(By the way, one of the reasons I enjoy discoursing with people in this
forum is because they challenge me to really be smart about my ideas)

 

OK, after Darren's argument that both bad and good people have been
censored in the past, can we at least agree that Censorship makes sense
when someone is advocating infringing on the rights, freedoms, liberties
and property of others, but that those rights do NOT include a "right to
not be offended?"

 

...Ben Chambers

www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 23-Dec-08 20:19, Chambers wrote:
> (By the way, one of the reasons I enjoy discoursing with people in this
> forum is because they challenge me to really be smart about my ideas)
> 
>  
> 
> OK, after Darren's argument that both bad and good people have been
> censored in the past, can we at least agree that Censorship makes sense
> when someone is advocating infringing on the rights, freedoms, liberties
> and property of others, but that those rights do NOT include a "right to
> not be offended?"
> 
no

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message

> OK, after Darren's argument that both bad and good people have been
> censored in the past, can we at least agree that Censorship makes sense
> when someone is advocating infringing on the rights, freedoms, liberties
> and property of others,

It makes sense to censor speaking against slavery?

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> OK, after Darren's argument that both bad and good people have been
> censored in the past, can we at least agree that Censorship makes sense
> when someone is advocating infringing on the rights, freedoms, liberties
> and property of others, but that those rights do NOT include a "right to
> not be offended?"

  Democratic constitutional freedom of speech entitles anyone to express
their disagreement about the democratic constitutional process if they so
want. Censoring someone for expressing their opinion like that would
undermine the very principle of freedom of speech.

  As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."

  Actively *doing* something (or making others do something) to harm others
or limit their rights is criminal, but not because of anything related to
freedom of speech.

  Criminalizing verbal offences is, in my opinion, a very shaky ground.
It's very easy to create laws related to this subject which are very vague
and can be used to limit freedom of speech in ways which were not intended
originally. It's also very easy to impose the law differently for different
people (which blatantly breaks the principle of equality).

  Sadly, this is becoming more and more common practice in the modern free
world. "Minorities" (which sometimes even aren't) are being overly protected,
even to the point where it becomes blatant discrimination against the
"majority", by a government which has swore to uphold democratic
constitutional rights for everybody.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> OK, after Darren's argument that both bad and good people have been
> censored in the past,

That wasn't what I said. I said there *are* obvious examples of where the 
world might have been a better place had certain people been censored. Not 
that they had been. (Altho I expect many people have been censored that 
would have both improved and disimproved the world too, it's difficult to 
point to one.)

 > can we at least agree that Censorship makes sense
> when someone is advocating infringing on the rights, freedoms, liberties
> and property of others, 

No. "Rights" and "freedom" and "properties" are nebulous terms when you're 
talking about individuals interacting, just like the word "fair" doesn't 
really make sense.

Your right to "control your body" infringes on the "baby's right to life." 
Your right to ride on the bus infringes on my right not to have to sit next 
to you. Your right to polygamy infringes on my right to the sanctity of 
marriage. Your right to freedom infringes on my right to hold slaves.

In the USA, truth is an absolute defense against an accusation of slander. 
If what I say about you is true, you can't complain that my saying it is 
injuring you. In addition, an individual can rarely slander someone more 
powerful than that individual. In other words, the New York Times can 
slander Darren, but it's almost impossible for Darren to slander the New 
York Times. The assumption is that the defense against me saying bad things 
about you is you denying them, and only when your ability to say bad things 
about me greatly outweighs my ability to deny them do these sorts of laws 
come into effect. (In theory.)

The problem with the "right not to be offended" is that it's never expressed 
as "offended". It's heresy (which is about god, not you), or "for the good 
of the children", or "dangerous to the public", or something like that. Prop 
8 wasn't passed because gay people were offensive. It was passed because 
"the sanctity of marriage is attacked".

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Your right to polygamy infringes on my right to the sanctity of marriage.

Yeah, that is always a good one. So say all the people that fail to read 
*any* history on the subject and thus fail to grasp that in the 1800s, 
and up until it was banned:

1. Most marriages, even in the US, where polygamous.
2. Most marriages where arranged.
3. The ones that where not #1, where still usually #2, so it was common 
for ones true love to be a "mistress", not the person you where actually 
married to.

