Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: re: Disurbing article

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

---

The dictionary indicates religion is: any specific system of belief,

worship, conduct, etc, often involving a code of ethics and a

philosophy? Dennis

In , " Byron "

<anthony.byron@d...> wrote:

> I'm not religious on any level.

>

>

>

> What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us

spending so much

> time " worshiping him "

> eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>

>

>

> He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

>

>

>

> But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: the scorpio [mailto:rawbabymama@h...]

> Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 2:46 PM

>

> Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>

>

>

> And exactly why I never walked it. I believe there is energy which

gives

> life and keeps it all going. I believe that energy is inherently

positive,

> love energy, if you will. Love is unconditional, so all that

judgement going

>

> on in many organized religions is human to human, nothing more. I

don't

> believe in heaven, hell, or that there is a plan. I make my own

decisions,

> live my life according to a basic sense of right and wrong.

>

> Saying " we're all sinners " is just an excuse to screw up, IMO. I

don't need

> a saviour, if need be, I'll save myself. With belief in love, my

own

> strength, and a confident, positive outlook on life, alll things

are

> possible. When I know what I want, the path clears for me. I don't

need a

> book to give me direction.

>

> Love is right. Punishing or denying rights to people based on who

they love

> is wrong.

>

> Best wishes to all,

>

> Michele

>

>

>

>

> >From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

> >Reply-

> >< >

> >Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:19:23 -0500

> >

> >And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

> >

> >Judith Alta

> >

> >-----Original Message-----

> >From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@y...]

> >

> > > > For the Bible Tells Me So

> > >

> > > <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

> >Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

> >birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

> >eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But

with

> >God all things are possible. Dennis>

> >

> >

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.

> http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>

>

>

> >I'm not religious on any level.

>

> >What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us

spending so

> >much

> >time " worshiping him "

> >eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>

> >He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

>

> <><>><><><><><><><><><>There's your religion of choice. BTW

the " whole world loves a nut " ( the almond joy candy bar commercial)

> Dennis

Very well said!

>

> >But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

>

> Sometimes you feel like a nut.

>

> :)

>

> Michele

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN

Dial-up

> Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah really. Seems very much feeble doesn't it?

What I mean is almost anything could be classed as a religion based on

simple belief in something.

If I believe our way of governments suck. I can start a governments suck

religion ?

Hehehe

_____

From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@...]

Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 3:16 PM

Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

---

The dictionary indicates religion is: any specific system of belief,

worship, conduct, etc, often involving a code of ethics and a

philosophy? Dennis

In , " Byron "

<anthony.byron@d...> wrote:

> I'm not religious on any level.

>

>

>

> What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us

spending so much

> time " worshiping him "

> eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>

>

>

> He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

>

>

>

> But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: the scorpio [mailto:rawbabymama@h...]

> Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 2:46 PM

>

> Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>

>

>

> And exactly why I never walked it. I believe there is energy which

gives

> life and keeps it all going. I believe that energy is inherently

positive,

> love energy, if you will. Love is unconditional, so all that

judgement going

>

> on in many organized religions is human to human, nothing more. I

don't

> believe in heaven, hell, or that there is a plan. I make my own

decisions,

> live my life according to a basic sense of right and wrong.

>

> Saying " we're all sinners " is just an excuse to screw up, IMO. I

don't need

> a saviour, if need be, I'll save myself. With belief in love, my

own

> strength, and a confident, positive outlook on life, alll things

are

> possible. When I know what I want, the path clears for me. I don't

need a

> book to give me direction.

>

> Love is right. Punishing or denying rights to people based on who

they love

> is wrong.

>

> Best wishes to all,

>

> Michele

>

>

>

>

> >From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

> >Reply-

> >< >

> >Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:19:23 -0500

> >

> >And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

> >

> >Judith Alta

> >

> >-----Original Message-----

> >From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@y...]

> >

> > > > For the Bible Tells Me So

> > >

> > > <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

> >Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

> >birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

> >eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But

with

> >God all things are possible. Dennis>

> >

> >

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.

> http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/14/04 9:23:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Statutory definition refines dictionary definition of rape in order to

> create a legal separation of childhood and young adulthood for purposes of

> protection and responsibility.

