Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...
Ami clearly said "married TO THEIR LONG-TERM PARTNERS." (emphasis added)

*I* didn't choose the partners. Don't blame me for their poor choice if
they wanted to get married. If the mission was to get married, then they
did the wrong thing by choosing the partners they chose. The law was
freely available even before the Internet. *You* of all people should know
that.

Go back to talking about marrying your dog if you don't want to recognize
that CHOICE plays very little part in what kind of people (especially
gender) that one finds attractive.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:


(snipped lots of stuff, some relevent, some not)

Have some kids then we'll talk further if necessary. It would help if you
ALSO go through a divorce resulting in single-parenthood (even if just
temporarily). Ideally you'd do all the above in addition to some serious,
graduate-level study of U.S. Constitutional law (if you want to advocate
the position that sexual preference discrimination is and should remain
acceptable under the U.S. Constitution). Then we'd see how firmly-wed you
really are to some of your beliefs.

Lets be real clear about this: You claim that, in order for me to have an
*opinion*, I must pass all those *qualifications*...

But, you also claim that, in order for the whole state of marriage to
be re-defined, there are NO qualifications....

I sense not a little hypocrisy/inconsistancy* there...

BTW, I have been a step-parent, I have been through a divorce, one so
messy that a part of it made Canadian legal precedent, one that my
studies showed would be the result of the case, so do get off of
your condescending high horse, long enough to grasp that other
people don't have to have *lived your life*, in order to have legitimate
views on such a topic...

Since none of that will happen anytime soon, there doesn't seem to be much
point in continuing to argue about it.

Since it doesn't seem that you will arrive at an *internally consistant*
point of view, indeed. Or one that allows other to have different
views, and still be treated as... people.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Chris Jones ) writes:

I've given you my definition of rights (what a state provides). What's
yours?

Things that accrue to people, regardless of whether or not they've
done anything towards their personal gaining.

IE: A driver's licence is *not* a right. One must do specific, and
optional to the living of a life, to get one.

One need not do anything to get the protection of one's nation's
Constitution, in order to get those.

Thats the difference.

That's not the correct characterization under U.S. law.

Free Clue: I was *asked* " What's yours ? ", above.

Further, as I am NOT a USian, US law has no sway over me, thank
you very much.

Further Free Clue: There are other nationalities on Usenet than
just USian...

Rights are
essentially ANYTHING not prohibited or infringed by powers specifically
granted to the federal government or to the States. Specific rights are
ALSO granted in the Bill of Rights but that is NOT an exclusive list.

So, if the states regulate marriage, then they DO have a right to set...
*qualifications*...

Some freedoms and rights necessarily imply others - for example, many argue
(very persuasively) that the freedom of speech and of assembly imply a
freedom to travel; drivers' license laws in the U.S. fall somewhat short of
"rights" but they are certainly more important that mere "allowances" or
dispensations from state governments.

Non sequitur. No one *needs* a driver's licence, in order to travel

See " buses, trains, airlines, hitchhiking... ".

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Herb Schaltegger" lid wrote in message ...
Paul Blay wrote:

Concerning which, 'first cousins' probably isn't such a good idea.
(At least according to recent studies on health vs degrees of
relatedness). Even second, third may have statistically significant
drawbacks.

Actually, that's not true.

Is too.

As I said "At least according to recent studies" whether the conclusions
are correct or not, my statment is. :-P

Newscientist subscribers can see
http://archive.newscientist.com/secu...mg18024175.100

Non subscribers can have a few snippets copied

QUOTE
The effects of inbreeding are more insidious than anyone expected, and are not
confined to the offspring of near relatives. Lynn Dicks discovers the worrying
implications for us all

[...]

Amos's calculation gives each individual a score called the internal relatedness index,
based on about 10 different microsatellites. If the parents are unrelated, the score is 0.
Scores around 0.25 indicate they are half siblings, and up to about 0.5 indicates full
siblings. "This method has much greater resolution than heterozygosity," Amos says.
"We can distinguish between inbreeding at the level of fourth, fifth and sixth cousins."
At such levels the ill-effects are likely to be subtle. "We are not looking for village
idiots here," he says.

[...]

"We are finding very strong effects wherever we look. We suspect inbreeding might
explain a surprisingly high proportion of fitness in all species," he says."

