Outrageous and offensive, but Jews seem to deal with this kind of humor quite well, and are in fact masters of it. Now obviously Monty Python is in the business of fairly offensive humor but when you backed up your Monty Python quote with that hobgoblin and small minds stuff, you took it out of the realm of offensive humor and into the realm of ust plain offensive. I can see where you might think that and thereby feel that I was trashing you. But I assure you that was not the case, and apologize for your hurt feelings even though that was not my intent. I think you know that if I'm going to jack with someone, I'm not going to explain and I'm not going to apologize. I prefer to let them stew in their own juice. JDG - Body Politic, Maru xponent Interpersonal Relationships Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
[regarding time after birth] You need at *least* 3 months to recuperate. A year is a lot better. And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few months. It can be a lot longer if you breast feed: breast feeding tends to prevent ovulation. Nearly 20 years ago, a friend of mine who set up rural family planning clinics and trained people to run them in places like Africa said that breast feeding can serve to control birth rates from the point of view of a government, but that it is not reliable enough for a family. Thus, if you wean a child old enough, and when breast feeding works, you can spread out births to one every four years. If I remember rightly, the ideal sequence in one tribe went like this: When you are pregnant, and presuming all the kids live (which was not likely), the four year old herds the goats, the 8 year old helps around the hut, the 12 year old herds the cattle and the 16 year old is either a warrior or a wife. (But if a 16 old female has been eating little, or walking more than 4000 miles per year, she is not likely to be fertile.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 01:09 PM 2/19/04, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:53:41 -0600 Erik Reuter wrote: JDG wrote: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. I have visions of 2 women in one household each having twins, about 2 months apart. This is beginning to sound like a Heinlein novel. No. When the biological father starts having a _menage a trois_ with one of the pairs of twins, and the biological mother gets a sex change operation and starts having sex with the other pair, or goes back in time to 2004 San Francisco and marries her father, ***then*** it will sound like a Heinlein novel . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is the benefit of producing children at twice the rate? Alternatively, a lesbian couple could pair with a compatible gay male couple, and sperm from both men could be inserted inside both women. One child could live with the men and one with the women (assuming they don't all want to live together in one house). The children could grow up knowing all of their parents. Sounds healthy and happy to me. No, this is wrong and evil. But, OTOH, lesbians should be _incentivated_ to have children. The reason is simple: heterosexual women chose the father of their children based on primate instincts that are quite obsole and archaic, and that do not produce an improvement of the Human race. Lesbians would chose the father of the children only based on the quality of the DNA, and this would _greatly_ improve Humanity. I think all heterosexual woman should be sterilized and only lesbians should be allowed to have children. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is the benefit of producing children at twice the rate? World domination. I think all heterosexual woman should be sterilized and only lesbians should be allowed to have children. S, we don't tell 'em that until it's too late! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:09:18PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Erik Reuter wrote: You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. I have visions of 2 women in one household each having twins, about 2 months apart. This is beginning to sound like a Heinlein novel. Of course, everything will be fine until the reality sets in. Twin infants (as I'm sure Julia can attest) are quite a handful. I can only imagine the chaos _four_ infants could create. They lost me at the twins thing. How do they guarantee even one woman has twins, let alone both? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. Which is why birth rates are measured per woman, not per couple. JDG - Nothing like the real thing. ___ 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: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Erik Reuter wrote: JDG wrote: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. I have visions of 2 women in one household each having twins, about 2 months apart. This is beginning to sound like a Heinlein novel. No. When the biological father starts having a _menage a trois_ with one of the pairs of twins, and the biological mother gets a sex change operation and starts having sex with the other pair, or goes back in time to 2004 San Francisco and marries her father, ***then*** it will sound like a Heinlein novel . . . LOL, yes thats almost perfect. You just forgot to mention the Torquemada girdle. And The Bishop Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Federal Marriage Amendment
