Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
David J. Allen
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqq9s6$ikt$2...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hglvsvk8hj6v966c1...@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
> ><wasd...@pobox.nospam> wrote:
> >
> >>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> >>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> >>> other laws need to be changed.
> >>
> >>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> >>married, why discriminate against them?
> >
> >I think that's already covered.
> >Such unions are called 'corporations'. :-)
> >
> Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
You're in true form Lloyd. Do you shoplift?
David J. Allen
"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:dec265a9d8c5cf0f...@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:41:30 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98...@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
> >> >purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for
the
> >> >purpose of raising children.
> >>
> >> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
> >> prevented from marrying?
> >
> >That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
> >serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
> >productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that
perspective
> >at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
> >detract from it.
>
> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
> together happily for an extended period.
>
By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
> >Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and
family
> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
> >doesn't require marriage.
>
> It's the nature of a capitalist society that you're so proud of.
>
No, the search for "rights" to benefits is strictly a left wing thing. The
further left you go the more anti-capitalist.
> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
> >society.
>
> What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality? Is it better that we
> beat them when we find them? Have a good old round of gay bashing?
>
Depends on what you mean by "normalize". By redefining our social
institutions to abstract out any notion of sexual preference? That kind of
normalization is not good. Normalizing the application of true civil rights
and protection under the law is good.
Liberals have a hard time unloading certain terms, i.e., "discrimination"
and now "normal". These words don't carry notions of good and bad by
themselves. "Normalizing" something is not by nature good or bad.
You engineers out there will understand this. I'm doubtful about chemists
though.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
>> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
>> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
>> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
>> together happily for an extended period.
>>
>By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
Again, what's wrong with this?
>> >Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>> >doesn't require marriage.
>>
>> It's the nature of a capitalist society that you're so proud of.
>
>No, the search for "rights" to benefits is strictly a left wing thing. The
>further left you go the more anti-capitalist.
And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
>> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
>> >society.
>>
>> What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality? Is it better that we
>> beat them when we find them? Have a good old round of gay bashing?
>
>Depends on what you mean by "normalize". By redefining our social
>institutions to abstract out any notion of sexual preference? That kind of
>normalization is not good.
Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
unthinkable, yet here we are today.
>Normalizing the application of true civil rights
>and protection under the law is good.
What do you consider to be true civil rights?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
David J. Allen
> >> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
> >> prevented from marrying?
> >
> >That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
> >serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
> >productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that
perspective
> >at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
> >detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and
family
> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
> >doesn't require marriage.
>
> How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
> between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation
*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to re-evaluate
the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
> >
> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
>
> Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the
Jewish
> agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize
being
> left-handed...
>
If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and what's
his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal works
both ways.
Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
>
> > to normalize homosexuality in our
> >society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed.
Where
> >government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
> >nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage
becomes
> >less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my
view.
Daniel J. Stern
> > How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
> > between 2 senior citizens, for example?
> Anectodal.
Don't duck the question, answer it.
> The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation *within*
> those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
> marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to
> re-evaluate the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
That door was opened long ago, when mixed-race couples were allowed to
marry.
> Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
> at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
> redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually, for
they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing mixed-race
couples to marry.
DS
David J. Allen
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.031205...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > > How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from
one
> > > between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
> > Anectodal.
>
> Don't duck the question, answer it.
>
> > The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation *within*
> > those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
> > marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to
> > re-evaluate the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
>
> That door was opened long ago, when mixed-race couples were allowed to
> marry.
>
Mixed race doesn't do a thing to change what marriage is.
> > Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much
different,
> > at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's
about
> > redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
>
>
> Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually, for
> they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing mixed-race
> couples to marry.
Mixed race is a racial issue, not a marriage issue.
>
> DS
>
David J. Allen
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:dec265a9d8c5cf0f...@news.teranews.com...
>
> >> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
> >> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
> >> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
> >> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
> >> together happily for an extended period.
> >>
> >By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
>
> Again, what's wrong with this?
>
Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't discriminate
amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.
Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for any
civil right it satisfies.
> >> >Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
> >> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and
family
> >> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.),
which
> >> >doesn't require marriage.
> >>
> >> It's the nature of a capitalist society that you're so proud of.
> >
> >No, the search for "rights" to benefits is strictly a left wing thing.
The
> >further left you go the more anti-capitalist.
>
> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
>
No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given. The left
loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government to
provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
government.
> >> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
> >> >society.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality? Is it better that we
> >> beat them when we find them? Have a good old round of gay bashing?
> >
> >Depends on what you mean by "normalize". By redefining our social
> >institutions to abstract out any notion of sexual preference? That kind
of
> >normalization is not good.
>
> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
>
Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union whose
purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's debatable
that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
gender. Is that necessarily good?
> >Normalizing the application of true civil rights
> >and protection under the law is good.
>
> What do you consider to be true civil rights?
I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble, congregate,
vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.
The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government can
regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.). There's our
argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we can
no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage from
occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it to
other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If it's a
reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will tolerate.
If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the people
will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.
Daniel J. Stern
> Marriage isn't about civil rights.
Society grants certain privileges and rights and responsibilities to
married couples that are not granted to unmarried persons. Because it is
society (not God or an orange tree or a pair of blue jeans) from which
these rights and privileges flow, they are CIVIL rights. That's what
"civil" means.
> Because it changes the nature of marriage.
The nature of marriage has been changed in Western society many times over
the last two thousand years. This is not a new phenomenon.
> the government ... can stop certain marriages based on a
> compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.).
And the current question is whether there is, in fact, a compelling state
interest in barring same-sex marriages.
DS
Daniel J. Stern
> Mixed race doesn't do a thing to change what marriage is.
The folks who argued against it 50 years ago claimed that was exactly what
it did. They used the selfsame language you're using now against same-sex
marriage.
> > Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually, for
> > they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing mixed-race
> > couples to marry.
>
> Mixed race is a racial issue, not a marriage issue.
When mixed-race marriage is being discussed, it's a marriage issue.
DS
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
>> between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>>
>Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation
>*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
>marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to re-evaluate
>the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
Why is re-evalution bad? The current model is failing badly at the
moment, unless you consider a 50% failure rate to be a success.
>> Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
>> agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
>> left-handed...
>>
>If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
>abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
>Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and what's
>his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal works
>both ways.
If people were truly colour blind then those institutions would have
no purpose and would disappear. Racism occurs on both sides,
unfortunately.
>Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
>at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
>redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
Two people formally agreeing to an exclusive arrangement. Sounds
pretty similar to me.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:beb825a8ecf1d343...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:dec265a9d8c5cf0f...@news.teranews.com...
>>
>> >> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
>> >> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
>> >> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
>> >> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
>> >> together happily for an extended period.
>> >>
>> >By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
>>
>> Again, what's wrong with this?
