Evangelical/Fundie
Richard Abanes
>but I was under the impression that in present-day USA, the Christians calling
>themselves Evangelical and the ones calling themselves Fundamentalist (or
>probably more often called that by others) were for all practical purposes one
>and the same group.
A careful reading of secular media sources reveals that there is now very
little distinction being made regarding Christians/Christianity. The darling
of the media is liberalism, which is touted by the media as a thoughtful,
rational, socially acceptable, advanced form of Christianity (think Jesus
Seminars, and Bishop Spong). Conservative Christians, regardless of any
doctrinal nuances they may profess, are summarily dismissed and represented
in one big group as narrow-minded, backward, paranoid religious extremists.
Everyone from book-burners in the South to educated conservative seminary
professors fall into a broad fundamentalist camp that -- horror of horrors
-- embraces such ideas as an inerrant/infallible Bible, the deity/humanity
of Christ, the Virgin birth, and Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead.
Consequently, although I am an evangelical far distanced from the kind of
fundamentalist so commonly thought of today, I was easily depicted as a
"fundamentalist."
Cordially,
Richard Abanes
Michael R Weholt
news:B72C1ED6.10ACF%richar...@earthlink.net:
> A careful reading of secular media sources reveals that there is
> now very little distinction being made regarding
> Christians/Christianity. The darling of the media is liberalism,
> which is touted by the media as a thoughtful, rational, socially
> acceptable, advanced form of Christianity (think Jesus Seminars,
> and Bishop Spong). Conservative Christians, regardless of any
> doctrinal nuances they may profess, are summarily dismissed and
> represented in one big group as narrow-minded, backward, paranoid
> religious extremists. Everyone from book-burners in the South to
> educated conservative seminary professors fall into a broad
> fundamentalist camp that -- horror of horrors -- embraces such
> ideas as an inerrant/infallible Bible, the deity/humanity of
> Christ, the Virgin birth, and Christ's bodily resurrection from the
> dead. Consequently, although I am an evangelical far distanced from
> the kind of fundamentalist so commonly thought of today, I was
> easily depicted as a "fundamentalist."
Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
and privileges that society affords married couples?
If you are in favor of allowing such unions, how do you justify your
feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand against them?
If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
do you base your objections?
--
mrw
Mary Kay Kare
awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote:
MIchae! You're back! I was just thinking yesterday about how much I miss
you. Do please say you're going to hang around some more.
MKK
--
"Books you've bought and shelved but not yet read emit a gentle, beneficial
radiation, and when you finally do read them they're almost old friends."
--Teresa Nielsen Hayden on RASFF
D. Potter
ceremonies, although said ceremonies do include being doused with virtual Pan
Galactic Gargle Blaster, in honor of the late Douglas Adams.)
Michael Weholt wrote, replying to a Mr. Abanes, which I have snipped:
>>"Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
and privileges that society affords married couples?
If you are in favor of allowing such unions, how do you justify your
feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand against them?
If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
do you base your objections?"<<
Sorry to spoil your serious questions with a loud welcome back.
You are suggesting that evangelicals and fundamentalists share certain, um,
basic positions for largely the same reasons but wish to be distinguished from
each other when it is convenient or more politic? Or, perhaps, "Have they
stopped beating their marriage?"
I look forward to more of your incisive commentary.
--
D. Potter
Well, there is no rule at all about wearing pearls with a baseball cap.
P Nielsen Hayden
D. Potter <dpot...@aol.com> wrote:
[I have fixed the otherwise wonderful D's habitual god-awful quoting style.]
I don't know what Michael is suggesting, and I found Mr. Abanes's
posts kind of creeby and disagreeable, but I really do object to the
suggestion that those "evangelicals" who wish to distinguish
themselves from "fundamentalists" do so only for the sake of some kind
of nasty political convenience.
Aside from being flatly not true, it's also an insult to the bravery
of those evangelical American Christian groups that stake out
positions _in favor of_ gay rights, tolerance of sexual diversity,
freedom of conscience, etc.
Whatever you think of these people's metaphysics, they do in fact
exist, and many of them consider themselves "evangelicals." They
certainly aren't involved in any kind of "convenient" relationship
with conservative fundamentalists; in fact, it's the fundamentalists
from whom they take the largest amount of shit.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
O Deus
>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>and privileges that society affords married couples?
Since in practice no such union is indeed possible, what would be the point.
>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>do you base your objections?
To play devil's advocate. On its impossibility of course. Homosexual unions
are not marriages but marriages of convenience. They are inevitably sterile.
And while the same can be said for some heterosexual mariages, ultimately
heterosexual marriage implies a covenant and biologically driven commitment
simply not present outside it.
Douglas Berry
<od...@bigfoot.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
>>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>>and privileges that society affords married couples?
>
>Since in practice no such union is indeed possible, what would be the point.
In practice such unions are legal in Denmark. What exactly makes this
impossible?
>>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>>do you base your objections?
>
>To play devil's advocate. On its impossibility of course. Homosexual unions
>are not marriages but marriages of convenience. They are inevitably sterile.
>And while the same can be said for some heterosexual mariages, ultimately
>heterosexual marriage implies a covenant and biologically driven commitment
>simply not present outside it.
I'm sterile as the result of cancer and chemotherapy. To say that my
ten year marriage is nothing more than a baby=producing factory is an
insult to me and my wife.
What of people who chose to remain childless? Are their marriages
impossible? Do you advocate fertility testing and a pledge to
rep-roduce as part of the marriage license procedure?
Marriages are about love, and taken the legal step to bind oneself to
a partner. To me, it is immaterial what the gender of the people
making the commitment happens to be.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Omega
<grid...@mindspring.com> writes
>On 20 May 2001 08:37:35 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as "O Deus"
><od...@bigfoot.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>>
>>>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>>>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>>>and privileges that society affords married couples?
>>
>>Since in practice no such union is indeed possible, what would be the point.
>
>In practice such unions are legal in Denmark. What exactly makes this
>impossible?
>
>>>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>>>do you base your objections?
>>
>>To play devil's advocate. On its impossibility of course. Homosexual unions
>>are not marriages but marriages of convenience. They are inevitably sterile.
>>And while the same can be said for some heterosexual mariages, ultimately
>>heterosexual marriage implies a covenant and biologically driven commitment
>>simply not present outside it.
>
>I'm sterile as the result of cancer and chemotherapy. To say that my
>ten year marriage is nothing more than a baby=producing factory is an
>insult to me and my wife.
>
>What of people who chose to remain childless? Are their marriages
>impossible? Do you advocate fertility testing and a pledge to
>rep-roduce as part of the marriage license procedure?
>
>Marriages are about love, and taken the legal step to bind oneself to
>a partner. To me, it is immaterial what the gender of the people
>making the commitment happens to be.
>
--
Omega
"The deep, deep peace of the double-bed after the hurly-burly of the chaise-
longue (of her marriage).
Mrs Patrick Campbell
D. Potter
>>"I don't know what Michael is suggesting, and I found Mr. Abanes's
posts kind of creeby and disagreeable, but I really do object to the
suggestion that those "evangelicals" who wish to distinguish
themselves from "fundamentalists" do so only for the sake of some kind
of nasty political convenience.
Aside from being flatly not true, it's also an insult to the bravery
of those evangelical American Christian groups that stake out
positions _in favor of_ gay rights, tolerance of sexual diversity,
freedom of conscience, etc.
Whatever you think of these people's metaphysics, they do in fact
exist, and many of them consider themselves "evangelicals." They
certainly aren't involved in any kind of "convenient" relationship
with conservative fundamentalists; in fact, it's the fundamentalists
from whom they take the largest amount of shit."<<
Oddly enough, I was asking a question (as was Mr. Weholt, see his post). I
probably should have directed it to Mr. Abanes, rather than making it general.
But I'm just not seeing a whole lot of "evangelical" repudiation of
"fundamentalists." (Some of the churches involved in the causes you mention
are in fact local to me; but they are not stating their positions as
"evangelical" unless I've missed something, which is possible.)
(I was going to abbreviate them as Es and Fs, but those are IND trains in
Queens...)
In any case, that was not what Mr. Weholt was suggesting, and I withdraw the
question.
(As for the quoting style: It will quote fine/ when taken off-line/ but that's
mostly a bigger hassle than it's worth. One marks all read, marks unread the
thread[s] one wants to answer, closes, reopens, repeats markings, checks the
"read off-line" to make sure the group[s] in question are listed, repeats
markings, sets up Auto AOL and activates. Then one curses a lot because AOL
disconnects in the middle of reading in the post one wanted to answer. And I
don't at the moment have time to break in a new service. [And I want an iMac
before I do!])
Jo Walton
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
I know you weren't talking to me here, but it's so lovely to see you
posting again.
> Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
> sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
> and privileges that society affords married couples?
Definitely.
> If you are in favor of allowing such unions, how do you justify your
> feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand against them?
I suggest that it's just fine for their church to limit their religious
wedding ceremonies to heterosexual couples. If their religion considers
marriage a sacrament that needs one person of each gender, no problem,
for people of their religion.
But surely they don't intend to make other religions or the civil power
restrict themselves to the sacraments of their religion? I mean, do they
stick to Islamic laws on polygamous marriage?
Surely "Christian Marriage" shouldn't be imposed from without on the
whole country?
Surely pagans and Unitarians can perform the marriage ceremonies that
their religions say are sacraments, which include both same-sex and
poly marriages? Surely this isn't something where the religious views
of one religion should affect society and the civil status of marriage?
They then blink at me. One person did once say "Assuredly Socrates,
that must be the case," or actually "I suppose you have a point," which
encourages me that this is a good angle to keep pushing.
> If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
> do you base your objections?
With most people, it's the fertility rite issue.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Heather Anne Nicoll
> I'm sterile as the result of cancer and chemotherapy. To say that my
> ten year marriage is nothing more than a baby=producing factory is an
> insult to me and my wife.
>
> What of people who chose to remain childless? Are their marriages
> impossible? Do you advocate fertility testing and a pledge to
> rep-roduce as part of the marriage license procedure?
I spent Thursday in the Massachusetts State House listening to the
hearings on the Massachusetts "Defense of Marriage" bill currently
sitting in front of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. I didn't get
to speak; when, after seven and a half hours of hearings, they hadn't
gotten through all the scheduled speakers (as opposed to the diligent
peons who were waiting for a chance to testify), I gave up and went home
with a migraine.
I found the arguments for the bill to be. . . amusing, in a dark sort of
way. Particularly the fellow who got up to say that failing to slap
down the notion of domestic partnership would inevitably lead to (insert
horrified tone here) POLYGAMY.