Andrew P said: LOL, yes thats almost perfect. You just forgot to mention the Torquemada girdle. And... the powered armour? Rich, who thinks the twins should start a revolution on the Moon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Alberto Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternatively, a lesbian couple could pair with a compatible gay male couple, and sperm from both men could be inserted inside both women. One child could live with the men and one with the women (assuming they don't all want to live together in one house). The children could grow up knowing all of their parents. Sounds healthy and happy to me. No, this is wrong and evil. But, OTOH, lesbians should be _incentivated_ to have children. The reason is simple: heterosexual women chose the father of their children based on primate instincts that are quite obsole and archaic, and that do not produce an improvement of the Human race. Lesbians would chose the father of the children only based on the quality of the DNA, and this would _greatly_ improve Humanity. I think all heterosexual woman should be sterilized and only lesbians should be allowed to have children. I have read this debate, and bitten my tounge. I am assuming yours is firmly planted in your cheek here... If you want to claim that we know more about how best to improve the genetic reliability of humanity than the universe does, then you will have an arguement from me. Perhaps, and I say perhaps as a means of keeping an open mind, if you could tell me what the point, the direction, the aim of genetic improvement is... then perhaps, one day, with the benefit of hindsight, we may come close to being as good at natural selection is as nature is. So, until then, we can tweak all we like,but it aint gonna go close to the skillfull outcome of wheel of time and evolution. But you are Joking Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is the benefit of producing children at twice the rate? World domination. By whom, exactly? Julia just curious... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:09 PM 2/19/04, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:53:41 -0600 I have visions of 2 women in one household each having twins, about 2 months apart. This is beginning to sound like a Heinlein novel. No. When the biological father starts having a _menage a trois_ with one of the pairs of twins, and the biological mother gets a sex change operation and starts having sex with the other pair, or goes back in time to 2004 San Francisco and marries her father, ***then*** it will sound like a Heinlein novel . . . You forgot the part about many, if not all, of the players having red hair. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Julia said: World domination. By whom, exactly? A race of atomic superwomen? Rich, who was somewhat surprised to learn that an Italian town is going to start paying EUR10,000 for each baby born there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3252794.stm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:09:18PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Erik Reuter wrote: You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. I have visions of 2 women in one household each having twins, about 2 months apart. This is beginning to sound like a Heinlein novel. Of course, everything will be fine until the reality sets in. Twin infants (as I'm sure Julia can attest) are quite a handful. I can only imagine the chaos _four_ infants could create. They lost me at the twins thing. How do they guarantee even one woman has twins, let alone both? They don't. But if you had enough lesbian couples procreating very close together like that, *eventually* you'd probably end up with such as scenario. And unless some of the lesbians are having twins, you're not going to have babies at twice the rate of heterosexual couples. :) Personally, I think that if a lesbian couple were trying to maximize the procreation, a good schedule would be one has a baby, the other has a baby a year later, the first has her second a year after that, etc. But that's not a totally unheard-of rate among heterosexual couples, either. The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the dad is an obstetrician. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the dad is an obstetrician. LDS or Catholic? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:21:17AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is the benefit of producing children at twice the rate? World domination. By whom, exactly? Wouldn't you like to know, bwhahahaha! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Personally, I think that if a lesbian couple were trying to maximize the procreation, a good schedule would be one has a baby, the other has a baby a year later, the first has her second a year after that, etc. But that's not a totally unheard-of rate among heterosexual couples, either. Or they could go continuously but 180 degrees (4.5 months) out of phase... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 07:21:53AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: Which is why birth rates are measured per woman, not per couple. Which is both irrelevant and, being an absolute statement requiring only one exception, not true. But such nonsense to avoid the issue is not unexpected, JDG. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Federal Marriage Amendment
