Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
--- Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: snip You've taken the classic boob's line, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! and slapped a new coat of pain on it, but it's still bereft of real substance, and just as ridiculous. While a man and a woman are required for the initial act, it does not necessarily follow that both sexes are required for every step after that. And nowadays only the 'products' of a man and a woman are required to create a zygote, although a woman is still needed to carry the pregnancy to term. I have yet to see compelling evidence that gay adoptive parents, screened to the same degree as a heterosexual couple, are less fit as parents. Agreed, although if I were counseling such a couple today I'd advise them to live in a supportive community such as one of the big port cities (New York, San Fran, New Orleans etc.) or other progressive places like Austin, to cut down on the bullying such children would be subjected to in, say, Pineville, Louisiana. Also, I think it is important to have role models of the opposite gender available* for the children (aunts, uncles, family friends etc.). *By this I mean that the children get to interact with them on at least a weekly basis. Cameron and Cameron's reanalysis of published data in 2002 indicates children being raised in a home environment with at least one homosexual parent report some negative consequences. However, a closer look at the information presented suggests (especially in the absence of control groups) that the negative consequences documented do not constitute major psychological trauma. Rather, they are more in the nature of the teasing and bullying that plagues any child who comes from a home that may be atypical in any fashion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12353800dopt=Abstract Note: you can access the abstract that reports problems via the above link; I must point out that it is a small study (N=57), and produced by the Family Research Institute, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO -- a _very_ conservative group with a definite agenda. [Colorado Springs is the home of 'Focus on the Family' and other arch-conservative groups that IMO have a 1950's view of the world.] If you enter homosexual parents in the 'search' box, ~24 studies come up - nearly all of the ones that show a negative effect on the children are from this same group. Note also that adopted children do tend to have more psychological problems at baseline, so a proper study control for adopted children of gay parents would be adopted children of heterosexual parents, not biological children of straight parents. I think that if someone can demonstrate that they're able to care for a child emotionally, physically and financially, they should be allowed to adopt. Agreed. If two adults capable of giving informed consent want to make a commitment to care for each other over the long term, they should be allowed toA Marriage Amendment to the Constitution would, in the long run, be a bigger mistake than prohibition (although for different reasons, and with different results). A Marriage Amendment acts to protect a few delicate sensibilities in the face of a change that is moving ever closer, and will be as effective in the long run as Jim Crow and Separate but equal. Similar arguments were made about interracial marriages, IIRC, and while I think that 2 decades ago it was difficult for biracial children WRT bullying etc., young people like Tiger Woods show that loving parents are more important an influence than a hostile culture, and indeed they help transform that culture to one that is more open and tolerant. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage ...my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent: In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done in a similar fashion in the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a child of tender years (age 9 and under in Texas) is automatically made the custody of the mother. The argument being that a young child needs a mother on a daily basis more than he/she needs a father. This brings questions to mind immediately: * If homosexual men are allowed to adopt children under 10 years of age, will this not constitute prejudice against divorced heterosexual men? Huh, I'll bet a lawyer could argue that; I'd have to say that if the mother is 'fit' and breastfeeding, though, I'd give her custody (although joint custody is preferable IMO unless one of the parents is clearly unfit, or chooses to give up custody). * Will homosexual women be given preference to adopt children over homosexual men? I'm guessing yes, at least right now. * Will divorce law have to be modified to eliminate these prejudices (if they indeed exist)? I do think they exist, and if custody cannot be joint, I'd want the most 'fit' parent to have it. Of course, then you have to define 'fit'... ['unfitness' I think would be more clear, and easier to determine] * How would custody be arranged for divorcing homosexuals who have adopted children? (How would you determine who the custodial parent would be?) I know a lesbian couple who had a child, with one being the biological mother and the other being the biological aunt (sperm donor was her brother) -- custody went to the 'aunt,' I think b/c the mother was medically 'unfit.' But I guess I'd have to use the 'fitness' criteria again for your case; all else being equal, I'd consider things like family support systems (joint custody still preferable from my POV). It seems to me that allowing homosexuals to adopt children will have consequences that extend beyond the original question of qualification, and would actually be a benefit to heterosexual men who desire custody of their children. That seems quite possible. I'll try to bounce this off some lawyer friends. Can 'O Worms Maru rob You Got That Straight! Maru ;) Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage ...my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent: In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done in a similar fashion in the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a child of tender years (age 9 and under in Texas) is automatically made the custody of the mother. The argument being that a young child needs a mother on a daily basis more than he/she needs a father. This brings questions to mind immediately: * If homosexual men are allowed to adopt children under 10 years of age, will this not constitute prejudice against divorced heterosexual men? Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: Woman man marry Woman man have baby Woman man get divorced Woman gets custody Woman marries another man Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 16:31 2003-07-31 -0500, Julia wrote: Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: Woman man marry Woman man have baby Woman man get divorced Woman gets custody Woman marries another man Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? Julia Exactly the kind of situation which stresses the point that there shouldn't be mandatory rules in custody cases. The questions that need to be answered before a case like this could be decided would include: How involved in the child's life were both fathers? Does the child have any stepsiblings? On which side? Family situations can get VERY complicated. Mine was, let's say, eventful. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Julia Thompson wrote: Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: Woman man marry Woman man have baby Woman man get divorced Woman gets custody Woman marries another man Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? This is something that keeps me awake at night... My ex-wife is a fruit-loop who has no concept of responsibility at any level, and can't cope with the children for more than an overnight visit every few months. My second wife, despite having been thrown in the deep end with no preparation and all the challenges that step-parents face, is a wonderful mother who would do (and does) anything and everything for the children. My custody of the children is just a casual agreement between us, there is no court order. If something happenned to me, the default position of the authorities would be to return the children to their natural mother, and her family would want that to happen (my family would not!). I have a clause in my will that basically begs the authorities to leave the children with their step mother, which they may take note of, but that is as much as I can do. Obviously, as the children get older the risk is less and less, but when they were 6 it was a real concern about which I had no control. (they're 10 13 now). Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Russell Chapman wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: Woman man marry Woman man have baby Woman man get divorced Woman gets custody Woman marries another man Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? This is something that keeps me awake at night... My ex-wife is a fruit-loop who has no concept of responsibility at any level, and can't cope with the children for more than an overnight visit every few months. My second wife, despite having been thrown in the deep end with no preparation and all the challenges that step-parents face, is a wonderful mother who would do (and does) anything and everything for the children. My custody of the children is just a casual agreement between us, there is no court order. If something happenned to me, the default position of the authorities would be to return the children to their natural mother, and her family would want that to happen (my family would not!). I have a clause in my will that basically begs the authorities to leave the children with their step mother, which they may take note of, but that is as much as I can do. Obviously, as the children get older the risk is less and less, but when they were 6 it was a real concern about which I had no control. (they're 10 13 now). Is there some age at which children of divorced parents can have a say in where they live? Various states in the US have that, and the age varies from state to state. It's 14 *somewhere*. Don't know anything beyond that. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Julia Thompson wrote: Is there some age at which children of divorced parents can have a say in where they live? Various states in the US have that, and the age varies from state to state. It's 14 *somewhere*. Don't know anything beyond that. The courts in most Australian states will listen to children's preferences, but they don't get to make the choice. Same would apply to my kids if something happenned to me - they're deemed old enough to know what they want, but not old enough to know what's best for them (which is probably a fair attitude). Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
This is something that keeps me awake at night... My ex-wife is a fruit-loop who has no concept of responsibility at any level, and can't cope with the children for more than an overnight visit every few months. My second wife, despite having been thrown in the deep end with no preparation and all the challenges that step-parents face, is a wonderful mother who would do (and does) anything and everything for the children. My custody of the children is just a casual agreement between us, there is no court order. If something happenned to me, the default position of the authorities would be to return the children to their natural mother, and her family would want that to happen (my family would not!). I have a clause in my will that basically begs the authorities to leave the children with their step mother, which they may take note of, but that is as much as I can do. Obviously, as the children get older the risk is less and less, but when they were 6 it was a real concern about which I had no control. (they're 10 13 now). Cheers Russell C. I am 100% not trying to say anything bad. I am only pointing this out because I know two people who went through this, separate cases. You say, the custody of the children is just a casual agreement; then say you put a statement in your will, that is as much as you can do. Aren't those two conflicting statements? Now please, even in America I do not know what the rights of a step parent are, but I'm assuming if you did have more that a casual agreement, and then something happened to you, your now wife would get much more consideration. Again, not trying to offend. There are a million reasons that things are they way they are, and would continue. But I just want others to always think realistically about the future. Not saying you don't! Realistically is a bad word, but can't think how to edit it. It's time for bed. This isn't the same thing, but last year there was an organized group charity ride. About two miles from the end, one of the riders went down on a bridge. He broke his arm, but at first he was out cold. No one knew who he was, he had no info on him. They were able to use his rider number to call the ride sponsors, find out who he was, but he was already on the way to the hospital before they knew his name, who to contact. Luckily he had no medical problems, not like they would give penicillin for a broken arm and concussion, but it shows how important it is to think about the future. Kevin T. - VRWC As the soapbox is yanked from underneath me ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Kevin Tarr wrote: I am 100% not trying to say anything bad. I am only pointing this out because I know two people who went through this, separate cases. You say, the custody of the children is just a casual agreement; then say you put a statement in your will, that is as much as you can do. Aren't those two conflicting statements? Not really, we separated and shared custody for a short time, but I wanted the kids, she didn't care, and the kids wanted to live with me, so it sort of just happened. I later remarried, and Linda has been wonderful with them, but I have never resolved the custody thing legally. When we got married, we made new wills, as everyone should. I was shocked to hear from my solicitor that I had no way of ensuring that the children end up with Linda, other than to express my wishes in writing in the hope that the courts would consider my request post mortem. The only way I could firm this up would be to actually sue for custody, then try and get them adopted by Linda, but it seems to me that any mother - even one who hasn't wanted much to do with her children - is going to react badly to someone suggesting that they are not going to be her kids anymore, and the fight would be on. I'm much happier to keep things rolling along the way they are, where she sees them whenever she wants which is not very often (she lives in another state with a new partner). It's only casual in the sense that there is no court order specifying who has custody, but it has been permanent for about 6 years now. (Which is why I worry less about Julia's hypothetical now, though Steve's post has made me nervous all over again - :-) thanks! ) Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:31 PM Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage ...my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent: In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done in a similar fashion in the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a child of tender years (age 9 and under in Texas) is automatically made the custody of the mother. The argument being that a young child needs a mother on a daily basis more than he/she needs a father. This brings questions to mind immediately: * If homosexual men are allowed to adopt children under 10 years of age, will this not constitute prejudice against divorced heterosexual men? Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: Woman man marry Woman man have baby Woman man get divorced Woman gets custody Woman marries another man Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? In a case of joint custody, bio-dad gets the kids. If the mother had sole custody, step-dad gets custody. And that is pretty much automatic. xponent Law Is Here Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:42 PM Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution Russell Chapman wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: Woman man marry Woman man have baby Woman man get divorced Woman gets custody Woman marries another man Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? This is something that keeps me awake at night... My ex-wife is a fruit-loop who has no concept of responsibility at any level, and can't cope with the children for more than an overnight visit every few months. My second wife, despite having been thrown in the deep end with no preparation and all the challenges that step-parents face, is a wonderful mother who would do (and does) anything and everything for the children. My custody of the children is just a casual agreement between us, there is no court order. If something happenned to me, the default position of the authorities would be to return the children to their natural mother, and her family would want that to happen (my family would not!). I have a clause in my will that basically begs the authorities to leave the children with their step mother, which they may take note of, but that is as much as I can do. Obviously, as the children get older the risk is less and less, but when they were 6 it was a real concern about which I had no control. (they're 10 13 now). Is there some age at which children of divorced parents can have a say in where they live? Various states in the US have that, and the age varies from state to state. It's 14 *somewhere*. Don't know anything beyond that. Its 9 in Texas. It was 11 'til the year before my divorce. Next year my son will have the right to decide. As things stand now, my Ex has gotten herself together quite well, mental health wise, (an unexpected result of our divorce is that she seemed to get much stronger, something that I am very happy about for the sake of my son) and I *want* him to stay with his mother. At least for a few more years. I think that is best for both of them at this point. On the other hand, her health is sometimes a bit shaky (fibromalgia, epstien-barre, and occasional tumors, cysts, and whatnots on her ovaries) I have fears of her succumbing to cancer in a few years. Her mother has a brain tumor at the moment and her father is in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Ever since our divorce her family has been through hell. (mother broke her hip and back in a fall off the porch, dad lost thousands of dollars somewhere due to his diminished memory, brother was in an awful auto accident and is now quadriplegic) I don't hold a lot of hope for them lasting 20 years. xponent My Sons Well Being Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Jon Gabriel wrote: You deserve a medal for reading Ann Coulter on a regular basis. :) LOL! I didn't buy her books though. Don't blame you - I was gifted one of her books years ago. *shudder* I had to make it disappearit was polluting the other books on my shelf. She is just vile, isn't she. :( I find her opinions vile and yes, she does seem somewhat strange. I'm waiting for her to come out with a book honoring Hitler and Goebbels for their tireless work at population control. *sigh* I wish anticoulter.com was still being updated. I miss that site. *L* Unfortunately, I don't have to access any particular sites to read praises of Hitler et al. The RSS idiots keep on extolling them every so often Ritu, who spaces out Varsha Bhonsle's columns over weeks and months Thank you! Until today I'd never heard of her. Just spent half an hour reading her columns on rediff.com. I don't agree with her opinions and conclusions about Muslims (in general, not just in India) but her perspective is... interesting. I *can* see why you wouldn't want to read them all at once though. *chuckle* She used to make me almost physically ill. Her prejudices are loathsome [and she does have it in for the Muslims], her language and similies can be vile, her attitude is needlessly confrontational...but every once in a while she makes a good point. And besides, you need to know how the other side thinks. She has a distrust of anyone who doesn't automatically condemn Muslims. If you write in to comment on her articles [that sounds nicer than criticise, doesn't it?], she actually makes you go through a her own personal bs detector test before responding to what you have written Methinks she and Ann Coulter would have a lot to talk about... Ritu GCU Common Interests ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Jon Gabriel wrote: I agree that shaking people up and exposing them to an alternative worldview is a good thing. I read AlterNet and Ann Coulter on a regular basis for that precise reason. :) You deserve a medal for reading Ann Coulter on a regular basis. :) Ritu, who spaces out Varsha Bhonsle's columns over weeks and months ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:32:30 +0530 Jon Gabriel wrote: I agree that shaking people up and exposing them to an alternative worldview is a good thing. I read AlterNet and Ann Coulter on a regular basis for that precise reason. :) You deserve a medal for reading Ann Coulter on a regular basis. :) LOL! I didn't buy her books though. She is just vile, isn't she. :( I'm waiting for her to come out with a book honoring Hitler and Goebbels for their tireless work at population control. *sigh* I wish anticoulter.com was still being updated. I miss that site. Ritu, who spaces out Varsha Bhonsle's columns over weeks and months Thank you! Until today I'd never heard of her. Just spent half an hour reading her columns on rediff.com. I don't agree with her opinions and conclusions about Muslims (in general, not just in India) but her perspective is... interesting. I *can* see why you wouldn't want to read them all at once though. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 06:31:52PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads the way Erik's comments did. I think the reason it seems so obvious to you is that you think about what my viewpoints are likely to be on various issues, and compare that to what I write. Julia, Jon, and a number of other people do this as well, I'm sure. (I don't mean they just think about my viewpoints, I mean they think about the viewpoints of whoever is posting) But there are some people who don't do this, either because it doesn't occur to them, or they haven't read enough posts to be able to make such a decision. Or because they don't have a well-developed sense of humor and/or just take EVERYTHING very seriously. I've gotten caught by other people's satire before. (In my defense, it wasn't a statement that was clearly in contradiction to the person's viewpoints). I don't think it is a bad thing to get tripped up occasionally. It reminds me to spend more time thinking about what people write, what they mean, and what they are thinking. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Doug Pensinger wrote: I know, I know, but we've got a lot of smart people here and I'm guessing that most of them are aware of Erik's libertarian views, not to mention his tendency to use sarcasm (especially when dealing with intolerance), so the statement: Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. Has to stand out as either so far out of character as to be absurd or extremely sarcastic. And I'm a horrible person and egg him on when he goes into that sort of mode. :) But any back-and-forth we get going in *that* situation isn't hurting either of *us*, and if someone doesn't get it, I'll try to let them know what's going on (at least at my end) one way or another. And if you read enough threads in which Erik and I participate, you may figure out all that yourself. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:49:28 -0400 On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 06:31:52PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads the way Erik's comments did. I think the reason it seems so obvious to you is that you think about what my viewpoints are likely to be on various issues, and compare that to what I write. Julia, Jon, and a number of other people do this as well, I'm sure. (I don't mean they just think about my viewpoints, I mean they think about the viewpoints of whoever is posting) I do. In fact, that's what gets me in trouble most often. I sometimes jump to conclusions about what a person is saying based not only on what they've said in the past but also what I *think* they're saying. Since this has been a problem for me I now usually try to ask people to clarify their points (or allow them to do so with others) before I jump down their throats. :-) It doesn't always work. But there are some people who don't do this, either because it doesn't occur to them, or they haven't read enough posts to be able to make such a decision. Or because they don't have a well-developed sense of humor and/or just take EVERYTHING very seriously. I think people naturally take some of the topics you choose to lampoon very seriously. People rarely think bashing their belief system is funny. If something offends, why continue to do it? You also have a tendency to bait the very people who don't get what you're doing. It can be amusing to watch... and damned annoying to be the target. ;) (Bait may not be the right word, but it's all I can come up with.) There's a part of me that does enjoy watching someone's flawed argument (or in one case, behavior) turned back against them. I'm sure it comes from the same part that roots for the hungry reptile everytime I see that Crocodile Hunter guy on tv. :) I've gotten caught by other people's satire before. (In my defense, it wasn't a statement that was clearly in contradiction to the person's viewpoints). I don't think it is a bad thing to get tripped up occasionally. It reminds me to spend more time thinking about what people write, what they mean, and what they are thinking. I agree that shaking people up and exposing them to an alternative worldview is a good thing. I read AlterNet and Ann Coulter on a regular basis for that precise reason. :) Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Erik wrote: Are you really suggesting that people should limit their satire to trivial issues? ... Saturday Night Live completely neutered? You mean they aren't now? Reggie Bautista Smiley Maru _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Erik Reuter wrote: Saturday Night Live completely neutered? SNL neutered itself a long time ago. :-) Jim ___ Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails! Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 06:19 PM 7/24/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As will hardly surprise anyone, I could not possibly disagree more. By this logic, the Supreme Court should not have decided as it did in Brown vs Board of Education. If it were left up to states, there would still be legal discrimination in the deep South, almost 50 years after Brown. Rights are rights; they should not be at the mercy of transitory or even entrenched prejudiced majorities. It has been the province of the Supreme Court for 200 years to rule on the constitutionality of laws. A conservative, of all people, should respect that kind of established tradition. Uhhh except that laws banning gay marriage have existed for 200 years without *anyone* thinking that they violated the Constitution.Thus, it would be capricious and authoritarian for the Supreme Court to suddenly strike them down. Brown v. Board was a completely different example, involving an amendment that had been passed relatively recenty in history, and in the Supreme Court overturning its previous interpretion. In the case of gay marriage, the USSC has never even ruled on the subject whatsoever. Constitutional governance is not a permanent part of human civilization. For Constitutional governance to work, it must not be perceived that agreeing to a Constitution leaves the door open for bait and switch changes to the system of governance. For the USSC to legislate the introduction of gay marriage without the input of Congress would be akin to the USSC ruling that slavery was unconstitutional in 1850. It would have been the right thing to do humanitarianly, but the damage done to republics and consitutional governance for the rest of history would have been devastating. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 01:44 PM 7/25/2003 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: FYI, I'd love to see married and female priests, and yes, even a female pope. Note I didn't mention homosexual priests, because it's unnecessary as I already have seen them - there's quite a lot. I heard a seminarian state that gays far outnumber straights in the seminaries. John, if you're reading this, what's your take on this last bit above, given the church's stance on homosexuality? Take on what? I think that what you are driving at is this - I am solidly opposed to women priests, pretty opposed to married priests, and supportive of the current don't-ask-don't-tell policy on homosexual priests. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:05:07PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil, and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with prejudice against Catholics and homosexuals. Actually, you were the one who just equated prejudice against bigots with prejudice against homosexuals. If anything, my satire was implying the opposite. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:17:56PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: I am solidly opposed to women priests, That is unnatural! There should be a Constitutional amendment banning such aberrant views! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:51:27PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: 2) You condone a law that would prevent 62 million American citizens from being able to get married and have children? How ironic. Apparently you only support freedom of speech, not freedom of thought or freedom of religion. You underestimate me, sir. I don't just want to prevent Catholics from having children. I have a list of people who should not be allowed to marry or reproduce: fundamentalists, Mormons, Jews, Muslems, Hindis, young people, old people, people who drink alcohol, people who smoke, people who own SUVs, government workers, philosophers, lawyers, and last, but not least, conservatives. Wow! That's quite a list! Now, who *should* be allowed to reproduce, in your opinion? And what happens if someone reproduces and *then* gets an SUV in order to be able to haul children stuff around safely, and drives carefully so as not to get into an accident with the precious cargo of small people carrying their genes? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me! Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots. Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil, and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with prejudice against Catholics and homosexuals. Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post better than you did. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Wow! That's quite a list! Now, who *should* be allowed to reproduce, in your opinion? Did I miss someone? And what happens if someone reproduces and *then* gets an SUV They have a choice: SUV or junior? Could be a tough choice for some... -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me! Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots. Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil, and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with prejudice against Catholics and homosexuals. Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post better than you did. In that case, I think that I got Erik's post (both the cheeky and the serious content) better than you did. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 07:34:35PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: In that case, I think that I got Erik's post (both the cheeky and the serious content) better than you did. No, you did not, JDG, based on your earlier comment which was exactly opposite. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Julia Thompson wrote: Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post better than you did. I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads the way Erik's comments did. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post better than you did. I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads the way Erik's comments did. Well, there are people who do deadpan all too well, and I've seen *that* be taken too seriously. Plus there was something major on another list I'm on, sometime during the spring of last year, that wasn't even as sharp as sarcasm, that started one heckuva flamewar, and when a crucial detail was explained at a meeting of some of the listmembers, there were people in *tears*. So I've seen or known about worse, but not lately, and not here. Julia who learned from the tear-inducing one that you should NOT jump on someone about the domain in their e-mail address ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Julia Thompson wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and I was trying to be cheeky right back at him. I think Erik got my post better than you did. I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads the way Erik's comments did. Well, there are people who do deadpan all too well, and I've seen *that* be taken too seriously. Plus there was something major on another list I'm on, sometime during the spring of last year, that wasn't even as sharp as sarcasm, that started one heckuva flamewar, and when a crucial detail was explained at a meeting of some of the listmembers, there were people in *tears*. So I've seen or known about worse, but not lately, and not here. I know, I know, but we've got a lot of smart people here and I'm guessing that most of them are aware of Erik's libertarian views, not to mention his tendency to use sarcasm (especially when dealing with intolerance), so the statement: Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. Has to stand out as either so far out of character as to be absurd or extremely sarcastic. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:51:27PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: 2) You condone a law that would prevent 62 million American citizens from being able to get married and have children? How ironic. Apparently you only support freedom of speech, not freedom of thought or freedom of religion. You underestimate me, sir. I don't just want to prevent Catholics from having children. I have a list of people who should not be allowed to marry or reproduce: fundamentalists, Mormons, Jews, Muslems, Hindis, young people, old people, people who drink alcohol, people who smoke, people who own SUVs, government workers, philosophers, lawyers, and last, but not least, conservatives. 3) In equating being Catholic with not being decent, you have insulted me, JDG (I can't believe I'm actually defending him...), and all the other Catholics on the list. I would appreciate an apology for this uncivilized behavior and breech of list etiquette. In demanding that I write something against my opinion just because you say so, you have shown extreme intolerance and bigotry for my point of view. Maybe you should apologize! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me! Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots. Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil, and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with prejudice against Catholics and homosexuals. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:39 AM Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution At 12:06 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: JDG poured an a$$load of gasoline on the fire by writing: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. With all due respect, I think you're way out of touch with reality. You've taken the classic boob's line, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! and slapped a new coat of pain on it, but it's still bereft of real substance, and just as ridiculous. While a man and a woman are required for the initial act, it does not necessarily follow that both sexes are required for every step after that. I have yet to see compelling evidence that gay adoptive parents, screened to the same degree as a heterosexual couple, are less fit as parents. My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women and men are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be effects of both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural roles. While we clearly know that a man and a woman are not *required* for raising children, each unborn child has a reasonable expectation of having both a mother and father, since each was necessary for the creation of that child. Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no way of determining any contrary desire of the child. I don't know that I could buy this argument. But I have read several of the responses to this post, and my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent: In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done in a similar fashion in the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a child of tender years (age 9 and under in Texas) is automatically made the custody of the mother. The argument being that a young child needs a mother on a daily basis more than he/she needs a father. This brings questions to mind immediately: * If homosexual men are allowed to adopt children under 10 years of age, will this not constitute prejudice against divorced heterosexual men? * Will homosexual women be given preference to adopt children over homosexual men? * Will divorce law have to be modified to eliminate these prejudices (if they indeed exist)? * How would custody be arranged for divorcing homosexuals who have adopted children? (How would you determine who the custodial parent would be?) It seems to me that allowing homosexuals to adopt children will have consequences that extend beyond the original question of qualification, and would actually be a benefit to heterosexual men who desire custody of their children. I'm interested in what people think about this. I have no opinion as of yet, since I cannot think of a single consistent rule that would constitute fair play for every combination of parents. Opinions? xponent Can 'O Worms Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
JDG wrote: My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women and men are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be effects of both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural roles. Well, duuuh! Differences in biology do not, hoever, equate to differences in ability to fill cultural niches. While we clearly know that a man and a woman are not *required* for raising children, each unborn child has a reasonable expectation of having both a mother and father, since each was necessary for the creation of that child. An unborn child has no expectations save that it be fed and cared for - differentiating between males and femals happens much later, developmentally. Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no way of determining any contrary desire of the child. So, society should see to it that children are fed and cared for? I'm down with that, man. Gotta warn you, though - you're sounding dangerously like a socialist... Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the blog. Love the blog. http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:59AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. I know you're trying to troll him, but 1) he never stated anything about Catholicism is his remark, did that need to be dragged in?, and 2) it's intolerant and offensive to me and perhaps to any other Catholics who might be on this list. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] So you would deny adoption to single people as well? What of children that would otherwise go unadopted? Would you rather see them in an orphanage than with a loving single parent of gay couple? ^^ Doh! - that should be or, not of. _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryon Daly Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:59AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. I know you're trying to troll him, but 1) he never stated anything about Catholicism is his remark, did that need to be dragged in?, and 2) it's intolerant and offensive to me and perhaps to any other Catholics who might be on this list. It IS offensive, I agree. But the point he's making is, imo a valid one, even if it could have been made with more tact. Bryon, reread the paragraph but substitute the word homosexual for Catholic. Do you still think it's offensive? Why or why not? Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:14:22AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote: I know you're trying to troll him, but 1) he never stated anything about Catholicism is his remark, did that need to be dragged in?, and 2) it's intolerant and offensive to me and perhaps to any other Catholics who might be on this list. Bryon, all children are produced by a man and a woman. But there has never been a female Pope. How can a male-only Pope provide good guidance and nurture to his flock when it is so unnatural? I find this offensive, and I am offended that you cannot tolerate my viewpoint. Obviously, there should be a law that requires both a female AND a male Pope. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 06:13 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. I know you're trying to troll him, but 1) he never stated anything about Catholicism is his remark, did that need to be dragged in?, and 2) it's intolerant and offensive to me and perhaps to any other Catholics who might be on this list. It IS offensive, I agree. But the point he's making is, imo a valid one, even if it could have been made with more tact. Bryon, reread the paragraph but substitute the word homosexual for Catholic. Do you still think it's offensive? Why or why not? I agree that such a paragraph would be offensive. Society can hardly be in the business of denying adoption to pro-homosexual heterosexual parents. And yes, while Erik's post was offensive, since Erik's posts carry an a risk I would generally rather not take of reading certain four-letter words I would generally rather not read, I don't usually read them.So, fortunately reading this insult second-hand made it sting a little less some how. Anyhow, thank you to those of you who spoke up against this anti-Catholic insult. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 12:06 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: JDG poured an a$$load of gasoline on the fire by writing: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. With all due respect, I think you're way out of touch with reality. You've taken the classic boob's line, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! and slapped a new coat of pain on it, but it's still bereft of real substance, and just as ridiculous. While a man and a woman are required for the initial act, it does not necessarily follow that both sexes are required for every step after that. I have yet to see compelling evidence that gay adoptive parents, screened to the same degree as a heterosexual couple, are less fit as parents. My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women and men are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be effects of both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural roles. While we clearly know that a man and a woman are not *required* for raising children, each unborn child has a reasonable expectation of having both a mother and father, since each was necessary for the creation of that child. Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no way of determining any contrary desire of the child. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 01:46 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 11:09 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and state governments must grant all the privileges of marriage, and you have my support. I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. So you would deny adoption to single people as well? Yes. What of children that would otherwise go unadopted? Would you rather see them in an orphanage than with a loving single parent of gay couple? I think that my caveat of ideal goal answers that. If society is unable to meet the reasonable expectation of the child to have a mother and a father, then non-traditional families may be employed. The pruimary consideration, though, is that there is no right to adopt, rather adoption is wholly about doing what is in the child's interst. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no way of determining any contrary desire of the child. If the needs of the child are everything, would you take a child away from bad parents? How about loving, responsible atheist parents - would you take a child away from them since they are not raising the child to be religious? How about a very poor couple - would you take their child away and give it to a wealthy, childless couple who could presumably do a better job or at least raise the child in something other than abject poverty? All of those could be construed to be logical extensions of any doctrine that the needs of the child are paramount. Which this country says all the time and practices none of the time. But in any case, this is a classic straw man argument and is entirely irrelevant to the qustion of whether or not gays should be permitted to legally marry! Not all heterosexual couples marry to have children (my older sister knew her entire life she never wanted kids - and she and her husband have not had any). Should we ban them from marrying? We don't require heterosexual couples to declare anything about their intentions to procreate before they marry - it's none of our business. And it shouldn't be. This is a question of simple equity - of the equal protection of the laws. If the government is going to be in the business of taking official notice of certain private actions, it either should extend that notice to all similar actions or to none. As always, my response to people who don't want gay marriage is simple - don't have one. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 18:29 2003-07-24 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:19 PM Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution The family is not in any danger. I differ with this statement. I think that the family is facing a number of threats. IMHO, gay marriages would strengthen the concept of family. Dan M. You grabbed my interest. Would you care to elaborate? Please? What are the dangers and how would gay marriage help defend the family? Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryon Daly From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. I know you're trying to troll him, but 1) he never stated anything about Catholicism is his remark, did that need to be dragged in?, and 2) it's intolerant and offensive to me and perhaps to any other Catholics who might be on this list. It IS offensive, I agree. But the point he's making is, imo a valid one, even if it could have been made with more tact. And if I want to make a point that insulted Erik, I wouldn't do it my making an obnoxious broad general statement about all physics experts or atheists, because either of those would also attack other people on this list. That's my point. Bryon, reread the paragraph but substitute the word homosexual for Catholic. Do you still think it's offensive? Why or why not? Yes, of course it would still be as offensive, whether you substituted homsexuals or Hispanics or Whites or Jews or Lutherans or Arabs or Democrats or Canadians. Why? -- Because it's bigotry in all cases, regardless of the point he's making _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
David Hobby wrote: The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness. Sibling, parent and child are all halves. Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, half-sibling, and so on are quarters. And you know you're really a redneck if you need fractions which aren't negative powers of two! Oh, like 17/2^N for some N? I think that number (not sure what N is) describes my kinship relation to a particular someone. Details available upon request. (Anyone wanting details to actually calculate the mess, ask!) Julia whose kinship relation to her sister is actually slightly over 1/2, and details on *that* are available upon request, as well, for anyone either interested or wanting to calculate *that* particular mess ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:42:45PM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote: And if I want to make a point that insulted Erik, I wouldn't do it my making an obnoxious broad general statement about all physics experts or atheists, because either of those would also attack other people on this list. Really? Yes, of course it would still be as offensive, whether you substituted homsexuals or Hispanics or Whites or Jews or Lutherans or Arabs or Democrats or Canadians. Why? -- Because it's bigotry in all cases, regardless of the point he's making You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bryon, all children are produced by a man and a woman. But there has never been a female Pope. How can a male-only Pope provide good guidance and nurture to his flock when it is so unnatural? I find this offensive, and I am offended that you cannot tolerate my viewpoint. Obviously, there should be a law that requires both a female AND a male Pope. Oh my! I *WAS* intolerant of your bigoted remark, wasn't I? I beg a thousand pardons, milord! FYI, I'd love to see married and female priests, and yes, even a female pope. Note I didn't mention homosexual priests, because it's unnecessary as I already have seen them - there's quite a lot. I heard a seminarian state that gays far outnumber straights in the seminaries. John, if you're reading this, what's your take on this last bit above, given the church's stance on homosexuality? _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Erik Reuter wrote: You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me! Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Erik wrote: I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. 1) Don't judge all Catholics based on JDG. Many Catholics are tolerant of homosexuality and homosexual marriage, even though this isn't the official position of the church. 2) You condone a law that would prevent 62 million American citizens from being able to get married and have children? How ironic. Apparently you only support freedom of speech, not freedom of thought or freedom of religion. 3) In equating being Catholic with not being decent, you have insulted me, JDG (I can't believe I'm actually defending him...), and all the other Catholics on the list. I would appreciate an apology for this uncivilized behavior and breech of list etiquette. Reggie Bautista ...Which I'll Get When Hell Freezes Over Maru _ 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Erik wrote: Obviously, there should be a law that requires both a female AND a male Pope. Separate but equal, huh? (Just for the record, I have no problem with a female being Pope or with a female being a priest.) Reggie Bautista _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
While I am sure that many of you will not support the first half of the proposed ammendment, (although I would point out that this first half does not rule out civil unions - such as the ones currently embraced by the gay community in Vermont.) Nevertheless, I would hope that everyone would be in favor of the second half. I think that this issue is so important and controversial that it should be decided by the State Legislatures and Congress, which are elected by the people, and not written by unelected judges. JDG From the August 11, 2003, issue of National Review Necessary Amendment On gay marriage. By The National Review Editors Any day now, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is expected to declare that men can marry men and women can marry women. National politicians are already trying to figure out what response, if any, they should make. The instinct of many people will be to echo what Dick Cheney said in the vice-presidential debate of 2000: that the regulation of marriage should be left to the states. Massachusetts can recognize same-sex marriages, and Vermont civil unions, and the other 48 states can reach their own arrangements. Federalism has not, in the past, been understood as an absolute rule in matters marital: The federal government forced states to end polygamy and to allow interracial marriages. But whether the matter should, in theory, be left to the states is irrelevant. The courts are exceedingly unlikely to let that happen. What happens when a same-sex couple from Wyoming gets married in Massachusetts? There is every reason to expect that liberal legal activists will sue, both in federal and state courts, to get Wyoming to recognize that marriage as valid. To be sure, Congress has tried to close off one path to the litigators. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, says that states are not required, under the full faith and credit clause, to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. But a state court could easily twist some state constitutional provision to force that recognition. Or a federal court could strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. Twice already, the Supreme Court has nullified laws that reflect traditional understandings of sexual morality on the theory that such laws are based on an irrational animus against gay people. On that reasoning, why should the Defense of Marriage Act stand? Or a federal court could leave the Defense of Marriage Act alone, but empty it of meaning. The court could reason that Wyoming has the right under the act to decline to recognize same-sex marriages created in Massachusetts, but that its decision to exercise that right is based on an unconstitutional animus. In a world where freewheeling judicial activism is routine and the legal culture is overwhelmingly on the side of progressive understandings of morality, the possibilities are endless. If we didn't live in that world, perhaps we could put our faith in federalism. But we cannot wish that world away. We would object to judges' taking it upon themselves to impose a national regime of gay marriage. But we would also object to what would be imposed. Traditionally, marriage has been understood to be ordered to procreation. This ordering was not, in general, understood in a narrowly instrumental way. The tradition did not insist that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. Married couples were never required to have, to want, or even to be capable of having children. Elderly couples could marry. Infertility was not held to be a valid ground for annulment. Still, there was a link to procreation. Impotence was a valid ground for annulment, because it meant that the couple could not effect the behavioral conditions for procreation; that it could not unite in the total, including biological, sense required of true union. It was understood that the ideal setting for the rearing of children was the marriage of their parents. That ideal could not always be achieved. Tragedy could leave a child parentless and in need of adoption. Children could be born outside of marriage. These realities did not challenge the culture-wide commitment to the ideal, just as the recognition that adultery exists does not bring the virtue of fidelity into question. The widespread practice of divorce and remarriage did, however, challenge the ideal. So have such seemingly marginal developments as the rise of sperm banks. Gay marriage would cut the final cord that ties marriage to the well-being of children. It is a step we should not take. Our cultural forgetting of the meaning of marriage has already had too many sad consequences for children and adults (not least for their moral development). Whether we wish to prevent the judicial imposition of gay marriage for procedural or substantive reasons, it seems clear that the only way to do so is by constitutional amendment. And while we do not carry a brief for every word and
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 07:26 2003-07-24 -0400, John D Giorgis posted a text containing the following: Gay marriage would cut the final cord that ties marriage to the well-being of children. It is a step we should not take. Our cultural forgetting of the meaning of marriage has already had too many sad consequences for children and adults (not least for their moral development). This is only true if being gay is considered immoral. If gays have the same moral values as the rest of the population, then they are as apt to be parents as the rest of the population. Although gays cannot reproduce, they can adopt, if they live in a region where they are not considered immoral. This means that gays couples can be the foundation for a family and meet most opponents' requirement for marriage. I do agree that the laws permitting or restricting marriage should be passed by elected officials rather than appointed ones. However, the courts have there part to play. With such thorny issues, legislators have the bad habit of looking the other way and ignoring them. Ontario's courts have made a decision that has prompted the federal governement to write and pass a bill on the issue. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Nevertheless, I would hope that everyone would be in favor of the second half. I think that this issue is so important and controversial that it should be decided by the State Legislatures and Congress, which are elected by the people, and not written by unelected judges. As will hardly surprise anyone, I could not possibly disagree more. By this logic, the Supreme Court should not have decided as it did in Brown vs Board of Education. If it were left up to states, there would still be legal discrimination in the deep South, almost 50 years after Brown. Rights are rights; they should not be at the mercy of transitory or even entrenched prejudiced majorities. It has been the province of the Supreme Court for 200 years to rule on the constitutionality of laws. A conservative, of all people, should respect that kind of established tradition. The article cited is also factually wrong, as well as philosophically wrongheaded. Marriage has not historically been about procreation; or, at least, not only about procreation. If that were so, sterile people would not be allowed to marry. Marriage has been about many things: property, honor, dynastic unions, balance of power, etc. The kind of nuclear family beloved of the Christian Right has not existed in this form for most of human history. To fetishize it - and to use this fiction as a means to beat up gay people (figuratively, although they certainly get beat up literally too by those enflamed by the prejudice encompassed in such articles) - is to violate historical truth in the service of an unworthy attempt to capitalize on some people's bias. Prejudices should be fought, not pandered to. Permitting gay people to marry legally does not do the slightest thing to infringe upon the rights of anyone else, despite the Christian Right's hysterical delusion that the family is somehow threatened by the idea. The family is not in any danger. The Constitution, however, might be. An amendment barring gay marriage is unnecessary and unworthy of even being considered. It purports to solve a nonexistent problem. It is shameful. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:19 PM Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution The family is not in any danger. I differ with this statement. I think that the family is facing a number of threats. IMHO, gay marriages would strengthen the concept of family. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
John D. Giorgis wrote: While I am sure that many of you will not support the first half of the proposed ammendment, (although I would point out that this first half does not rule out civil unions - such as the ones currently embraced by the gay community in Vermont.) Nevertheless, I would hope that everyone would be in favor of the second half. I think that this issue is so important and controversial that it should be decided by the State Legislatures and Congress, which are elected by the people, and not written by unelected judges. JDG ... It reads: 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. The first sentence of the amendment would ban gay marriage. The second sentence would bar judges from granting legal privileges to same-sex couples (or groups), but allow state legislatures to make their own decisions in the matter. ... (You should have said that the proposed amendment was at the bottom--that was a lot of fluff to wade through. : ) ) I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and state governments must grant all the privileges of marriage, and you have my support. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 11:09 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and state governments must grant all the privileges of marriage, and you have my support. I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. John D. ___ 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: At 07:26 2003-07-24 -0400, John D Giorgis posted a text containing the following: Gay marriage would cut the final cord that ties marriage to the well-being of children. It is a step we should not take. Our cultural forgetting of the meaning of marriage has already had too many sad consequences for children and adults (not least for their moral development). This is only true if being gay is considered immoral. If gays have the same moral values as the rest of the population, then they are as apt to be parents as the rest of the population. Although gays cannot reproduce, Sure they can. Just not completely with their partners. But if a gay couple felt a biological connection was important, they could do things like have one partner have a child with a sibling of the other partner's. The child has half their DNA in common with the first partner, and one quarter in common with the other. (Not quite as strong a connection as a child of a heterosexual couple, who has half in common with both. But still good.) ---David The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness. Sibling, parent and child are all halves. Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, half-sibling, and so on are quarters. And you know you're really a redneck if you need fractions which aren't negative powers of two! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:59AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent parents. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 02:43 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: I do agree that the laws permitting or restricting marriage should be passed by elected officials rather than appointed ones. However, the courts have there part to play. With such thorny issues, legislators have the bad habit of looking the other way and ignoring them. Ontario's courts have made a decision that has prompted the federal governement to write and pass a bill on the issue. In my mind, this is a foruitious gamble on the Court's part if the federal government had failed to legitimze the Court's decision, however, I think that there would have been some serious unintended negative consequences. Witness our Congress' failure to legitimize the Roe vs. Wade decision. 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: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
JDG poured an a$$load of gasoline on the fire by writing: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. With all due respect, I think you're way out of touch with reality. You've taken the classic boob's line, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! and slapped a new coat of pain on it, but it's still bereft of real substance, and just as ridiculous. While a man and a woman are required for the initial act, it does not necessarily follow that both sexes are required for every step after that. I have yet to see compelling evidence that gay adoptive parents, screened to the same degree as a heterosexual couple, are less fit as parents. I think that if someone can demonstrate that they're able to care for a child emotionally, physically and financially, they should be allowed to adopt. If two adults capable of giving informed consent want to make a commitment to care for each other over the long term, they should be allowed to. Heck, if two or more adults capable of giving informed consent want to make that commitment, they should be allowed to. A Marriage Amendment to the Constitution would, in the long run, be a bigger mistake than prohibition (although for different reasons, and with different results). A Marriage Amendment acts to protect a few delicate sensibilities in the face of a change that is moving ever closer, and will be as effective in the long run as Jim Crow and Separate but equal. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the blog. Love the blog. http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 11:09 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: I'll tell you what. Change the amendment so that any two adults can enter into a civil union, which the federal and state governments must grant all the privileges of marriage, and you have my support. I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. So you would deny adoption to single people as well? What of children that would otherwise go unadopted? Would you rather see them in an orphanage than with a loving single parent of gay couple? _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