I so wanted to get up there and point out that if the Commonwealth was
so concerned about preserving marriage for the raising of children, the
Commonwealth should have asked me if I was planning to breed when I got
my marriage license last year. (The Commonwealth /did/ ask me if I had
syphilis.)
The gay couples who had adopted children and the lesbian couples who had
birthed or adopted children had already pointed out that if the
Commonwealth was so concerned about preserving marriage for the raising
of children, they should be allowed to marry so they _could_ use that
legal structure to support their children. (Massachusetts allows gays
to adopt, and adoption procedures may be carried out by multiple adults
so both sides of the couple have legal adoptive parent status, as far as
I could tell from the testimony.)
- Darkhawk, who tends to have moderately secular
views of marriage in any case
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Sometimes I pray for silence; sometimes I pray for soul. . . .
- Meat Loaf, "I'd Do Anything For Love"
Michael R Weholt
news:990381...@bluejo.demon.co.uk:
> In article <Xns90A6CA12A2F...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
> I know you weren't talking to me here, but it's so lovely to see
> you posting again.
Thank you for saying so. Actually, I'll collect arguments pro and con
from whomever I can.
>> Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the
>> same sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the
>> same rights and privileges that society affords married couples?
>
> Definitely.
>
>> If you are in favor of allowing such unions, how do you justify
>> your feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand
>> against them?
>
> I suggest that it's just fine for their church to limit their
> religious wedding ceremonies to heterosexual couples. If their
> religion considers marriage a sacrament that needs one person of
> each gender, no problem, for people of their religion.
>
> But surely they don't intend to make other religions or the civil
> power restrict themselves to the sacraments of their religion? I
> mean, do they stick to Islamic laws on polygamous marriage?
Is a polygamous Islamic marriage legally recognized in the UK? I don't
believe they are legally recognized over here, especially since Ol' Tom
Green just got convicted of Serial Marriage or some such out in Utah.
Also, to anyone who might know, I know that an Islamic man is limited to
4 wives, or fewer if he cannot keep that many in comfort. But there is
no such thing as a woman being able to have more than one husband, is
there?
It's all so very complicated. I believe a secular society ought to deal
with the question by saying any combination up to oh perhaps five is
permissible. After that, you have to form a Limited Liability
Corporation.
Seems to me that any of yer standard/nonstandard religions/nonreligions
could find an appropriate niche in a rule like that.
> Surely "Christian Marriage" shouldn't be imposed from without on
> the whole country?
>
> Surely pagans and Unitarians can perform the marriage ceremonies
> that their religions say are sacraments, which include both
> same-sex and poly marriages? Surely this isn't something where the
> religious views of one religion should affect society and the civil
> status of marriage?
>
> They then blink at me. One person did once say "Assuredly Socrates,
> that must be the case,"
And they suggest the hemlock then, or later?
--
mrw
Doug Wickstrom
<Xns90A6CA12A2F...@166.84.0.240>
awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) excited the ether to say:
Michael! Missed you, guy!
>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>and privileges that society affords married couples?
Sure. And I'll add that there shouldn't be any rights and
privileges for married couple that are not also available to
single people. I speak, particularly, of tax advantages.
>If you are in favor of allowing such unions, how do you justify your
>feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand against them?
I tell them that the form and benefits are none of the
government's business, period, and why should religion be
consulted as to the form of a union, and if it is consulted,
_which_ religion?
>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>do you base your objections?
Can't answer that one, except as above. Get the government out
of the marriage business, make it a civil contract, defined as
the participants will.
--
Doug Wickstrom
I've been annoyed at by experts.
Doug Wickstrom
<20010520133233...@ng-fd1.aol.com>
dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) excited the ether to say:
>(As for the quoting style: It will quote fine/ when taken off-line/ but that's
>mostly a bigger hassle than it's worth. One marks all read, marks unread the
>thread[s] one wants to answer, closes, reopens, repeats markings, checks the
>"read off-line" to make sure the group[s] in question are listed, repeats
>markings, sets up Auto AOL and activates. Then one curses a lot because AOL
>disconnects in the middle of reading in the post one wanted to answer. And I
>don't at the moment have time to break in a new service. [And I want an iMac
>before I do!])
One _could_ simply download all to be read off-line. For that
matter, the off-line newsreader does work while you are on-line.
You just have to use it.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction
and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react.
He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
--New York Times editorial
P Nielsen Hayden
>Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
>>>"I don't know what Michael is suggesting, and I found Mr. Abanes's
>posts kind of creeby and disagreeable, but I really do object to the
>suggestion that those "evangelicals" who wish to distinguish
>themselves from "fundamentalists" do so only for the sake of some kind
>of nasty political convenience.
>
>Aside from being flatly not true, it's also an insult to the bravery
>of those evangelical American Christian groups that stake out
>positions _in favor of_ gay rights, tolerance of sexual diversity,
>freedom of conscience, etc.
>
>Whatever you think of these people's metaphysics, they do in fact
>exist, and many of them consider themselves "evangelicals." They
>certainly aren't involved in any kind of "convenient" relationship
>with conservative fundamentalists; in fact, it's the fundamentalists
>from whom they take the largest amount of shit."<<
>
>Oddly enough, I was asking a question (as was Mr. Weholt, see his post). I
>probably should have directed it to Mr. Abanes, rather than making it general.
>But I'm just not seeing a whole lot of "evangelical" repudiation of
>"fundamentalists."
You know, Sojourners has existed for thirty years. I'm not saying
groups like this represent a large-scale movement in modern America,
but I am in fact saying that they exist, and they certainly do get
into dustups with the forces of fundamentalism, inerrancy,
conservatism, etc.
Heck, just recently the Baptists had a food fight over some
troglodytic statements about "women's place" promulgated by the
leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention -- statements that were
publicly repudiated by Jimmy Carter, whose views, as you might
imagine, carry some weight in the Baptist church. I think Carter
would consider himself an evangelical.
Katie Schwarz
>
>I suggest that it's just fine for their church to limit their religious
>wedding ceremonies to heterosexual couples. If their religion considers
>marriage a sacrament that needs one person of each gender, no problem,
>for people of their religion.
>
>But surely they don't intend to make other religions or the civil power
>restrict themselves to the sacraments of their religion? I mean, do they
>stick to Islamic laws on polygamous marriage?
Good question; anyone know if an Islamic polygamous marriage is legally
recognized in the US?
>Surely "Christian Marriage" shouldn't be imposed from without on the
>whole country?
At this point if you're talking to an American fundamentalist, you
generally get the response that this is a Christian nation, the
founding fathers were Christians, mentioned God in the Declaration, and
so on.
--
Katie Schwarz
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
Avedon Carol
>On 20 May 2001 04:29:23 GMT,
> D. Potter <dpot...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>[I have fixed the otherwise wonderful D's habitual god-awful quoting style.]
And you have my gratitude.
>>>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>>>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>>>and privileges that society affords married couples?
>>>
>>>If you are in favor of allowing such unions, how do you justify your
>>>feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand against them?
>>>
>>>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>>>do you base your objections?
>>
>>
>>Sorry to spoil your serious questions with a loud welcome back.
>>
>>You are suggesting that evangelicals and fundamentalists share certain, um,
>>basic positions for largely the same reasons but wish to be distinguished from
>>each other when it is convenient or more politic? Or, perhaps, "Have they
>>stopped beating their marriage?"
>>
>>I look forward to more of your incisive commentary.
>
>
>I don't know what Michael is suggesting, and I found Mr. Abanes's
>posts kind of creeby and disagreeable, but I really do object to the
>suggestion that those "evangelicals" who wish to distinguish
>themselves from "fundamentalists" do so only for the sake of some kind
>of nasty political convenience.
I do when there's no evidence for it, but the rest of his post sort of
suggested that that was what he was doing, wouldn't you say? I mean,
the "liberal media" smear isn't one I expect to hear from the sort of
Christian you refer to below:
>Aside from being flatly not true, it's also an insult to the bravery
>of those evangelical American Christian groups that stake out
>positions _in favor of_ gay rights, tolerance of sexual diversity,
>freedom of conscience, etc.
Yes, and they are the sort of Christians I was always used to thinking
of as "Christians" when I used to hang out with church groups back in
the olden days.
>Whatever you think of these people's metaphysics, they do in fact
>exist, and many of them consider themselves "evangelicals." They
>certainly aren't involved in any kind of "convenient" relationship
>with conservative fundamentalists; in fact, it's the fundamentalists
>from whom they take the largest amount of shit.
Yep, but it seemed to me that Mr. Abanes carries with him the
talismans of those who dish that shit out.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Avedon Carol
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In a previous message, jo...@anglemark.pp.se wrote:
>>but I was under the impression that in present-day USA, the Christians calling
>>themselves Evangelical and the ones calling themselves Fundamentalist (or
>>probably more often called that by others) were for all practical purposes one
>>and the same group.
>
> A careful reading of secular media sources reveals that there is now very
>little distinction being made regarding Christians/Christianity.
A careful reading of the mass media reveals that they can't tell the
difference between most things and most other things, and that what is
called "reporting" is now indistinguishable from the gossip heard in
dorm-rooms and bars late at night after several rounds.
No one who is interested in _anything_ trusts what they see in the
newsmedia to be accurate. If you read the papers on any subject about
which you are knowledgable, you can expect at least nine-tenths of the
articles you read to be, at best, full of errors.
>The darling
>of the media is liberalism, which is touted by the media as a thoughtful,
>rational, socially acceptable, advanced form of Christianity (think Jesus
>Seminars, and Bishop Spong).
This statement is, of course, a complete fantasy, purveyed by members
of the media who wish to pretend that the right-wing falsehoods they
promote are coming from "liberals" and therefore cannot be claimed to
have provenance as right-wing propaganda. This same media almost
never defends liberalism in general and has made many liberals afraid
to identify themselves as such at all, so wholly has the media abused
the word and slandered and libeled anyone who isn't right-wing,
persistently portraying liberals as careless, lazy, slovenly and
spendthrift. The very fact that people who were once recognized as
being conservative Democrats are now being identified as "moderates"
while those who were once regarded as right-wing fringe loonies are
now simply called "conservatives" is a clear signal of that syndrome.
The modern media is overwhelmingly dominated by people who get their
briefings from the Republicans.
And, I repeat: No one who is interested in _anything_ trusts what they
see in the newsmedia to be accurate.
>Conservative Christians, regardless of any
>doctrinal nuances they may profess, are summarily dismissed and represented
>in one big group as narrow-minded, backward, paranoid religious extremists.
