Re: re: Disurbing article

[Guest guest]

>

>This great institution of marriage between a man and a woman must remain

>and be defended. Every nation in the world and history recognizes this

>sacred bond. It is a firm foundation of any great nation.

Great nations have the tendency to have great falls. If the institution of

marriage between a man and a woman were so great, why is there divorce? Why

is the divorce rate climbing? Seems marriage does indeed need defending, and

mending too.

It is the strong love and loyalty between two people which makes marriage

beautiful. Gender does not matter because Love is unconditional.

Maybe the focus should be on marriage being between two people who really

love each other, and teaching people how to have healthy relationships. All

this energy would be better spent this way.

Best Wishes

Michele

_________________________________________________________________

Choose now from 4 levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage - no more account

overload! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Please teach me this arcane history so I can pick up women please Christie

:-)

_____

From: Christie [mailto:christiekeith@...]

Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2004 2:40 PM

Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>> so, christie...are you busy friday night?

cause like, wow. <<

LOL, katja..... yeah, I find that knowing arcane bits of United States

history is a great way to pick up women. <G>

Christie

[Guest guest]

The person who ate the other person went to prison for it. It wasn't

called " murder " , btw.

But the law (Germany) says that you can't give away your own life.

That's why even killing an old person who suffers and wants to die,

still is punished by law.

I think the point is that it is considered not healthy to give up on

your life and so, it is taken for granted, that the person who does

that is mentally ill and therefore is not able to have a will. Know

what I mean? Like a mentally disabled person has another person look

after him/her and make the big decisions for him/her.

Anja

--- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@p...>

wrote:

> 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?

[Guest guest]

> Hmmm. Let me look this one up in my copy of The Gay Agenda...

Here ya go: http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

[Guest guest]

That religion already has several million members

Anja

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

suck religion ?

[Guest guest]

Me, too, I always see those " kids " and then, they go to their own cars

and drive off with their spouses and kids that already can walk on

their own!!! And I'm 24.

Then, the question is why do we think we were smarter at that age (and

probably already when we were even younger) and think we were aware of

what we've been doing and capable of making decisions? Possibly the

same reason why everyone thinks he's more intelligent than average and

a far better than average driver...

Anja

> I was on my own at 16, so I did gain an incredible amount of

maturity that year, but it was not complete until I was 20. I had

adult sexual partners as a teenager, and, though techinically

" statuotory rape " , for anyone who actually has been raped (sex without

consent) there is no comparison between the two. I cannot comprehend

how adults found me attractive, as even 20 year olds are " kids " to me

now, at the grand ole age of 25 , but as I was fully aware of wha I

was doing, I do not resent them or believe I was " raped " or corrupted.

I was experimenting and it was my choice, much like smoking and

drinking and many other not so healthy things.

> I don't think IQ has much to do with it because sometimes the

smartest people make the dumbest decisions. Also, smart kids are often

emotionally immature in comparison to their intellect.

> I think the age/sexual maturity issue is cultural as well as physical.

> take care. still scattered

> Michele

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 12:57:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> 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.

We're in full agreement. Only I'd rather abolish a heterosexual's right to

official moral sanction of consensual personal relationships by the State

rather than expand that ludicrousy to other groups.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 4:17:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

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

Absolutely.

> That is a man's right to have as many wives at one time as suits him.

Correct.

If so,

> should insurance companies be obligated to provide insurance to all of

> those wives and all of the resulting children?

Nope. But presumably they would want to, if they are getting paid for the

service.

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

particular

> his religious beliefs?

What's wrong with discrimination? I do it every day and I'm sure you do, or

we wouldn't survive.

> Should social security benefits be extended to all?

If they save, they should have access to those savings. If not, they

shouldn't. Period.

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

> daughter or niece if that so suits him?

Against her will?

> Do you think beastiality should be legal?

Only if the beast consents ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 5:58:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

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

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

It can only wipe out the inter-marryers.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 7:25:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

johnny_tesla@... writes:

> 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?