> Is this definition of de facto reasoning for separation from statutory

> definition?

> adj.

> 1.. Actual: de facto segregation.

> 2.. Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or

> officially established: a de facto government; a de facto nuclear storage

> facility.

You're right, I wasn't using the correct word.

What I'm saying is that if two consenting parties have sex, it could be

considered effectual rape without being actual rape, if one party has some

serious

impariment in their capacity to consent, because even though there was no

force involved, there was no true consent either.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/14/04 10:24:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Marriage has also been a civil contract for a very long time. You're just

> choosing to ignore that.

No, I'm saying I disagree with it. I've said numerous times that I don't

think government should be granting marriages. Besides, aren't civil unions

supposed to be equivalent civil contracts?

> >As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

> >hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations.

>

> Right, so you're rushed into the hospital in a coma after a car accident,

> and you should sit up and tell the hospital who can and can't see you, who

> can and can't make decisions for you, etc.

This is analagous to being rushed in a hospital in a coma and getting married

on the spot, and really has nothing to do with what I said.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent idea, Heidi.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>It is not the same as being married by a Justice of the Peace. Personally,

I think that all unions should be civil unions, and marriages should be

religious ceremonies.

Actually, I'd go a step further and allow " civil unions " for any group that

wants to make them -- it would be a set of rights etc. that are now found

for " marriage " , but you could form such a union with your sister or anyone

else that you might be living with long term ... it would not say anything

about sexual activity or lack thereof, just that you are sharing your

financial and emotional lives.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So right you are!

Religion, as such, was created by humans for humans to answer the

unanswerable questions.

So there is no reason why any person cannot create their own religion from

their own beliefs encompassing any, all or none of the following. Their own

deity, or lack thereof, their own moral code, belief in: prayer, magick,

spells, a particular diet, etc.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Byron [mailto:anthony.byron@...]

Ah really. Seems very much feeble doesn't it?

What I mean is almost anything could be classed as a religion based on

simple belief in something.

If I believe our way of governments suck. I can start a governments suck

religion ?

Hehehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about determining " spouse " for insurance purposes?

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

I agree that that is a better system than what we have now. It think the

idea that gay's have a " right " to be " married " is just stupid. Marriage is

a

religious ceremony, and whether you have a right to one depends on the rules

of

the religion you choose to adhere to. If no religion will marry you, start

your own. That goes for hetersexuals, polygamists, and anyone-- you can't

have a

" right " endowed by the state to acquire something from a private

institution.

However, I really don't see the point of state-sanctioned civil unions. Of

course you should be able to share your finances or share anything you want.

As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations. Just like you

do for

who can use your bank account, credit card, or video rental card.

People should be able to eat carrots, sheep, or love whoever they want. But

they don't need an official recognition from the State to do so.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in

> Christ's birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as

> saviour. Live in eternity forever.

How does one force oneself to believe in something? In my case,

you're telling me to believe something that, for me, simply does not

resonate as truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statutory definition refines dictionary definition of rape in order to

create a legal separation of childhood and young adulthood for purposes of

protection and responsibility.

Is this definition of de facto reasoning for separation from statutory

definition?

adj.

1.. Actual: de facto segregation.

2.. Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or

officially established: a de facto government; a de facto nuclear storage

facility.

> Lierre said that someone in their 20s having sex with someone in their

teens

> is " by definition rape. "

>the judgment capacity differential is so

>extreme it could constitute a de facto form of rape, it is certainly not

rape " by

>definition. "

Wanita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris-

>It think the

>idea that gay's have a " right " to be " married " is just stupid. Marriage is a

>religious ceremony, and whether you have a right to one depends on the

>rules of

>the religion you choose to adhere to.

Marriage has also been a civil contract for a very long time. You're just

choosing to ignore that.

>As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

>hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations.

Right, so you're rushed into the hospital in a coma after a car accident,

and you should sit up and tell the hospital who can and can't see you, who

can and can't make decisions for you, etc.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heidi,

Insurance interests are involved with civil unions. Don't know how strong

their lobby but if its part of employer health insurance. Insurance

companies don't want it because coverage of more people will eat at their

profits and up their premiums.

