"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy insurance.


Supporting Mass. universal health care is a state issue. I'm a big fan of states rights.
It is better to make a mistake in one state than in all fifty. Should something turn out
to be a good idea, the remaining forty-nine will latch on to it.

I support welfare when it isn't abused.

Abortion, well that position of his is sad. I was conceived out of wedlock, I'm glad mom
chose life.

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as I read my
dictionary.


Wes



--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy
insurance.


Supporting Mass. universal health care is a state issue. I'm a big fan of
states rights.
It is better to make a mistake in one state than in all fifty. Should
something turn out
to be a good idea, the remaining forty-nine will latch on to it.

It's the principle, Wes. What kind of Tea Bagger is going to support an
*enforced* requirement to buy insurance? State or federal, the principle is
the same.


I support welfare when it isn't abused.

So do most normal people.


Abortion, well that position of his is sad. I was conceived out of
wedlock, I'm glad mom
chose life.

Your personal circumstances do not represent a principle. g


As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking. It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.) d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking. It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.) d8-)


OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a 'living document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group that is in power?

As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings, coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least as
I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking.
It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what
words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.) d8-)


OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a 'living
document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group that
is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in the
Constitution means. d8-)


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older people.
Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for the
purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is, until we
begin to think...

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least
as I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking.
It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in
their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what
words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.) d8-)


OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a 'living
document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group that
is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in
the Constitution means. d8-)


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people. Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for
the purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is,
until we begin to think...

--
Ed Huntress

Unfortunately for most, the "begin to think" process happens over years of
attempting to get an education but all we really get is a liberal
indoctrination. If you go to school for years taught by liberal teachers,
and then "begin to think", that is, agree with them, then you have not
thought for yourself but been indoctrinated with their thinking. Liberalism
is kinda like going against the common sense flow by going with the nonsense
flow. The end result is you think you are thinking for yourself but you are
thinking like you were taught by your liberal educators and media. And you
end up with crazy ideas like a child needs parents permission to get an
aspirin at school but parents don't need to be consented to give the child
an abortion.

"Well little girl, we are going to perform surgery on you, we don't need to
let mommy or daddy know. But after surgery is done we'll have to ask your
parents if it's OK to give you a Tylenol for the pain. We thought of these
rules ourselves by beginning to think!"

You get liberalism crammed down your throat every time you go to school,
every time you watch TV, every you read a newspaper, and every time you read
a magazine article. But somehow they have brainwashed you to believe it you
agree with them you have began to think, no, you have just began to follow
without thinking!

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least
as I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking.
It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in
their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what
words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.)
d8-)


OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a
'living document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group
that is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in
the Constitution means. d8-)


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people. Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we
somehow believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman,
expressly for the purpose of having children in a "contractual"
environment. That is, until we begin to think...

--
Ed Huntress

Unfortunately for most, the "begin to think" process happens over years of
attempting to get an education but all we really get is a liberal
indoctrination. If you go to school for years taught by liberal teachers,
and then "begin to think", that is, agree with them, then you have not
thought for yourself but been indoctrinated with their thinking.
Liberalism is kinda like going against the common sense flow by going with
the nonsense flow. The end result is you think you are thinking for
yourself but you are thinking like you were taught by your liberal
educators and media. And you end up with crazy ideas like a child needs
parents permission to get an aspirin at school but parents don't need to
be consented to give the child an abortion.

"Well little girl, we are going to perform surgery on you, we don't need
to let mommy or daddy know. But after surgery is done we'll have to ask
your parents if it's OK to give you a Tylenol for the pain. We thought of
these rules ourselves by beginning to think!"

You get liberalism crammed down your throat every time you go to school,
every time you watch TV, every you read a newspaper, and every time you
read a magazine article. But somehow they have brainwashed you to believe
it you agree with them you have began to think, no, you have just began to
follow without thinking!

