Re: re: Disurbing article

[Guest guest]

At 11:44 AM 2/15/2004, you wrote:

> > Why form this bond of marriage, this bond of legal

> > constraints? Ultimately the goal is to destroy the very institution of

> > marriage itself.

wait - isn't that what *divorce* does?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: " April Myers " <myers_45@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:35:15 -0500

> < >

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>

> A Homosexual person has the freedom to have sex with anyone who is of legal

> age and willing.

> A homosexual can live and work where they want.

> A homosexual person can adopt children.

> A homosexual person has no suffering that compares to the black person of

> today

> or in past history. 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. "

> Homosexuality should not be considered a civil right.

>

If I were a gay person, I would be outraged with your attempt to minimize

what they have suffered. How can you trivialize it by implying that a gay

high school student, for instance, who is tormented by his classmates, or a

gay person who is beaten up because he is gay, has somehow suffered 'less'

than someone else?

> The purpose of this minority is to cheapen and then ultimately destroy the

> institution of marriage.

That's absurd (of course). Marriage is only cheapened by gay marriage if you

start with the presupposition that it is inferior. This is so obvious that

the only reason you can't see it is that your prejudiced are too deep for

you to view them as anything other than 'common sense'. And, in any case,

how would 2 gay people getting married cheapen YOUR marriage, or someone

elses? How exactly does that work?

> Why form this bond of marriage, this bond of legal

> constraints? Ultimately the goal is to destroy the very institution of

> marriage itself.

>

LOL! You, of course, have documentation of this conspiracy?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:58:36 -0500

> < >

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>

> 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

>

The cutoff age for military service is another law. Some people younger than

that age are mature enough to make that decision, and some people older than

that are not. (of course, as a lefty, I would argue that anyone who

volunteers for U.S. military service does not understand the nature of U.S.

foreign policy, and so should be ineligible . So, I don't see this really

as an argument for the fact that sex between an adult and a teenager is

always wrong.

[Guest guest]

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

LOL... I may have to create a website.... a new career..... " Great Pickup Lines

from US History. "

Christie

[Guest guest]

Hi Anja...I wouldn't say I was smarter, but I do know which decisions I made

on my own and which ones were forced upon me. I had far worse times with

kids my age; I was forced into sex with several of them, either directly or

by acquiescing to keep myself from being hurt. This never happenned with

anyone older than me. Maybe they were too scared to go there because of the

statutory thing, but of age folks were way more respectful of my decisions,

if not my age.

As for driving, I still take the bus.

take care

Michele

_________________________________________________________________

Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and

beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:13:11 EST

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>

> 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.

? Are you a master of the non-sequitur or what? I don't think that there is

any implication that the 'state of being a man or woman' is a behavior. That

is totally unnecessary to my argument.

> Voting is a behavior, and a given person is capable both of

> doing it and not doing it.

Ok...

> So the state can guarantee a right to do it, or

> can prohibit the behavior from being exercised.

Well, yes that is factually true.

> 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.

I think that my example stands. You are, as usual, focusing on issues that

do not make or break the thing you are arguing against. While having sex

with a man or woman is certainly behavior, whether one is homosexual or

heterosexual is not behavior, or certainly not merely behavior.

In one case, we have a heterosexual who can marry, and in the other case a

homosexual who cannot marry in the sense that marriage is the same action

for both - i.e. with someone that they want to marry. The core difference is

one of orientation, not action - the desired action is not permitted in one

case. in the voting example, similarly, the core difference is not one of

action, but the desired activity is, of course, action.

And even if you viewed homosexuality as primarily defined by behavior, I'm

not sure what focusing on this difference between the two examples

accomplishes.

>>

>>> 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.

LOL! So, it is impossible to have bigoted assumptions, which lead to flawed

analysis? Does bigotry need to be explicit, or can it ever be implicit?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

> 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

>

If that is true (note that I say 'if') then you are using implicitly bigoted

presuppositions. The fact that you deny that you are bigoted, obviously

plays no role at all. Most everyone denies it.

[Guest guest]

And yet in old japan

It was considered 1 of the highest acts of honour to take your own life if

you failed at whatever it was.

