Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:55:00 -0000, "Paul Blay"
wrote:

Should siblings where one partner has voluntarily been sterilised
be able to marry? I'd be very hesitant to say "yes"
but the only reason I've got for saying "no" is my strong suspicion
that such relationships are mostly likely damaging psychologically
to the parties involved.

In California, first cousins are allowed to marry if the woman is over
some age, I think fifty. I know such a couple. No concern in the law
about psychological factors (but cousins aren't sibs).

http://www.cuddleinternational.org/laws/law-index.html

(All Hail Google)

Actually you can be any age (over consent obviously) in CA.



As you say, in the part I snipped, it's reproduction.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Andre Lieven wrote:

Herb Schaltegger lid)
writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Equating sexual preference, gender identity and other innate
psychological traits with the desire for a car is a coarse analogy at
best and extremely
callow, at worst. What many committed gay couples want is the same
rights
and responsibilities afforded straight couples. Nothing more, nothing
less.

Without *earning* them, I do understand that.

If one refuses to learn to drive a car, one has NO claim on a driver's
license...

What the heck are you trying to say, Andre? That gay folks should learn
to
screw straight people and learn to like it? Please elaborate.

That their chosen failure to qualify, doesn't leave them with a " right "
that they chose to not qualify for. Period.

Again, you imply that sexual preferenec and orientation are a choice. There
are few psychological or psychiatric experts who would agree with that.

If it helps
you to realize the utter absurdity of such a position, please realize
that many gay people (my sister included) have a history of failed
straight relationships, followed often by much longer-term, happier gay
relationships. Once they realize that it really IS them, they find
better (same-sex) partners.

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

I see neither citation NOR anecdote in anything you've posted on this topic.
On the other hand, I have openly gay relatives in my immediate family, as
does my wife. My ex-brother-in-law (ex-wife's brother) is openly. I have
openly gay friends, both single and in committed relationships. Do you?
If so, what do they tell you about how they wish to be treated by the law?

By your logic and reasoning, U.S. blacks in the 50's (hell, now!)
shouldn't want the same treatment as whites because they don't have the
"qualification" of white-ness.

Ah, I was wondering if anyone was going to drag out the fallacious
race card...

It's not fallacious at all. And it doesn't have to be race: it could
very well be gender, religious beleif or any other not-easily-changable
personal
characteristic. That's the usual determinant used by a Court to see if
it's a suspect classification being used to make an otherwise-arbitrary
distinction.

Non sequitur. In democracies, the people DO get a say over how things
will be.

Sure, subject to Constitutional limitations (in the U.S., at least). Do I
really need to remind you that many of the limits in the U.S. Constitution
are primarily designed to protect the individual against the tyranny of the
majority?

A tyranny of courts is not preferable to a tyranny of any other
knd.

Nice, arch-conservative rhetoric but not relevent to the discussion at hand.
It what way are you tyrranized, terrorized, put-upon or infringed-upon if
Joe and Steve up the street are allowed to legally marry?

Black families are still families, with a mother *and* a father.

Not all of them.

Non sequitur. Far more than gay relationships... which by *self
definition* are *guaranteed* to be without either the mother or the
father.

Sez you. Said couples are PARENTS. That, more so than the arbitrary
gender-laden lables you place upon the role, is what is important. Do you
even have children? I have three (there are some more anecdotes for you)
and I'm pretty sure that ANY parent, gay or straight, will tell you that
you really have no idea what it's like until you have kids.


Thus, they meet the qualification for marriage. No problem there,
so your analogy fails.

No, it doesn't. The issue is qualification for marriage only. You say a
straight couple comprised on one male and one female are the only people
who are allowed (I agree) or ought to be allowed (I disagree) to be
married. However, many groups have historically been denied rights (and
responsibilities) for many things in society, restrictions which today
are seen as arbitrary and baseless, even if they seemed acceptable and
perhaps even felt to be justified at the time.

So ? " That something I say is like this was done, in other times,
for other reasons, and over other issues " is NOT " proof " that this
is the case *with this issue*.

Then what is the reason if not arbitrary discrimination based on homophobia?

Again, you're begging the question, and trying to ride on the backs
of other people, over other issues.

