On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>redefining the word.

This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>redefining the word.

This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy.

Enron was dollar driven as well.

>You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).

Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy.

Enron was dollar driven as well.

>You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).

Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy.

Enron was dollar driven as well.

>You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).

Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> >genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >>
> >
> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
rights
> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
communities
> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>
> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
any
> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
amendment is
> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
states?
>

Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds. There's multiple
jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.

The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have merit.
Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to be
sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society is
huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.

Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.

Personal choices? Hmph.

> >
> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
issues,
> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >
> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
role
> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
debate
> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
in
> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> >genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >>
> >
> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
rights
> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
communities
> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>
> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
any
> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
amendment is
> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
states?
>

Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds. There's multiple
jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.

The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have merit.
Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to be
sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society is
huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.

Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.

Personal choices? Hmph.

> >
> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
issues,
> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >
> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
role
> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
debate
> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
in
> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> >genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >>
> >
> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
rights
> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
communities
> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>
> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
any
> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
amendment is
> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
states?
>

Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds. There's multiple
jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.

The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have merit.
Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to be
sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society is
huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.

Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.

Personal choices? Hmph.

> >
> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
issues,
> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >
> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
role
> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
debate
> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
in
> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> >
> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
> >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
> >redefining the word.
>
> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?

It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering into a
commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional marriage. If
there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple feel they
are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws to
extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining an
establishment that has long been in place.

Ed

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> >
> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
> >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
> >redefining the word.
>
> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?

It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering into a
commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional marriage. If
there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple feel they
are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws to
extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining an
establishment that has long been in place.

Ed