Makes one wonder what the "lets return to the nations true traditions" 
people really do want... I mean, if they meant it, instead of just 
making shit up they *think* where the nations original traditions, then 
trying to impose them. lol

But, fact is, the "right to not be offended" is nonsensical anyway, 
which is why its not codified into law. How do you determine *who* the 
victim is when just about any idiot idea imaginable is believed by 
someone some place, and **someone** among the other 300,000,000 people 
in the country finds "that" offensive when expressed, done, shown, or 
suggested? The only "right not to be offended" anyone has is the age old 
"community standards" laws, and almost all of those are based on some 
mixture of misunderstanding, paranoia, fear, stupidity, and a failure to 
grasp the "real" causes of the problems they are intended to address.

The result, to give an example of what "might" trigger it, is, 
inevitably, some law that punishes 500 people who, say, want to nude sun 
bathe, on the basis of the 5 idiots that got drunk and peed on someone's 
car during spring break. The problem isn't the nudity, its the behavior, 
and the *refusal* of either the other beach goers, of the cops, to 
enforce "good" behavior. Instead they equate the solution to the problem 
with removing what the "community" decides is a problem, rather than 
dealing with the real issues, and, most of the time, this ends up being 
based on some religious interpretation of what the problem is (sorry, 
but its true), even when there are those the belong to the same 
religion, who, by being a minority of them, get ignored, while having 
the opposite view. (In this specific case, I find it damn idiotic that 
there are Christian nudist groups in the same country as the vast 
majority of idiots that think "dressing properly" will prevent lewd 
behavior, drunkeness, and/or rapes, despite all evidence to the contrary.)

So, sure, if your "community standard" says something about it, then... 
it more or less equates to "you have a right not to be offended by 
this", otherwise, you are SOL, as it should be. But, like someone 
pointed out recently on a blog which often talks about the politics of 
some of the more atrocious trolls in the US, small towns are the ones 
most likely to "have" such standards, and the reason is invariably that 
they are controlled by a small number of people, isolated from different 
opinions, and the more isolated they are, the more insane their 
interpretations of what is right and wrong get. And, this is the most 
disturbing thing, its precisely these kinds of insular, narrow minded, 
self absorbed, ignorant of the rest of the world, people that the 
Republicans kept whining about being the "core" of real American values 
during the presidential campaign... Yeah, I *really* want the 
dysfunctional, self protecting, denial driven, and morally relativistic 
cast of the Morel Orel cartoon running the US government... lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Makes one wonder what the "lets return to the nations true traditions" 
> people really do want...

Segregation, and likely slavery. Heck, in my lifetime it was illegal for a 
black person to marry a white person, so that would certianly seem to be 
"traditional" behavior here.

I'm in some ways happy that Prop 8 passed, as it eliminates from rational 
discussion the argument that "religion isn't abusive, and Islam isn't to 
blame for suicide bombers, and it's only a nutty minority of Christians who 
kill doctors, and you can't paint religion as if everyone religious wants to 
take away your rights and have you conform to their religion." Because, you 
know, obviously a majority of the religious people in *this* state certainly 
do, so I'd think it becomes incumbent on anyone arguing the above to provide 
evidence that Prop8 is somehow a special case.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>  It was
> passed because "the sanctity of marriage is attacked".

Which I personally think is absolutely ridiculous.

Whether two men (or two women) can get married doesn't affect my 
relationship with my wife.  Pretending that it does would be my choice.

That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example, clergy, 
to marry people when that union goes against the religious beliefs.

But that gets really dicey too, but that does fall within the bounds of 
the religious institution.  From a secular standpoint, if two people want 
to get married, let them.

Let's do this:  Everyone's "marriage" in the eyes of the law is a "civil 
union".  Those who want to be "married" can do so in the religious 
institution of their choice.  And the rights that couple gets to things 
like property, hospital visitation, next of kin status, etc - ie, 
anything rooted in *law* - that's granted by the civil union.  Anything 
granted in the "religious" realm (for example, the right to claim a unity 
that lasts for all eternity into the afterlife, Mormon "family sealings" 
adn the like) all fall in the realm of the religious institution that 
performs the ceremony.

Problem solved.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05-Jan-09 23:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>>  It was
>> passed because "the sanctity of marriage is attacked".
> 
> Which I personally think is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> Whether two men (or two women) can get married doesn't affect my 
> relationship with my wife.  Pretending that it does would be my choice.

you know my position in this: this law is void as there does not exist a 
full proof definition of what a man or a woman is. Perhaps one of those 
more difficult cases could challenge the law.