It's called arguing by analogy; it's done all the time, especially when the
crux of the opposing argument is that "It's okay to discriminate against
[insert chosen group here], even though it's not okay to do so against
[insert second chosen group here]." After you've tried to make that
argument, a good exercise is to reverse the positions of your two groups
and see if it holds water. It usually doesn't.

The race (or gender or religion) aspect applies to other things besides
marriage that have been historically restricted by many cultures to only
those of a preferred group: the right to buy and hold land,the right to
inherit property, the freedom to divorce, the right to vote, the right to
hold office, the right to serve militarily, etc. Such freedoms have long
been denied many people on the basis of similar irrational grounds.

Ibid. PROVE that thats the case *with this issue*.

No, you're the one arguing in favor of continued discriminatory treatment of
gay couples vis a vis the right to legally marry. I don't have to justify
such treatment, you do.

I could as easily say " The Saturn V was a rocket. The Delta 5 is
a rocket. Therefore, Delta 5s should carry three men to the Moon... "

You could, if there was such a thing as a Delta 5. And if you can support
that statement, fine. Right now, I have yet to hear any arguments AGAINST
extending the right to marry to gay couples based on any verifiable data or
arguments; such arguments always devolved into morals-based "It's just
WRONG!" histrionics.


The same could apply to women until historically recently, or to
Jews in a Christian country, Catholics in a Protestant one, etc.

Or, to 10 years olds wanting to marry, or to 8 year olds wanting
a driver's license...

Study the development of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution
and you might see why minimum age restrictions pass Constitutional muster
while other restrictions based upon membership in a suspect
classification do not.

Are you implying " Infallibility of SCOTUS " ?

See my previous post re the Dred Scott decision.

By this I mean gender, race, and religion. Sexual preference may be
included as a subset of gender issues, it may end up standing on its own
or it may fail entirely as a suspect classification; time and the Supreme
Court will tell. I will point out, however, that even the Supreme Court
gets it wrong - the Dred Scott decision being an obvious case in point.

As do not a few recent cases... See Bush v/ Gore... g

See Dred Scott.

Bah.

Indeed. Lets do away with all rules.

Pi does equal 3...

No, let's follow the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and
do away with arbitrary distinctions which serve only to feed the smug
moralism of the small-minded.

Then, explain the Violence Against *Women* Acts...

Have you read that Act? Have you read ANY state's domestic violence
statute? They are rarely gender-specific in their definitions of either
victim or perpetrator.

Seems its perfectly OK to discriminate... against the " right "
groups...

If you want to see discrimination you can always "find" evidence of
perceived discrimination. On the other hand, telling two men or two women
they can't be issued a marriage license, and NOT telling the same to a
hetero couple IS disparate treatment, period. Whether such disparate
treatment is Constitutionally justifiable is the issue (at least in the
U.S.)

BTW, ad homs at views you don't share, only shows the lack of
an actual positive argument of the ad hom-er...

I didn't accuse you of anything personally. If you perceive that my remark
regarding the small-minded pertains to you, well . . . perhaps you ought to
wonder about your self-perception.

The fact of the matter is that I propose treating couples equally,
regardless of gender or sexual preference. It seems to me that advocacy of
equal treatment requires less explicit justification than does maintaining
a disparate status quo. In other words, why do I have to justify fair
treatment while you do not have to justify unfair treatment?

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

Pat Flannery wrote:

Imagine for a moment if a vote had been taken among the people of Rome,
and Michelangelo's job had been to paint exactly what they wanted up on
that ceiling...there's a second to shudder in, don't you think?

Not even remotely. You understand that the citizens of Rome had very
firm ideas on what constituted art in Michelangelo's day? Art was a
societal function, not the individual statement that it is today.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Henry Spencer wrote:

I _KNEW_ you were the sort of man who would read the Marquis De Sade's
"120 days of Sodom"!



Nope, I've never gotten around to reading any of his work, and probably
won't either...


I read about one page of the above work; that was quite enough of the
old Marquis for a lifetime, let me tell you.....now, "My Secret Life" on
the other hand....