RogerN

Does that mean you never went to school?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At least
as I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their thinking.
It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in
their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what
words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.)
d8-)


OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a
'living document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group
that is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in
the Constitution means. d8-)


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people. Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from
the French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we
somehow believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman,
expressly for the purpose of having children in a "contractual"
environment. That is, until we begin to think...

--
Ed Huntress

Unfortunately for most, the "begin to think" process happens over years
of attempting to get an education but all we really get is a liberal
indoctrination. If you go to school for years taught by liberal
teachers, and then "begin to think", that is, agree with them, then you
have not thought for yourself but been indoctrinated with their thinking.
Liberalism is kinda like going against the common sense flow by going
with the nonsense flow. The end result is you think you are thinking for
yourself but you are thinking like you were taught by your liberal
educators and media. And you end up with crazy ideas like a child needs
parents permission to get an aspirin at school but parents don't need to
be consented to give the child an abortion.

"Well little girl, we are going to perform surgery on you, we don't need
to let mommy or daddy know. But after surgery is done we'll have to ask
your parents if it's OK to give you a Tylenol for the pain. We thought
of these rules ourselves by beginning to think!"

You get liberalism crammed down your throat every time you go to school,
every time you watch TV, every you read a newspaper, and every time you
read a magazine article. But somehow they have brainwashed you to
believe it you agree with them you have began to think, no, you have just
began to follow without thinking!

RogerN

Does that mean you never went to school?

--
Ed Huntress

It means I went to school, learned to think as I was taught, then later
learned to think for myself, which didn't agree with what the educated
idiots were teaching in the school.

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At
least as I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their
thinking. It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in
their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is what
words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.)
d8-)


OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a
'living document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group
that is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause
in the Constitution means. d8-)


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female
parings, coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people. Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from
a Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from
the French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we
somehow believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman,
expressly for the purpose of having children in a "contractual"
environment. That is, until we begin to think...

--
Ed Huntress

Unfortunately for most, the "begin to think" process happens over years
of attempting to get an education but all we really get is a liberal
indoctrination. If you go to school for years taught by liberal
teachers, and then "begin to think", that is, agree with them, then you
have not thought for yourself but been indoctrinated with their
thinking. Liberalism is kinda like going against the common sense flow
by going with the nonsense flow. The end result is you think you are
thinking for yourself but you are thinking like you were taught by your
liberal educators and media. And you end up with crazy ideas like a
child needs parents permission to get an aspirin at school but parents
don't need to be consented to give the child an abortion.

"Well little girl, we are going to perform surgery on you, we don't need
to let mommy or daddy know. But after surgery is done we'll have to ask
your parents if it's OK to give you a Tylenol for the pain. We thought
of these rules ourselves by beginning to think!"

You get liberalism crammed down your throat every time you go to school,
every time you watch TV, every you read a newspaper, and every time you
read a magazine article. But somehow they have brainwashed you to
believe it you agree with them you have began to think, no, you have
just began to follow without thinking!

RogerN

Does that mean you never went to school?

--
Ed Huntress

It means I went to school, learned to think as I was taught, then later
learned to think for myself, which didn't agree with what the educated
idiots were teaching in the school.

RogerN

That's what most people think. They seem to think that education stinks,
that most of their fellow students are drones, but that *they*, outstanding
examples of humanity that they are, somehow avoided all of the
indoctrination and -- uniquely, or nearly so -- saw through all of the
foolishness and came out of the system as iconoclasts who think for
themselves, and who see through all of the indoctrination to which the
others fell victim.

Here's the short answer to that, Roger: If you're an independent thinker,
and came up with Christianity on your own, not to mention conservative
politics, yours must be one of the most outstanding examples of parallel
development in human history. d8-)

You took off on this tangent in response, apparently, to my recounting of
some facts about the word "marriage." I'll assume that you disagree with me.
If so, I'd like to see why. Your position on most things doesn't look at all
like "independent thinking" to me -- with all due respect. I have to wonder,
in fact, if you know what a "liberal" is, or why I, for example, don't begin
to fit your apparent definition.

--
Ed Huntress

On Feb 7, 7:19*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older people.
Are they not legitimate marriages, then?