>
>Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't discriminate
>amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.
>
>Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for any
>civil right it satisfies.
And that benefit is children, right? Which brings us back to couples
who can't or don't want to have children. It also leads us to the
question of what is better for kids? An unhappy marriage between a
man and a woman or a happy relationship between two men or two women?
As long as they learn how to love someone else, it doesn't matter the
sex of that person.
>>
>> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
>>
>No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
not god (which god anyways?).
>The left
>loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights of
>life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
>libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
>shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government to
>provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
>responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
>government.
If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
idea itself.
>> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
>> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
>> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
>>
>Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union whose
>purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
>marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
>BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's debatable
>that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
>gender. Is that necessarily good?
Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
life partner is?
>> What do you consider to be true civil rights?
>
>I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble, congregate,
>vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.
>
>The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government can
>regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
>can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
>compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.). There's our
>argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we can
>no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage from
>occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it to
>other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If it's a
>reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will tolerate.
>If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the people
>will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.
The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
what people should be doing.
David J. Allen
No, the benefit is carrying forward values and blessings from generation to
generation. You can try to stir up the stew by throwing in a bunch of "what
if"'s about happy, well adjusted, smart, intelligent gay couples and stupid,
idiodic, lying, cheating, bank-robbing straight couples. It doesn't change
the principles of the argument though.
Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than an
institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
> >> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
> >>
> >No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
>
> Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
> not god (which god anyways?).
>
That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as granted
"by God".
The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all rights
eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
We all know that he who has the power to grant, also has the power to take
away.
By the way... are you from Canada? It didn't occur to me that you might be
and that maybe Canadians rights aren't recognized as "God given".
> >The left
> >loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights
of
> >life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
> >libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
> >shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government
to
> >provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
> >responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
> >government.
>
> If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
> soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
> dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
> right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
> idea itself.
>
Well that works both ways (left and right). And it's true for the politcal
faces of Democrats and Republicans. But actually, it isn't true. Both left
and right have won ideological vitories in the US. There is a huge
entitlement class in the US thanks to the left. The right is not going to
change it. The right has built a powerful military that has protected
freedom and liberty wordwide and has the courage to use it.
> >> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> >> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> >> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
> >>
> >Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union
whose
> >purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
> >marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
>
> Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
>
We have, but it's caused family problems for double income families with
children. It hasn't been a good thing. It's tended towards a negative
effect on families. The idea of women in the work force as a concept
isolated to itself is not an issue. Just it's effect on the family.
> >BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's
debatable
> >that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
> >gender. Is that necessarily good?
>
> Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
> life partner is?
>
Oh heavens. Anything we do by gender. Public bathrooms and locker rooms,
public nudity, public discrimination of private organizations that gender
discriminate (the priesthood, private universities, etc.). There are
probably better examples, but we wouldn't benefit from a gender normalized
society. That's not to say that there are some things that should be gender
normalized that maybe aren't, just that it's unrealistic and undesirable to
normalize *everything* we do and *every* institution by gender. That's why
the Equal Rights Amendment lost 30 years ago. Men and women are different
to a degree that warrants proper discrimination.
> >> What do you consider to be true civil rights?
> >
> >I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble, congregate,
> >vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.
> >
> >The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government
can
> >regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
> >can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
> >compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.). There's
our
> >argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we
can
> >no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage
from
> >occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it to
> >other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If it's
a
> >reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will
tolerate.
> >If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the people
> >will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.
>
> The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
> that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
> what people should be doing.
Not at all! The courts have no such jurisdiction! They only have power to
rule on the law. You seem to have missed the point. If marriage were a
civil right, then congress could not pass laws regulating it and the courts
would enforce it. As long as it isn't a civil right, congress, or
legislatures, can regulate it in the interest of the public welfare (that's
for you Lloyd) as they see fit. Since they are our representatives, they
represent the public view by how they vote to regulate things. If they vote
to allow gay marriage. That's what we'll do. If the court "finds" a right
to marriage in the constitution (and only a leftest court would), then
congress is removed from the picture and thus the desires and opinions of
the people on the matter are rendered irrelevent (unless we pass a
constitutional amendment).
David J. Allen
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:06:44 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from
one
> >> between 2 senior citizens, for example?
> >>
> >Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and
variation
> >*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles
behind
> >marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to
re-evaluate
> >the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
>
> Why is re-evalution bad? The current model is failing badly at the
> moment, unless you consider a 50% failure rate to be a success.
Divorce, by itself, isn't proof our insitution of marriage doesn't work.
Early on Lenin and the Soviets attempted to eradicate the family so the
state could raise children ideologically pure. Now there's a model that
failed badly.
>
> >> Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the
Jewish
> >> agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize
being
> >> left-handed...
> >>
> >If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
> >abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
> >Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and
what's
> >his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal
works
> >both ways.
>
> If people were truly colour blind then those institutions would have
> no purpose and would disappear. Racism occurs on both sides,
> unfortunately.
>
I'm sure it does, but don't get the idea that those organizations exist (any
longer) because of racism. They've transformed into political and financial
entities seeking power. They love to find racism to justify the good will
they need to exist. They love to find racism so much they'll find it where
it isn't... just to find something. They love to conjure up anger and
resentment in the black community at every turn.
> >Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much
different,
> >at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's
about
> >redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
>
> Two people formally agreeing to an exclusive arrangement. Sounds
> pretty similar to me.
That's not marriage. That's a contract and anyone (adult) can enter a
contract.
David J. Allen
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Marriage isn't about civil rights.
>
> Society grants certain privileges and rights and responsibilities to
> married couples that are not granted to unmarried persons. Because it is
> society (not God or an orange tree or a pair of blue jeans) from which
> these rights and privileges flow, they are CIVIL rights. That's what
> "civil" means.
>
Which means legislatures can regulate marriage according to the values that
got them elected. That means *the courts can stay out of it* and let
legislatures decide. It means that gay marriage isn't protected by the
constitution.
I can live with that.
> > Because it changes the nature of marriage.
>
> The nature of marriage has been changed in Western society many times over
> the last two thousand years. This is not a new phenomenon.
>
Not in the most distilled sense. The things that have changed are things
like having increased women's rights within marriage, but it still remains
as it has for millenia. A man and a woman (well, or women in some culures)
creating a family to become productive members of future generations.
> > the government ... can stop certain marriages based on a
> > compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.).
>
> And the current question is whether there is, in fact, a compelling state
> interest in barring same-sex marriages.
>
I actually take that back. The legislature should be able to stop certain
marriages according to what they think is for the general welfare of that
country (that's for you Lloyd).
The state, being constituted from elected representatives, will reflect the
values of society. It's a choice. As long as I get to vote my way without
it being negated by anything other than more votes on the other side, I can
live with it.