Which is why I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment. As anyone who has been to the zoo knows, front penetration is unnatural. We should not provide government incentives to, for example, Catholics who engage in the unnatural act of front penetration. Any savages who copulate only by front penetration are, by definition, infertile. Therefore, it is only natural that we amend the Consitution to prohibit children conceived through front penetration from attending public schools. This will force the sick parents to pay for a private education, thus removing one of the government incentives to the sick and unnatural act of front penetration. Does anyone find this ironic that the Missionary position AKA Front Penetration, was thus named so from Catholic Missionaries who found the rear-entry position used by savages to be unnatural. It was promoted by the missionaries as the correct way to copulate for conception. There is also some research that suggests this is a more successful position for conception. Nerd From Hell Of course, you may argue that this amendment is wrong-headed. Obviously, there are many other government incentives to front-penetration, such as the government allowing churches who promulgate this sick, unnatural act to get off without paying their fair share of taxes. I agree that the National Doggie-Style amendment does not go nearly far enough to de-incentivize the sick, unnatural act of front penetration which threatens the stability of our great nation. That is why I am currently working on a amendment to ban marriage for Catholics. Of course, that is just a start... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the dad is an obstetrician. LDS or Catholic? To the best of my knowledge, neither. They just like having babies and raising them. There's some personal stuff that was briefly explained to me, but I didn't quite get it well enough to have a prayer of relating it properly. But hey, if that's what they want to do, great for them. And after the first few, it's not so bad -- the older ones are old enough to help around the house more and play with younger siblings. (And in this particular family, on a regular basis, the older children cook a very nice meal for their parents and then keep the younger ones out of their hair so they can enjoy a nice romantic dinner for 2 at home. Which I think is really nice of the kids, to do that for them.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:21:17AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is the benefit of producing children at twice the rate? World domination. By whom, exactly? Wouldn't you like to know, bwhahahaha! Well, now, would I have asked if I didn't? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Personally, I think that if a lesbian couple were trying to maximize the procreation, a good schedule would be one has a baby, the other has a baby a year later, the first has her second a year after that, etc. But that's not a totally unheard-of rate among heterosexual couples, either. Or they could go continuously but 180 degrees (4.5 months) out of phase... You need at *least* 3 months to recuperate. A year is a lot better. And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few months. Actually, I read an article somewhere recently (and I really, really wish I could remember where) that indicated that the ideal time to get pregnant was something like 19-23 months after giving birth. Having a baby every 2 years just gives you 15 months. (But if it was a certain magazine, I might be able to dig it up in the next couple of days if anyone cares enough for me to do so.) Spacing births every 2.5 years might be best for both mother and all children after the first. But that doesn't maximize the number of children as well as every 2 years. Julia who would really rather not get pregnant again anytime soon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few months. Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women who were having troubling getting pregnant, who then seem prone to have quintuplets? Then both women could have quintuplets every nine months! Now THAT'S an efficient production line! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:34:29AM -0800, Chad Cooper wrote: Does anyone find this ironic that the Missionary position AKA Front Penetration, was thus named so from Catholic Missionaries who found the rear-entry position used by savages to be unnatural. Which irony was what got me thinking of that particular satire! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Erik Reuter wrote: Or they could go continuously but 180 degrees (4.5 months) out of phase... You need at *least* 3 months to recuperate. A year is a lot better. Well, it's probably more really want 3 months to recuperate, than need. My wife is just over 10 months older than one of her brothers. (And I know several other people like that). With kids born that close together, they call them Irish twins. Overall, my wife's parents had 4 babies in just about 4 years. (And then 11 years later had two more a year apart.) And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few months. Or not! I think breastfeeding can hold off ovulation, but my wife would always tell her patients not to rely on that and that they needed to use birth control to be sure. Actually, I read an article somewhere recently (and I really, really wish I could remember where) that indicated that the ideal time to get pregnant was something like 19-23 months after giving birth. Having a baby every 2 years just gives you 15 months. (But if it was a certain magazine, I might be able to dig it up in the next couple of days if anyone cares enough for me to do so.) There's a lot of factors to consider in how far apart you space your children. We spaced ours close together for a few reasons; our kids were born 18 months apart and 15 months apart. Spacing births every 2.5 years might be best for both mother and all children after the first. But that doesn't maximize the number of children as well as every 2 years. It certainly would be easier on the sanity of everyone involved! -Bryon _ Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 10:59 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Spacing births every 2.5 years might be best for both mother and all children after the first. Spacing the children 2.5 miles apart after they are born is also better for both mother and children . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Julia Thompson wrote: The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the dad is an obstetrician. My Uncle married the firstborn of a family with 20 kids. 7 with the first wife [died of childbirth because the RC Church forbade her to use contraceptives], 13 with the second. My Aunt proceeded to have 4 kids herself. Some interesting paradoxes: my older cousin was _older_ that some his uncles. In fact, he was even older than one of his grand-uncles. Big Families Maru Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Bryon Daly wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few months. Or not! I think breastfeeding can hold off ovulation, but my wife would always tell her patients not to rely on that and that they needed to use birth control to be sure. Breastfeeding to delay ovulation works only if you do it frequently enough and the baby is under 6 months old. Something like, at least every 3 hours during the day, and at least every 5 hours at night. None of my kids needed feeding so frequently that I didn't ovulate by the time they were 4 months old. (Wonderfully enough, they're going a good 6-9 hours between the last feeding before bed and the wake-up-during-the-night-hungry feeding. So I'm getting more sleep.) Oh, and menstruation can throw something off in the breastmilk. The first time two of my kids dealt with that, there was protest over it. (The third one is a lot more accepting.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On 20 Feb 2004, at 3:45 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the dad is an obstetrician. LDS or Catholic? Oddly enough Italy, where about 38% of the population are active Catholics, has a birthrate of 1.2 children per woman - one of the lowest in the world. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 12:37 PM 2/20/2004, you wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few months. Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women who were having troubling getting pregnant, who then seem prone to have quintuplets? Then both women could have quintuplets every nine months! Now THAT'S an efficient production line! Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ If anyone sees Mystic River, there's a line in the movie that says the same thing, almost. Brother and I were laughing for minutes afterwards. Kevin T. - VRWC Best Movie of the year that has no little people. Other than Kevin Bacon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few months. Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women who were having troubling getting pregnant, who then seem prone to have quintuplets? Then both women could have quintuplets every nine months! Now THAT'S an efficient production line! Quintuplets would be born sooner than 9 months. For a single baby, they don't like to let you carry it past 42 weeks. For twins, they don't like you to carry it past 38 weeks. (Otherwise mine might have been October babies, and they certainly wouldn't share a birthday with their uncle.) For triplets, it's even shorter. (The book with that figure is up in the library, and I'm feeling lazy right now.) But a twin pregancy takes longer to recover from than a singleton pregnancy, and I'm sure a triplet pregnancy takes even longer. The body really wants a break. Plus there's the whole breastfeeding thing. It's better for the baby to breastfeed, and pregnancy interferes with lactation. A full year of breastfeeding for all of these babies might be a good idea. (Breastfeeding quintuplets would be rather daunting, but in theory, still possible.) Then we're back to the 1 baby per woman every 2.5 years or so. (Or at least no more frequent than every 1.75 years to give a full year of breastfeeding to each baby.) I can't imagine anyone who's just had a baby would *consent* to be on those drugs again. :) (If they were taking those drugs in the first place. Me, I'd flee from those drugs.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
JDG wrote: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. Alternatively, a lesbian couple could pair with a compatible gay male couple, and sperm from both men could be inserted inside both women. One child could live with the men and one with the women (assuming they don't all want to live together in one house). The children could grow up knowing all of their parents. Sounds healthy and happy to me. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: JDG wrote: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. I have visions of 2 women in one household each having twins, about 2 months apart. While it would probably be great once they were all about 3 years old or so, the first 6 months would probably be more interesting than anyone would really like. :) Alternatively, a lesbian couple could pair with a compatible gay male couple, and sperm from both men could be inserted inside both women. One child could live with the men and one with the women (assuming they don't all want to live together in one house). The children could grow up knowing all of their parents. Sounds healthy and happy to me. Have you checked out the policies at www.gayspermbank.com? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Erik Reuter wrote: I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment. So do I, but for entirely different reasons. :-) Jim Was that dirty? Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:53:41 -0600 Erik Reuter wrote: JDG wrote: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE of a heterosexual couple. I have visions of 2 women in one household each having twins, about 2 months apart. This is beginning to sound like a Heinlein novel. Of course, everything will be fine until the reality sets in. Twin infants (as I'm sure Julia can attest) are quite a handful. I can only imagine the chaos _four_ infants could create. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:28:03AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Nothing happened to them. I'm not sure what that has to do with the current discussion, though. How disappointing :-( -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 05:14 AM 2/18/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:28:03AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Nothing happened to them. I'm not sure what that has to do with the current discussion, though. How disappointing :-( How so? Obligatory Second Line Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 09:33:19PM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: John did not mention artificial insemination at all, seemingly ignoring that possibility in his original post. I'll quote the relevant bit here: In my reply, I pointed this oversight out, which he acknowledged and then shifted his position to argue that the government shouldn't encourage homosexuals to have children: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. Which is why I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment. As anyone who has been to the zoo knows, front penetration is unnatural. We should not provide government incentives to, for example, Catholics who engage in the unnatural act of front penetration. Any savages who copulate only by front penetration are, by definition, infertile. Therefore, it is only natural that we amend the Consitution to prohibit children conceived through front penetration from attending public schools. This will force the sick parents to pay for a private education, thus removing one of the government incentives to the sick and unnatural act of front penetration. Of course, you may argue that this amendment is wrong-headed. Obviously, there are many other government incentives to front-penetration, such as the government allowing churches who promulgate this sick, unnatural act to get off without paying their fair share of taxes. I agree that the National Doggie-Style amendment does not go nearly far enough to de-incentivize the sick, unnatural act of front penetration which threatens the stability of our great nation. That is why I am currently working on a amendment to ban marriage for Catholics. Of course, that is just a start... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 06:38 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:33:54PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:24 PM 2/17/04, Chad Cooper wrote: When I replace Gay and Homosexual with Interracial, replace sex with race, and heterosexual as same-race.. Chad's Modified text example below ...snip for brevity... 3) interracial unions are ill-suited for the siring and raising of the next generation.By definition, interracial unions are infertile. Kinda falls apart here, doesn't it? Not if you consider inter-racial progeny to be sub-human, then they are infertile in that they don't produce full humans. Has anybody here said that, other than you just now? Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:49:47PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Has anybody here said that, other than you just now? ... Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) Is it really so difficult to follow the reasoning? You so missed the point... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 08:02 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:49:47PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Has anybody here said that, other than you just now? ... Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) Is it really so difficult to follow the reasoning? You so missed the point... As, apparently, did you . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:13:12PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: As, apparently, did you . . . What ever happened to your God-given predictions? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) John did not mention artificial insemination at all, seemingly ignoring that possibility in his original post. I'll quote the relevant bit here: 3) Homosexual unions are ill-suited for the siring and raising of the next generation.By definition, homosexual unions are infertile.For pro-life reasons, I am opposed to in vitro fertilization (say what you will, but I am at least consistent in the consequences of my belief that human life begins at conception.) As such, it is unreasonable to believe that homosexual unions will be producing children - and thus, don't meet the first standard for why governments should provide incentives to promote them. So, he objects to IVF on pro-life grounds, but ignores artificial insemination (these are two different things). I am pretty sure artificial insem. has no pro-life objections (though I'm a little less sure that it has no *other* Catholic objections, (despite being a Catholic myself)). This is probably what Erik was referring to. (As an aside, I believe the pro-life objection to IVF is that more human embryos are created than are actually implanted in a given IVF cycle, essentially leaving a stockpile of frozen human embryos that eventually will be tossed out.) In my reply, I pointed this oversight out, which he acknowledged and then shifted his position to argue that the government shouldn't encourage homosexuals to have children: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do.Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. -Bryon _ Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 08:17 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:13:12PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: As, apparently, did you . . . What ever happened to your God-given predictions? Nothing happened to them. I'm not sure what that has to do with the current discussion, though. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