This could be settled by simply using one of those new sexual contracts being

used by rich people and stars now. They could leave their paw print.

Chris

[Guest guest]

When our son was in his teens I had a note on the fridge that said,

" Teenagers! Leave home now and make your way in the world while you still

know everything! "

Judith Alta

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

From: Anja [mailto:schnittie01734@...]

Me, too, I always see those " kids " and then, they go to their own cars

and drive off with their spouses and kids that already can walk on

their own!!! And I'm 24.

Then, the question is why do we think we were smarter at that age (and

probably already when we were even younger) and think we were aware of

what we've been doing and capable of making decisions? Possibly the

same reason why everyone thinks he's more intelligent than average and

a far better than average driver...

Anja

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 9:48:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Oh, no...agreeing with again.

Again? Better roll a fatty this time...

<g>

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 9:54:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> The Constitution was not written by Christians.

The people who wrote the Constitution are relatively non-famous compared to

the folks we regard as " Founding Fathers " and are never even recognized in

typical history. I don't know whether these people were Christians or not.

Where

did you get this information from?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 9:54:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I'm sure you realize that this same argument not only could be but WAS made

> about recognizing black people and women as citizens? The whole argument.

> The majority vs minority part, the bible part, the whole thing.

It isn't even remotely analogous, as homosexuals currently have the right of

citizenship.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 10:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I distinguished those people from those who say they DO support gay unions

> and gay civil rights but just can't bring themselves to call it marriage.

> Dean and Arnold Schwartenegger say they support civil unions but not

gay

> marriage, and I believe it's because of their own personal discomfort with

> having the word " Gay " and the word " marriage " next to each other.

But Christie, you aren't demanding any " rights " whatsoever then. You are

demanding that public endorsement and approval of your relationships be

legislated. Why do you speak of it under the guise of civil rights?

Chris

[Guest guest]

April,

Portion of my beginning point in this thread, cart before the horse.

Discrimination is and was still a fact in this country and in the world

prior to equal opportunity's addition of sexual orientation. I don't see

sexual orientation as uncommon behavior. I see sexual orientation as less

visible than the color of one's skin or of a physical disability. As

discrimination is still active against those of visible difference adding a

less visible, yet numerous or almost as numerous group as black people,

there could be creation of a more discriminatory atmosphere. Can understand

that those still discriminated against could be angry or feel their efforts

could take an even bigger backturn. African Americans are more visible than

Native Americans, the first discriminated against in this country. Native

Americans are made invisible by reservations and experience still a life of

discrimination. When Abraham Lincoln was freeing the slaves he was ordering

his soldiers in at least Minnesota to hang every red man seen on sight.

Luther King asked a Native American chief to join him in the effort

for rights. The answer was " We don't want to be just like them. " In other

words, the right to be who you are isn't there.

> If I were black I would be outraged with the attempt to

> equalize this uncommon behavior with the many decades of sweat,

work, and

> blood shed that the black man has battled for, in order to gain what

is referred to as " civil rights. "

Wanita

[Guest guest]

,

The depravity of logic is yours and this one is pretty bad I'm afraid as it is

pretty simple in logic. Everyone has the right to get married to the opposite

sex but only one person at a time. No one is denied that right - even

homosexuals. No one has been allowed to marry a person of the same sex -

heterosexuals are equally denied this as homosexuals. We equally all have

limitations on marrying the people we love. We can't marry our children, we

can't marry our parents, we can't marry our pets, we all have not been able to

marry the same sex. And I think it is true for most that we have somewhere,

sometime, someplace, loved people of the same sex, not that the relationship was

sexual. This has universally been applied to everyone regardless. You are

trying to smoke screen and create the delusion of " discrimination " when it

simply does not exist. Again, what is being sought in homosexual marraige is

not a right, it is a priveledge. It is not based on persecution,

discrimination, or unfairness. It is as Christie stated, based on " want " .

I hate to tell you but many are not as depraved in logic as you and some think

we are. Again, if you want respect for your ideas or lifestyle, give some

respect back.

