--- 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
--- 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
--- 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)
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
- 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
- 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
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,
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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.
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
- 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$$load of
JDG wrote:
My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women
and men
are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be
effects of
both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural
roles.
Well, duuuh! Differences in biology do not, hoever,
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:59AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father,
I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for
adoption with a very good mother and father.
I disagree.
From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you would deny adoption to single people as well? What of children that
would otherwise go unadopted? Would you rather see them in an orphanage
than with a loving single parent of gay couple?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Bryon Daly
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:59AM -0400, John D.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:14:22AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
I know you're trying to troll him, but 1) he never stated anything
about Catholicism is his remark, did that need to be dragged in?,
and 2) it's intolerant and offensive to me and perhaps to any other
Catholics who might be on this
At 06:13 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a
father,
I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for
adoption with a very good mother and father.
I disagree. Catholics have a distorted view of the world
At 12:06 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
JDG poured an a$$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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