> DS
>
David J. Allen
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Mixed race doesn't do a thing to change what marriage is.
>
> The folks who argued against it 50 years ago claimed that was exactly what
> it did. They used the selfsame language you're using now against same-sex
> marriage.
>
What? That it would change the nature of marriage from producing successful
future generations to one of access to benefits?
>
> > > Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually,
for
> > > they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing
mixed-race
> > > couples to marry.
> >
> > Mixed race is a racial issue, not a marriage issue.
>
> When mixed-race marriage is being discussed, it's a marriage issue.
>
Not in the sense that it changes the nature of marriage.
> DS
>
George
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:
CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy shit, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting shit-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really pissed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I shit myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like shit to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%gAAb.5593$ng6....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Bill Putney
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> ...That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
> thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
> what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
> rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
> community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as granted
> "by God".
>
> The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
> Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
> monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all rights
> eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
That is a singularly and extremely important point that we all need to
be reminded of - myself included.
Thanks, David!
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:1519c877a638b469...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:29:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for any
>> >civil right it satisfies.
>>
>> And that benefit is children, right? Which brings us back to couples
>> who can't or don't want to have children. It also leads us to the
>> question of what is better for kids? An unhappy marriage between a
>> man and a woman or a happy relationship between two men or two women?
>> As long as they learn how to love someone else, it doesn't matter the
>> sex of that person.
>
>No, the benefit is carrying forward values and blessings from generation to
>generation. You can try to stir up the stew by throwing in a bunch of "what
>if"'s about happy, well adjusted, smart, intelligent gay couples and stupid,
>idiodic, lying, cheating, bank-robbing straight couples. It doesn't change
>the principles of the argument though.
>
>Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than an
>institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
doesn't it?
>> >No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
>>
>> Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
>> not god (which god anyways?).
>>
>That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
>thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
>what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
>rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
>community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as granted
>"by God".
>
>The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
>Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
>monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all rights
>eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
people.
>We all know that he who has the power to grant, also has the power to take
>away.
Patriot Act, anyone?
>By the way... are you from Canada? It didn't occur to me that you might be
>and that maybe Canadians rights aren't recognized as "God given".
Yep, I'm from the Great White North.
>> >The left
>> >loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights of
>> >life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
>> >libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
>> >shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government to
>> >provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
>> >responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
>> >government.
>>
>> If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
>> soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
>> dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
>> right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
>> idea itself.
>
>Well that works both ways (left and right). And it's true for the politcal
>faces of Democrats and Republicans.
Isn't that what I just said?
>But actually, it isn't true. Both left
>and right have won ideological vitories in the US. There is a huge
>entitlement class in the US thanks to the left. The right is not going to
>change it. The right has built a powerful military that has protected
>freedom and liberty wordwide and has the courage to use it.
Both of those were started before things got so badly entrenched.
>> >> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
>> >> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
>> >> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
>> >>
>> >Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union whose
>> >purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
>> >marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
>>
>> Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
>
>We have, but it's caused family problems for double income families with
>children. It hasn't been a good thing. It's tended towards a negative
>effect on families. The idea of women in the work force as a concept
>isolated to itself is not an issue. Just it's effect on the family.
And somehow gays getting married will make this worse?
>> >BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's debatable
>> >that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
>> >gender. Is that necessarily good?
>>
>> Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
>> life partner is?
>>
>Oh heavens. Anything we do by gender. Public bathrooms and locker rooms,
>public nudity,
If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
>public discrimination of private organizations that gender
>discriminate (the priesthood, private universities, etc.).
Do only men have the ability to commune with your god? Separate
universities are already under attack, aren't they?
>There are
>probably better examples, but we wouldn't benefit from a gender normalized
>society. That's not to say that there are some things that should be gender
>normalized that maybe aren't, just that it's unrealistic and undesirable to
>normalize *everything* we do and *every* institution by gender. That's why
>the Equal Rights Amendment lost 30 years ago. Men and women are different
>to a degree that warrants proper discrimination.
The problem with the Equal Rights Amendment was that it was simply the
pendulum swinging the other way instead of rational thought. If it
came down to a choice between a more qualified man and a less
qualified woman, the woman was to be chosen because she was a woman.
Before that it was the other way around. The *right* way to do it is
closer to being in place now, where the gender of the person is
irrelevant. There needs to be a single standard and if someone can
meet it or exceed it, the job is theirs.
>> The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
>> that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
>> what people should be doing.
>
>Not at all! The courts have no such jurisdiction! They only have power to
>rule on the law.
And to determine when a law is wrong.
>You seem to have missed the point. If marriage were a
>civil right, then congress could not pass laws regulating it and the courts
>would enforce it. As long as it isn't a civil right, congress, or
>legislatures, can regulate it in the interest of the public welfare (that's
>for you Lloyd) as they see fit. Since they are our representatives, they
>represent the public view by how they vote to regulate things. If they vote
>to allow gay marriage. That's what we'll do. If the court "finds" a right
>to marriage in the constitution (and only a leftest court would), then
>congress is removed from the picture and thus the desires and opinions of
>the people on the matter are rendered irrelevent (unless we pass a
>constitutional amendment).
Maybe Canada has a leftist Supreme Court then, because IIRC it was
found to be discrimination to prevent same sex couples from getting
married.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:adb899d19671876a...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:06:44 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation
>> >*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
>> >marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to re-evaluate
>> >the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
>>
>> Why is re-evalution bad? The current model is failing badly at the
>> moment, unless you consider a 50% failure rate to be a success.
>
>Divorce, by itself, isn't proof our insitution of marriage doesn't work.
You're right. And were the rate 10 or even 20% you'd have a point.
But 50%?
>Early on Lenin and the Soviets attempted to eradicate the family so the
>state could raise children ideologically pure. Now there's a model that
>failed badly.
I'm not arguing with that.
>> >If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
>> >abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
>> >Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and what's
>> >his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal works
>> >both ways.
>>
>> If people were truly colour blind then those institutions would have
>> no purpose and would disappear. Racism occurs on both sides,
>> unfortunately.
>
>I'm sure it does, but don't get the idea that those organizations exist (any
>longer) because of racism. They've transformed into political and financial
>entities seeking power. They love to find racism to justify the good will
>they need to exist. They love to find racism so much they'll find it where
>it isn't... just to find something. They love to conjure up anger and
>resentment in the black community at every turn.
My experience has been that those who are racist themselves are the
most likely to have racist experiences and scream the loudest about
them. Political entities exist originally for a purpose, then that
purpose inevitably evolves into the existence of the political entity
itself. They rely on what racism exists (a lot less blatant now, but
far from non-existant) to make it appear that there is a lot more. If
there were truly none, then no one would react or believe in their
message.
>> >Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much different,
>> >at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's about
>> >redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
>>
>> Two people formally agreeing to an exclusive arrangement. Sounds
>> pretty similar to me.