Ed Huntress

Not " Even if that were true." It is true. The majority of marriages
are entered into with the intention of having children. If there were
an easy way to tell which couples were not intending to have children,
then the law would probably differentiate between marriages made with
the intent of having children and marriages that have no intent of
having children as far as some of the tax advantages that married
couple have.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 7:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people.
Are they not legitimate marriages, then?


Ed Huntress

Not " Even if that were true." It is true. The majority of marriages
are entered into with the intention of having children.

We aren't talking about a "majority" of marriages, Dan. Obviously, we're
talking about a minority, and why, or if, they should be excluded from the
institution of marriage.

If there were
an easy way to tell which couples were not intending to have children,
then the law would probably differentiate between marriages made with
the intent of having children and marriages that have no intent of
having children as far as some of the tax advantages that married
couple have.

I can think of no reason to believe such a law ever would be enacted.


Dan

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a 'living
document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group that
is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in the
Constitution means. d8-)

It isn't as important for me to understand it than for our judges to understand it. Of
course, there seems to have been a re-interpretation of that document to find all sorts of
powers for the government instead of doing what was done with women's suffrage and
prohibition. Imagine that, we actually amended the constitution, what a concept.



As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older people.
Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

It satisfies the male / female paring.


The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for the
purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is, until we
begin to think...

You think too much and you won't know what you believe in.

But back to the situation with gays. They exist, they should be able to enter in certain
contracts with each other that the state recognizes. Things like probate, medical power
of attorney and likely a few others.

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would have likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a
'living
document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group
that
is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in
the
Constitution means. d8-)

It isn't as important for me to understand it than for our judges to
understand it.

Here's an important point: Nobody fully understands it. Even the Founders
disagreed about what it means. See, for example, Hamilton's versus Madison's
interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause. And they wrote it! g

It's full of ambiguities and contradictions. That's why the Supreme Court
has so many cases. Many of them question the meaning of provisions of the
Constitution.

Of
course, there seems to have been a re-interpretation of that document to
find all sorts of
powers for the government instead of doing what was done with women's
suffrage and
prohibition. Imagine that, we actually amended the constitution, what a
concept.

You could try to illuminate your point with some examples. But there will be
a learned and expert rejoinder by a majority of Justices to every one. It
winds up being endless arguments, which are the result of applying different
levels of importance to different provisions. That's what most Court
arguments are about.

It's best not to waste one's time doing that. That's a game for fools who
not only haven't read the cases, but who, in most cases, have never even
read the Constitution or what the Founders said about it. That's not to say
you shouldn't have opinions about how things should be decided. It IS to say
that the fools who claim to know what "original intent" is, better than a
majority of Supreme Court Justices do, are mostly full of it. Very few of
them have studied it enough to have an opinion worthy of the name.




As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people.
Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

It satisfies the male / female paring.

As I said, the origins of the word will not help you there. You've adopted a
convention that used to be applied to grapes and goats. g

The most that can be said is that you favor the traditional meaning on the
basis of conservative reasoning -- that traditions and cultural conventions
have a value in themselves, which is the original idea behind intellectual
conservatism.

It's a legitimate point of view. But if we accept it without questioning the
premise of every such tradition, we wind up with things like not allowing
blacks or women to vote, or not allowing a Chinese to marry a Caucasian. In
the end, it appears to be nothing more than simple prejudice. Some day
people will shake their heads and say, "what were those bigots thinking?"



The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for
the
purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is, until
we
begin to think...

You think too much and you won't know what you believe in.

If you don't think enough you'll believe in things that make no sense. As
Thomas Jefferson said, "I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an
intelligible proposition." I think so, too.


But back to the situation with gays. They exist, they should be able to
enter in certain
contracts with each other that the state recognizes. Things like probate,
medical power
of attorney and likely a few others.

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As far as gay marriage, those two words do not go together. At
least as I
read my
dictionary.