When my husband was hit on his motorcycle the taxi company was underinsured,

even though a corporation they were allowed to carry the same insurance as a

private citizen which was gone in the first few days of his hospital care.

We weren't married then as it was our first year together, were living

together and he wouldn't be allowed home without someone there. Lawyer said

to go to my auto insurance company and file a claim for household loss of

income under my underinsured portion. The definition of household member

included every relative imaginable but not our situation. Dropped that

insurance company as I'd paid them for 12 years and never had a claim.

Heterosexual families in this example are treated the same as same sex

families. Like you've said Heidi, mutual caring for the group and its

survival makes a family. Families have always been egalitarian in sharing

of resources and are meant to be hierarchial only in conveying ethics. Any

resources to wellbeing held outside of family will always make contention.

> Actually, I'd go a step further and allow " civil unions " for any group

that wants to make them -- it would be a set of rights etc. that are now

found for " marriage " , but you could form such a union with your sister or

anyone else that you might be living with long term ... it would not say

anything about sexual activity or lack thereof, just that you are sharing

your financial and emotional lives.

Wanita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Heidi,

>

>Insurance interests are involved with civil unions. Don't know how strong

>their lobby but if its part of employer health insurance. Insurance

>companies don't want it because coverage of more people will eat at their

>profits and up their premiums.

BINGO! I think that is a BIG part of the wrangling (besides those on the

religious right,

who for some reason are currently allied with big business in a lot of issues,

though

I don't think Jesus was particulary in favor of big business in the Bible).

>The definition of household member

>included every relative imaginable but not our situation. Dropped that

>insurance company as I'd paid them for 12 years and never had a claim.

>Heterosexual families in this example are treated the same as same sex

>families.

I almost brought that up too ... I knew a couple that had lived together 13

years,

he was laid up badly in an accident. She couldn't handle any of the household

stuff

until she spent some time with a lawyer getting set up as a " common law "

situation.

" Marriage " exists in all societies, and it basically means " setting up a

household together "

and it isn't alway primarily religious, it is part of tribal or village life. I

think the church

kind of took it over fairly recently (or partially took it over), like they also

took over

burials and baptisms. If there is no formal ceremony, than a small village would

just accept that Sally and Tom live together and have kids, so everyone would

consider them a family. And there would be conventions about if Tom had

officially

joined Sally's clan or vice versa. The conventions and traditions are what make

it WORK to structure a society ... the traditionalists are correct, marriage IS

very important to define a society. It's important the same rules apply (in

general)

to everyone, because that gives coherance to the society. And makes it possible

for, say, insurance companies to set their rates. That is why individual

contracts

won't work (though one can ADD them to the marriage contract, and some

folks do). If all the contracts were individualized, you'd have to ask each

couple

what their arrangement is, you couldn't make any assumptions, and those

assumptions are what help society funciton.

Having said that, I don't see why same-sex couples can't be part of the rules.

And, if I happen to be living with my ex's mother-in-law because he was

a putz and ran away with a bimbette but she's been helping me raise

the kids, I should be able to set up an 'xxxx-union' to say, 'we are a couple

committed to raising these kids, and she has all the rights my husband

would have, if I had one'. In historical times it was common in some

situations to " adopt " someone as part of the family, which made them

part of " your clan " legally, which was a similar idea.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> People should be able to eat carrots, sheep, or love whoever they want. But

they don't need an official recognition from the State to do so. <<

I have no problem with this, as long as everyone has the same rights or lack

thereof. But as long as heterosexual citizens can have legal marriage, I want to

be able to have it too. I'm not going to accept having a different set of rules

applied to me. But it would actually, in my view, be better that the government

just get out of the marriage business altogether.