>
>That's not marriage. That's a contract and anyone (adult) can enter a
>contract.
Marriage *is* a contract. I remember signing the papers!
David J. Allen
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:17:12 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:adb899d19671876a...@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:06:44 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and
variation
> >> >*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles
behind
> >> >marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to
re-evaluate
> >> >the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
> >>
> >> Why is re-evalution bad? The current model is failing badly at the
> >> moment, unless you consider a 50% failure rate to be a success.
> >
> >Divorce, by itself, isn't proof our insitution of marriage doesn't work.
>
> You're right. And were the rate 10 or even 20% you'd have a point.
> But 50%?
>
Well... yeah! 50% is a lot, but not all of that 50% is a failure of the
institution. People do try again and end up in marriage that work. I think
if the number of people who just decided not to marry (because they didn't
believe in or trust the insitution) was large enough, then the institution
would begin to teeter and lose it's value in society.
> >Early on Lenin and the Soviets attempted to eradicate the family so the
> >state could raise children ideologically pure. Now there's a model that
> >failed badly.
>
> I'm not arguing with that.
>
Well, it is an example of a failed insitution. It doesn't exist anymore.
Marriage does mostly in it's traditional form.
I think they're nearing that state, but there's a big stake in allowing this
racial circus to continue by Democrats. They need the black vote to win.
They benefit when the black community is stirred up in anger against "racial
injustice" (Republican policies). They can't afford to ignore or sweep
aside the black community. So they cultivate this stuff.
> >> >Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much
different,
> >> >at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's
about
> >> >redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
> >>
> >> Two people formally agreeing to an exclusive arrangement. Sounds
> >> pretty similar to me.
> >
> >That's not marriage. That's a contract and anyone (adult) can enter a
> >contract.
>
> Marriage *is* a contract. I remember signing the papers!
Sure, but it's way more than that. The reason it's treated as it is legally
is because of the way we view it's importance. It's not "merely" a
contract.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:9d9469a7d4b61f8d...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:17:12 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >Divorce, by itself, isn't proof our insitution of marriage doesn't work.
>>
>> You're right. And were the rate 10 or even 20% you'd have a point.
>> But 50%?
>>
>
>Well... yeah! 50% is a lot, but not all of that 50% is a failure of the
>institution. People do try again and end up in marriage that work. I think
>if the number of people who just decided not to marry (because they didn't
>believe in or trust the insitution) was large enough, then the institution
>would begin to teeter and lose it's value in society.
Sometimes they try three or four times! If something fails on a
regular basis, then there's a significant problem with the seriousness
with which society takes it. My feeling on it is that it's the
instant gratification concept that most people live with these days.
Everyone wants to be happy right now, all the time. Marriage requires
constant effort and is never emotional bliss all the time. Society as
a whole doesn't value it enough to work at it. Not everyone, and I
count myself as someone who believes in working at it, but a very
significant number.
>> >Early on Lenin and the Soviets attempted to eradicate the family so the
>> >state could raise children ideologically pure. Now there's a model that
>> >failed badly.
>>
>> I'm not arguing with that.
>
>Well, it is an example of a failed insitution. It doesn't exist anymore.
>Marriage does mostly in it's traditional form.
That was an extreme implementation of some crazy ideology not
represented anywhere in any kind of nature.
>> My experience has been that those who are racist themselves are the
>> most likely to have racist experiences and scream the loudest about
>> them. Political entities exist originally for a purpose, then that
>> purpose inevitably evolves into the existence of the political entity
>> itself. They rely on what racism exists (a lot less blatant now, but
>> far from non-existant) to make it appear that there is a lot more. If
>> there were truly none, then no one would react or believe in their
>> message.
>
>I think they're nearing that state, but there's a big stake in allowing this
>racial circus to continue by Democrats. They need the black vote to win.
>They benefit when the black community is stirred up in anger against "racial
>injustice" (Republican policies). They can't afford to ignore or sweep
>aside the black community. So they cultivate this stuff.
Politicians will use any means necessary to get a vote.
>>
>> Marriage *is* a contract. I remember signing the papers!
>
>Sure, but it's way more than that. The reason it's treated as it is legally
>is because of the way we view it's importance. It's not "merely" a
>contract.
You're right. There's supposed to be caring and concern behind it,
ideally love. None of which precludes gays.
David J. Allen
Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
etc....all that stuff. Our values.
> >> >No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
> >>
> >> Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
> >> not god (which god anyways?).
> >>
> >That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
> >thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
> >what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
> >rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
> >community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as
granted
> >"by God".
> >
> >The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
> >Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
> >monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all
rights
> >eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
>
> It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
> it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
> limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
> people.
>
That's not true. The premise of our constitution is that there are certain
rights that are inalienable. They don't come from any community. They just
are and can never be taken away. There are other's that do derive from the
will of the people, but the "inalienable" ones the state can never take away
regardless of any agreement.
> >We all know that he who has the power to grant, also has the power to
take
> >away.
>
> Patriot Act, anyone?
>
Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown to
be wrong.
I think we agree. It's the unfortunate nature of politics.
> >But actually, it isn't true. Both left
> >and right have won ideological vitories in the US. There is a huge
> >entitlement class in the US thanks to the left. The right is not going
to
> >change it. The right has built a powerful military that has protected
> >freedom and liberty wordwide and has the courage to use it.
>
> Both of those were started before things got so badly entrenched.
>
??? badly entrenched? If you mean politically polarized, then I think that
has to do with the Democrats hold on power having slipped in recent years.
They're going to the trenches to get it back.
> >> >> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> >> >> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> >> >> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
> >> >>
> >> >Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union
whose
> >> >purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
> >> >marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
> >>
> >> Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
> >
> >We have, but it's caused family problems for double income families with
> >children. It hasn't been a good thing. It's tended towards a negative
> >effect on families. The idea of women in the work force as a concept
> >isolated to itself is not an issue. Just it's effect on the family.
>
> And somehow gays getting married will make this worse?
>
I don't believe the existence of a married gay couple "does" anything to
society. It works the other way around. Our values reflect in our laws.
The way we regard marriage as a whole has a very significant effect on
society and the social order we place on society via the law. If we were to
regard marriage independent of the traditional view (man, woman, children)
then that is an indication of our values and would likewise be manifested in
all our laws. It would be a quantum shift in the traditions of what people
have believed makes society good.
> >> >BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's
debatable
> >> >that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
> >> >gender. Is that necessarily good?
> >>
> >> Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
> >> life partner is?
> >>
> >Oh heavens. Anything we do by gender. Public bathrooms and locker
rooms,
> >public nudity,
>
> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
>
People generally value modesty. The younger generations and dirty old men
have some difficulty understanding it (nothing new), but it is nonetheless
an important social value. It's reflected in public nudity laws and apply
to both genders... but not the same way. If we had a gender normal society,
the law couldn't discriminate between men and women wrt nudity. That
matters to most people. If that changes, we'll have topless women at the
park and beaches and maybe even public sex. How about that guys!