Wes

That's the problem. Too many people let dictionaries do their
thinking. It's
a form of word magic, in which the word substitutes for the thing in
their
mind, instead of just being a convenient generalization, which is
what words
are. See Alfred Korzybski, _Science and Sanity_ (General Semantics.)
d8-)


OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a
'living document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group
that is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause
in the Constitution means. d8-)


As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female
parings, coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people. Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from
a Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up
from the French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we
somehow believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman,
expressly for the purpose of having children in a "contractual"
environment. That is, until we begin to think...

--
Ed Huntress

Unfortunately for most, the "begin to think" process happens over years
of attempting to get an education but all we really get is a liberal
indoctrination. If you go to school for years taught by liberal
teachers, and then "begin to think", that is, agree with them, then you
have not thought for yourself but been indoctrinated with their
thinking. Liberalism is kinda like going against the common sense flow
by going with the nonsense flow. The end result is you think you are
thinking for yourself but you are thinking like you were taught by your
liberal educators and media. And you end up with crazy ideas like a
child needs parents permission to get an aspirin at school but parents
don't need to be consented to give the child an abortion.

"Well little girl, we are going to perform surgery on you, we don't
need to let mommy or daddy know. But after surgery is done we'll have
to ask your parents if it's OK to give you a Tylenol for the pain. We
thought of these rules ourselves by beginning to think!"

You get liberalism crammed down your throat every time you go to
school, every time you watch TV, every you read a newspaper, and every
time you read a magazine article. But somehow they have brainwashed
you to believe it you agree with them you have began to think, no, you
have just began to follow without thinking!

RogerN

Does that mean you never went to school?

--
Ed Huntress

It means I went to school, learned to think as I was taught, then later
learned to think for myself, which didn't agree with what the educated
idiots were teaching in the school.

RogerN

That's what most people think. They seem to think that education stinks,
that most of their fellow students are drones, but that *they*,
outstanding examples of humanity that they are, somehow avoided all of the
indoctrination and -- uniquely, or nearly so -- saw through all of the
foolishness and came out of the system as iconoclasts who think for
themselves, and who see through all of the indoctrination to which the
others fell victim.

I don't mean it like that, I'm simply trying to state that just because I
don't accept all the liberal ideas that that are thrust upon me doesn't mean
that I don't think for myself. To the contrary, if I did accept them all
that would seem to be more of an indication of not thinking. Though on many
political topics I enjoy parroting what I've heard and sounds interesting to
argue about.

Here's the short answer to that, Roger: If you're an independent thinker,
and came up with Christianity on your own, not to mention conservative
politics, yours must be one of the most outstanding examples of parallel
development in human history. d8-)

Let me give you a little example of what I consider thinking for myself.
Many claim that the New Testament isn't accurate and wasn't written for two
to three hundred years after the fact. This is based on some of the
earliest writings they can find. I disagree with them because I thought for
myself. Now get this, the very same people that claim the NT wasn't written
till hundreds of years later and isn't an accurate account of Jesus, will
also tell you that the original writers thought Jesus would return in their
lifetime. That wouldn't be a very good thing to write if the claimed
authors were long dead before it was written. But on the other hand it is
clearly written about Jesus prophecying the destruction of 70AD but their is
no New Testament mention of its fullfillment in 70AD. So, if the johnny
come lately Bible experts are correct then we wouldn't have things in there
that should have been omitted and not have omissions that should have been
included.

You took off on this tangent in response, apparently, to my recounting of
some facts about the word "marriage." I'll assume that you disagree with
me. If so, I'd like to see why. Your position on most things doesn't look
at all like "independent thinking" to me -- with all due respect. I have
to wonder, in fact, if you know what a "liberal" is, or why I, for
example, don't begin to fit your apparent definition.

--
Ed Huntress

I know you agree with a lot of the liberal agenda but I don't consider you
as one of the left nuts, I mean at least you seem to believe we have the
right to own a gun. But I kind of figure there is more difference in a
citizen and a politician than there is difference between most liberals and
conservatives.