Now as a woman by virtue of my gender sex, I resent people who associate their

behavioral choices with something I had no choice in, and who try to elicit

sympathy, empathy and identification of discrimination. This is not a situation

of discrimination based on physical birth qualities such as gender sex or race

where rights are given to some based on that and denied others based on the same

criteria. How dare you try to delude the issue that it is.

Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> It's not really true that the state's refusal to recognize homosexual

> marriage amounts to creating second-class citizens. You have as much right

> as anyone else to get married, subject to exactly the same restrictions as

> anyone else--namely that you may marry at most one person, and that that

> person must be of the opposite sex.

>

LOL! And when women were denied the vote, they were also granted the same

rights as men. Anyone could vote IF they were male. I cannot believe how

depraved some of this logic is.

> 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.

Absolutely false. You have framed the issue in a totally bigoted way.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 10:06:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> LOL! And when women were denied the vote, they were also granted the same

> rights as men. Anyone could vote IF they were male. I cannot believe how

> depraved some of this logic is.

Since the state of being a man or woman is not a behavior, one cannot have a

" right " to do it. Voting is a behavior, and a given person is capable both of

doing it and not doing it. So the state can guarantee a right to do it, or

can prohibit the behavior from being exercised. But maleness or femaleness is

an intrinsic property of the person, so by any logical description, women

cannot be said to have equal rights to men on the basis that they be a male. If

they became one, were it possible at the time, they wouldn't be a woman

anymore, so the right to vote was still dependent on maleness and the absence of

femaleness.

>

> >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.

>

> Absolutely false. You have framed the issue in a totally bigoted way.

He can't be framing it in a " bigoted " way, because he is offering analysis

and not prescription, and has never implied or explicitly expressed any bigotry.

I believe that homosexuals should have 100% the same rights as heterosexuals

(including equal inability for the state to morally sanction their

relationships), and I don't have any bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals at

all, but I

agree with 's analysis.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 10:21:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States Constitution,

Ahh, I see your mistake now. Jefforson did NOT draft the

Constitution; he drafted the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson had nothing

whatsoever to do with the Constitution, and wasn't even present at the

Constitutional

Convention.

Chris

[Guest guest]

And homosexuals have no choice in their gender/sex either.

Judith Alta

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

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

[snip]

Now as a woman by virtue of my gender sex, I resent people who associate

their behavioral choices with something I had no choice in, and who try to

elicit sympathy, empathy and identification of discrimination. This is not

a situation of discrimination based on physical birth qualities such as

gender sex or race where rights are given to some based on that and denied

others based on the same criteria. How dare you try to delude the issue

that it is.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 10:56:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> The Constitution was written primarily by Madison,

No it wasn't. & amp;nbsp; Madison recorded the minutes, but didn't write any of

the

Constitution itself. & amp;nbsp; Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the

man whose draft was accepted. & amp;nbsp; I think it may have been Pinkney, but I

can't remember for sure. & amp;nbsp; In any case, it was someone who more or less

went

down in history as a nobody.

The basic characteristics were discussed by 20 or 30 people in the Committee

of the Whole, including Madison and lin, then two drafts were drawn up by

two nobodies, and one of them was selected, modified slightly, and that was

that. & amp;nbsp; It was passed by the Convention the way it came out of the

Committee of the Whole. & amp;nbsp; Madison's role was mostly

philosophical. & amp;nbsp; lin

had no role whatsoever, and all the suggestions he made were ignored.

However, you are absolutely right that Jefferson had even less to do with it

than Madison (in fact, had nothing at all to do with it whatsoever), and that

his personal views about the Constitution are obviously irrelevant from the

legal implications of the Constitution, or the original intent.

It is my understanding that the first Act of Congress was religious in

nature, establishing an opening prayer, and it is quite clear from statements

from

people whom Christie conveniently ignored that the " Founding Fathers " were both

Christian and non-Christian.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/14/04 11:22:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> You're absolutely right, I was typing too fast... of course I meant the

> Declaration of Independence. Thanks.