> >public discrimination of private organizations that gender
> >discriminate (the priesthood, private universities, etc.).
>
> Do only men have the ability to commune with your god? Separate
> universities are already under attack, aren't they?
>
> >There are
> >probably better examples, but we wouldn't benefit from a gender
normalized
> >society. That's not to say that there are some things that should be
gender
> >normalized that maybe aren't, just that it's unrealistic and undesirable
to
> >normalize *everything* we do and *every* institution by gender. That's
why
> >the Equal Rights Amendment lost 30 years ago. Men and women are
different
> >to a degree that warrants proper discrimination.
>
> The problem with the Equal Rights Amendment was that it was simply the
> pendulum swinging the other way instead of rational thought. If it
> came down to a choice between a more qualified man and a less
> qualified woman, the woman was to be chosen because she was a woman.
> Before that it was the other way around. The *right* way to do it is
> closer to being in place now, where the gender of the person is
> irrelevant. There needs to be a single standard and if someone can
> meet it or exceed it, the job is theirs.
>
That's not what the equal rights amendment was. What you descibe sounds
like Affirmative Action.
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than an
>>institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
>
>And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>doesn't it?
In part, yes.
It also means self-defense. Which, of course, doesn't involve marriage
at all.
Is children within marriage the sole reason for marriage? Obviously
not, otherwise there would be a rule that any couple that gets married
must have children.
Marriage is a complex concept, and children, while a major part of
marriage, do not define a marriage.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
>>Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
>>monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all rights
>>eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
>
>It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
>it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
>limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
>people.
This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
government, such as, for example, the right to life.
What is pecularly a concept of democratic forms of government is that
the community itself, and not the government, can grant rights.
The government can only codify them.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>> doesn't it?
>>
>
>Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
>etc....all that stuff. Our values.
And gays don't have those values?
>> It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
>> it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
>> limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
>> people.
>>
>That's not true. The premise of our constitution is that there are certain
>rights that are inalienable. They don't come from any community. They just
>are and can never be taken away. There are other's that do derive from the
>will of the people, but the "inalienable" ones the state can never take away
>regardless of any agreement.
Semantics. It was agreed at the formation of the community that those
rights wouldn't be able to be revoked by the community, that doesn't
mean that they don't derive from the community.
>> Patriot Act, anyone?
>
>Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown to
>be wrong.
Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?
>> Isn't that what I just said?
>>
>I think we agree. It's the unfortunate nature of politics.
The problem with politics is that no matter who you vote for a
politician always gets in.
>> Both of those were started before things got so badly entrenched.
>>
>??? badly entrenched? If you mean politically polarized, then I think that
>has to do with the Democrats hold on power having slipped in recent years.
>They're going to the trenches to get it back.
By entrenched I mean the prevailing attitudes between the left and the
right. That being that any idea coming from the other side is wrong
due to where it came from, not the nature of the idea.
>> And somehow gays getting married will make this worse?
>>
>I don't believe the existence of a married gay couple "does" anything to
>society. It works the other way around. Our values reflect in our laws.
>The way we regard marriage as a whole has a very significant effect on
>society and the social order we place on society via the law. If we were to
>regard marriage independent of the traditional view (man, woman, children)
>then that is an indication of our values and would likewise be manifested in
>all our laws. It would be a quantum shift in the traditions of what people
>have believed makes society good.
So accepting gays makes society bad?
>> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
>
>People generally value modesty.
*Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
Puritans.
>The younger generations and dirty old men
>have some difficulty understanding it (nothing new), but it is nonetheless
>an important social value. It's reflected in public nudity laws and apply
>to both genders... but not the same way. If we had a gender normal society,
>the law couldn't discriminate between men and women wrt nudity. That
>matters to most people. If that changes, we'll have topless women at the
>park and beaches and maybe even public sex. How about that guys!
Hell, what's wrong with topless women?! ;)
In all seriousness though, women being topless cause so much stir
because it's banned. Try going to a topless beach in Europe or
Australia. No one cares! In most of North America it's just that
it's forbidden, thus people get excited when they see it. There's
such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting.
>> The problem with the Equal Rights Amendment was that it was simply the
>> pendulum swinging the other way instead of rational thought. If it
>> came down to a choice between a more qualified man and a less
>> qualified woman, the woman was to be chosen because she was a woman.
>> Before that it was the other way around. The *right* way to do it is
>> closer to being in place now, where the gender of the person is
>> irrelevant. There needs to be a single standard and if someone can
>> meet it or exceed it, the job is theirs.
>>
>That's not what the equal rights amendment was. What you descibe sounds
>like Affirmative Action.
Then I'm not sure what the Equal Rights Amendment is.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
I've never suggested otherwise. I have however seen people say gays
shouldn't get married because they can't have children.
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:01:31 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>>The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
>>>>Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
>>>>monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all rights
>>>>eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
>>>
>>>It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
>>>it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
>>>limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
>>>people.
>>
>>This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
>>community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
>>guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
>>government, such as, for example, the right to life.
>>
>>What is pecularly a concept of democratic forms of government is that
>>the community itself, and not the government, can grant rights.
>>The government can only codify them.
>
>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
More particularly, the American government?
I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
Bill Putney
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> ...There's
> such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
> it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
> mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
> believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
> clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
> body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
> private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
> stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting...
You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
Lon Stowell
> There is a reasonable balance.
Probably not.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
Without a government, how do you protect your right to life? If might
makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>More particularly, the American government?
>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
of speech, that sort of thing.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> ...There's
>> such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
>> it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
>> mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
>> believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
>> clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
>> body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
>> private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
>> stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting...
>
>You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
>pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
>you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
>extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
>disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.
David J. Allen
"Bill Funk" <bfu...@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:c7b9tvsna4s0pr2fg...@4ax.com...
It's roots are religious. A covenant between God, husband and wife. God's
way for us to bring children into the world.
David J. Allen
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:01:31 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> ><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >
> >>>The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
> >>>Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
> >>>monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all
rights
> >>>eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
> >>
> >>It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
> >>it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
> >>limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
> >>people.
> >
> >This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
> >community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
> >guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
> >government, such as, for example, the right to life.
> >
> >What is pecularly a concept of democratic forms of government is that
> >the community itself, and not the government, can grant rights.
> >The government can only codify them.
>
> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
David J. Allen
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:32:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:64f518b6e321f6b9...@news.teranews.com...
>
> >> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
> >> doesn't it?
> >>
> >
> >Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
> >etc....all that stuff. Our values.
>
> And gays don't have those values?
Of course they do! Did I say they didn't?
>
> >> It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
> >> it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
> >> limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
> >> people.