Tell me....in detail....what that wallet _smells_ like! :-)



It's been replaced since the last incident of that. :-)


You know, you could have sold it for big money on Pervbay!
I know you specialize in reaction motor design; see if you can make
heads or tails of how the airflow is supposed to work on this oddity;
I'm getting lost somewhere around the exhaust diffusers to the central
core, and trying to figure out how air is getting to the flame holders
in the wing disc: http://www.ufx.org/avro/pv704/pv704.htm

Pat

(Andre Lieven) writes:

It proves that you claim that " opposition to gay marriage=religious
grounds, 100% of the time " was... *false*.

Once again, definitions. What do I mean by religious beliefs? I have a
rather broad definition, and atheism is, to me, a religious belief. A
religious belief is something you are so sure of you are willing to
accept it on faith. I am willing to believe, without proof, on faith,
that there is no god.

(Andre Lieven) writes:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

So, your absurd claim that kids " don't need " both parents is
amply belied by merely checking out whats going in a public
school.

It's all a matter of definitions, isn't it? What do you mean by need?

Beyond food and oxygen, what does anyone mean by " need " ?

Um, food and oxygen don't mean need. We require them, so they fit my
definition of something we need. Water too. That may be about it,
although propagation of the species requires (needs) we get 46
chromosomes assembled and somehow trigger them to turn into a baby. It
used to require (need) heterosexual sex to do that, but that's no longer
the case.

If you believe that fathers are dispensible with, then thats one
view, albeit one that flies in the face of reams of evidence.
If you believe that fathers are *not* dispensible, then claiming
that they're unneeded is fallacious, and self-contradictory.

How so? I admit that I believe that two parents raising a child are
better than one, but IT'S NOT NEEDED. I think it's a good idea that
children see all sorts of role models, male, female, anything in between
or beyond (BUT IT'S NOT NEEDED). I know a 1man1woman marriage (oh, as a
fact that does nothing to buttress my argument, that's what I am in) is not
A REQUIREMENT for raising children, because children are raised outside
of that particular structure.

Here's a saying my father (a sailor) told me about fathers: you have to
be there when the keel is laid; you don't have to be there for the
launching. And, I add, the sailing.

(Andre Lieven) writes:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

[...]

You are confusing "need" with "do better with". Or maybe we aren't
talking the same language. In my language, need means require.

Non sequitur. Some " needs " can be worked around, albeit at costs
of complexity, lower efficiency, etc.

Not at all. Needs cannot, by definition, be worked around.

I would think that most parents want rather *more* for their kids.

Wanting and needing are two different things (and how many times have I
said that to my children!)

(Andre Lieven) writes:

Its clearly not a " right ". Rights aren't dependant on the
filling of *qualifications*.

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

(Andre Lieven) writes:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

Are you seriously wishing to state that marriage has nothing to do
with the creation and raising of children ? Especially, but not
only, historically ?

Feel free to back this claim up.

I am not making this claim.

LOL. You snipped out where you said as much.

Why do you think I am (if you do)?

Restore what you sniped out, and I'll show you.
But, since you snipped it out, its up to you to
correct what you did...

Read my lips (I know):

"Nothing to do with" is not the same as "is a requirement of".

Herb Schaltegger lid)
writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Herb Schaltegger lid)
writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Equating sexual preference, gender identity and other innate
psychological traits with the desire for a car is a coarse analogy at
best and extremely
callow, at worst. What many committed gay couples want is the same
rights
and responsibilities afforded straight couples. Nothing more, nothing
less.

Without *earning* them, I do understand that.

If one refuses to learn to drive a car, one has NO claim on a driver's
license...

What the heck are you trying to say, Andre? That gay folks should learn
to screw straight people and learn to like it? Please elaborate.

That their chosen failure to qualify, doesn't leave them with a " right "
that they chose to not qualify for. Period.

Again, you imply that sexual preferenec and orientation are a choice.
There
are few psychological or psychiatric experts who would agree with that.

The reasons why they fail to qaulify are... irrelevent.

That they do fail to qualify, is the only relevent point.

If it helps
you to realize the utter absurdity of such a position, please realize
that many gay people (my sister included) have a history of failed
straight relationships, followed often by much longer-term, happier gay
relationships. Once they realize that it really IS them, they find
better (same-sex) partners.

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

I see neither citation NOR anecdote in anything you've posted on this
topic.

Then, you read poorly. I cited the Wallerstein work, for one.