> That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example, clergy, 
> to marry people when that union goes against the religious beliefs.

The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the 
same right to refuse.

> But that gets really dicey too, but that does fall within the bounds of 
> the religious institution.  From a secular standpoint, if two people want 
> to get married, let them.
> 
> Let's do this:  Everyone's "marriage" in the eyes of the law is a "civil 
> union".  Those who want to be "married" can do so in the religious 
> institution of their choice.  And the rights that couple gets to things 
> like property, hospital visitation, next of kin status, etc - ie, 
> anything rooted in *law* - that's granted by the civil union.  Anything 
> granted in the "religious" realm (for example, the right to claim a unity 
> that lasts for all eternity into the afterlife, Mormon "family sealings" 
> adn the like) all fall in the realm of the religious institution that 
> performs the ceremony.
> 
> Problem solved.

Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states 
and countries?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:02:07 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example,
>> clergy, to marry people when that union goes against the religious
>> beliefs.
> 
> The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the
> same right to refuse.

I think that a civil servant would not/should not have the right to 
refuse.  If they take the job, they know what they may be asked to do.  
You can't take a job and then object to doing the job.

It's like people here in the US who decide to become pharmacists and then 
refuse to dispense medications because of their religious beliefs.  Too 
bad, they knew they might have to do that when they signed up to do the 
job.  If it's a legal prescription in the jurisdiction, they do not have 
the right to refuse service for any reason other than nonpayment.

>> But that gets really dicey too, but that does fall within the bounds of
>> the religious institution.  From a secular standpoint, if two people
>> want to get married, let them.
>> 
>> Let's do this:  Everyone's "marriage" in the eyes of the law is a
>> "civil union".  Those who want to be "married" can do so in the
>> religious institution of their choice.  And the rights that couple gets
>> to things like property, hospital visitation, next of kin status, etc -
>> ie, anything rooted in *law* - that's granted by the civil union. 
>> Anything granted in the "religious" realm (for example, the right to
>> claim a unity that lasts for all eternity into the afterlife, Mormon
>> "family sealings" adn the like) all fall in the realm of the religious
>> institution that performs the ceremony.
>> 
>> Problem solved.
> 
> Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states
> and countries?

If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My 
marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious 
ceremony), so it already is.

In the eyes of the Mormon church, my marriage isn't valid, because we're 
not Mormon, but I don't really care about my status in the Mormon 
church.  Similarly, I don't really care about my marriage's status in 
Outer Mongolia, but if I did care, then I'd do some research to find out 
what I had to do to make sure we got the rights and privileges that were 
important to us should we move there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Jan-09 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:02:07 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example,
>>> clergy, to marry people when that union goes against the religious
>>> beliefs.
>> The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the
>> same right to refuse.
> 
> I think that a civil servant would not/should not have the right to 
> refuse.  If they take the job, they know what they may be asked to do.  
> You can't take a job and then object to doing the job.

unless perhaps the law was passed after they took the job.

> It's like people here in the US who decide to become pharmacists and then 
> refuse to dispense medications because of their religious beliefs.  Too 
> bad, they knew they might have to do that when they signed up to do the 
> job.  If it's a legal prescription in the jurisdiction, they do not have 
> the right to refuse service for any reason other than nonpayment.
> 

[]

>> Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states
>> and countries?
> 
> If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My 
> marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious 
> ceremony), so it already is.

does that mean you have one or the other? Here civil is required 
religious is an extra option with no real consequences (although my 
parents only celebrated the religious one and considered the civil one a 
superfluous extra)

> In the eyes of the Mormon church, my marriage isn't valid, because we're 
> not Mormon, but I don't really care about my status in the Mormon 
> church.  Similarly, I don't really care about my marriage's status in 
> Outer Mongolia, but if I did care, then I'd do some research to find out 
> what I had to do to make sure we got the rights and privileges that were 
> important to us should we move there.

or go on holiday

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Problem solved.

Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and 
want to punish people we don't like."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:41:51 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 06-Jan-09 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:02:07 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>>> That said, I don't think it's reasonable to require, for example,
>>>> clergy, to marry people when that union goes against the religious
>>>> beliefs.
>>> The main discussion in the Netherlands was if a civil servant has the
>>> same right to refuse.
>> 
>> I think that a civil servant would not/should not have the right to
>> refuse.  If they take the job, they know what they may be asked to do.
>> You can't take a job and then object to doing the job.
> 
> unless perhaps the law was passed after they took the job.