> >>
> >That's not true. The premise of our constitution is that there are
certain
> >rights that are inalienable. They don't come from any community. They
just
> >are and can never be taken away. There are other's that do derive from
the
> >will of the people, but the "inalienable" ones the state can never take
away
> >regardless of any agreement.
>
> Semantics. It was agreed at the formation of the community that those
> rights wouldn't be able to be revoked by the community, that doesn't
> mean that they don't derive from the community.
>
> >> Patriot Act, anyone?
> >
> >Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown
to
> >be wrong.
>
> Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?
>
Nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
No. Abandoning the traditional definition of marriage would be bad medicine
for society.
> >> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
> >
> >People generally value modesty.
>
> *Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
> Puritans.
>
Hmmm. I disagree. Modesty is common courtesy.
David J. Allen
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> ...There's
> >> such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
> >> it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
> >> mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
> >> believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
> >> clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
> >> body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
> >> private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
> >> stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting...
> >
> >You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
> >pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
> >you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
> >extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
> >disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
>
> That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
> of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
> doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
> excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
> beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.
I think people pretent they don't notice!
Bill Putney
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
> wrote:
> >You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
> >pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
> >you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
> >extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
> >disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
>
> That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
> of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
> doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
> excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
> beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.
And therefore what????
Tune in to MTV or VH1 - that will alleviate your fears that Americans
are too hung up on anything. We can get nasty with the best of them.
Again - not sure where you're going with this.
Brandon Sommerville
And yet seniors get married.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:f72ffba371cbade2...@news.teranews.com...
>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>
>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
doesn't exist.
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:4ba38366c3181181...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:32:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:64f518b6e321f6b9...@news.teranews.com...
>>
>> >> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>> >> doesn't it?
>> >
>> >Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
>> >etc....all that stuff. Our values.
>>
>> And gays don't have those values?
>
>Of course they do! Did I say they didn't?
If marriage is about those values and you don't want gays to get
married, I thought maybe you thought gay marriage would remove those
values from the definition of marriage.
>> >> Patriot Act, anyone?
>> >
>> >Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown to
>> >be wrong.
>>
>> Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?
>>
>Nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
True enough, but it's an excellent example of rights being trampled.
>>
>> So accepting gays makes society bad?
>>
>No. Abandoning the traditional definition of marriage would be bad medicine
>for society.
Society is evolving. 20 years ago you couldn't be openly gay, now
it's a lot less of a big deal in most circles and doesn't matter at
all in many.
>> >> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
>> >
>> >People generally value modesty.
>>
>> *Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
>> Puritans.
>
>Hmmm. I disagree. Modesty is common courtesy.
Depends on where you are and what the circumstances are. At work?
Certainly. At the beach? Shouldn't be an issue. If it's a really
hot day at the park? Well, why not?
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
>> >pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
>> >you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
>> >extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
>> >disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
>>
>> That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
>> of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
>> doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
>> excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
>> beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.
>
>And therefore what????
Nudity isn't forbidden and therefore isn't a big deal.
>Tune in to MTV or VH1 - that will alleviate your fears that Americans
>are too hung up on anything. We can get nasty with the best of them.
>Again - not sure where you're going with this.
A very small subset is able to, yet there are very firm limits.
Bill Funk
THat's not what the New Testament says.
It's about the two people being married leaving their respective
families and becoming one
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>
>>So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
>
>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
That's not the same as the right existing.
Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
life.
>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>
>>More particularly, the American government?
>>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
>
>The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
>of speech, that sort of thing.
Ah, then you didn't respond to what I wrote; you responded to
something else.
I wrote:
"This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
government, such as, for example, the right to life."
As you see, I spoecifically said the right to life was guaranteed, not
granted. And you specifically responded to that:
"And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from
the original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer
exist."
Lon Stowell
> I think people pretent they don't notice!
Some do and are getting damned tired of this off topic
crossposting.
Lon Stowell
>
> Tune in to MTV or VH1
Nah, no music left. Just a bunch of ratchet-jawed jerks
talking to themselves.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>
>>>So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
>>
>>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
>
>That's not the same as the right existing.
Without a means of protecting those rights they are meaningless.
>Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
>life.
Without law (backed by a government) anyone can be killed for no
reason. There is no inherent right to life.
>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>
>The government doesn't stop that, does it?
No, but it significantly reduces it.
>>>More particularly, the American government?
>>>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
>>
>>The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
>>of speech, that sort of thing.
>
>Ah, then you didn't respond to what I wrote; you responded to
>something else.
>I wrote:
>"This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
>community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
>guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
>government, such as, for example, the right to life."
>
>As you see, I spoecifically said the right to life was guaranteed, not
>granted. And you specifically responded to that:
>"And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from
>the original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer
>exist."
No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
to life" is simply meaningless words.
Lon Stowell
> A very small subset is able to, yet there are very firm limits.
Go figure.
Lon Stowell
[blah blah blah, who cares, except for DJA and his crossposting
ratchet jawed sockpuppets...?]
Lon Stowell
Nothing on topic or of interest to anyone except BS and
his crossposting ratchet jawed mouth breathers.
Lon Stowell
[nothing]
Lon Stowell
> And yet seniors get married.
Oh well. Got anything to say about cars? Or driving?
Lon Stowell
eh heh heh he. He said "Funk". Heh eh eh.
Lon Stowell
> I wrote:
...nothing on topic to any of the newsgroups.
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
> Semantics.
No, off topic blather, cross-posted to boot.
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:44:55 GMT, "David J. Allen"
><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>>news:f72ffba371cbade2...@news.teranews.com...
>
>>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>
>>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
>
>Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
>doesn't exist.
But that's not considered a "God given" right, such as the right to
life.
Lon Stowell
>
> No, but it significantly reduces it.
I don't suppose you could turn your attention to off-topic
crossposting?
Lon Stowell
> But that's not considered a "God given" right,
...neither is off-topic crossposting.
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:41:39 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>>>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>>
>>>>So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
>>>
>>>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
>>
>>That's not the same as the right existing.
>
>Without a means of protecting those rights they are meaningless.
Hogwash; if they are meaningless without the means to protect them,
then why do so many insist that they have them?
>
>>Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
>>life.
>
>Without law (backed by a government) anyone can be killed for no
>reason. There is no inherent right to life.
More hogwash.
You are actually trying to tell us that, without government, no rights
exist.
You are confusing governmental protection of rights with the rights
themselves.
>
>>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>>
>>The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>
>No, but it significantly reduces it.
If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>
>>>>More particularly, the American government?
>>>>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
>>>
>>>The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
>>>of speech, that sort of thing.
>>
>>Ah, then you didn't respond to what I wrote; you responded to
>>something else.
>>I wrote:
>>"This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
>>community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
>>guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
>>government, such as, for example, the right to life."