>Everyone from book-burners in the South to educated conservative seminary
>professors fall into a broad fundamentalist camp that -- horror of horrors
>-- embraces such ideas as an inerrant/infallible Bible, the deity/humanity
>of Christ, the Virgin birth, and Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead.
>Consequently, although I am an evangelical far distanced from the kind of
>fundamentalist so commonly thought of today, I was easily depicted as a
>"fundamentalist."
You seem to have fallen for the same trick, since in this paragraph
you mistakenly conflate "conservative Christians" with "evangelicals".
Many evangelical Christians do not support conservative ideology at
all. In fact, "conservative Christians" practice a religion that some
of them don't recognize as having anything to do with the teachings of
Christ.
Avedon Carol
wrote:
And my heart soars like a hawk! Michael! Yay!
Oh, this should be good.
Avedon Carol
>
>>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>>and privileges that society affords married couples?
>
>
>Since in practice no such union is indeed possible, what would be the point.
Nonsense. Gays can be parents in the same terms that many married
couples are. The law requires only that a child be the natural
offspring of a woman in order for her legal spouse to be its other
legal parent; it doesn't specify that both parents must be the natural
parent. And that's even without adoption, which anyone can do.
>>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>>do you base your objections?
>
>To play devil's advocate. On its impossibility of course. Homosexual unions
>are not marriages but marriages of convenience. They are inevitably sterile.
This is false. Reproduction does not depend on marriage, and marriage
does not depend on reproduction.
>And while the same can be said for some heterosexual mariages, ultimately
>heterosexual marriage implies a covenant and biologically driven commitment
>simply not present outside it.
Leaving aside that religious marriage and state marriage are two
different things, the fact is that it's an economic arrangement and
has a great deal to do with the ownership, responsibility for, and
distribution of property. This involves a host of matters not
necessarily related to reproductive issue, which is only _one of_ the
matters to which marriage pertains. Moreover, adoption by one partner
in a couple of another partner's child is not an unusual activity
among heterosexuals and often exists de facto within gay couples -
and, in some states, by law as well.
Doug Wickstrom
<slrn9gg9ln....@localhost.localdomain>
gra...@dsl.ca (Graydon Saunders) excited the ether to say:
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:37:39 GMT,
>Doug Wickstrom <nims...@uswest.net> scripsit:
>>Can't answer that one, except as above. Get the government out
>>of the marriage business, make it a civil contract, defined as
>>the participants will.
>
>Up to a point, I'd say; not proper for a marriage to disolve and no
>portion of the assets of same to devolve on some of the participants,
>say.
So a marriage contract is a form of incorporation.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that
it has to be us." -- Jerry Garcia
Ray Radlein
>
> Is a polygamous Islamic marriage legally recognized in the UK? I
> don't believe they are legally recognized over here, especially
> since Ol' Tom Green just got convicted of Serial Marriage or some
> such out in Utah.
Personally, I would have thought that Drew Barrymore alone would be
enough for him.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"Right now, it looks like a hunter; but if you push this button,
here, and fold it like so, it turns into... a deer!"
"What a cute little doll!"
"Please! It's not a *doll* -- it's an *Actaeon Figure*!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Michael R Weholt
news:k27ggtok7of58vbbj...@4ax.com:
> On 19 May 2001 23:51:45 GMT, in message
><Xns90A6CA12A2F...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) excited the ether to say:
>
> Michael! Missed you, guy!
Hey.
>>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the
>>same sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the
>>same rights and privileges that society affords married couples?
>
> Sure. And I'll add that there shouldn't be any rights and
> privileges for married couple that are not also available to
> single people. I speak, particularly, of tax advantages.
>
>>If you are in favor of allowing such unions, how do you justify
>>your feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand against
>>them?
>
> I tell them that the form and benefits are none of the
> government's business, period, and why should religion be
> consulted as to the form of a union, and if it is consulted,
> _which_ religion?
>
>>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on
>>what do you base your objections?
>
> Can't answer that one, except as above. Get the government out
> of the marriage business, make it a civil contract, defined as
> the participants will.
OK, but as Graydon cautions elsewhere, "up to a point". There are a
number of "next of kin" issues, probate, inheritance, visitation rights,
and so forth, that the government has to address, in my opinion. I don't
think you can keep the government out of it, really.
It would be interesting to live in a society that allowed anyone old
enough to enter into a contract to be able to point at someone and say
"By our mutual agreement, He/She is my next of kin", and having so
declared themselves, the rest of us, including the courts and the
government, would have to abide by such a declaration.
--
mrw
Alison Scott
>Is a polygamous Islamic marriage legally recognized in the UK? I don't
>believe they are legally recognized over here, especially since Ol' Tom
>Green just got convicted of Serial Marriage or some such out in Utah.
Polygamous marriages legally contracted in other countries are
recognised in the UK to a certain extent. You may not contract a
polygamous marriage in the UK, even if your religion allows it.
>It's all so very complicated. I believe a secular society ought to deal
>with the question by saying any combination up to oh perhaps five is
>permissible. After that, you have to form a Limited Liability
>Corporation.
Many cans of worms are opened thereby; for example, if a polygamously
married man dies, are all his various widows and children entitled to
state pensions? It all becomes, well, very complex.
It would be interesting to see a UK polygamy case being taken to the
ECHR under the 'privacy and enjoyment of family life' clause.
I wonder how people feel about the animal-marrying case (in Maine, I
think?)
--
Alison Scott ali...@kittywompus.com & www.kittywompus.com
Michael J. Lowrey
> You know, Sojourners has existed for thirty years. I'm not saying
> groups like this represent a large-scale movement in modern America,
> but I am in fact saying that they exist, and they certainly do get
> into dustups with the forces of fundamentalism, inerrancy,
> conservatism, etc.
Yes, thank you Patrick. I'm a Sojourner from long back.
> Heck, just recently the Baptists had a food fight over some
> troglodytic statements about "women's place" promulgated by the
> leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention -- statements that were
> publicly repudiated by Jimmy Carter, whose views, as you might
> imagine, carry some weight in the Baptist church. I think Carter
> would consider himself an evangelical.
Jimmy is a prime example of an evangelical being driven from
his own native denomination by the ultra-fundamentalists,
who have taken over and politicized the Southern Baptist
Convention to an extend unimaginable twenty years ago.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
still technically a member in good standing of
Bethel Baptist Church, Deanburg community, Tennessee
Michael R Weholt
news:7vbggts7gnupquso4...@4ax.com:
> awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote:
>
>>Is a polygamous Islamic marriage legally recognized in the UK? I
>>don't believe they are legally recognized over here, especially
>>since Ol' Tom Green just got convicted of Serial Marriage or some
>>such out in Utah.
>
> Polygamous marriages legally contracted in other countries are
> recognised in the UK to a certain extent.
Interesting. To what extent? Of course you have the National Health over
there so the question wouldn't arise, but over here it would be
interesting to see what would happen with spousal health benefits for a
government employee, for example.
We will find out how that will go soon enough, I imagine. I believe
Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country.
>>It's all so very complicated. I believe a secular society ought to
>>deal with the question by saying any combination up to oh perhaps
>>five is permissible. After that, you have to form a Limited
>>Liability Corporation.
>
> Many cans of worms are opened thereby; for example, if a
> polygamously married man dies, are all his various widows and
> children entitled to state pensions? It all becomes, well, very
> complex.
Social Security would be the analog here, I guess. I believe widow and
dependent children benefits are somewhat contingent on how much the
wage-earner has contributed, and by how many dependent children there
are. Naturally, if there were multiple widows and/or widowers, one or
more could be counted on to care for the children while the other one or
more could seek employment that paid something better than Social
Security.
> It would be interesting to see a UK polygamy case being taken to
> the ECHR under the 'privacy and enjoyment of family life' clause.
>
> I wonder how people feel about the animal-marrying case (in Maine,
> I think?)
My opinion is that consent must be able to be given all around. I'm not
familiar with the case you refer to, but it seems unlikely to me that a
sheep or cow is capable of entering into a contract. Even in Maine.
--
mrw
O Deus
>I'm sterile as the result of cancer and chemotherapy. To say that my
>ten year marriage is nothing more than a baby=producing factory is an
>insult to me and my wife.
If you'd read my post, I never said that. Marriage is driven biologically by
children and by other fundamental biological commitments. Furthermore the
point is to make a general statement about marriage, rather than about the
exceptions.
>What of people who chose to remain childless? Are their marriages
>impossible? Do you advocate fertility testing and a pledge to
>rep-roduce as part of the marriage license procedure?
Actually in some African countries a marriage without children is not
considered an actual marriage.
>Marriages are about love, and taken the legal step to bind oneself to
>a partner. To me, it is immaterial what the gender of the people
>making the commitment happens to be.
Any relationship is about love. Marriage is more than just another love
relationship.
Priscilla H. Ballou
wrote:
> You know, Sojourners has existed for thirty years. I'm not saying
> groups like this represent a large-scale movement in modern America,
> but I am in fact saying that they exist, and they certainly do get
> into dustups with the forces of fundamentalism, inerrancy,
> conservatism, etc.
There used to be a similar publication called "The Other Side." I
subscribed to it oh, hmmm, let me see, 20 years ago? It was quite
evangelical and socially left.
Priscilla
--
"Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God;
but only he who sees, takes off his shoes. The rest sit round it and
pluck blackberries." - Elizabeth Barrett Browning
D. Potter
>>"You know, Sojourners has existed for thirty years. I'm not saying
groups like this represent a large-scale movement in modern America,
but I am in fact saying that they exist, and they certainly do get
into dustups with the forces of fundamentalism, inerrancy,
conservatism, etc."<<
Actually, I hadn't heard of Sojourners. Though I'm certainly glad they fight
the good fight.
>>"Heck, just recently the Baptists had a food fight over some
troglodytic statements about "women's place" promulgated by the
leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention -- statements that were
publicly repudiated by Jimmy Carter, whose views, as you might
imagine, carry some weight in the Baptist church. I think Carter
would consider himself an evangelical."<<
This was national news last year. Carter, a few other famous people, and a
number of churches made a sizable stink. I do not, alas, recall whether the
Southern Baptist Convention changed its stance.
OK. Got your point. Evangelicals _are_ rebuking fundamentalism. Good.
We now return you to the original set of questions.
;-)
Michael J. Lowrey
> p...@panix.com wrote:
>
> > You know, Sojourners has existed for thirty years. I'm not saying
> > groups like this represent a large-scale movement in modern America,
> > but I am in fact saying that they exist, and they certainly do get
> > into dustups with the forces of fundamentalism, inerrancy,
> > conservatism, etc.