As far a gay marriage, marriage should not be changed to allow same sex
marriage anymore than it should be to allow a person to marry their pet
hamster. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't
mean it should be picked on more than other sins. According to the Bible we
are all sinners so we should not condemn a homosexual just because their sin
is different than our sin. I find it hypocritical that religious folks will
be OK watching a movie with adultery but then think a movie with
homosexuality is disgusting. If they are wanting to use Biblical reasoning
then they should find adultery as offensive as homosexuality. The Bible is
also clear that homosexuality would be an issue in the last days.

RogerN

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:14:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

OMG, next thing you are going to tell me is the Constitution is a
'living
document'
subject to reinterpretation when if fits the goals of whatever group
that
is in power?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that you know what every clause in
the
Constitution means. d8-)

It isn't as important for me to understand it than for our judges to
understand it.

Here's an important point: Nobody fully understands it. Even the Founders
disagreed about what it means. See, for example, Hamilton's versus Madison's
interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause. And they wrote it! g

It's full of ambiguities and contradictions. That's why the Supreme Court
has so many cases. Many of them question the meaning of provisions of the
Constitution.

Of
course, there seems to have been a re-interpretation of that document to
find all sorts of
powers for the government instead of doing what was done with women's
suffrage and
prohibition. Imagine that, we actually amended the constitution, what a
concept.

You could try to illuminate your point with some examples. But there will be
a learned and expert rejoinder by a majority of Justices to every one. It
winds up being endless arguments, which are the result of applying different
levels of importance to different provisions. That's what most Court
arguments are about.

It's best not to waste one's time doing that. That's a game for fools who
not only haven't read the cases, but who, in most cases, have never even
read the Constitution or what the Founders said about it. That's not to say
you shouldn't have opinions about how things should be decided. It IS to say
that the fools who claim to know what "original intent" is, better than a
majority of Supreme Court Justices do, are mostly full of it. Very few of
them have studied it enough to have an opinion worthy of the name.




As to marriage, there is a biological reason for male / female parings,
coupled with a
social contract that has the interests of the offspring in mind.

Even if that were true, so what? Many marriages are entered with no
intention of having children -- particularly marriages between older
people.
Are they not legitimate marriages, then?

It satisfies the male / female paring.

As I said, the origins of the word will not help you there. You've adopted a
convention that used to be applied to grapes and goats. g

The most that can be said is that you favor the traditional meaning on the
basis of conservative reasoning -- that traditions and cultural conventions
have a value in themselves, which is the original idea behind intellectual
conservatism.

It's a legitimate point of view. But if we accept it without questioning the
premise of every such tradition, we wind up with things like not allowing
blacks or women to vote, or not allowing a Chinese to marry a Caucasian. In
the end, it appears to be nothing more than simple prejudice. Some day
people will shake their heads and say, "what were those bigots thinking?"



The etymology of "marriage" will get you nowhere, BTW. It derives from a
Latin word that means, at its root, "young man." We picked it up from the
French, who applied it to grapes and animals. g

But, through out enthusiastic trait of applying magic to words, we somehow
believe that it "means" a union between a man and a woman, expressly for
the
purpose of having children in a "contractual" environment. That is, until
we
begin to think...

You think too much and you won't know what you believe in.

If you don't think enough you'll believe in things that make no sense. As
Thomas Jefferson said, "I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an
intelligible proposition." I think so, too.


But back to the situation with gays. They exist, they should be able to
enter in certain
contracts with each other that the state recognizes. Things like probate,
medical power
of attorney and likely a few others.

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."


What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
- next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.

Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocomatgmaildotcom)

"John" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:14:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

snip


But back to the situation with gays. They exist, they should be able to
enter in certain
contracts with each other that the state recognizes. Things like
probate,
medical power
of attorney and likely a few others.

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would
have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give
them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."


What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
- next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.

I can't speak for them, but I suspect that's just a red herring. The issue
is equal treatment, and equal respect for their commitments.


Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?

Personally, I don't think it matters.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."