>>
>>As you see, I spoecifically said the right to life was guaranteed, not
>>granted. And you specifically responded to that:
>>"And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from
>>the original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer
>>exist."
>
>No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
>historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
>the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
>to life" is simply meaningless words.
Very wrong.
It may be that it's a fairly recent idea that the lives of the
subjects of a government don't belong to the leader, but that does not
mean that there was never a right to live. Instead, it means that
right wasn't recognized.
Following your logic, Saddam Hussein was within his rights to kill any
of his subjects he saw fit to kill.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:58:15 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:44:55 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>>>news:f72ffba371cbade2...@news.teranews.com...
>>
>>>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>
>>>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
>>
>>Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
>>doesn't exist.
>
>But that's not considered a "God given" right, such as the right to
>life.
How do you define "right to life"? Without a government willing to
back it up, life is pretty cheap.
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
> life is pretty cheap.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:34:33 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:41:39 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
>>>
>>>That's not the same as the right existing.
>>
>>Without a means of protecting those rights they are meaningless.
>
>Hogwash; if they are meaningless without the means to protect them,
>then why do so many insist that they have them?
Because they want to live.
>>>Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
>>>life.
>>
>>Without law (backed by a government) anyone can be killed for no
>>reason. There is no inherent right to life.
>
>More hogwash.
>You are actually trying to tell us that, without government, no rights
>exist.
>You are confusing governmental protection of rights with the rights
>themselves.
What rights do you have in an anarchy? Does a right mean anything if
no one can back up that right?
>>>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>>>
>>>The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>>
>>No, but it significantly reduces it.
>
>If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
Maher about freedom of speech.
>>No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
>>historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
>>the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
>>to life" is simply meaningless words.
>
>Very wrong.
>It may be that it's a fairly recent idea that the lives of the
>subjects of a government don't belong to the leader, but that does not
>mean that there was never a right to live. Instead, it means that
>right wasn't recognized.
Which means the right is meaningless.
>Following your logic, Saddam Hussein was within his rights to kill any
>of his subjects he saw fit to kill.
According to his own rules he was. Doesn't make it defensible or
good, but he recognized no rights beyond his own.
Lon Stowell
Bill Putney
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
> wrote:
> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>
> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
> Maher about freedom of speech.
Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
possible).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Lon Stowell
>
> Dixie Chicks
> was violated.
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
You are, again, confusing being able to *exercise* a right, with the
right existing.
>
>>>>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>>>>
>>>>The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>>>
>>>No, but it significantly reduces it.
>>
>>If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>>Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>
>Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
>speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
>Maher about freedom of speech.
You're beginning to catch on.
>
>>>No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
>>>historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
>>>the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
>>>to life" is simply meaningless words.
>>
>>Very wrong.
>>It may be that it's a fairly recent idea that the lives of the
>>subjects of a government don't belong to the leader, but that does not
>>mean that there was never a right to live. Instead, it means that
>>right wasn't recognized.
>
>Which means the right is meaningless.
No, it means it can't be exercised.
>
>>Following your logic, Saddam Hussein was within his rights to kill any
>>of his subjects he saw fit to kill.
>
>According to his own rules he was. Doesn't make it defensible or
>good, but he recognized no rights beyond his own.
Note the word "recognized".
The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:53:03 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:58:15 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:44:55 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>>><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>>>>news:f72ffba371cbade2...@news.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>>
>>>>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
>>>
>>>Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
>>>doesn't exist.
>>
>>But that's not considered a "God given" right, such as the right to
>>life.
>
>How do you define "right to life"? Without a government willing to
>back it up, life is pretty cheap.
If you really don't understand what "right to life" means, there's a
definite lack in your education.
Again, you are still confusing the existance of a right with being
able to exercize that right.
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>Note the word "recognized".
>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>>
>> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
>> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
>> Maher about freedom of speech.
>
>Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
>was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
>If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
>possible).
I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
Banned from radio stations?
George
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:42 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
> >> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
> >> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
> >> Maher about freedom of speech.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
> >was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
> >If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
> >possible).
>
> I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
> Banned from radio stations?
They weren't punished at all. Their former fans have the exact same
rights - and they exercised them!
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:42 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>>> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
>>> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
>>> Maher about freedom of speech.
>>
>>Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
>>was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
>>If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
>>possible).
>
>I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
>Banned from radio stations?
They discovered that what you say has consequences.
The first amendment does not mean that what you say won't piss people
off; it says that the government isn't allowed to muzzle you if you
do.
Last I heard, radio stations have the right to determine their own
playlists, and individuals have the right to buy the CDs they want to
buy. Nothing that even remotely violates the first amendment there.
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:12:10 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Note the word "recognized".
>>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
>
>If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
those granted by governments.
Lon Stowell
> Banned from radio stations?
Just the pictures.
Bill Putney
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:42 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
> >> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
> >> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
> >> Maher about freedom of speech.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
> >was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
> >If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
> >possible).
>
> I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
> Banned from radio stations?
Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!
Lon Stowell
> woof!
David J. Allen
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:05:24 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:32:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Brandon Sommerville" <gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
> >> >> doesn't it?
> >> >
> >> >Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
> >> >etc....all that stuff. Our values.
> >>
> >> And gays don't have those values?
> >
> >Of course they do! Did I say they didn't?
>
> If marriage is about those values and you don't want gays to get
> married, I thought maybe you thought gay marriage would remove those
> values from the definition of marriage.
For me, it's not about gays per se. It's important to understand what
marriage is and means to society in general, in the macro sense. It's
meaningfulness isn't necessarily evident on an individual level. Redefining
it for gays or whoever, who's agenda in doing so isn't anything other than
to normalize the institution for a variety of lifestyles, none of which are
consistent with the the legacy of marriage or it's meaningfulness, is bad
medicine.
The nature of marriage and it's effect on society over generations, I
believe, is very significant. What would our society be like in a few
generations of marriage normalized for different lifestyles? Hard to say.
I can see government becoming a stumbling block for traditional family and
marriage by adding/removing rights/responsibilities based on the needs and
demands of "the married"; traditionalists would become isolated to that
extent.
I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended consequenses.
Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It doesn't make sense for
same sex other than a statement or "cause".
>
> >> >> Patriot Act, anyone?
> >> >
> >> >Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been
shown to
> >> >be wrong.
> >>
> >> Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?
> >>
> >Nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
>
> True enough, but it's an excellent example of rights being trampled.
> >>
> >> So accepting gays makes society bad?
> >>
> >No. Abandoning the traditional definition of marriage would be bad
medicine
> >for society.
>
> Society is evolving. 20 years ago you couldn't be openly gay, now
> it's a lot less of a big deal in most circles and doesn't matter at
> all in many.
>
> >> >> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
> >> >
> >> >People generally value modesty.
> >>
> >> *Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
> >> Puritans.
> >
> >Hmmm. I disagree. Modesty is common courtesy.