Then they have the option of seeking other employment.  As a public 
servant, their first duty is to serve the public, not their own personal 
prejudices.  That is what I mean by "they may be asked to do things they 
morally object to" - not just in current law, but laws change.  That's 
part of the job.

If they want to object, they can object by quitting.  The cannot object 
by infringing on the rights of citizens under the current laws of the 
jurisdiction.  They are paid to enforce and enact the laws, not to decide 
which laws should be enforced.  If they wanted to decide that, they 
should've gotten a job writing laws.

>>> Would your civil marriage also have to be acknowledged by other states
>>> and countries?
>> 
>> If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My
>> marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious
>> ceremony), so it already is.
> 
> does that mean you have one or the other? Here civil is required
> religious is an extra option with no real consequences (although my
> parents only celebrated the religious one and considered the civil one a
> superfluous extra)

Here in the US, a civil marriage is required.  A religious marriage is 
optional.  In most cases, you get get both at the same time by being 
married by clergy.  A justice of the peace (JP - aka a "judge") cannot 
generally perform a religious marriage.  So pretty much the same here as 
there.

>> In the eyes of the Mormon church, my marriage isn't valid, because
>> we're not Mormon, but I don't really care about my status in the Mormon
>> church.  Similarly, I don't really care about my marriage's status in
>> Outer Mongolia, but if I did care, then I'd do some research to find
>> out what I had to do to make sure we got the rights and privileges that
>> were important to us should we move there.
> 
> or go on holiday

Only if there are specific problems with us being married here but not in 
the eyes of the locals as we are on holiday there.  For example, if the 
local custom is to only allow a couple to share a room if they are 
married by a local tribal chief, then the chances of us taking a holiday 
there are pretty small.

Generally, legal protections only become a significant issue when you get 
into immigration status for purposes of residency requirements.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:51:22 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Problem solved.
> 
> Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and
> want to punish people we don't like."

I fail to see how the problem is anything other than that.  I'm 
interested in other perspectives, as always.

I fail to see how anyone else's relationship affects my relationship with 
my wife, or how my brother-in-law marrying his long-term partner (which 
they did, in fact, last year, in California) cheapens my marriage to my 
wife, your marriage to your wife, or the relationship between my parents 
or their parents.

Todd and Ron getting married doesn't make me love my wife any less or 
think less of the nearly 13 years we've been married.  It's not about 
*me*.  It's about *them*.  And if they want to celebrate their long-term 
relationship (which is older than that between my wife and I) and enjoy 
the same legal status that we have, then that is about them, not about us.

Anything else seems really bigoted to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:51:22 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and
> want to punish people we don't like."

Oh, and reading that again, I see that we're saying the same thing - my 
eyes have been acting up today and I misread "is" for "isn't".

So if I understand correctly, you could be saying that the problem just 
is "we're bigoted and want to punish people we don't like" - my solution 
works only if the problem isn't that.  If the problem is in fact "we're 
bigoted and want to punish people we don't like", then the solution of 
creating equality doesn't work, because the bigots don't want equality, 
they want to keep the discriminatory practices in place.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:51:22 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Problem solved.
>> Only if you think the problem is something other than "we're bigoted and
>> want to punish people we don't like."
> 
> I fail to see how the problem is anything other than that.

Me neither. But that's why I said "problem solved" isn't correct. :-)

It's also the first step towards denying other rights, by starting to pass 
laws saying things like only married couples can adopt children.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 05-Jan-09 23:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> >>  It was
> >> passed because "the sanctity of marriage is attacked".
> >
> > Which I personally think is absolutely ridiculous.
> >
> > Whether two men (or two women) can get married doesn't affect my
> > relationship with my wife.  Pretending that it does would be my choice.
>
> you know my position in this: this law is void as there does not exist a
> full proof definition of what a man or a woman is. Perhaps one of those
> more difficult cases could challenge the law.

Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.

And no, a dildo is not a penis, nor a slash just below the scrotum is a vagina.

I don't have a problem with homossexualism becoming a civil institution.  I
don't believe though that milenar religious dogmas will change much to accept
it when it goes against their core concepts of man, woman and single flesh.