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> And, if I happen to be living with my ex's mother-in-law because he was

a putz and ran away with a bimbette but she's been helping me raise

the kids, I should be able to set up an 'xxxx-union' to say, 'we are a couple

committed to raising these kids, and she has all the rights my husband

would have, if I had one'. In historical times it was common in some

situations to " adopt " someone as part of the family, which made them

part of " your clan " legally, which was a similar idea. <<

Not at all far fetched. In fact, this situation is in the Old Testament, in the

words of Ruth to her mother in law, Naomi - words that have been incorporated

into the marriage ceremony as " until death do us part " :

" Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after

thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge;

thy people [shall be] my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest, will I

die, and there will I be buried; the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought

but death part thee and me. "

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

To your comments below, you can set up power of attorney rights before to cover

in the event of emergencies. Just as wills can be set up and rights given upon

death to executors, specific people, etc.

It is in the event of the absence of such directions, that marital rights or

family relation rights as set by law kick in. Heterosexuals living together

without marraige are in exactly the same position.

<Right, so you're rushed into the hospital in a coma after a car accident,

and you should sit up and tell the hospital who can and can't see you, who

can and can't make decisions for you, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christie and others,

I am curious if you believe polygamy should be legal? That is a man's right to

have as many wives at one time as suits him. If so, should insurance companies

be obligated to provide insurance to all of those wives and all of the resulting

children? Would it be discriminatory to charge him more because he only follows

particular his religious beliefs? Should social security benefits be extended

to all?

I am curious if you believe that a man should be allowed to marry his daughter

or niece if that so suits him?

Do you think beastiality should be legal?

These are all issues of " rights " .

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've already

outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I cannot.

Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in a second

class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because you

couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality of this

situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because I'm a lesbian.

Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly what you and my

brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I

wasn't talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say

they support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same sex

couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or Arnold

Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support gay

marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get married

due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want,

but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on fitting in with someone's

religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I am curious if you believe polygamy should be legal?

Why not? And polyandry too (more than one husband). Love makes a

family. If government is going to get into the legal sanctioning of

relationships, it cannot discriminate.

> If so, should insurance companies be obligated to provide insurance to

> all of those wives and all of the resulting children?

Children, yes; they would be required to do that anyway. It would be

reasonable to charge extra for extra spouses (spice, as some

polyamorous people put it). Many policies charge extra for the one

spouse and resulting kids as things are.

> I am curious if you believe that a man should be allowed to marry his

> daughter or niece if that so suits him?

First cousins are allowed to marry if there is no chance of offspring.

Anyone who would bear the deep social condemnation of the rest of

society should be allowed to marry if there is also no chance of

offspring. Besides, the way you put it makes it sound like the daughter

or niece wouldn't have a say in the matter. Legislating against incest

hasn't stopped it ever before.

> Do you think beastiality should be legal?

1) Animals are not fully capable of consent.

2) Animals are not considered " people " under the law with the full

rights and responsibilities of a person.

3) Equating homosexual relationships with bestiality is inflammatory at

best, and that's what you're doing here. Up next: necrophilia, one

assumes.

Lynn S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that same argument can be used to marry a close relative...if you are

really in love. Where is the line drawn? Should age be a factor as well?

Or the number of people to be involved in a union?

This topic is starting to get a little too emotional for me so I'll bow out.

I'm not here to convince you anymore than you are able to convince me to

change.

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've

already outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I

cannot. Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in

a second class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because

you couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality

of this situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because

I'm a lesbian. Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly

what you and my brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I

wasn't talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say

they support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same

sex couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or

Arnold Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support

gay marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick

factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get

married due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe

whatever they want, but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on

fitting in with someone's religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if

not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the argument against " blood " relations marrying has good reasons

behind it, as intermarriage can wipe out a society with birth defects, etc.

Judith Alta

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've

already outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I

cannot. Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in

a second class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because

you couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality

of this situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because

I'm a lesbian. Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly

what you and my brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I

wasn't talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say

they support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same

sex couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or

Arnold Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support

gay marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick

factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get

married due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe

whatever they want, but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on

fitting in with someone's religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if

not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--- In , Lynn Siprelle <lynn@s...>

wrote:

> > Do you think beastiality should be legal?

>

> 1) Animals are not fully capable of consent.

I don't condone bestiality, but the consent argument with respect to

animals has always struck me as a bit odd. If we shouldn't be allowed

to have sex with animals because they aren't fully capable of

consent, why should we be allowed to slaughter and eat them when they

aren't fully capable of consenting to that, either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn,

<If government is going to get into the legal sanctioning of relationships, it

cannot discriminate.