Recent studies done by the National Society of
Genetic Counselors showed very little increase in the risk of genetic
defect for offspring of first cousins. See
http://depts.washington.edu/mednews/vol16/no15/cousins.html
for a good summary. The risk for serious defect goes up by somewhere
between 1.7% - 2.8%

1.7% to 2.8% _is_ statistically significant, moreover 'serious defects' are far
from the only potential problem. (Which could explain _some_ part of why
'thoroughbreds' and pedigrees seem to be so prone to trouble in comparison to
'genetically diverse' animals).

Andre Lieven wrote:

Herb Schaltegger lid)
writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Lets be real clear about this: You claim that, in order for me to have an
*opinion*, I must pass all those *qualifications*...

No, I claim that in order for your opinions about what constitutes "family",
"parent", "mother", and "father" to be worth much, you ought to be a
parent. I claim that if you're going to insists on arguing about what are
legal matters about what U.S. states should or should not do vis a vis
granting or denying marriage licenses to committed couples (gay or straight
or undecided), you ought to stick to the tools necessary for logical,
consistent legal argument concerning U.S. Constitutional law: know and
understand terms like "suspect classification", "equal protection",
"rational basis test", "heightened scrutiny" and how such terms are applied
and used by courts. You don't. Until you realize that legal arguments
require an understanding of legal terms and how the bodies making the
decisions (e.g., courts) work to apply those terms, further discussion is
not of much use.

But, you also claim that, in order for the whole state of marriage to
be re-defined, there are NO qualifications....

I have never made such a claim. You're mischaracterizing what I've posted.
What I *HAVE* claimed is that sexual-orientation is becoming a suspect
classification in the U.S. and that disparate treatement vis a vis issuance
or denial of marriage licenses based on that suspect classification may (or
may not) pass Constitutional muster. I am sorry you don't seem to grasp
what that means.

I sense not a little hypocrisy/inconsistancy* there...

Failure of comprehension on your part equals neither hypocracy nor
inconsistency on mine.

BTW, I have been a step-parent,

Similar but not the same. For how long? Did the biological parent share
custody or not? Did the child(ren) live with you or with the other parent?
How about other parenting responsibilities like medical decision making
authority, healthcare and educational decision making authority? Until you
describe why you feel qualified to define for the world what consitutes a
"family" and who should or should not be permitted to marry, expect to be
challenged.

I have been through a divorce,

Join the club. No children of the marriage though, huh? Apparently not.

one so
messy that a part of it made Canadian legal precedent,

If you're not fighting over custody, care and responsibility for your
children it's just fighting over a damn wagon wheel table* and no one will
give much of a **** after a few years. It's just money and stuff.

(*See "When Harry Met Sally" and Bruno Kirby's scenes with Carrie Fisher)

one that my
studies showed would be the result of the case, so do get off of
your condescending high horse,

Show relevent personal experience (e.g., the basis of some wisdom) rather
than spout holier-than-thou rhetoric about "family" and "parent."

long enough to grasp that other
people don't have to have *lived your life*, in order to have legitimate
views on such a topic...

"Views", yes. "Legitimate" maybe or maybe not. If you can phrase your
arguments in accepted legal terminology, free from moralising and
conclusory statements, then such views may be legitimate (if, in my
opinion, wrong). So far you haven't been able to do so.


Since none of that will happen anytime soon, there doesn't seem to be
much point in continuing to argue about it.

Since it doesn't seem that you will arrive at an *internally consistant*
point of view, indeed.

My views are internally consistent. Your failure to understand those views
may be a failure on my part to express them clearly enough (but see above)
or it may be a failure on your part to ready thoroughly. Either way, we
clearly disagree.

Or one that allows other to have different
views, and still be treated as... people.

I don't know; I think this is a very serious subject and I've treated it as
such; I'm not the guy talking about marrying dogs (to whom you've already
responded in this thread).

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
None of that pussy politically correct crap here! The *real* one is
called
the *Confederate* Air Force, and only a namby-pamby type would call it
otherwise.

Not according to the CAF "Colonel's" that I've talked to. They bristle at
the idea that the name change was politically motivated. The original name
was chosen as a joke,

It was a *good* one, and it worked well, and it got more press, and there
was no good reason to change it. The *name* change doesn't seem to have
affected the mission of the organization, which is a good indicator that the
old name was perfectly fine and that the change *was* politically motivated.

The missile *still* says "Confederate".