>
> There used to be a similar publication called "The Other Side." I
> subscribed to it oh, hmmm, let me see, 20 years ago? It was quite
> evangelical and socially left.
You mean these folks:
http://www.theotherside.org/core.html
Sojourners are at:
http://www.sojourners.com
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
quite evangelical and socially left
D. Potter
>>"One _could_ simply download all to be read off-line. For that
matter, the off-line newsreader does work while you are on-line.
You just have to use it."<<
Oh, I tried downloading all back in the early days... <Paragraph of hysterical
laughter ending in hiccups snipped.> Remember what I said about AOL
disconnecting? _And_ it takes too bloody long.
We will try the off-line newsreader again, but it will have to be when I have
lots of time and patience, both of which are in very short supply at the
moment.
David T. Bilek
>Doug Wickstrom wrote:
>
>>>"One _could_ simply download all to be read off-line. For that
>matter, the off-line newsreader does work while you are on-line.
>You just have to use it."<<
>
>Oh, I tried downloading all back in the early days... <Paragraph of hysterical
>laughter ending in hiccups snipped.> Remember what I said about AOL
>disconnecting? _And_ it takes too bloody long.
>
>We will try the off-line newsreader again, but it will have to be when I have
>lots of time and patience, both of which are in very short supply at the
>moment.
>
One of the great advantages of cable modems/DSL is that there is no
such thing as online/offline, unless the network goes down. Honestly,
if it's available, it's easily one of the best investments money can
buy. And depending on where you are should be no more than $20/mo
more than a dial up ISP.
That $20 is a deal buster for some people, I realize.
-David
Kris Hasson Jones
wrote:
>One of the great advantages of cable modems/DSL is that there is no
>such thing as online/offline, unless the network goes down. Honestly,
>if it's available, it's easily one of the best investments money can
>buy. And depending on where you are should be no more than $20/mo
>more than a dial up ISP.
>
>That $20 is a deal buster for some people, I realize.
It sounds great. But we have two computers, not networked. How do we
get them both online? Neither of us knows anything about networking.
Right now we have a dial-up account and take turns.
I also have unspecific fears about needing a firewall, and not knowing
how to maintain one.
--
Kris Hasson Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Heather Anne Nicoll
> It sounds great. But we have two computers, not networked. How do we
> get them both online? Neither of us knows anything about networking.
> Right now we have a dial-up account and take turns.
> I also have unspecific fears about needing a firewall, and not knowing
> how to maintain one.
We bought a router with (I believe) some internal firewall stuff,
plugged that into the cable modem, plugged one ethernet cable into
Kevin's computer, one into Toy, and both into the router. The router
does automagic assigning of IPs when DHCP is enabled on the individual
'puters. There was a little dithering with the cable modem setup that
involved calling tech support, but the fix they gave worked. (SOmething
to do with the address the cable modem thought it was going to attaching
to the 'puter, not the router.)
I'[d tell you more about our router, but it seems the cats have knocked
it off the top of Kevin's 'puter case, and I don't feel like crawling
under the desk looking for it.
- Darkhawk, mostly untechnical in such things
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
snip
>There used to be a similar publication called "The Other Side." I
>subscribed to it oh, hmmm, let me see, 20 years ago? It was quite
>evangelical and socially left.
My favorite used to be "The Wittenberg Door." It still exists, as
"The Door," but it isn't quite as much fun as it used to be.
Of course, now I peruse "U.S. Catholic" which is moderately left and
"National Catholic Reporter" which is intensely, seriously PC Catholic
left (not to be confused with the other NCR, "National Catholic
Review? Record? whatever" which is just as passionately to the right
of the Catholic spectrum).
jrw
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2001 04:32:52 GMT, dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek)
>wrote:
>
>>One of the great advantages of cable modems/DSL is that there is no
>>such thing as online/offline, unless the network goes down. Honestly,
>
>It sounds great. But we have two computers, not networked. How do we
>get them both online? Neither of us knows anything about networking.
>Right now we have a dial-up account and take turns.
You connect one computer to the Internet, and the other computer to
the first one. With Windows, it should be pretty straightforward.
(Yeah, I know, I know, not everybody is comfortable fiddling with
their computers, but nevertheless ...) But you might have problems
with connecting to your ISP. Who was having problems? Patrick? Someone
else? But the ISP's support people should be able to correct that.
>I also have unspecific fears about needing a firewall, and not knowing
>how to maintain one.
Zone Alarm is also pretty straightforward and very easy to maintain.
It's also free for personal use. http://www.zonelabs.com/
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Keith Thompson
[...]
> We bought a router with (I believe) some internal firewall stuff,
> plugged that into the cable modem, plugged one ethernet cable into
> Kevin's computer, one into Toy, and both into the router. The router
> does automagic assigning of IPs when DHCP is enabled on the individual
> 'puters. There was a little dithering with the cable modem setup that
> involved calling tech support, but the fix they gave worked. (SOmething
> to do with the address the cable modem thought it was going to attaching
> to the 'puter, not the router.)
>
> I'[d tell you more about our router, but it seems the cats have knocked
> it off the top of Kevin's 'puter case, and I don't feel like crawling
> under the desk looking for it.
It sounds like the one I have, a BEFSR41 from Linksys. You can get
one, or something similar, for about $150 or so. I've been very happy
with mine.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.
Jo Walton
k...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU "Katie Schwarz" writes:
> Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Surely "Christian Marriage" shouldn't be imposed from without on the
> >whole country?
>
> At this point if you're talking to an American fundamentalist, you
> generally get the response that this is a Christian nation, the
> founding fathers were Christians, mentioned God in the Declaration, and
> so on.
At which point I'd open my eyes wide and say that I think they ought to
establish the Episcopalian Church ASAP, just like us. This is better
than quoting the First Amendment, because it ought to make them quote it,
and I could just agree. I don't know if this would work.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Jo Walton
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> It would be interesting to live in a society that allowed anyone old
> enough to enter into a contract to be able to point at someone and say
> "By our mutual agreement, He/She is my next of kin", and having so
> declared themselves, the rest of us, including the courts and the
> government, would have to abide by such a declaration.
You can do that here. Not just by pointing, you have to go to a solicitor
and make legal declarations, but you can do it. I've done it twice --
when I was eighteen, and then again after Ken and I got divorced -- to
avoid my parents being my next of kin. My aunt has done the same, to
make me her next of kin, also to avoid it being my mother.
(I'm Sasha's next of kin, but he can't be mine until he's eighteen,
unfortunately.)
Jo Walton
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) wrote in
> news:990381...@bluejo.demon.co.uk:
>
> > I suggest that it's just fine for their church to limit their
> > religious wedding ceremonies to heterosexual couples. If their
> > religion considers marriage a sacrament that needs one person of
> > each gender, no problem, for people of their religion.
> >
> > But surely they don't intend to make other religions or the civil
> > power restrict themselves to the sacraments of their religion? I
> > mean, do they stick to Islamic laws on polygamous marriage?
>
> Is a polygamous Islamic marriage legally recognized in the UK?
Kinda sorta. I think we kinda sorta recognise Dutch gay marriage as well,
on the "you can't do it here, but you seem to have done it somewhere else,
oh well" sort of legal recognition.
I know there was a case local to me in Lancaster about ten years ago where
two unemployed gay guys tried hard to prove that they were cohabiting and
therefore entitled to less money, in an attempt to get gay marriage (or at
least cohabitation) recognised sideways. The DSS resolutely ignored them
and kept giving them two individual payments instead of the single less
than double payment for a couple. Someone should point out to the government
that the money they'd lose on taxes they'd get back in savings on welfare.
I don't
> believe they are legally recognized over here, especially since Ol' Tom
> Green just got convicted of Serial Marriage or some such out in Utah.
I've got the impression he was convicted of going on Jerry Springer
and boasting about his marriages, and most poly people in the US are
left alone.
> Also, to anyone who might know, I know that an Islamic man is limited to
> 4 wives, or fewer if he cannot keep that many in comfort. But there is
> no such thing as a woman being able to have more than one husband, is
> there?
Not in Islam. But it's normal in some parts of Central Asia, IIRC.
The important point when arguing with the Christian "marriage is one
man and one woman" type is to say that you recognise that as being their
religious position and you wouldn't want to change that, but why should
that affect other religions and civil marriages. It cuts the legs off
their argument -- their argument is that marriage is a fertility rite
sacrament. Which is all well and good, but it's pretty much undeniable
that marriage isn't that for everyone. If you want to argue for the
right for homosexuals to get married in churches (other than Unitarian
and Pagan ones) I think it would be a lot more difficult.
> It's all so very complicated. I believe a secular society ought to deal
> with the question by saying any combination up to oh perhaps five is
> permissible. After that, you have to form a Limited Liability
> Corporation.
I've heard of US poly families doing precisely that.
> Seems to me that any of yer standard/nonstandard religions/nonreligions
> could find an appropriate niche in a rule like that.
It shouldn't be something that gave real companies a loophole in the
tax laws by declaring themselves a family though.
> > Surely "Christian Marriage" shouldn't be imposed from without on
> > the whole country?
> >
> > Surely pagans and Unitarians can perform the marriage ceremonies
> > that their religions say are sacraments, which include both
> > same-sex and poly marriages? Surely this isn't something where the
> > religious views of one religion should affect society and the civil
> > status of marriage?
> >
> > They then blink at me. One person did once say "Assuredly Socrates,
> > that must be the case,"
>
> And they suggest the hemlock then, or later?
Yeah.
Douglas Berry
<od...@bigfoot.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>>I'm sterile as the result of cancer and chemotherapy. To say that my
>>ten year marriage is nothing more than a baby=producing factory is an
>>insult to me and my wife.
>
>If you'd read my post, I never said that. Marriage is driven biologically by
>children and by other fundamental biological commitments. Furthermore the
>point is to make a general statement about marriage, rather than about the
>exceptions.
My marriage was driven by the fact that I couldn't conceive of
spending the next five minutes, much less the rest of my life, without
Kirsten in my life. Luckily, she felt the same.
We never had a big drive to have kids, and the cancer just sealed the
decision.
>>What of people who chose to remain childless? Are their marriages
>>impossible? Do you advocate fertility testing and a pledge to
>>rep-roduce as part of the marriage license procedure?
>
>Actually in some African countries a marriage without children is not
>considered an actual marriage.
Inability to reproduce is grounds for annulment in most states.
Doesn't change the fact that marriage is not about bearing children.
It is about love.
>>Marriages are about love, and taken the legal step to bind oneself to
>>a partner. To me, it is immaterial what the gender of the people
>>making the commitment happens to be.
>
>Any relationship is about love. Marriage is more than just another love
>relationship.
