|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Mary Shafer ) writes:
On 9 Dec 2003 17:04:43 GMT, (Andre Lieven) wrote: "Paul Blay" ) writes: "Andre Lieven" wrote ... And, heres why we do treat different types of couples differently. The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein. Er, isn't that proving that a single parent family (specifically one formed from a failed marriage) is a _bad_ manner to raise children well. [Big surprise] It is to the Feminist divorce-is-good crowd... In any case, on this point, it makes the case that a child *needs* a *mother *and* a father. No, it makes the point that economic resources are reduced in single-parent families and raising kids depends on economic resources. Incorrect. Wallerstein allowed for those factors, and used groups from the same demographics, including income. The results *still* were, no father, things go bad, in every way. It would be better if... you read the book. Poor kids in dual-parent families don't do a lot better. Yes, they do. Not in areas of new Nikes, but in areas of better odds at finishing school, not using drugs, fewer or no teen pregnancies, etc. NO same sex couple can provide that. By self-definition. Thus, the harms to children of divorce also apply to same sex couples. But it can provide the economic resources required. You're confusing a symptom with the cause. Incorrect. The issue is not resources. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
literature (was Did you know you can buy land on the moon?)
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
... I _KNEW_ you were the sort of man who would read the Marquis De Sade's "120 days of Sodom"! Tell me....in detail....what that wallet _smells_ like! :-) I want Gomorrah of that! -- 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. |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
In message , Herb Schaltegger
lid writes Pat Flannery wrote: Scott Hedrick wrote: "Herb Schaltegger" lid wrote in message ... gay folks should learn to screw straight people and learn to like it? Usani! His sails unfurled! "Fire Island, where the pants fell down!" My step-brother's mom and her husband (his step-dad) had a beach house on Fire Island in the late-70's/early-80's. It was quite an interesting place (although not nearly as completely-gay as you'd think). I WILL say, however, that many of the houses were EXTREMELY tidy and well-decorated . . Is that a diagnostic feature? And if I tidy up, will people start to worry? :-) -- Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
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. Where? When? 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 "... Are you? What's your degree in? My undergrad degree is aerospace engineering and I've designed ECLSS equipment currently on-orbit (and supporting a crew, BTW). That's space.history enough for most. 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*. Reread the above, friend. You want to debate that policies of U.S. state or federal government, then do so. Otherwise just shut the hell up. 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... Sure, but stick to the terms and terminology if you want to be taken seriously when someone points out the why it's okay to have disparate treatment in some contexts while in others, such disparate treatment is not acceptable. How... Soviet of you... How . . . ignorant of you . . . to not be able to comprehend the difference. 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 ! " I call bull**** on that. Prove it: where have I said "there are NO qualifications" You're talking out of your ass here (again). 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. If you can't discuss the matter rationally, pull out a literary quote that is irrelevent. I didn't call you names. I pointed out that you aren't grasping the terms of the discussion. I sense not a little hypocrisy/inconsistancy* there... Failure of comprehension on your part equals neither hypocracy nor inconsistency on mine. Ibid Wilde. Ibid your own inappropriate use of a quote rather than discussing the policies you wish to defend. 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*. You can hold a view. I can reject it on the basis that until you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I need not be you, in order to have an opinion... And, I cna even have an *informed opinion*, without mirroring your life. Then discuss your opinions in rational terms, explaining again why the disparate treatment of marriage licenses based on a suspect classification scheme under U.S. Constitutional law is and ought to be acceptable. Try to do it without calling names. 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. Then discuss your views in rational terms, explaining again why the disparate treatment of marriage licenses based on a suspect classification scheme under U.S. Constitutional law is and ought to be acceptable. Try to do it without calling names. 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... Other obligations with my stuff and money - MY children (who DO matter far more than the stuff and money used to support them). " 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... Continuing to equate your stuff ("wagon wheel table") with a child is absurd and immature; the fact that you offer continued insults in the face of your own absurdity is a telling commentary. Perhaps you should spend less time feeling smug about the precedential value of your divorce litigation (over something as banal as tangible items and money) and more time seeking to understand why the relationship itself failed. 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'. " Yes, I have: my personal experience is that every gay couple I've ever met has wished for the option of a legal marriage. That is BOTH "experience" and "anecdote." Now, explain again why you oppose my friends' wishes to marry? 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... Not a deity figure but someone who is holding your feet to the fire to explain your prejudice. YOU choose to be insulted; that's YOUR choice. So much for " equal treatment ", and all. Perhaps *you're unfamiliar with such provisions of the US Constitution... ? Much more so than you, obviously. 