On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
Is there anyone against gay marriage that
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William T Goodall wrote:
On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William T Goodall wrote:
On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:40, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has
Julia Thompson wrote:
Horn, John wrote:
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice...
Dogs and cats living together...
Mass hysteria.
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria
JDG said:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
Even the children? I'm not sure I'd agree with such laws.
Rich
GCU Raising The Pedantry Stakes
___
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Julia Thompson
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:10 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro
So...are we to be greeted by the grand sight of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man?
-- Matt
- Original Message
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:32:32 AM
Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet
On Behalf
At 04:58 PM Friday 11/10/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet
Dogs and cats living together...
In and out
Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human
At 09:38 AM Saturday 11/11/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Mass hysteria.
Julia
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru
Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on the scale?
-- Ronn! :)
___
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:38 AM Saturday 11/11/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Mass hysteria.
Julia
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru
Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on the
scale?
Possibly.
I figured out awhile back that the number on the scale
Ronn! wrote:
Julia wrote:
Mass hysteria.
Can't Forget Mass Hysteria Maru
Isn't that what a lot of people get upon looking at the reading on
the scale?
I thought she meant a particularly moving Catholic service.
Doug
___
In a message dated 11/10/2006 5:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived
together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they
just seem to enjoy barking and hissing at each other.
Sounds like my
At 04:00 PM Saturday 11/11/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/10/2006 5:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived
together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they
just seem to enjoy
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 10/11/2006, at 4:58 PM, pencimen wrote:
JDG wrote:
Despite your cavalier attitude - shrug
Charlie Bell wrote:
Neither will gay marriage. The actual numbers of marriages will be,
obviously, small compared to straight marriages, but the security
and protection that life partners and children of gay people who
choose to marry receive is vital to those people.
Until the
JDG wrote:
What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ?
partner's
relationship is recognised too.
You were just advocating marriages between three or more people
What's wrong with that? Historically, marriage _was_ between
three or more people. OTOH, the problems
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice...
Dogs and
At 10:32 AM Friday 11/10/2006, Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising
On 11/11/2006, at 3:32 AM, Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of pencimen
What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of
allowing gay marriage?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness.
Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from
- Original Message -
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Gay marriage in the closet
Dogs and cats living together...
In and out of civil unions..
xponent
Also Had To Be Said Maru
rob
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided
people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted,
fostered or biological), what
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever the
pair is infertile, and
: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
to the St*te to outlaw heterosexual marriages whenever
Damon wrote:
Alberto, have you been reading Haldeman's _Forever War_?
No, but after I sent the message I remembered a _South Park_
episode where South Park was invaded by immigrants from the
Future, and they decide that, to prevent superpopulation,
they would all become gay.
Alberto
At 06:47 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided
people make provision for the children of
At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
to the St*te to outlaw
On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided
people make provision for the children of such
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
Provided
people make provision for the
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 07:04 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrote:
As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages
(unions of one man and one women) because such relationships
were fertile, (...)
Considering that the Earth is overpopulated, maybe it's time
jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
Provided
people make provision
On 10/11/2006, at 2:35 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
On 10/11/2006, at 3:23 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter,
JDG wrote:
Despite your cavalier attitude - shrug - you are, nevertheless,
talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure.
I don't know what provisions those are that you are talking
about, but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a
grandscale
On 10/11/2006, at 4:58 PM, pencimen wrote:
JDG wrote:
Despite your cavalier attitude - shrug - you are, nevertheless,
talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure.
I don't know what provisions those are that you are talking
about, but you are basically suggesting a
On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I
don't know what provisions those are that you are talking about,
To answer this bit - provision for the children means inheritance
and child support in case of one partner leaving the relationship
through divorce or death. And support for
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their
sexual
orientation?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and
is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual
On 07/11/2006, at 11:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're
being treated differently.
But that's only for a definition of marriage as a partnership between
any two people, that's not true for a definition of marriage as a
partnership
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in
countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay
marriage. Round and round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
Except that the previous thread
JDG wrote:
This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven
by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that
JDG wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea
So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit? Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
orientation?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that
sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas.
Yes, I misread the post, sorry. Of course I couldn't disagree more.
What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court
that
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:44 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates
On 07/11/2006, at 2:49 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea
So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit?
No.
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates
that
sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad
ideas.
Yes, I misread the post, sorry.
First, thank you to Dan for explaining my
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be
driven
by whether
JDG wrote:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word free is
somewhat misplaced.
In any case, it's heartening to see that, despite the best effort of
On 07/11/2006, at 4:15 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
orientation?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
They're not
On 07/11/2006, at 5:08 PM, pencimen wrote:
JDG wrote:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word free is
somewhat misplaced.
In any case, it's
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more
likely to ask why we discourage loving relationships.
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more
likely to
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-marriage
nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' Haggard has
been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing
closeted gay?
--
William T
At 02:40 PM Sunday 11/5/2006, William T Goodall asked:
Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn't a self-loathing
closeted gay?
Yes.
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 06/11/2006, at 7:40 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
Is there anyone against gay marriage that
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brin-L brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Gay marriage in the closet
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical
anti-gay-marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted
On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a
Andrew Crystall wrote:
I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a religious concept,
should be involved in civil partnerships.
Tradition. That's the strongest and probably the last-to-fall argument,
when all other arguments fail.
If half the Earth's GNP still use feet and pounds, how can
On 06/11/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
I
Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brin-L brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Gay marriage in the closet
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical
anti-gay-marriage nutcases being
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
I haven't heard a good argument why marriage, a religious concept,
should be involved in civil partnerships.
Tradition. That's the strongest and probably the last-to-fall argument,
when all other arguments fail.
If half the
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED
64 matches
Mail list logo