And also giving someone else the honour to lob u head off after you stab

yourself.

_____

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

Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2004 10:49 PM

Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

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]

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

Thanks, ... I haven't been to the " Betty Bowers is a Better Christian Than

You " site in about two years. I'd forgotten all about it, and there are dozens

of new articles. I especially like the movie reviews. <G>

What a hoot!

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 3:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> In one case, we have a heterosexual who can marry, and in the other case a

> homosexual who cannot marry in the sense that marriage is the same action

> for both - i.e. with someone that they want to marry. The core difference is

> one of orientation, not action - the desired action is not permitted in one

> case. in the voting example, similarly, the core difference is not one of

> action, but the desired activity is, of course, action.

Look, I'm not defending the law as it stands by any means. But there is a

fundamental difference between a law that is applied differently to two groups,

and a law that is applied equally to two groups. I think made the

point better than I'm making it, so I might as well just observe the two of you

debate it.

As with Social Security, does a person's preference make them a second-class

when it is contrary to the established law? I don't think it does, but if you

do, we're using different definitions of the term.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 07:52:20 EST

Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 07:52:20 EST

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>

> In a message dated 2/15/04 3:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> In one case, we have a heterosexual who can marry, and in the other case a

>> homosexual who cannot marry in the sense that marriage is the same action

>> for both - i.e. with someone that they want to marry. The core difference is

>> one of orientation, not action - the desired action is not permitted in one

>> case. in the voting example, similarly, the core difference is not one of

>> action, but the desired activity is, of course, action.

>

> Look, I'm not defending the law as it stands by any means.

Well, I think that you are, though indirectly.

> But there is a

> fundamental difference between a law that is applied differently to two

> groups,

> and a law that is applied equally to two groups.

True, and if you ignore my argument that the presuppositions behind viewing

this law as equally applied are bigoted, then I'm not sure what to say.

Obviously it's not worth going around in circles again. Other people have

understood my argument - you seem totally oblivious to it. (this is

independent of it being correct, or incorrect, naturally.)

> I think made the

> point better than I'm making it, so I might as well just observe the two of

> you

> debate it.

>

Well, he seems rather incapable of constructing an argument devoid of 'moral

corruption', as suggests that I put it. I'd actually prefer 'logical

corruption', but I am forbidden to use 'depraved'.

> As with Social Security, does a person's preference make them a second-class

> when it is contrary to the established law? I don't think it does, but if you

> do, we're using different definitions of the term.

>

> Chris

>

>

yawn

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 3:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> So, it is impossible to have bigoted assumptions, which lead to flawed

> analysis? Does bigotry need to be explicit, or can it ever be implicit?

> Where do you come up with this stuff?

In order to have bigoted assumptions, one must accept the assumptions

(obviously) in the first place. The assumption that you claim is bigoted is

that

marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Neither nor I accepted

this assumption as part of our argument. said that such a law might

make homosexual relationships second-class relationships, but does not make

homosexuals second-class citizens. That logic is perfectly sound.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:12:58 EST

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>

> In a message dated 2/15/04 3:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> So, it is impossible to have bigoted assumptions, which lead to flawed

>> analysis? Does bigotry need to be explicit, or can it ever be implicit?

>> Where do you come up with this stuff?

>

> In order to have bigoted assumptions, one must accept the assumptions

> (obviously) in the first place. The assumption that you claim is bigoted is

> that

> marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Neither nor I

> accepted

> this assumption as part of our argument. said that such a law might

> make homosexual relationships second-class relationships, but does not make

> homosexuals second-class citizens. That logic is perfectly sound.

>

> Chris

>

So, neither of you said that the law as now constituted was equally applied

to homosexuals and heterosexuals?

you: " But there is a

fundamental difference between a law that is applied differently to two

groups,

and a law that is applied equally to two groups. I think made the

point better than I'm making it, so I might as well just observe the two of

you

debate it. "

: " The laws

applying to homosexual men are the same as those applying to all other

men, and the laws applying to homosexual women are the same as those

applying to all other women. "

[Guest guest]

> > 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

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

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

> > Reply-

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

> >

> > Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

> >

> > >

> 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.

>

>

>

>