Mind if I ask if you are married? Because telling a married person
that marriage is about more than love is like telling someone at
McMurdo Station that it's cold outside.
But all this aside, there is nothing that should prevent two people of
the same gender from marrying.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Michael R Weholt
> In article <Xns90A7BAB542C60...@130.133.1.4>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
>> It would be interesting to live in a society that allowed anyone
>> old enough to enter into a contract to be able to point at someone
>> and say "By our mutual agreement, He/She is my next of kin", and
>> having so declared themselves, the rest of us, including the
>> courts and the government, would have to abide by such a
>> declaration.
>
> You can do that here. Not just by pointing, you have to go to a
> solicitor and make legal declarations, but you can do it. I've done
> it twice -- when I was eighteen, and then again after Ken and I got
> divorced -- to avoid my parents being my next of kin. My aunt has
> done the same, to make me her next of kin, also to avoid it being
> my mother.
>
> (I'm Sasha's next of kin, but he can't be mine until he's eighteen,
> unfortunately.)
OK, but you couldn't point at Your Lesbian Lover (if she existed) and
declare her your next of kin, could you?
--
mrw
David G. Bell
<3b0899f8...@nntp.we.mediaone.net> dbi...@mediaone.net
"David T. Bilek" wrote:
As a per day rate, it's quite tolerable. Costs are currently much
higher in the UK, and there are considerable problems over availability,
but if the difference got down to that level, I'd wonder.
My current access, un-metered evenings and weekends, totals less than
twenty quid, and is a little below $30. Yes, I still pay some phone
charges for calls during the day, often for business use. It can be
easier to discuss things by e-mail when somebody isn't always in their
office.
But these broadband connections may have other problems. Some of the UK
packages are seriously entangled with Windows, for instance. Look, I
_use_ Windows for some stuff, but I'm wary about not having a choice.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
David G. Bell
<3p6hgtksvov760452...@4ax.com>
These are sensible doubts. The answers are out there, but the issues
seem understated by the people selling broadband connection.[1]
Networking two computers is relatively easy. Don't be put off by the
implications of book titles such as "Networking for Dummies". Once you
get to that stage, there are several different paths to take.[2]
[1] I'm in the UK, but I've no particular reason to think sales-droids
are any better in the USA.
[2] One of the ADSL solutions here is heavily biased towards a USB
connection, which is fine for a single computer but would be messy for
you. And it's Windows-only.
Jo Walton
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> OK, but you couldn't point at Your Lesbian Lover (if she existed) and
> declare her your next of kin, could you?
Sure I could.
I'd have to fill stuff out and make legal declarations and it costs about
fifty pounds (or so, I had it done with having a will done and some other
legal stuff) and you can't get legal aid for it, but it would be no
different than the situation I have at the moment where my heterosexual
lover is my legal next of kin.
Really. After my grandfather had his stroke and before I was eighteen,
no, twenty-one, my aunt's next of kin was her same sex best friend, and
for all the law knew they might have been lesbian lovers. Indeed the law
probably assumed they were because most people wouldn't go to all that
trouble otherwise. (Most people don't have paranoid schizophrenics in a
position to be making decisions for them if they're helpless, or if they
do they haven't seen this happen and so it isn't something they worry
about.)
Priscilla H Ballou
: "Priscilla H. Ballou" wrote:
: > There used to be a similar publication called "The Other Side." I
: > subscribed to it oh, hmmm, let me see, 20 years ago? It was quite
: > evangelical and socially left.
: You mean these folks:
: http://www.theotherside.org/core.html
Well dip me in honey and throw me to the lesbians! If I'd bothered to
look at all, I woulda found them.
Thanks! It may be time to resubscribe.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <Xns90A871E1C21...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
> > OK, but you couldn't point at Your Lesbian Lover (if she existed) and
> > declare her your next of kin, could you?
>
> Sure I could.
>
> I'd have to fill stuff out and make legal declarations and it costs about
> fifty pounds (or so, I had it done with having a will done and some other
> legal stuff) and you can't get legal aid for it, but it would be no
> different than the situation I have at the moment where my heterosexual
> lover is my legal next of kin.
Of course, one difference is you could marry your heterosexual lover
and get all this stuff in one swell foop, but for a lesbian lover, you
have to spend time and money with all sorts of separate documents which
still don't cover everything marriage does.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
Just because the person who criticizes you is an idiot does not make him
wrong. -- Roger Rosenblatt
Matthew Austern
> >If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
> >do you base your objections?
>
>
> To play devil's advocate.
Why do you think that the devil needs any more advocates as far as
oppression of gays and lesbians is concerned? It seems to me that
there are already quite enough advocates (not to mention judges and
legislators and demagogues and police) who are doing the devil's work
here.
Matthew Austern
> In article <9e9bk7$7ar$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
> k...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU "Katie Schwarz" writes:
>
> > Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >Surely "Christian Marriage" shouldn't be imposed from without on the
> > >whole country?
> >
> > At this point if you're talking to an American fundamentalist, you
> > generally get the response that this is a Christian nation, the
> > founding fathers were Christians, mentioned God in the Declaration, and
> > so on.
>
> At which point I'd open my eyes wide and say that I think they ought to
> establish the Episcopalian Church ASAP, just like us.
Many of them would probably say that would be inappropriate, because the
US is a Christian nation and the Anglican Church isn't Christian.
Michael R Weholt
> In article <Xns90A871E1C21...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
>> OK, but you couldn't point at Your Lesbian Lover (if she existed)
>> and declare her your next of kin, could you?
>
> Sure I could.
>
> I'd have to fill stuff out and make legal declarations and it costs
> about fifty pounds (or so, I had it done with having a will done
> and some other legal stuff) and you can't get legal aid for it, but
> it would be no different than the situation I have at the moment
> where my heterosexual lover is my legal next of kin.
>
> Really. After my grandfather had his stroke and before I was
> eighteen, no, twenty-one, my aunt's next of kin was her same sex
> best friend, and for all the law knew they might have been lesbian
> lovers. Indeed the law probably assumed they were because most
> people wouldn't go to all that trouble otherwise.
Fascinating. I wonder how extensive this, um, protection (is the word, I
guess) is. For example, do you know ...
...whether your aunt's friend would have automatically inherited your
aunt's entire estate had your aunt died intestate? (In New York, I
believe a widow/widower would automatically inherit the entire estate
[assuming no Last Will], but if there is no remaining spouse, and no
surviving children, it gets complicated fast.)
...whether a declared next of kin "trumps" a blood relative? E.g., had
your aunt had estranged children, would your aunt's friend's "claim on
the estate" have overridden the claims of the estranged children
(assuming there is no Last Will)?
...whether your aunt's friend would have the Final Say on where to bury
your aunt's remains?
And so forth and so on... all the rights and privileges of the next of
kin... so far as you know, a declared next of kin, with no blood-ties
whatsoever, has all the rights and privileges of a gen-yoo-ine blood
relative?
--
mrw
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>In article <Xns90A7BAB542C60...@130.133.1.4>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
>> It would be interesting to live in a society that allowed anyone old
>> enough to enter into a contract to be able to point at someone and say
>> "By our mutual agreement, He/She is my next of kin", and having so
>> declared themselves, the rest of us, including the courts and the
>> government, would have to abide by such a declaration.
>
>You can do that here. Not just by pointing, you have to go to a solicitor
>and make legal declarations, but you can do it. I've done it twice --
>when I was eighteen, and then again after Ken and I got divorced -- to
>avoid my parents being my next of kin. My aunt has done the same, to
>make me her next of kin, also to avoid it being my mother.
>
>(I'm Sasha's next of kin, but he can't be mine until he's eighteen,
>unfortunately.)
I never thought of that. "Don't like your next of kin? Make a new one
of your own!"
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>In article <Xns90A871E1C21...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
>> OK, but you couldn't point at Your Lesbian Lover (if she existed) and
>> declare her your next of kin, could you?
>
>Sure I could.
>
>I'd have to fill stuff out and make legal declarations and it costs about
>fifty pounds (or so, I had it done with having a will done and some other
>legal stuff) and you can't get legal aid for it, but it would be no
>different than the situation I have at the moment where my heterosexual
>lover is my legal next of kin.
In the US or the UK, you can give power of attorney to anyone you want
to. You can also write someone into your will and other people out of
it if you want to. It costs more time and money than a simple
marriage does, though.
And people are likely to get married younger, and earlier in a
relationship, than they are to hire lawyers and write wills and things
like that. So if you get married, you may still not have written your
will. If you shack up with someone, you may still not have written
your will or assigned them the appropriate form of power of attorney.
So it's not much consolation to you if your partner is hospitalized
(and unconscious) suddenly, long before you were expecting to need any
of this stuff, and your parents come in and start ordering people
around, refusing to acknowledge your partner's stated wishes when you
report them, and then when your partner dies they actually want to
fight with you over who is entitled to your joint posession.
Getting married is quick, cheap, easy, and takes care of this stuff
automatically. It's a significant reason why people get married, and
it's very much a significant reason why gay men in particular are
especially interested in it now.
Heather Anne Nicoll
> Mind if I ask if you are married? Because telling a married person
> that marriage is about more than love is like telling someone at
> McMurdo Station that it's cold outside.
The following is, of course, a pure 'for me' thingy. . . .
In my experience, marriage is about who does the dishes and who cleans
the stove, and who does the taxes and who pays the mortgage, and who
repaints the walls and who weeds the yard.
It's about knowing that even if the bowl left in the living room has
begun to evolve its own civilization, it's better for long-term harmony
to put it in the kitchen and point out that these things are infuriating
than it is to break it over the head of the person who left it there, no
matter that the latter is very tempting.
It's about learning to find ways not to take each other for granted.
It's about going to see Shrek in a matinee and feeling like teenagers
again, and going to Friendly's for dinner afterwards because of a
nostalgia-for-childhood kick. It's about working together to redo the
decorating in the foyer and hall, and working apart on separate careers.
It's about learning how to live together, and remembering how to manage
when not together. It's about learning all the ways lives can
interleave. It's about curling up together with one cat pinning ankles
down and the other sitting sprawled across both stomachs.
For us, yeah, someday it'll be about kids and raising kids. We talk
about that sometimes, and we both know that someday is nowhere near now.
And there are times I listen to people asserting that marriage is about
the children, and wonder why, then, I'm not allowed to marry all my
mates; or, for that matter, why couples with children aren't allowed to
marry because they happen to share the configuration of their genitalia.
My husband was adopted, and he has a bone-deep understanding that family
and parenting is something one does, not something that one is by
genetic connection. I have my own reasons to think that parenting is a
thing done, not a thing born to (or given birth to); it's certainly not
a natural consequence of marriage, as anyone else who had an incompetent
or abusive "parent" knows.