Why can't it? I stated this argument is about rights. Rights are finite,

whenever one is granted to one or a group, another is denied to someone or

another group. Thus all granting of rights involves discrimination. If you say

the majority as represented by the government cannot discriminate, you are then

denying them rights of majority rule. That is discrimination against the

majority for the wishes of the minority. This whole issue is about what is best

for the society as a whole. We've been raised to believe rights are God given

only because that Constitution was written by Christians and based on

Judeo/Christian ideology that states so. Those that are attacking Christians

for their disagreement on this issue should not ever forget that. Rights really

only exist to the extent that those in power to make laws and enforce them,

grant the rest of us to have them. And those legislators are suppose to be

elected by the majority and reflect the wishes of the majority. I don't always

like majority rule but it works better than minority rule which is the one thing

going in this issue that I don't like.

<Many policies charge extra for the one spouse and resulting kids as things are.

On a vacation out west, I toured a fort that had been an outpost, stop for

stagecoaches going to the west coast in the old western days. That fort had

homed two families which means two male heads of household - 45 people total.

That averages 21 1/2 dependents per male. This is before Utah became a state

and polygamy was outlawed as a condition of its statehood. Do you want to give

a bit more serious consideration of what you are really suggesting and what the

implications could be? What if the insured worker could not afford to cover all

those wives and children? Would covering some and not others result in

discrimination and loss of rights of those uncovered people to get equal medical

care? Which wives, which children would have rights to be insured? Which

wouldn't? Should the state be obligated to provide medical care to those

uninsured? Which would have rights to his social security benefits? All of

them? You better stop and think a moment about the implications of this. Or

maybe we could allow polygamy but put a limit on how many spouses and how many

children they could have based on their financial resources? But then what

about rights and discrimination in that situation? Would that open the gate for

restricting births by the poor denying them their right to procreation?

<Anyone who would bear the deep social condemnation of the rest of

society should be allowed to marry if there is also no chance of

offspring.

But this is discrimination you are advocating. And I think not allowing

offspring is about the most extreme right to deny someone and most gays

certainly do not want that right denied them.

<Besides, the way you put it makes it sound like the daughter

or niece wouldn't have a say in the matter. Legislating against incest

hasn't stopped it ever before.

Well allowing the daughter or niece to have say is denying " rights " of the male

to 1. marry who he wants to and 2. determine the mate he thinks most appropriate

for his daughter or niece. This is what rights are about. One's right at the

expense of someone elses.

<Legislating against incest hasn't stopped it ever before.

That is not reason for making or not making laws.

< 1) Animals are not fully capable of consent.

2) Animals are not considered " people " under the law with the full rights and

responsibilities of a person.

That is right - they are animals, considered a lower life form, and do not have

to give consent for much of anything we do to them. They do not have rights.

The one thing we cannot do to them is abuse them, but if we do, then they are

taken away from us to the pound who usually gases them to death. Who really

cares about animals? So why is sex with them forbidden? On what grounds? What

if the animal likes it? What " right " do you or anyone have to tell me what I

can do with my pets and what I can't? What right do you or anyone have to deny

me my right to pursue sex and partners as suits me? Not only that, why can't I

marry who I want? These are actually others arguments - my point is that they

are not very good ones.

3) Equating homosexual relationships with bestiality is inflammatory at best,

and that's what you're doing here.

No I am not equating homosexual relationships with bestiality and it is only

offensive because you apparently find beastiality offensive. This is about

" rights " and what rights society has to legislate any laws and restrictions on

sexual activity or sexual mates.

< Up next: necrophilia, one assumes.

You brought it up, not me. It is another sexual behavior that is legislated

based on morals. I mean, what harm is really done with such activity. What

gives any one the right to deny such activity that doesn't even hurt the dead

body? I mean everyone else either buries the body in a pile of dirt for the

worms to eat, or burns it up in a fire, or gives it to science so med students

can cut it up and sew it back together, and then do it again. You obviously

find it as offensive as beastiality just as some people find homosexuality

offensive. Would it be appropriate for me to call you a necrophobiac?