Here are some pictures of the "Confederate Missile" on
"Confederate Air Force Pad No. I" at my Titan 1 website:


http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_mis.../Cordele_4.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_mis.../Cordele_1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_mis.../Cordele_2.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_mis.../Cordele_3.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_mis.../Cordele_5.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile/displays.html

http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile/


- Rusty Barton

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Herb Schaltegger lid)
writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Lets be real clear about this: You claim that, in order for me to have an
*opinion*, I must pass all those *qualifications*...

No, I claim that in order for your opinions about what constitutes
"family", "parent", "mother", and "father" to be worth much, you ought
to be a parent.

LOL ! Thats exactly what I said.

For that matter, lets test your consistancy...

This is sci.space.history. You an astronaut ? If not, what gives you
the " right " to speak on matters where, according to *your
" standard ", your opinions aren't " worth much "...

I claim that if you're going to insists on arguing about what are
legal matters about what U.S. states should or should not do vis a vis
granting or denying marriage licenses to committed couples (gay or straight
or undecided), you ought to stick to the tools necessary for logical,
consistent legal argument concerning U.S. Constitutional law:

Free Clue, Redeux: Usenet encompasses *more than the US of A*.

know and
understand terms like "suspect classification", "equal protection",
"rational basis test", "heightened scrutiny" and how such terms are applied
and used by courts. You don't. Until you realize that legal arguments
require an understanding of legal terms and how the bodies making the
decisions (e.g., courts) work to apply those terms, further discussion is
not of much use.

So, no non-lawyers can have opinions about the law...

How... Soviet of you...

But, you also claim that, in order for the whole state of marriage to
be re-defined, there are NO qualifications....

I have never made such a claim. You're mischaracterizing what I've
posted.

LOL ! Translation: " Yes, I said that, and how dare you point that
out ! "

What I *HAVE* claimed is that sexual-orientation is becoming a suspect
classification in the U.S. and that disparate treatement vis a vis issuance
or denial of marriage licenses based on that suspect classification may (or
may not) pass Constitutional muster. I am sorry you don't seem to grasp
what that means.

" If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can
always call him names ! " Oscar Wilde.

I sense not a little hypocrisy/inconsistancy* there...

Failure of comprehension on your part equals neither hypocracy nor
inconsistency on mine.

Ibid Wilde.

BTW, I have been a step-parent,

Similar but not the same. For how long? Did the biological parent share
custody or not? Did the child(ren) live with you or with the other
parent?
How about other parenting responsibilities like medical decision making
authority, healthcare and educational decision making authority? Until you
describe why you feel qualified to define for the world what consitutes a
"family" and who should or should not be permitted to marry, expect to be
challenged.

I utterly reject your " means test " in order to be able to *hold a view*.

I need not be you, in order to have an opinion... And, I cna even have
an *informed opinion*, without mirroring your life.

The idea that one must pass all those hoops, if you've done so, in
order to hold views, is narcissistic, to say the leats.

Hypocritical, if you *fail* to apply them anywhere else...

I have been through a divorce,

Join the club. No children of the marriage though, huh? Apparently not.

Damn straight. I was... lucky.

one so
messy that a part of it made Canadian legal precedent,

If you're not fighting over custody, care and responsibility for your
children it's just fighting over a damn wagon wheel table* and no one will
give much of a **** after a few years. It's just money and stuff.

No problem. If that means so little to you, when it's *other people's*,
then... *send me some of yours, if you *wish to avoid further hypocrisy*,
that is...

" Show me the money ! " " Jerry McGuire ".

(*See "When Harry Met Sally" and Bruno Kirby's scenes with Carrie Fisher)

Dumb movie. Chyk flick. I repeat myself...

one that my
studies showed would be the result of the case, so do get off of
your condescending high horse,

Show relevent personal experience (e.g., the basis of some wisdom) rather
than spout holier-than-thou rhetoric about "family" and "parent."

Why ? *You haven't*...

BTW, " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

long enough to grasp that other
people don't have to have *lived your life*, in order to have legitimate
views on such a topic...

"Views", yes. "Legitimate" maybe or maybe not. If you can phrase your
arguments in accepted legal terminology, free from moralising and
conclusory statements, then such views may be legitimate (if, in my
opinion, wrong). So far you haven't been able to do so.

Thanks for showimg that *you view yourself as a deity-figure*, by
way of declaring what The Rules Shall Be...

So much for " equal treatment ", and all. Perhaps *you're unfamiliar
with such provisions of the US Constitution... ?

Since none of that will happen anytime soon, there doesn't seem to be
much point in continuing to argue about it.