>

> Madison wasn't a Christian either, though. <G>

>

> " Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every

> noble enterprise.... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal

> establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More

or less

> in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in

> the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. " ( Madison)

I don't know what Madison's religious views were, but I don't see how this

statement indicates he wasn't Christian. This is a legal opinion, not a

religious opinion.

Also, where are you and getting the idea that Madison wrote the

Constitution? He didn't. At least his minutes of the Convention attribute the

drafting to another person.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

seemed unaware there were any definitions other than the dictionary's

so I defined the state's for his information. Granted in a court age

difference, maturity advantage is weighed. Little goes to court as few tell,

few parents press it, and majority is in an effort to get a teen mother's

child supported because the sexual maturity was exercised (on the part of

the older to the younger, or vice versa, older expected to know better) but

the maturity and responsibility to support the child isn't there.

Not saying ages are totally right. At18 younger adult males and females now,

are allowed to give their own consent to send themself to war or the

military. If the bigger issue of self preservation isn't present at that age

then how adult can be all other smaller decisions?

> Again, we should conceptually differentiate between the law and

ethicality.

> It seems to me that the debate here is over ethicality, and not what the

law

> may be in actuality. Surely most people agree that there are some laws

that

> may draw their dividing line in ways that do not exactly map to what is

> ethical and what is not, unless you are considering the simple fact of

> disobeying the law as unethical by definition.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

A homosexual is just like a heterosexual Judith - either male or female. And

they are whatever race they are born. I am sorry, I do not see them as a

different sex, nor race, nor species or something any different than I am - just

human beings. So throw tomatoes at me for being discriminatory?

You have sexual desire - attraction - inclination - stimulation - however you

want to describe it. Then you have behavior - expression - activity - however

you want to describe that. A person can have sexual desires but never act them

out. Does that make them homosexual? A person may have no sexual desires for

the same sex but act out with the same sex. Does that make them homosexual?

Are we talking about innate drives or are we talking about behavior? Oh and

heavan forbid not to forget the bi-sexuals caught in the middle but belonging to

neither or is it both?

RE: re: Disurbing article

And homosexuals have no choice in their gender/sex either.

Judith Alta

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

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

[snip]

Now as a woman by virtue of my gender sex, I resent people who associate

their behavioral choices with something I had no choice in, and who try to

elicit sympathy, empathy and identification of discrimination. This is not

a situation of discrimination based on physical birth qualities such as

gender sex or race where rights are given to some based on that and denied

others based on the same criteria. How dare you try to delude the issue

that it is.

[Guest guest]

I'm glad of that. But you continue to insist that they deny and be denied

the sexual orientation they were born with.

If a person has sex with a same sex person how do you determine whether or

not either or both are homosexual?

Should a bi-sexual person be denied the right to marry a person of the sex

of their choosing? Which ever they choose they are wrong.

Judith Alta

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

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

A homosexual is just like a heterosexual Judith - either male or female.

And they are whatever race they are born. I am sorry, I do not see them as

a different sex, nor race, nor species or something any different than I

am - just human beings. So throw tomatoes at me for being discriminatory?

You have sexual desire - attraction - inclination - stimulation - however

you want to describe it. Then you have behavior - expression - activity -

however you want to describe that. A person can have sexual desires but

never act them out. Does that make them homosexual? A person may have no

sexual desires for the same sex but act out with the same sex. Does that

make them homosexual? Are we talking about innate drives or are we talking

about behavior? Oh and heavan forbid not to forget the bi-sexuals caught in

the middle but belonging to neither or is it both?

RE: re: Disurbing article

And homosexuals have no choice in their gender/sex either.

Judith Alta

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

From: [mailto:mhysmith@...]

[snip]

Now as a woman by virtue of my gender sex, I resent people who associate

their behavioral choices with something I had no choice in, and who try to

elicit sympathy, empathy and identification of discrimination. This is

not

a situation of discrimination based on physical birth qualities such as

gender sex or race where rights are given to some based on that and denied

others based on the same criteria. How dare you try to delude the issue

that it is.