Where do the lines really get drawn as to who has whatever rights and who

doesn't? Marraige has for 1000's of years represented the permanent joining of

a man and woman with the intent of producing offspring. What gives anyone -

especially a minority group of people - the right to change that definition and

make it applicable to other different situations that suit only them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> I am curious if you believe polygamy should be legal? That is a man's right

to have as many wives at one time as suits him. If so, should insurance

companies be obligated to provide insurance to all of those wives and all of the

resulting children? Would it be discriminatory to charge him more because he

only follows particular his religious beliefs? Should social security benefits

be extended to all? <<

Do you think the ethics of this situation should be decided based on whether a

society could afford it or not? And why not first ask if I even believe in

insurance or social security in the first place? These things mean nothing

whatsoever. Since I have already clearly said I think the government should get

out of the marriage business, my opinion on how many spouses someone should have

" legally " is clearly irrelevent. I think they should have none.

BTW, all the resulting children will be covered or not whether the man is

married to the mothers or not, so this is moot.

>> I am curious if you believe that a man should be allowed to marry his

daughter or niece if that so suits him?

Do you think beastiality should be legal?

These are all issues of " rights " . <<

The slippery slope argument. Yawn.

What I think is that people who see some nexus between incest and bestiality,

and homosexuality, are revealing a hell of a lot about themselves and shedding

no light at all on this question.

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> From: " Stanley " <johnny_tesla@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:23:49 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>

>

>>> Do you think beastiality should be legal?

>>

>> 1) Animals are not fully capable of consent.

>

> I don't condone bestiality, but the consent argument with respect to

> animals has always struck me as a bit odd. If we shouldn't be allowed

> to have sex with animals because they aren't fully capable of

> consent, why should we be allowed to slaughter and eat them when they

> aren't fully capable of consenting to that, either?

Well, what food can or would consent to being eaten? Suppose (and there

actually was a case in the news like this recently) person b wants to eat

human flesh, and person a consents to being eaten. Would we consider that an

ethical exchange?

Sex is something that requires mutual consent (to be considered sex, that

is). We consider it unethical to force another being to have it. Whereas

there is never consent when it comes to eating something, and when we do

have a being that CAN give consent to being eaten, we generally don't

consider that a sane choice, and consider eating that being unethical

anyway. So, clearly, the issues regarding meat eating don't seem centered

around the issue of consent.

Although, a recent Gallup poll revealed that 59% of animals, if they could

give consent, would prefer to have sex with a person, rather than be eaten

by one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Christie <christiekeith@...>:

> >> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

> heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the

> right

> to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer

> to

> marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more

> than

> the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

>

> I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've

> already outlined. It's Jim Crow.

No it's not. You can already drink out of the same water fountain as

everyone else. You just want a different fountain because you don't like

the water. That's not necessarily an unreasonable demand, but it's not the

same thing, and to suggest that it is is just inaccurate.

Is a polygynist a second-class citizen because he can't marry the women he

loves? Is a pedophile a second-class citizen because he can't marry the

girl he loves? Is a...uh...fratophile a second a second-class citizen

because he can't marry the sister he loves?

One can say that the laws make homosexual relationships second-class

relationships, and that may be a legitimate grievance. However, when the

laws are equally applied to everyone, I don't think it's reasonable or

accurate to say that a person becomes a second-class citizen simply by

virtue of his unusual preferences.

> Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I

> wasn't talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who

> say they support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel

> that same sex couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill

> Clinton or Arnold Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they

> dont' support gay marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that

> but " the ick factor " ?

That has nothing to do with " the ick factor. " Many people, for religious or

philosophical reasons, have strong objections to homosexuality that are

much deeper than that. I don't think it's fair to trivialize this by

calling it " the ick factor. "

Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with opposing gay " marriage " but

supporting " civil unions. " Given that a total separation of state and

marriage is unlikely in the near future, this seems like a pretty good

compromise. If you have something which is legally indistinguishable from

marriage, but you're still fighting over what it's called, then you really

are doing what the critics of homosexual marriage accuse you of: trying to

legislate acceptance and approval.

--

Berg

bberg@...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...