Since it doesn't seem that you will arrive at an *internally consistant*
point of view, indeed.

My views are internally consistent.

LOL ! Ah, no. But, thanks for playing... g

Your failure to understand those views
may be a failure on my part to express them clearly enough (but see above)
or it may be a failure on your part to ready thoroughly. Either way, we
clearly disagree.

Sure. But, you don't believe that I have " a right to "...

Uh huh.

Or one that allows other to have different
views, and still be treated as... people.

I don't know; I think this is a very serious subject and I've treated it as
such; I'm not the guy talking about marrying dogs (to whom you've already
responded in this thread).

Nice MS-statement of what I wrote. Dishonest much ? Or, are you a
lawyer ? But, I repeat myself...

HTH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Paul Blay wrote:

Is too.

As I said "At least according to recent studies" whether the conclusions
are correct or not, my statment is. :-P


(snipped good stuff)

Well, harrumph! Finally someone with real facts in a debate! :-)

Interesting snippets there. What kind of (human) defects are they
discussing in the article (if you know)? The "village idiot" scenario is
why so many jurisdictions have banned first-cousin marriage and I know my
AKC-purebreed chocolate lab had to be screened for eye and hip problems
(relatively small genetic pool all these pups come from). I'm guessing the
study must demonstrate something interesting in between these extremes.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Andre Lieven wrote:

Herb Schaltegger lid)
writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

That's not the correct characterization under U.S. law.

Free Clue: I was *asked* " What's yours ? ", above.

And you gave a legally-incorrect answer.

Further, as I am NOT a USian, US law has no sway over me, thank
you very much.

Remember that if you ever cross the border or make a trans-border internet
purchase. You might be unpleasantly surprised how these things can work
out.

Further Free Clue: There are other nationalities on Usenet than
just USian...

No ****; this particular debate branched off from discussions regarding the
actions certain U.S. states may take to legalize gay marriage. My comments
have both kept this in mind and been qualified as necessary. Your failure
to recognize underscores your continued failure to read closely.

Rights are
essentially ANYTHING not prohibited or infringed by powers specifically
granted to the federal government or to the States. Specific rights are
ALSO granted in the Bill of Rights but that is NOT an exclusive list.

So, if the states regulate marriage, then they DO have a right to set...
*qualifications*...

Yes, qualifications NOT BASED ON SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS: e.g., race,
national origin, and (for things like drivers' licenses) gender! Finally
you're starting to "get it." (Of course, this is all under U.S. law and
since we have a written Constitution, it all stops there).

Some freedoms and rights necessarily imply others - for example, many
argue (very persuasively) that the freedom of speech and of assembly
imply a freedom to travel; drivers' license laws in the U.S. fall
somewhat short of "rights" but they are certainly more important that
mere "allowances" or dispensations from state governments.

Non sequitur.

I see that you're very fond of that phrase. However, "it *does* follow" in
areas where automobiles are the basis of transportation for work,
recreation, to gather politically and so forth. Under U.S. law (there's
that qualification you continue to miss), the freedom to travel is indeed a
quarantee implied by certain other

No one *needs* a driver's licence, in order to travel

There's a recognition in this country of certain practical matters - lack of
developed public transportation infrastructure for much of the population,
great geographic distances to travel for work, education and political
expression (e.g., polling, voting, assembly) . . . As a result, statutes
creating and enabling drivers' licenses are generally "must issue" in
natu the state "must issue" the license once the threshold tests are
met. There is little (VERY little) discretion involved on the part of the
issuing agency. It is not a CONSTITUTIONALLY-guaranteed rigth in and of
itself, but as the freedom to travel derives from the First Amendment
freedoms of speech and assembly in the U.S., states must (of necessity)
treat their issuance of drivers' licenses liberally since driving is the
preferred (in the U.S.) method expressing one's rights.

See " buses, trains, airlines, hitchhiking... ".

See above. Oh, and that'll be US$500 for the condensed version of U.S.
Constitutional Law I in this thread. Feel free to remit to the charity of
your choice.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...
Go back to talking about marrying your dog if you don't want to recognize
that CHOICE plays very little part in what kind of people (especially
gender) that one finds attractive.

I don't dispute that at all. What I *said* was, if the mission was to get
married, then choosing a partner whom one isn't permitted to marry was a bad
choice. I didn't say anything at all about attraction, since being attracted
to a partner isn't a requirement for marriage.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.