On the other hand, I have openly gay relatives in my immediate family, as
does my wife. My ex-brother-in-law (ex-wife's brother) is openly. I have
openly gay friends, both single and in committed relationships. Do you?

Yes.

If so, what do they tell you about how they wish to be treated by the law?

Also irrelevent. I might wish for a thousand tax free bucks a week,
but that also speaks not at all to any issues of qualifications or
" rights "...

Do you routinely ask people *who stand to gain* from a policy, about
said policy, and expect that you're going to get statistically
meaningful results ?

Can you say " sample bias " ?

By your logic and reasoning, U.S. blacks in the 50's (hell, now!)
shouldn't want the same treatment as whites because they don't have the
"qualification" of white-ness.

Ah, I was wondering if anyone was going to drag out the fallacious
race card...

It's not fallacious at all. And it doesn't have to be race: it could
very well be gender, religious beleif or any other not-easily-changable
personal
characteristic. That's the usual determinant used by a Court to see if
it's a suspect classification being used to make an otherwise-arbitrary
distinction.

Non sequitur. In democracies, the people DO get a say over how things
will be.

Sure, subject to Constitutional limitations (in the U.S., at least). Do I
really need to remind you that many of the limits in the U.S. Constitution
are primarily designed to protect the individual against the tyranny of the
majority?

I am aware of that. Free Clue: Failing to extend goodies is not a matter
of " protection from tyranny ".

In such issues, the issue stands or falls on *existing rights being
taken away*. That is not the case here.

A tyranny of courts is not preferable to a tyranny of any other
knd.

Nice, arch-conservative rhetoric but not relevent to the discussion at
hand.

Considering that I tend to vote NDP, thats funny...

It what way are you tyrranized, terrorized, put-upon or infringed-upon if
Joe and Steve up the street are allowed to legally marry?

Free Clue: Its not all about *me*...

Black families are still families, with a mother *and* a father.

Not all of them.

Non sequitur. Far more than gay relationships... which by *self
definition* are *guaranteed* to be without either the mother or the
father.

Sez you. Said couples are PARENTS.

Not without at *least one adoption*.

That, more so than the arbitrary
gender-laden lables you place upon the role, is what is important.

yawn Name calling is not a substitute for a point...

Do you even have children?

Are you attempting to suggest that, if I don't, I have no right to
my considered opinions and beliefs ?

Talk about not extending equal protection...

I have three (there are some more anecdotes for you)
and I'm pretty sure that ANY parent, gay or straight, will tell you that
you really have no idea what it's like until you have kids.

So ? This is relevent, how ?

Thus, they meet the qualification for marriage. No problem there,
so your analogy fails.

No, it doesn't. The issue is qualification for marriage only. You say a
straight couple comprised on one male and one female are the only people
who are allowed (I agree) or ought to be allowed (I disagree) to be
married. However, many groups have historically been denied rights (and
responsibilities) for many things in society, restrictions which today
are seen as arbitrary and baseless, even if they seemed acceptable and
perhaps even felt to be justified at the time.

So ? " That something I say is like this was done, in other times,
for other reasons, and over other issues " is NOT " proof " that this
is the case *with this issue*.

Then what is the reason if not arbitrary discrimination based on
homophobia?

Non sequitur. " Homophobia " is a poor label, as it claims a hate/fear
of a whole class.

Feel free to try to *prove* this wild claim... laughs

Again, you're begging the question, and trying to ride on the backs
of other people, over other issues.

It's called arguing by analogy; it's done all the time, especially when the
crux of the opposing argument is that "It's okay to discriminate against
[insert chosen group here], even though it's not okay to do so against
[insert second chosen group here]." After you've tried to make that
argument, a good exercise is to reverse the positions of your two groups
and see if it holds water. It usually doesn't.

Non sequitur. Analogies often break, when pushed beyond their limits.

Thats their failure, and those who solely rely on them, tend to also
fail, on that ground, for starters.

The race (or gender or religion) aspect applies to other things besides
marriage that have been historically restricted by many cultures to only
those of a preferred group: the right to buy and hold land,the right to
inherit property, the freedom to divorce, the right to vote, the right to
hold office, the right to serve militarily, etc. Such freedoms have long
been denied many people on the basis of similar irrational grounds.