It's about making the decision and standing up, before the gods and the
state and everyone, to say that this person is a partner -- that this is
someone to whom I am committed, someone who I wish to share my life
with. It's about making that partnership something that nobody can
dispute, making those vows and working to fulfil them -- and that
fulfillment is not a thing done with the commencment of the vows, but a
thing done each day so long as those oaths hold force. It's about
making that relationship something that others will respect as real -- a
point which I am often a little touchy about.
But what do I know? I've only been married five months. As of, um,
today. Eeek.
- Darkhawk, who needs to sit down with Kevin and
figure out what we want to say when
we re-make our vows next month
Alison Scott
>I know there was a case local to me in Lancaster about ten years ago where
>two unemployed gay guys tried hard to prove that they were cohabiting and
>therefore entitled to less money, in an attempt to get gay marriage (or at
>least cohabitation) recognised sideways. The DSS resolutely ignored them
>and kept giving them two individual payments instead of the single less
>than double payment for a couple. Someone should point out to the government
>that the money they'd lose on taxes they'd get back in savings on welfare.
No, the financial position is overwhelmingly the other way. Mostly
(though not entirely) because of dependants' additions to the state
pension.
--
Alison Scott ali...@kittywompus.com & www.kittywompus.com
Martin Wisse
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 20 May 2001 08:37:35 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as "O Deus"
><od...@bigfoot.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
>>
>>>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>>>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>>>and privileges that society affords married couples?
>>
>>Since in practice no such union is indeed possible, what would be the point.
>
>In practice such unions are legal in Denmark. What exactly makes this
>impossible?
Pah. There are legally *married* same gender couples in the Netherlands
now.
Martin "smug" Wisse
Alison Scott
>Getting married is quick, cheap, easy, and takes care of this stuff
>automatically. It's a significant reason why people get married, and
>it's very much a significant reason why gay men in particular are
>especially interested in it now.
In the UK, the father of an illegitimate child has no parental
responsibility, even if the child was registered jointly. (Apart, of
course, from the responsibility to pay for upkeep). So, wanting to
correct this, we went off to find out what we needed to do. We quickly
discovered that putting a parental responsbility order in place was
much more complicated than getting married. So we got married. What
we'd forgotten, though, was that when you fill in a load of legal
forms, nobody expects you to dress up and throw a big party. So in the
end getting married was more trouble.
Interestingly, the Government's talking now about correcting this
position, so that where a child is registered jointly, the parents
share responsibility. Since most people *believe* that's the case, and
every so often a dad gets a nasty shock when his girlfriend dies and
her parents take the kids.
Jo Walton
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) wrote in
> news:990466...@bluejo.demon.co.uk:
>
> > Really. After my grandfather had his stroke and before I was
> > eighteen, no, twenty-one, my aunt's next of kin was her same sex
> > best friend, and for all the law knew they might have been lesbian
> > lovers. Indeed the law probably assumed they were because most
> > people wouldn't go to all that trouble otherwise.
>
> Fascinating. I wonder how extensive this, um, protection (is the word, I
> guess) is. For example, do you know ...
>
> ...whether your aunt's friend would have automatically inherited your
> aunt's entire estate had your aunt died intestate? (In New York, I
> believe a widow/widower would automatically inherit the entire estate
> [assuming no Last Will], but if there is no remaining spouse, and no
> surviving children, it gets complicated fast.)
She had a Will too. Every time I've talked to a solicitor about this
they've advised making a Will too, or checked that I've had a Will.
But I always have, or I always want to -- and they always talk about
that anyway. So I don't know.
> ...whether a declared next of kin "trumps" a blood relative? E.g., had
> your aunt had estranged children, would your aunt's friend's "claim on
> the estate" have overridden the claims of the estranged children
> (assuming there is no Last Will)?
Again, I only know about this in conjunction with Wills.
They could fight -- they can fight Wills, though I think it happens more
in fiction than in life, but solicitors will advise you whether things
are likely to be possible to challenge.
> ...whether your aunt's friend would have the Final Say on where to bury
> your aunt's remains?
Yes. Also hospital stuff, just like a real next of kin. This is definitely
included.
> And so forth and so on... all the rights and privileges of the next of
> kin... so far as you know, a declared next of kin, with no blood-ties
> whatsoever, has all the rights and privileges of a gen-yoo-ine blood
> relative?
I don't know about inheritance, but otherwise it works that way.
But as Avedon has pointed out, it's a heck of a lot more complicated
than getting married, and it means you have to think about a lot of
things people may not like thinking about. I don't think it's a
substitute for that -- I think it's a useful thing for people who
don't like their biological next of kin -- in exactly the same way
that a Will is something you need if the natural inheritance pattern
isn't just what you want.
Ben Yalow
It's relatively cheap (under about $200 in hardware), and pretty easy,
assuming you've got Win95/98/Me. If you don't, you probably need to know
a bit more, but it's still about the same price.
In terms of hardware, you add an Ethernet card to each machine -- right
now, the cheap ones are about $10, and good ones a bit more. THey go in a
PCI slot, assuming you have one. If you don't, but have a USB port, and
USB support, then they make Ethernet cards that connect via USB, but they
cost about $35.
You then connect each machine up to a firewall/router. I use the Linksys
BEFSR41, which is both a 4 port switch, and a firewall/router. So each
machine connects to the router via an Ethernet cable, and another cable
goes from the port on the router labelled "WAN" to the DSL modem. That
box costs about $125 or so, and the price keeps dropping.
You configure TCP on the machines to use the Ethernet card, and configure
the router via its built-in web server. Follow the instructions on the
setup card, which mostly say "type the information your DSL provider gave
you into the following fields".
At that point, you're behind a firewall, and the two machines are
networked together, and can both share the DSL connection. You can also
configure them to share files with each other, either over TCP or another
protocol, using the same network (File and Printer sharing -- which you
should not turn on unless you mean to, and which Microsoft enables very
easily).
You may then want to add software firewalls on your machines, but the
hardware firewall will take care of most things.
It's all (badly) documented by Microsoft. But the router documentation is
typically pretty good, and the Ethernet cards go in pretty simply. The
better cards come with better documentation, which can also help.
>--
>Kris Hasson Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Michael R Weholt
> But as Avedon has pointed out, it's a heck of a lot more
> complicated than getting married, and it means you have to think
> about a lot of things people may not like thinking about. I don't
> think it's a substitute for that -- I think it's a useful thing for
> people who don't like their biological next of kin -- in exactly
> the same way that a Will is something you need if the natural
> inheritance pattern isn't just what you want.
It also occurs to me that it probably does you no good whatsover (at
least it doesn't in this country) if your One True Same-Sex Love happens
to be a non-Citizen and you want that One True Same-Sex Love to be able
to stay in your country with you.
I think this is one of the Rilly Big Horrors over here... the
possibility that the Fruits of Foreign Evil, or, alternatively, Evil
Foreign Fruits, might get permanent residency or even *CITIZENSHIP BY
MARRIAGE!!!* in the Mighty U.S. of A.
In California they even have border checkpoints and inspect your car to
make sure you aren't importing any. Though I may be somewhat confused
about that.
--
mrw
P Nielsen Hayden
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>I believe Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country.
Faster than Mormonism? I would want to see figures. I would
certainly believe that Islam is up there.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20 May 2001 05:16:47 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>
>>On 20 May 2001 04:29:23 GMT,
>> D. Potter <dpot...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[I have fixed the otherwise wonderful D's habitual god-awful quoting style.]
>
>And you have my gratitude.
>
>>>>Do you think a secular society should allow adult members of the same
>>>>sex to form legally recognized unions that afford them the same rights
>>>>and privileges that society affords married couples?
>>>>
>>>>feelings on this subject to those Christians who stand against them?
>>>>
>>>>If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>>>>do you base your objections?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You are suggesting that evangelicals and fundamentalists share certain, um,
>>>basic positions for largely the same reasons but wish to be distinguished from
>>>each other when it is convenient or more politic? Or, perhaps, "Have they
>>>stopped beating their marriage?"
>>>
>>>I look forward to more of your incisive commentary.
>>
>>
>>I don't know what Michael is suggesting, and I found Mr. Abanes's
>>posts kind of creeby and disagreeable, but I really do object to the
>>suggestion that those "evangelicals" who wish to distinguish
>>themselves from "fundamentalists" do so only for the sake of some kind
>>of nasty political convenience.
>
>I do when there's no evidence for it, but the rest of his post sort of
>suggested that that was what he was doing, wouldn't you say? I mean,
>the "liberal media" smear isn't one I expect to hear from the sort of
>Christian you refer to below:
>
>>Aside from being flatly not true, it's also an insult to the bravery
>>of those evangelical American Christian groups that stake out
>>positions _in favor of_ gay rights, tolerance of sexual diversity,
>>freedom of conscience, etc.
>
>Yes, and they are the sort of Christians I was always used to thinking
>of as "Christians" when I used to hang out with church groups back in
>the olden days.
>
>>Whatever you think of these people's metaphysics, they do in fact
>>exist, and many of them consider themselves "evangelicals." They
>>certainly aren't involved in any kind of "convenient" relationship
>>with conservative fundamentalists; in fact, it's the fundamentalists
>>from whom they take the largest amount of shit.
>
>Yep, but it seemed to me that Mr. Abanes carries with him the
>talismans of those who dish that shit out.
Indeed so, but between Michael's incisive questions and D's comments,
somehow a Mr. Abanes got generalized into a categorical statement
about all members of his class.
Mary Kay Kare
awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote:
> I think this is one of the Rilly Big Horrors over here... the
> possibility that the Fruits of Foreign Evil, or, alternatively, Evil
> Foreign Fruits, might get permanent residency or even *CITIZENSHIP BY
> MARRIAGE!!!* in the Mighty U.S. of A.
>
> In California they even have border checkpoints and inspect your car to
> make sure you aren't importing any. Though I may be somewhat confused
> about that.
>
It isn't only Evil Foreign Fruits, but also Helpless Foreign Vegetables
who'd be a drain on our resources.
MKK
--
"Books you've bought and shelved but not yet read emit a gentle, beneficial
radiation, and when you finally do read them they're almost old friends."
--Teresa Nielsen Hayden on RASFF
Michael R Weholt
news:slrn9gj29...@pnh-1.dsl.speakeasy.net:
> On 21 May 2001 01:26:25 GMT,
> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>I believe Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country.
>
> Faster than Mormonism? I would want to see figures.