I'm old enough to remember segregation. I read 'Black Like Me' in elementary school.

In case you don't remember it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

I have a feeling you also read that book and it likely formed an opinion. I bet my
opinion matches yours.

Trying to say gay mariage is equivalent is absurd.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would
have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give
them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."


I'm old enough to remember segregation. I read 'Black Like Me' in
elementary school.

In case you don't remember it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

I have a feeling you also read that book and it likely formed an opinion.
I bet my
opinion matches yours.

Trying to say gay mariage is equivalent is absurd.

Wes

How is it different? That's a serious question.

And if you're going to tell us that it somehow damages the institution of
conventional marriage, I'd sure like to know how it does that.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would
have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give
them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."


I'm old enough to remember segregation. I read 'Black Like Me' in
elementary school.

In case you don't remember it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

I have a feeling you also read that book and it likely formed an opinion.
I bet my
opinion matches yours.

Trying to say gay mariage is equivalent is absurd.

Wes

How is it different? That's a serious question.

Did you read the book?

And if you're going to tell us that it somehow damages the institution of
conventional marriage, I'd sure like to know how it does that.

Hell Ed, maybe I should have been able to marry my dog back when he was still living. I
was responsible for his health and welfare. We had a bond. We were very close. I wanted
him with me for the rest of my life.

Conventional marriage. That says a lot. You are advocating unconventional or a
re-definition of marriage.

When in the last 2000 years or so has man man or female female marriage been considered?
normal?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would
have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new
definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give
them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."


I'm old enough to remember segregation. I read 'Black Like Me' in
elementary school.

In case you don't remember it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

I have a feeling you also read that book and it likely formed an
opinion.
I bet my
opinion matches yours.

Trying to say gay mariage is equivalent is absurd.

Wes

How is it different? That's a serious question.

Did you read the book?

Yeah, maybe 40 years ago. What is it you're trying to say here?

The racial hatred that blacks experienced undoubtedly was much greater than
gays experience today. But the principle of discrimination is the same. What
possible REASON is there to deny marriage to gay people? That's the real
question.


And if you're going to tell us that it somehow damages the institution of
conventional marriage, I'd sure like to know how it does that.

Hell Ed, maybe I should have been able to marry my dog back when he was
still living. I
was responsible for his health and welfare. We had a bond. We were very
close. I wanted
him with me for the rest of my life.

Ah, I suppose you could, but crosses species lines would require some more
thought. g


Conventional marriage. That says a lot. You are advocating
unconventional or a
re-definition of marriage.

Remember grapes. It used to be grapes. Now we have a re-definition that
excludes grapes. g


When in the last 2000 years or so has man man or female female marriage
been considered?
normal?

What's normal? Nero married two different men at different times. Apparently
the Romans were the first to call those relationships "marriage." How long
has interracial marriage been considered "normal" in the US? It happened
during my lifetime.

Think about it, Wes. All of these angles you're bringing up, especially
"normality," need a better explanation when you're talking about rights. I'm
left-handed, like 10% or 12% of the population. Is that "normal"? Not if
your definition is based on majorities.

I'm still questioning your reason for objecting. I've had to question my own
reasons for objecting, right up until a couple of years ago. But I couldn't
come up with anything legitimate. How about you?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:03:25 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They really should have stuck to civil union legislation. That would
have
likely made a
lot more progress than trying to redefine marriage to a new definition.

Yeah. Like Lyndon Johnson said in 1957: "These Negroes, they're getting
pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got
something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give
them
a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a
difference."


I'm old enough to remember segregation. I read 'Black Like Me' in
elementary school.

In case you don't remember it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

I have a feeling you also read that book and it likely formed an opinion.
I bet my
opinion matches yours.

Trying to say gay mariage is equivalent is absurd.

Wes

How is it different? That's a serious question.

Did you read the book?

And if you're going to tell us that it somehow damages the institution of
conventional marriage, I'd sure like to know how it does that.