Ibid. PROVE that thats the case *with this issue*.

No, you're the one arguing in favor of continued discriminatory treatment
of gay couples vis a vis the right to legally marry.

Nonsense. Is it " discrimination " to not allow 10 year olds to not
drive, or to not allow people who have had zero training in driving,
to drive ?

The term " discrimination " is bandied about, as if it is a religious
talisman, meaning " Evil ! Evil ! Stone all who utter such ideas ! "

How... discriminatory...

I don't have to justify such treatment, you do.

Reverse onus. No.

Those who demand *change*, always have the onus on them. Period.

I could as easily say " The Saturn V was a rocket. The Delta 5 is
a rocket. Therefore, Delta 5s should carry three men to the Moon... "

You could, if there was such a thing as a Delta 5. And if you can support
that statement, fine. Right now, I have yet to hear any arguments AGAINST
extending the right to marry to gay couples based on any verifiable data or
arguments; such arguments always devolved into morals-based "It's just
WRONG!" histrionics.

You've heard several. You just don't wish to acknowledge them as
legitimate viewpoints, due to your own apparent biases.

So, you replicate what you are decrying. How... ironic.

The same could apply to women until historically recently, or to
Jews in a Christian country, Catholics in a Protestant one, etc.

Or, to 10 years olds wanting to marry, or to 8 year olds wanting
a driver's license...

Study the development of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution
and you might see why minimum age restrictions pass Constitutional muster
while other restrictions based upon membership in a suspect
classification do not.

Are you implying " Infallibility of SCOTUS " ?

See my previous post re the Dred Scott decision.

My point made. Thank you.

By this I mean gender, race, and religion. Sexual preference may be
included as a subset of gender issues, it may end up standing on its own
or it may fail entirely as a suspect classification; time and the Supreme
Court will tell. I will point out, however, that even the Supreme Court
gets it wrong - the Dred Scott decision being an obvious case in point.

As do not a few recent cases... See Bush v/ Gore... g

See Dred Scott.

Ibid.

Bah.

Indeed. Lets do away with all rules.

Pi does equal 3...

No, let's follow the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and
do away with arbitrary distinctions which serve only to feed the smug
moralism of the small-minded.

Then, explain the Violence Against *Women* Acts...

Have you read that Act? Have you read ANY state's domestic violence
statute? They are rarely gender-specific in their definitions of either
victim or perpetrator.

LOL ! They are certainly NOT " gender neutral " in their *application*...

One fellow with whom I have corresponded on this, did an exhaustive
study of US DOJ figures, and found that the most important factor in
seeing who gets higher rates of criminal convictions, and higher
sentences, is to determine which defendants are men, and which are
women.

White men got longer sentences than did black women...

I could offer you such a reading list... Start with " Divorced
Dads; Shattering The Myths ", by Sanford Braver, and examine the
multiple areas of huge anti-men sex based legal biases...

Seems its perfectly OK to discriminate... against the " right "
groups...

If you want to see discrimination you can always "find" evidence of
perceived discrimination.

Ah, handwaving nihlism. How... unscientific.

On the other hand, telling two men or two women
they can't be issued a marriage license, and NOT telling the same to a
hetero couple IS disparate treatment, period.

So is not allowing sevel Mormons to marry. So ? Neither group...
*qualified*. Period.

Whether such disparate
treatment is Constitutionally justifiable is the issue (at least in the
U.S.)

Sure, after all, we're all just interchangeable cogs in the Great
Soviet Machine...

Wait a sec, who won the Cold War, again ?

BTW, ad homs at views you don't share, only shows the lack of
an actual positive argument of the ad hom-er...

I didn't accuse you of anything personally.

Non sequitur. You used name calling, in the place of an actual argument.
The point... stands.

If you perceive that my remark
regarding the small-minded pertains to you, well . . . perhaps you ought to
wonder about your self-perception.

Ah, so I am responsible for *your actions* ?

I think... not !

The fact of the matter is that I propose treating couples equally,
regardless of gender or sexual preference. It seems to me that advocacy of
equal treatment requires less explicit justification than does maintaining
a disparate status quo. In other words, why do I have to justify fair
treatment while you do not have to justify unfair treatment?

Because I dispute that this treatment is " unfair ".

You have yet to *make that case*...

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