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 Show the inconsistency you claim. Otherwise you're just playing trollish games. 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 "... You have a right to disagree. I have a right to claim your views are ignorant, prejudiced and utterly without basis, especially as you refuse to actually explain the basis of your opposition. 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... A lawyer, an engineer, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, a parent, a step-parent, a husband . . . a notary public, too. I also play guitar, drink beer and watch movies. I'm many things, not the least of which I'm the guy who got fed up with your stereotypical uber-"family values", homophobic ignorance and decided to point out that you don't know what you're spouting about. You did respond to "marry your dog" post. Must I pull a google cite out to the exact post? Or, are you a . . . what? A liar? Or merely misremembering? A former step-parent opposed to gay marriage on ill-defined and indefensible grounds? 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. I doubt that very much. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. |
#466
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Scott Hedrick wrote:
"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. PLEASE don't get all "Stuffie" here, okay? Go back to the crux of the issue: people don't choose to whom they are attracted. Once they become attracted, they often want to stay together. Having made that choice, the real debate is: should the law allow couples to formalize the relationship and if so, in what way. Second, should the level of recognition (and the degree of formality and the societal obligations to be imposed) depend on whether the couple is comprised of a man and a woman, two women, or two men? If we disagree, fine. But let's not argue about the marriage itself. Few people in a modern, free culture get married as an end in itself; they get married as a step in a relationship, not to create the relationship in the first place. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. |
#467
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: I WILL say, however, that many of the houses were EXTREMELY tidy and well-decorated . . Is that a diagnostic feature? And if I tidy up, will people start to worry? :-) If that's the case, then I'm Don Juan, based on the dust alone. Pat |
#468
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
In message , Pat Flannery
writes Jonathan Silverlight wrote: I WILL say, however, that many of the houses were EXTREMELY tidy and well-decorated . . Is that a diagnostic feature? And if I tidy up, will people start to worry? :-) If that's the case, then I'm Don Juan, based on the dust alone. Tsk, tsk. Dust implies that it's not being used, whatever "it" is. -- Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#469
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote ...
Paul Blay wrote: Interesting snippets there. What kind of (human) defects are they discussing in the article (if you know)? I don't recall which bits were specific to the _human_ case. They may have even been just generalising from animal studies. (And the username / password is on the wrong computer to check for now.) But for the animal/bird studies it was things like how many parasites they had, how likely they were to survive bad winters etc. In human terms it could* come down to things like getting more of the colds going around worse and such (By which standard I should be giving my parents some funny looks). Sounds rather trivial, but if (for example) childhood diseases hit you wrong they can really make an impact on later life. Anyway I should be asleep now or I'll _never_ get rid of this cold. * Entering speculation zone. |
#470
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know you can buy land on the moon?
"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ... Scott Hedrick wrote: "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. PLEASE don't get all "Stuffie" here, okay? I'm not getting even close. That's all I meant when I made a reference to "poor choices". I know a few gay couples as well, and with one exception, they are very well suited. All of them, however, are poor choices if they wish to get married, since none of them are allowed to do so. I doubt their mission was merely to get married, so this criteria isn't relevant. On the other hand, while you may not be able to control whom you are attracted to, you *can* control what you do. Homosexuality, as with heterosexuality, is invisible until a person chooses to do something. Sexuality is an active choice. A person *chooses* to get involved with another person. A person *chooses* go to to locations where other homosexuals or heterosexuals congregate. A person *chooses* to express their sexuality. Your thoughts and feelings may not be a matter of choice, but the *expression* of them is. I'm not saying this as a matter of fault, I'm just getting tired of the horse**** about "I was made that way". Biology encourages a *tendency towards* a certain persuasion, it does not *require* someone behave in a certain manner- unless you believe we are mere animals, unable to control our biological impulses. If gays are allowed to marry, then people will want to marry their pets, and the next thing you know Roseanne will get married again. One of the fundamental flaws in our society is the extremely limited definition of "family". While I may not favor gay marriage, I have a problem with legally-defined family members who intentionally ostracise a relative having greater say over, say, health-care decisions than a long-term partner. I have a problem with my cat not being considered a family member. I have friends who are closer to me than my brother, but they could be legally excluded if my legal family didn't like them. I don't have an answer to this. I do know it doesn't have anything to do with the subject line. -- 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA begins moon return effort | Steve Dufour | Policy | 24 | August 13th 04 10:39 PM |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 01:56 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 2 | November 28th 03 10:21 AM |