Awp. I could easily be wrong. I considered leaving out the "I believe"
part, but in a paroxysm of prudence left it in.
> I would certainly believe that Islam is up there.
Yeah. If not the fastest, then certainly one of the fastest.
--
mrw
Kevin J. Maroney
>I found the arguments for the bill to be. . . amusing, in a dark sort of
>way. Particularly the fellow who got up to say that failing to slap
>down the notion of domestic partnership would inevitably lead to (insert
>horrified tone here) POLYGAMY.
I oppose polygamy because it leads to card-playing.
Oh, wait. Support.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Kevin J. Maroney
>In the US or the UK, you can give power of attorney to anyone you want
>to. You can also write someone into your will and other people out of
>it if you want to. It costs more time and money than a simple
>marriage does, though.
IANAL, but I believe that many states have laws prohibiting a person
from completely disinheriting a surviving spouse and surviving minor
children. (I could stand correction on this.) I am sure that no state
bans disinheriting a same-sex partner.
Del Cotter
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> said:
>J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) wrote in
>> You can do that here. Not just by pointing, you have to go to a
>> solicitor and make legal declarations, but you can do it. I've done
>> it twice -- when I was eighteen, and then again after Ken and I got
>> divorced -- to avoid my parents being my next of kin. My aunt has
>> done the same, to make me her next of kin, also to avoid it being
>> my mother.
>>
>> (I'm Sasha's next of kin, but he can't be mine until he's eighteen,
>> unfortunately.)
>
>OK, but you couldn't point at Your Lesbian Lover (if she existed) and
>declare her your next of kin, could you?
Yes you could. The fact that Jo is related by blood to Sasha and her
aunt is a coincidence.
--
Del Cotter |"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even
del@ |worth glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which
branta. |Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there,
demon. |it looks out, and seeing a better country, sets sail.
co.uk |Progress is the realization of Utopias" -- Oscar Wilde
Timothy A. McDaniel
Is there a term for a flashback that's too vague to actually bring
back a detailed scene? I'm quasi-flashing back to Murbles discussing
The Will and all its increasingly demoralizing "what ifs".
I hope you don't have a grand-niece, especially not one who's a nurse?
--
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
Irina Rempt
> The following is, of course, a pure 'for me' thingy. . . .
[Snip the following. Reluctantly.]
At last, there's someone who understands what it is to be married.
RASSF Award with as many cats as will fit on your laps.
Irina (yes, very much married, thank you)
--
ir...@valdyas.org http://www.valdyas.org/irina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| You may be recognized soon. Hide. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Rempt
> Many of them would probably say that would be inappropriate, because the
> US is a Christian nation and the Anglican Church isn't Christian.
What!?
Irina
--
ir...@valdyas.org http://www.valdyas.org/irina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nels E Satterlund
As a follow on question.
Is there a simple way (windows only) to have one of my systems assign an
IP address to any other systems connecting to the local network.
It would make connection my work laptop (win 2k) to my home system much
easier.
Home network is currently static IP using the 192.168.xxx.xxx addresses,
running windows 95 & 98.
I can not use the Microsoft internet sharing, due to the way my cable
modem works.
Nels
Who just got asked this question and was wondering myself.
--
Nels E Satterlund I don't speak for the company, specially here
Ne...@Earthling.net <-- Use this address
My Lurkers motto: I read much better and faster, than I type.
Kip Williams
>
> Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Mind if I ask if you are married? Because telling a married person
> > that marriage is about more than love is like telling someone at
> > McMurdo Station that it's cold outside.
>
> The following is, of course, a pure 'for me' thingy. . . .
>
> In my experience, marriage is about who does the dishes and who cleans
> the stove, and who does the taxes and who pays the mortgage, and who
> repaints the walls and who weeds the yard.
>
> It's about knowing that even if the bowl left in the living room has
> begun to evolve its own civilization, it's better for long-term harmony
> to put it in the kitchen and point out that these things are infuriating
> than it is to break it over the head of the person who left it there, no
> matter that the latter is very tempting.
I wrote a "Neatness Manifesto." With numbered paragraphs (just like
the graffiti in the student center), leading to a point. It worked,
too. No more margarine in the cupboard, or open cans of soup. Modest
improvements in other areas, too.
One of my roommates was a little unhappy, though, when I printed the
manifesto in AZAPA. They knew who he was (though some probably
thought he was a hoax) because I'd had him do a page and franked it
through with my zine, once in a while. I guess that made it too
personal.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>In article <Xns90A795A8BE8...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> I don't
>> believe they are legally recognized over here, especially since Ol' Tom
>> Green just got convicted of Serial Marriage or some such out in Utah.
>
>I've got the impression he was convicted of going on Jerry Springer
>and boasting about his marriages, and most poly people in the US are
>left alone.
From my standpoint, the problem isn't five wives (although his
religion would not grant any wife more than one husband, so you can't
really say it's completely poly), but the fact that he married them so
young and from other LDS families so the women (and now children) were
never able to make objective decisions about it. And there's also the
fraud he perpetrated by having them all claim they were single
mothers.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Nancy Lebovitz
of behavior in a harm-reductionish sort of way, what would you do?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Pyrephox
>Matthew Austern wrote:
>
>> Many of them would probably say that would be inappropriate, because the
>> US is a Christian nation and the Anglican Church isn't Christian.
>
>What!?
>
> Irina
Quite a few churches in my area (deep South, USA) don't acknowledge Catholics,
Anglicans, Unitarians, or Methodists as Christians. I've never been entirely
clear on the reasoning with any of these, with the possible exception of
Unitarianism, and just chalk it up--like the local Fetus Guy--to regional
insanity.
Pyrephox- of course, quite a few people in my area have trouble acknowledging
that, yes, the Civil War *is* over, and has been for a long time...
--
"Patriotism is largely pride, and very largely combativeness. Patriotism
generally has a chip on its shoulder."
- Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Kip Williams
>
> In article <990478...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
> Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >She had a Will too.
>
> Is there a term for a flashback that's too vague to actually bring
> back a detailed scene? I'm quasi-flashing back to Murbles discussing
> The Will and all its increasingly demoralizing "what ifs".
A flash halfway back?
Lenny Bailes
If you can't use the built-in Windows 98/2000 ICS, you might be able
to do it with a third-party application like Sygate (www.sybergen.com)
or Wingate (www.wingate.com). I'm not sure, since whatever stops the
cable modem from working with ICS might nix it with these, too.
(An extra hardware router would also do the job.)
--
Lenny Bailes | len...@slip.net | http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~lennyb
Matthew Austern
> Matthew Austern wrote:
>
> > Many of them would probably say that would be inappropriate, because the
> > US is a Christian nation and the Anglican Church isn't Christian.
>
> What!?
You haven't heard that? I'm actually referring to two different
opinions, both of which are expressed (not necessarily by the same
people) in the US Fundamentalist community.
First, it's often asserted that the Roman Catholic Church is not
Christian. My guess is that anyone who would say that Catholics
aren't Christians would probably also say Anglicans aren't Christians,
and for the same reasons.
Second, there are some fundamentalist churches that refuse to identify
themselves as part of a denomination. They simply say that they are
"Christian", and refuse to grant that anyone who does identify as part
of a denomination is Christian, regardless of whether that
denomination is Catholic, or Baptist, or Methodist, or whatever.
And I've now told you just about everything I know. I'm not a
fundamentalist, or (by any reasonable definition) any sort of a
Christian. I'm reporting what various fundamentalist friends and
classmates told me when I was in college. I know that these claims
are made, because I've heard them, but I can't tell you anything more
about the theological basis for them.
Kate Schaefer
news:Xns90A8B5B1825...@166.84.0.240...
Check recent coverage of the 2000 census; I don't have a citation, either,
but I think I heard the same thing Michael did, including the
surprising-to-me note that Moslems now outnumber Jews in the US.
Kate Schaefer
news:9ec9cj$l99$0...@216.39.145.104...
I posted this, went off to do something else, then thought I'd look it up.
I can't get through to the official Census Bureau site right now, so I had
to make do with this site: http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html , on
which I learned that in 1990 1.8% of the US population identified as
Jewish, while 1.5% identified as Muslim.
(0.7% agnostic and 0.3% atheist, for those who care. I'm eager to see
what changed in the intervening 10 years.)
Kate Schaefer
news:3B0997CA...@home.com...
You roomed with Lori Carter? Wow.
Kip Williams
>
> "Kip Williams" <ki...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3B0997CA...@home.com...
> > the graffiti in the student center), leading to a point. It worked,
> > too. No more margarine in the cupboard, or open cans of soup. Modest
> > improvements in other areas, too.
> >
> > One of my roommates was a little unhappy, though, when I printed the
> > manifesto in AZAPA. They knew who he was (though some probably
> > thought he was a hoax) because I'd had him do a page and franked it
> > through with my zine, once in a while. I guess that made it too
> > personal.
>
> You roomed with Lori Carter? Wow.
No, just yakked with.
O Deus
>> >If you are not in favor of legally recognized same-sex unions, on what
>> >do you base your objections?
>>
>>
>
>Why do you think that the devil needs any more advocates as far as
>oppression of gays and lesbians is concerned? It seems to me that
>there are already quite enough advocates (not to mention judges and
>legislators and demagogues and police) who are doing the devil's work
>here.
Well you do realize that from a theological point of view, the devil is on
the side of gays and lesbians.
Mark Atwood
>
> From my standpoint, the problem isn't five wives (although his
> religion would not grant any wife more than one husband, so you can't
> really say it's completely poly), but the fact that he married them so
> young and from other LDS families so the women (and now children) were
> never able to make objective decisions about it. And there's also the
> fraud he perpetrated by having them all claim they were single
> mothers.
It wasn't a fraud. Legally, they *were* single mothers. His marriage
to them had basically the same legal force in the US (less even) then,
say, a same-sex-couple's committment ceremony does.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Lucy Kemnitzer
I can't speak to the theological issues here. But I got another
reminder of the weight and matter of this topic, today. I was at
the continuation high school, again, where I spend a lot of my
working life -- I like it there, for various reasons, and they
like me there, too. Anyway, there were these three girls who
weren't really supposed to be in the room at the time they were,
and one of them just started spontaneously telling me about why
she had left the regular high school -- it was a confusing tale of
being suspected of being stoned all the time and leaving campus to
hang out with this other girl, and in the middle of it she said
"And they kept saying they thought I was this big old lesbian
which is just stupid," but then the other girls she always hangs
with started spontaneously demanding my opinions on lesbians, and
it suddenly became clear that they were hanging out in this room,
and begging me to let them stay there when they were supposed to
go to Math and whatever, because the regular teacher there was
giving them support and protection while they figure this stuff
out.