Hell Ed, maybe I should have been able to marry my dog back when he was still living. I
was responsible for his health and welfare. We had a bond. We were very close. I wanted
him with me for the rest of my life.

Conventional marriage. That says a lot. You are advocating unconventional or a
re-definition of marriage.

When in the last 2000 years or so has man man or female female marriage been considered?
normal?

Although I've never understood the need for a marriage license, I also
don't understand what all the fuss is about gay marriage. It's their
life. Let 'em alone. I can understand their need as far as hospital
visitations, etc. Of course, marriage is a religious thang, and I've
never been partial to that little bit of manipulation, either.

Let the masses marry goats for all I care.

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

Larry Jaques wrote:

Although I've never understood the need for a marriage license, I also
don't understand what all the fuss is about gay marriage. It's their
life. Let 'em alone. I can understand their need as far as hospital
visitations, etc. Of course, marriage is a religious thang, and I've
never been partial to that little bit of manipulation, either.

Let the masses marry goats for all I care.


Larry, that is a libertarian position.

Mariage as a religious act should not have the state intruding via licensing.

Civil union (gays), well, while I'm not all that thrilled about it, call it that, and
leave traditional hetrosexual marriage alone. Unfortuantly, they (gays) want to be viewed
as normal and want to hijack marriage. I don't care how commited they are to each other,
it just isn't the same as man and woman joining with procreation as a likely outcome.

They really should take half a loaf with substantive equivalance in rights and be happy.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:

Although I've never understood the need for a marriage license, I also
don't understand what all the fuss is about gay marriage. It's their
life. Let 'em alone. I can understand their need as far as hospital
visitations, etc. Of course, marriage is a religious thang, and I've
never been partial to that little bit of manipulation, either.

Let the masses marry goats for all I care.


Larry, that is a libertarian position.

Mariage as a religious act should not have the state intruding via
licensing.

Civil union (gays), well, while I'm not all that thrilled about it, call
it that, and
leave traditional hetrosexual marriage alone. Unfortuantly, they (gays)
want to be viewed
as normal and want to hijack marriage. I don't care how commited they are
to each other,
it just isn't the same as man and woman joining with procreation as a
likely outcome.

They really should take half a loaf with substantive equivalance in rights
and be happy.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

The bigger issue is what it means to give them state recognized marriage or
legal unions. Before long it will be mandatory for school kids to take
classes on homosex education. If homosexuality is natural rather than a
learned behavior, then why do homosexuals want it taught? They have gay
pride parades showing off their perversion doing things that would get
anyone else arrested. If gays really want to be treated like a normal
person, they should demand the police arrest them for what they do in their
gay pride parades. Next thing you know there will be child molesters
claiming they are born that way and some liberals will be wanting to send
them children to molest because it's just the way they are.

The sad thing is that the Bible very clearly told that these things would
happen but liberals put their blinders on and can't see it right in front of
their face.

RogerN

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:47:55 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Although I've never understood the need for a marriage license, I also
don't understand what all the fuss is about gay marriage. It's their
life. Let 'em alone. I can understand their need as far as hospital
visitations, etc. Of course, marriage is a religious thang, and I've
never been partial to that little bit of manipulation, either.

Let the masses marry goats for all I care.


Larry, that is a libertarian position.

Si!


Mariage as a religious act should not have the state intruding via licensing.

Well, that's true, but it's one of the ways people who are
discriminated against can fight back. (See "dissolve") below)

Civil union (gays), well, while I'm not all that thrilled about it, call it that, and
leave traditional hetrosexual marriage alone. Unfortuantly, they (gays) want to be viewed
as normal and want to hijack marriage. I don't care how commited they are to each other,
it just isn't the same as man and woman joining with procreation as a likely outcome.

They really should take half a loaf with substantive equivalance in rights and be happy.

I'd just as soon dissolve any legal advantage the gov't gives to
married folks than to allow gays to have it, too. That's discrimintory
to singles. (Ditto restaurants which have B1G1F sales who don't allow
takeout or halve the savings for a single diner. I always thought that
the reason for a sale was to draw in new customers, but some owners
don't grok this.)

