Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Derek Lyons wrote:

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.


The Pope and the Medici's had pretty firm ideas what constituted art in
those days, and if you wanted their patronage you had better not step on
anyone's toes; but it was Michelangelo's Pieta that first brought him
fame, not because the populace really needed another grieving Mary with
a perforated son on her lap, but because he did such superb work on the
marble it carving it; By the time he got around to doing David, he had
everybody in power and in the arts either praising him, or ready to
strangle him out of jealousy for pulling off the most impressive piece
of Italian sculpture in the past thousand years...but the public would
have probably demanded that he just keep doing Pietas all his
life...since he was so good at that. And some of that pagan influence
(not to mention sexual innuendo- see if you can figure out what Adam and
Eve were doing before that snake tempts her with the apple, based on
their positions before she turns her head toward the serpent...ZOWIE! Is
that Adam, or Bill Clinton?:
http://www.tulane.edu/~rliuzza/genes...temptation.jpg ) would not
have gone over at all well with the rank-and-file churchgoers.
Michelangelo had the advantage of being a star, and could pretty well do
what ever he wanted as long as he didn't get completely out of line; and
was assured a patron for the piece.

Pat

Chris Jones ) writes:
(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.

Wheras, I am willing to entertain any proofs, either way, over deities
or a diety.

Otherwise, I have no emotive connection to the question, and, while
I prefer no religious practices for myself, I am aware that other
people have other ideas on this topic, for themselves, and I have
no interest in making them do differently then they wish to, unless
they are going to violate other's personal rights.

So, the issue of religion, in my views on marriage, have no connection
with that topic. I am merely speaking of civilly recognised forms,
practices and obligations of marriage.

Andre

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

Chris Jones ) writes:
(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.

For most, it still is.

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.

Then, the data suggests that you view of this is inadequate.

We have had now, thirty years of single parent rearing, and the
results are atrocious. The results are in, and the concept failed.
Badly.

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).

Not to the kids...

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.

No, you *believe*, based on anecdotes. Thats different from empirical
knowledge.

By the way, " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

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.

And, you'll get the same result you'd get, launching a shuttle with only
one functioning ( And, present ) SRB...

Read the book I cited. Knowledge is a Good Thing(tm).

Andre


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

Chris Jones ) writes:
(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.

Sure, they can. I need food, I don't need it to be pizza...

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!)

Indeed, and its become fashionable to call many kid's real needs,
optional... Like two parents.

Well, the results on that are in: F.

Andre


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

Chris Jones ) writes:
(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?

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.

Andre

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

Chris Jones ) writes:
(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".

Non sequitur. Marriage involes rights and oligations wrt children.
Thus, it is false to state that it " has nothing to do with. "

Andre

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

I'm done. We're not speaking the same language. Let's talk space.

"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.
--
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.

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
On gay marriage, I'm against it. For this reason. When you decide
to change one qualification of what consistutes a legal marriage
( I'm completely tabling religious marriage, thats not related to
the legal rights and obligations issues ), what mix of sexes is
required, on what consistant basis is one left with, to deny
other qualification changes, to groups who may want them.

Like, age limits, and numbers of spouses legally recognised,
to name but two.

Or species- one you start, then eventually someone is going to want to marry
their dog.

Now, another thing I don't like is *automatic* common law
marriage, where due to no specific actions to legalise a
relationship, a couple ends up in the legal territory of
being married, even though they never bought a license, etc..

This is pretty much gone. In Florida, for example, a common law marriage
must have been initiated prior to 1968 to be valid.
--
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.

Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...
Andre Lieven wrote:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

[...]

Fix that problem, and then, you open up a useful territory for
legally recognised relationships, that are different ( Note:
Not " inferior " or " superior " to marriage, just... different )
from marriage, with specific legal rights, obligations and standings.

Yes, but what if two consenting adults say that what they want isn't
something different, but something exactly the same?

They, they have a responsibility to meet the *qualifications* of
whatever it is that they claim to want.

To demand that it be *given to them, without them doing whats
required of others*, is demanding *special priviliges*. And,
unearned ones at that.

I may want a Mercedes just like a neighbour, but walking down to
his dealership and demanding one, ain't gonna get me one...

Andre


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.

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

And look what happened once we tried to treat them equally- 9/11, that's
what happened! We didn't have that before women got the vote, either.
--
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.