Three sixteen year-old girls. Their agony and fear. Their
longing, their desire to love and be loved. And that's what the
politics is about.
That and the boys who go everywhere on the campus together in
matching chin piercings and shades and matching big t shirts with
political poetry all over them,sharing earphones, listening to the
Doors.
Again, I can't speak to the theology of this, but I can't help but
think that either the devil is misidentified or the meaning of
devil is misconstrued, if it can be said that the devil is on the
side of keeping these kids alive and sane and protecting their
rights to be responsible adults some day, to care for someone, to
be their next of kin.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>> From my standpoint, the problem isn't five wives (although his
>> religion would not grant any wife more than one husband, so you can't
>> really say it's completely poly), but the fact that he married them so
>> young and from other LDS families so the women (and now children) were
>> never able to make objective decisions about it. And there's also the
>> fraud he perpetrated by having them all claim they were single
>> mothers.
>
>It wasn't a fraud. Legally, they *were* single mothers. His marriage
>to them had basically the same legal force in the US (less even) then,
>say, a same-sex-couple's committment ceremony does.
>
Not in welfare law. In welfare law, marriage has very little to
do with the singleness of a mother. The father is responsible for
child support with or without marriage.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Matthew Austern
We apparently have different tastes in theology. I'd say it's
the bigots, the hate-mongers, and the gay-bashing murderers who are
on the side of the prince of darkness. The folks who are working for
tolerance and equal rights are the ones on the side of the angels.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
I don't know. There are certainly plenty of real single mothers who
do need help. Although in their case, you'd think the social worker
would suspect *something*.
Marilee J. Layman
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>> From my standpoint, the problem isn't five wives (although his
>> religion would not grant any wife more than one husband, so you can't
>> really say it's completely poly), but the fact that he married them so
>> young and from other LDS families so the women (and now children) were
>> never able to make objective decisions about it. And there's also the
>> fraud he perpetrated by having them all claim they were single
>> mothers.
>
>It wasn't a fraud. Legally, they *were* single mothers. His marriage
>to them had basically the same legal force in the US (less even) then,
>say, a same-sex-couple's committment ceremony does.
No, he serially marriaged and divorced them, so none were truly single
mothers. He should have been paying support to all.
LAFF
<ka...@oz.net> wrote:
> I posted this, went off to do something else, then thought I'd look it up.
> I can't get through to the official Census Bureau site right now, so I had
> to make do with this site: http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html , on
> which I learned that in 1990 1.8% of the US population identified as
> Jewish, while 1.5% identified as Muslim.
>
> (0.7% agnostic and 0.3% atheist, for those who care. I'm eager to see
> what changed in the intervening 10 years.)
It wouldn't do you any good to look at the Census site, anyway,
since the U.S. Census does not ask religious questions. (Separation
of church and state.) The figures at Adherents.org, which is an
excellent site for this sort of thing, are from other sources, such
as membership rosters of the various religious organizations,
surveys, etc.
Sorry if this is pedantic sounding, but I've had this sort of
question a lot at work, so I'm familiar with what's not on the
Census.
At http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm they explain
1. That they used to ask such questions (in the early 1900s)
2. That a federal law prevents them from doing it now (PL
94-521)
3. That these other groups do have such information:
Glenmary Research Center
1312 5th Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37208
(615) 256-1905
Hartford Institute for Religious Research at Hartford Seminary
77 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(860) 509-9543
Fax: 860-509-9559
E-mail:hi...@hartsem.edu or www.hartfordinstitute.org
Website:hirr.hartsem.edu/csrr/
American Religion Data Archive
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Purdue University
1365 Stone Hall
West Lafayette, IN
(765)494-0081
Fax: 765-496-1470
Website:www.ARDA.tm
--
Lois Fundis lfu...@weir.net
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/9377/handy-dandy.html
"I wanted to be a writer-performer like the Pythons. In
fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to
realise that the job was, in fact, taken."
-- Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
Josh Kaderlan
> ir...@valdyas.org (Irina Rempt) writes:
>
>> Matthew Austern wrote:
>>
>> > Many of them would probably say that would be inappropriate, because the
>> > US is a Christian nation and the Anglican Church isn't Christian.
>>
>> What!?
>
> You haven't heard that? I'm actually referring to two different
> opinions, both of which are expressed (not necessarily by the same
> people) in the US Fundamentalist community.
>
> First, it's often asserted that the Roman Catholic Church is not
> Christian. My guess is that anyone who would say that Catholics
> aren't Christians would probably also say Anglicans aren't Christians,
> and for the same reasons.
For illustration, see
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp>.
Jack Chick's website is good for hours of amusement.
-Josh
LAFF
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) wrote:
> In article <Xns90A795A8BE8...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> > Also, to anyone who might know, I know that an Islamic man is limited to
> > 4 wives, or fewer if he cannot keep that many in comfort. But there is
> > no such thing as a woman being able to have more than one husband, is
> > there?
>
> Not in Islam. But it's normal in some parts of Central Asia, IIRC.
In today's New York Times (syndicated to other papers),
otherwise-conservative columnist William Safire speaks up in favor
of polyandry, the practice of a woman having multiple husbands,
though he seems to think two is enough:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/21/opinion/21SAFI.html
One woman, in the security of being doubly beloved and
beneficiaried, can surely provide life-extending companionship to two
men. And when one husband passes on, either to his Maker or to
some gold-digging bimbo, the long-lived polyandrist would still have
the remaining man for mutual comfort and support.
Lenny Bailes
Thanks for being there for them. Setting aside the "theological"
issue that spurred you to post, reading this story subtracts a
little bit of anomie from my day. I've taught at Woodside in San
Francisco, but I could never do it every day, let alone do it well.
I'd vote you fireman's pay and benefits, if I could.
Cally Soukup
I'd think preventing that last would be simple. Acknowledge his wives
as legally married to him, and then convict him of tax and welfare
fraud for claiming they weren't. As the law stands now, all but one of
them *are* single mothers.
Preventing the did-they-really-consent marriages would be tougher, as
they exist in non polygamous families, as well, and we've certainly not
stamped it out there. Legalizing polygamous and polyandrous and
just plain polyamorous marriage, so the possibly-unconsenting partner
could try to get help without risking jail for bigamy would be a start.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Douglas Berry
<od...@bigfoot.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>Well you do realize that from a theological point of view, the devil is on
>the side of gays and lesbians.
And what theology would this be?
The Biblical admonishments are only against behavior, and make no
claim as to the origin or purpose of the behavior.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
James Nicoll
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@ungames.com> wrote:
>ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol) wrote:
>>In the US or the UK, you can give power of attorney to anyone you want
>>to. You can also write someone into your will and other people out of
>>it if you want to. It costs more time and money than a simple
>>marriage does, though.
>
>IANAL, but I believe that many states have laws prohibiting a person
>from completely disinheriting a surviving spouse and surviving minor
>children. (I could stand correction on this.) I am sure that no state
>bans disinheriting a same-sex partner.
When I rewrote my will during my divorce almost two decades
ago, I had to leave the to-be-ex some minimum sum. Two dollars, I
think.
--
The Canadians were a hospitable and tolerant desert people,
living on the edge of a wilderness of snow and permafrost. Winnipeg,
Regina and Saskatoon were cities of the northern desert, Samarkands
of ice. J.G. Ballard
Nancy Lebovitz
Cally Soukup <sou...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote in article <9ec655$e...@netaxs.com>:
>> In article <l86jgt4e95o2eifv6...@4ax.com>,
>> Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>>From my standpoint, the problem isn't five wives (although his
>>>religion would not grant any wife more than one husband, so you can't
>>>really say it's completely poly), but the fact that he married them so
>>>young and from other LDS families so the women (and now children) were
>>>never able to make objective decisions about it. And there's also the
>>>fraud he perpetrated by having them all claim they were single
>>>mothers.
>>>
>> That last is not a pretty thing. If you wanted to prevent that sort
>> of behavior in a harm-reductionish sort of way, what would you do?
>
>I'd think preventing that last would be simple. Acknowledge his wives
>as legally married to him, and then convict him of tax and welfare
>fraud for claiming they weren't. As the law stands now, all but one of
>them *are* single mothers.
>
29 kids noticably worse off.
Avram Grumer
rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) wrote:
> That and the boys who go everywhere on the campus together in
> matching chin piercings and shades and matching big t shirts with
> political poetry all over them,sharing earphones, listening to the
> Doors.
The Doors? Really?
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
Philip Chee
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote in
>news:slrn9gj29...@pnh-1.dsl.speakeasy.net:
>> On 21 May 2001 01:26:25 GMT,
>> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>I believe Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country.
>> Faster than Mormonism? I would want to see figures.
>Awp. I could easily be wrong. I considered leaving out the "I believe"
>part, but in a paroxysm of prudence left it in.
>> I would certainly believe that Islam is up there.
>Yeah. If not the fastest, then certainly one of the fastest.
Why is that? I mean it's not exactly a terrible religion but there
doesn't seem to be anything dramatically appealing compared to other
religons. And I'm saying that from the vantage point of seeing it in
practice for at least the last umptyump years.
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Corporation Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60.5.291.1011 Fax:+60.5.291.9932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
--
ž 20333.25 ž Earthquakes are Earth's way of saying, WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!
Philip Chee
>>From: ir...@valdyas.org (Irina Rempt)
>>Matthew Austern wrote:
>>> Many of them would probably say that would be inappropriate, because the
>>> US is a Christian nation and the Anglican Church isn't Christian.
>>What!?
>Quite a few churches in my area (deep South, USA) don't acknowledge Catholics,
>Anglicans, Unitarians, or Methodists as Christians. I've never been entirely
>clear on the reasoning with any of these, with the possible exception of
>Unitarianism, and just chalk it up--like the local Fetus Guy--to regional
>insanity.
As she says: What!?
As a Catholic I tend to see Anglicans and Methodists as firmly in the
Protestant camp and thus immune to charges of being not christians. I
certainly don't remember any Methodists praying to Mary frex.
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Corporation Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60.5.291.1011 Fax:+60.5.291.9932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
... Everything is computerized. What could possibly go wrong?
--
* 20343.25 *
Andrew Plotkin
"Taleban move to make Afghan Hindus wear labels"
<http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/05/22/
afghanistan.hindu.02/index.html>, paste if necessary
I'm trying to think of some comment I can append which isn't entirely
squashed by the headline.
...This is *so* Twentieth-century of them.
...Hey, chalk one up for faith-based government initiatives.
...Is there a version of Godwin's Law that applies to governments?
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Doesn't matter who you vote for, if the Supreme Court votes for me.