I do believe that friends should be allowed to visit patients in the
hospital, especially if the patient doesn't HAVE family. When you're
hurting, friend and family love helps.

--
In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are
needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And
they must have a sense of success in it.
-- John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, 1850

Ed Huntress wrote:

What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
- next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.

I can't speak for them, but I suspect that's just a red herring. The issue
is equal treatment, and equal respect for their commitments.

Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?

Personally, I don't think it matters.



I don't think it matters either but not for the same reason you do.
Homosexuals are always going to be a small percentage of the population.
They are different from the majority in an important way. They will
likely always be seen as "not like us" by the majority. So even if they
are able to get the legal system to see them and their partnerships as
equal under the law as a normal marriage is, the people are not going to
see it that way. Same sex marriages are always going to be seen as "gay
marriage" by most people. They will not see it as the same as their
marriage. They won't condemn it but they won't see it as just like
theirs. Gay people will get their way in the legal arena. Their
marriages will be judged the same as a male/female marriage. But it will
never be seen that way by most people, and that they will never get.
Which is ironic because that is what gay people really want, which is to
be accepted as the same as everyone else. Some things are just never
going to happen and that is one of them.

Hawke

In article ,
Hawke wrote:



I don't think it matters either but not for the same reason you do.
Homosexuals are always going to be a small percentage of the population.
They are different from the majority in an important way. They will
likely always be seen as "not like us" by the majority. So even if they
are able to get the legal system to see them and their partnerships as
equal under the law as a normal marriage is, the people are not going to
see it that way. Same sex marriages are always going to be seen as "gay
marriage" by most people. They will not see it as the same as their
marriage. They won't condemn it but they won't see it as just like
theirs. Gay people will get their way in the legal arena. Their
marriages will be judged the same as a male/female marriage. But it will
never be seen that way by most people, and that they will never get.
Which is ironic because that is what gay people really want, which is to
be accepted as the same as everyone else. Some things are just never
going to happen and that is one of them.

Hawke

Well, from the point of view of a fundamentalist crazymother****er*:

I see civil marriage as a legal contract implementing an agreement
between two people WRT assets, rights and responsibilities, inheritance,
etc. Religious marriage, OTOH, is the matter for the religions and
religious involved, who may perform a ceremony and/or recognize a
relationship, or not, at their discretion.

The two are separate realms that do not overlap.

*Copyright: Curly Surmudgeon

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

What are the reasons for the emphasis on legalizing same sex
marriages? I had understood that the reasons were primarily financial
- next of kin and joint tax returns and that sort of things.

I can't speak for them, but I suspect that's just a red herring. The
issue is equal treatment, and equal respect for their commitments.

Another question that would seem to be a result of this is "what does
one call one's partner? Husband and wife would seem to be sexual
indicators so is it "my friend"? Or perhaps "my mate"?

Personally, I don't think it matters.



I don't think it matters either but not for the same reason you do.
Homosexuals are always going to be a small percentage of the population.
They are different from the majority in an important way. They will likely
always be seen as "not like us" by the majority. So even if they are able
to get the legal system to see them and their partnerships as equal under
the law as a normal marriage is, the people are not going to see it that
way. Same sex marriages are always going to be seen as "gay marriage" by
most people. They will not see it as the same as their marriage. They
won't condemn it but they won't see it as just like theirs. Gay people
will get their way in the legal arena. Their marriages will be judged the
same as a male/female marriage. But it will never be seen that way by most
people, and that they will never get. Which is ironic because that is what
gay people really want, which is to be accepted as the same as everyone
else. Some things are just never going to happen and that is one of them.

Hawke

Well since it's not the same, you can't fault the normal people for not
seeing it to be the same thing. All the court cases, parades, and otherwise
lude behavior is really a cry for help and acceptance. You are right in one
way, that while the courts may find that they are entitled to some equal
rights, gays will never be able to convince normal people that their own
aberration is somehow normal.