>
> Depends on where you are and what the circumstances are. At work?
> Certainly. At the beach? Shouldn't be an issue. If it's a really
> hot day at the park? Well, why not?
Daniel J. Stern
> Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.
The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
lie to this statement.
DS
Bill Putney
And therefore what? (1) Therefore allowing gays to get married will fix
it, or (2) Therefore, since no one has respect for the institution of
marriage, we should finish the job of destroying it by allowing gays to
"get married", or (3) Therefore, since no one has respect for the
insitution of marriage, why should or would anyone care that we are
proposing to deal it the final blow?
Brandon seemed to me to be using the "It's a failed institution,
therefore to fix it, gays ought to be allowed to get married" the other
day, but he denied that that was his logic. What I'm getting at is,
what does the fact that you think it's a failed insitution have to do
with your belief that gays ought to be allowed to get married? You must
think the gays will fix it, or why would you want to be part of such a
failed concept?
I think David Allen hit the proverbial nail on the head when he wrote:
"I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended
consequenses. Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It
doesn't make sense for same sex other than a statement or 'cause'."
That certainly seems to be the case with the repeat of the "50% divorce
rate" and "failed institution" claims. Otherwise, what's the purpose of
claiming that repeatedly in a discussion on gays "getting married" if
that's not part of the justification?
Brandon Sommerville
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended consequenses.
>Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It doesn't make sense for
>same sex other than a statement or "cause".
David, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this
one. It has been a very informative and polite discussion which I've
enjoyed greatly!
All the best,
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
>what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
>they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
>jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
>speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
>on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
>just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!
The whole thing was supported by the gov't, which is scary. Even Ari
Fleischer said "We have to watch what we say" (to paraphrase) in
response to Bill Maher's comments.
Freedom of speech? As long as you support the current regime...
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:45:03 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:12:10 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Note the word "recognized".
>>>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>>>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
>>
>>If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
>
>It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>those granted by governments.
What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
not having it recognized?
David J. Allen
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.03121...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
Not at all. A more relevent metric wouldn't be the divorce rate, but the
percent of people married regardless of how many times. The percent of
people not ever getting married or never remarrying would be a better
indicator of the decreased relevence of the institution. Even so, that
"failure" rate doesn't diminish marriage, it diminishes society.
> DS
>
David J. Allen
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:59:34 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended consequenses.
> >Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It doesn't make sense for
> >same sex other than a statement or "cause".
>
> David, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this
> one. It has been a very informative and polite discussion which I've
> enjoyed greatly!
>
> All the best,
Thanks. I think we've devolved into talking in circles :-)
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
>
> Not at all.
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
Lon Stowell
Daniel J. Stern
> > > Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.
> >
> > The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
> > lie to this statement.
> A more relevent metric wouldn't be the divorce rate, but the
> percent of people married regardless of how many times.
H'm. So it's OK with you for some dumb slob to tell lies every couple
years about "In sickness and in health" and "til death do us part" when
s/he really means "...or until someone better/richer comes along,
whichever comes first", and as long as the slob's heterosexual, this
DOESN'T diminish marriage as an institution, eh?
DS
Bill Funk
<gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:45:03 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:12:10 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Note the word "recognized".
>>>>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>>>>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
>>>
>>>If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
>>
>>It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>>those granted by governments.
>
>What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
>not having it recognized?
To someone who thinks all rights come from governments, I guess not
much.
However, certain rights (such as a right to life) transcend
governments; governments don't grant such rights, but they can
recognize them.
If you have a right that your government doesn't recognize, it's much
easier to get it to recognize it, as opposed to rights that the
government does grant (like driving, for example).
Bill Putney
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:48:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
> >what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
> >they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
> >jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
> >speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
> >on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
> >just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!
>
> The whole thing was supported by the gov't, which is scary. Even Ari
> Fleischer said "We have to watch what we say" (to paraphrase) in
> response to Bill Maher's comments.
>
> Freedom of speech? As long as you support the current regime...
Like I said - weak-minded.
Yes - never mind that soldiers lives may be put at risk by "what we
say". You're so FoS.
Bill Putney
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
> >those granted by governments.
>
> What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
> not having it recognized?
Well, let's see. Could it be that with a legitimate right that's being
denied that as long as you have enough good people who will stand on
principle, you have at least a fighting chance (literally) of regaining
the legitimate right back, whereas if it is not a genuine right that
want to lay claim to, even with a majority of good people around that
you would (and apprently should) never gain/regain it? (Carrying it
further, the consequences if good people decide no to do anything about
gaining or regaining a legitmate right may be that it will be lost
forever.)
Maybe no difference for the moment, but certainly hope for the future
(with a legitimate right that's being denied).
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:48:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bpu...@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
>> >what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
>> >they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
>> >jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
>> >speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
>> >on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
>> >just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!
>>
>> The whole thing was supported by the gov't, which is scary. Even Ari
>> Fleischer said "We have to watch what we say" (to paraphrase) in
>> response to Bill Maher's comments.
>>
>> Freedom of speech? As long as you support the current regime...
>
>Like I said - weak-minded.
>
>Yes - never mind that soldiers lives may be put at risk by "what we
>say". You're so FoS.
You're right, soldiers will be put at risk by someone saying "They
shouldn't be there" much more than by someone saying "Go there". Such
brilliant logic, I'm not sure how I missed the connection...
Fleischer wasn't talking about security issues, he was talking about
Maher daring to contradict the image that the terrorists who flew a
plane into a building *knowing* that they would die were cowards. How
does that threaten any soldiers?
Brandon Sommerville
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:36:42 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><gri...@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <bfu...@pipping.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>>>those granted by governments.
>>
>>What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
>>not having it recognized?
>
>To someone who thinks all rights come from governments, I guess not
>much.
What is the functional difference. If there is one surely someone
with as high an opinion of himself as you can explain it. Beyond, of
course, the fact that one makes you feel like an American.
>However, certain rights (such as a right to life) transcend
>governments; governments don't grant such rights, but they can
>recognize them.
>If you have a right that your government doesn't recognize, it's much
>easier to get it to recognize it, as opposed to rights that the
>government does grant (like driving, for example).
Semantics.
Bill Putney
You really don't know, do you. Not surprised at all.
David J. Allen
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.03121...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
Did I say that? Wow! Actually, I had in mind people who just didn't get it
right the first time. The nice spouse of the poor dumb slob you described.
My sister really believes in the institution of marriage. She's used it 4
or 5 times. Somehow the last one has lasted. And not to be too negative,
some creepy people actually change their ways and end up kind of decent.
I don't think people who fail in marriage diminish it. Actually an analogy
might be the California School System. It used to be that plenty of people
failed and had to repeat grades. It didn't diminish the program. Now days,
everyone passes, (sort of like "anything goes" in marriage). Now that's a
diminished system.
> DS
>