Hey, one can always start a new religion for their beliefs and hope it
catches... seems to have worked with mormons, scientologists etc (one would
also say so of all religions)...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Todd and Ron getting married doesn't make me love my wife any less or
> think less of the nearly 13 years we've been married.

It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.  According to Jewish
religion, it's thus a sacred institution, the words of God.

Now, people not happy with it will try to twist the meanings of "man" and
"woman" and try to create men's laws to accept it in society.  That's their
right, of course.  It's also their right to try to create new religions that
suit their needs rather than trying to twist milenar religions into accepting
twisted definitions of the words of God.  They will call it the work of Satan.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:47:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>> I fail to see how the problem is anything other than that.
> 
> Me neither. But that's why I said "problem solved" isn't correct. :-)

Which I noticed you said after I wrote and wrote my second follow-
up.  :-)  I really need to see a vision specialist, my eyes were going 
crazy yesterday (though usually when I'm tired is when I have the most 
problem with them).

> It's also the first step towards denying other rights, by starting to
> pass laws saying things like only married couples can adopt children.

Yup.  I've got a friend who, along with her partner, wants to adopt her 
grandson.  Needless to say, it's been a very long struggle, particularly 
since they're here in Utah.

There was a very good 30 Days episode about just that topic.  Spurlock 
definitely leans towards the liberal side, but I think he generally does 
a good job of showing both sides (the one on immigration was something of 
an exception, according to the parties involved).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:41:20 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Todd and Ron getting married doesn't make me love my wife any less or
>> think less of the nearly 13 years we've been married.
> 
> It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of
> Adam and Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they
> complement each other and turn into one flesh by the institution of
> marriage.  According to Jewish religion, it's thus a sacred institution,
> the words of God.

So let's talk about Abraham's wives, then, in the context of a monogomous 
relationship.  As someone else (Darren?) said elsewhere, it's a question 
of which traditions you take depending on how long ago you decide the 
important traditions are from.

And from a religious standpoint, I don't have a problem with Christian/
Jewish religious traditions being the guiding force *in those 
religions*.  The religious definition of "marriage" is not relevant when 
it comes to legal protections between people who identify as a family 
unit.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.

I will point out that there is such a thing as a hermaphrodite. They aren't 
common, but I know two.

> Hey, one can always start a new religion for their beliefs and hope it
> catches... seems to have worked with mormons, scientologists etc (one would
> also say so of all religions)...

Pastafarians, Jedi, ...

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
> Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
> and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.

The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be able to 
get married if you can't have children?

We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about fundamental human 
rights. The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such. 
Does that mean we should reinstitute segregation?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Jan-09 15:15, nemesis wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 05-Jan-09 23:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:56:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>>  It was
>>>> passed because "the sanctity of marriage is attacked".
>>> Which I personally think is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Whether two men (or two women) can get married doesn't affect my
>>> relationship with my wife.  Pretending that it does would be my choice.
>> you know my position in this: this law is void as there does not exist a
>> full proof definition of what a man or a woman is. Perhaps one of those
>> more difficult cases could challenge the law.
> 
> Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.

There are people who seem to have both or neither or have one but all 
other characteristics of the opposite sex. There are boys that in 
puberty transform into females. You have XY females, XX males, persons 
with three sex chromosomes, XXY and XXX (I think both sort of females 
(sorry, don't feel like googling today)) and IIRC also the persons with 
only a single sex chromosome survive, etc etc. And we are not even 
talking about transgender surgery. So whatever you choose there will 
always be persons that you cannot define or that others will consider to 
be of the opposite sex with just as much reason. Hence, even if for the 
large majority you can with reasonable certainty say what gender they 
have, the concepts are fundamentally undefined.

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Jan-09 1:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:41:51 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 06-Jan-09 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
[]
>>> If I wanted rights in those other states and/or countries, yes.  My
>>> marriage is in fact a civil marriage (we did not have a religious
>>> ceremony), so it already is.
>> does that mean you have one or the other? Here civil is required
>> religious is an extra option with no real consequences (although my
>> parents only celebrated the religious one and considered the civil one a
>> superfluous extra)
> 
> Here in the US, a civil marriage is required.  A religious marriage is 
> optional.  In most cases, you get get both at the same time by being 
> married by clergy.  A justice of the peace (JP - aka a "judge") cannot 
> generally perform a religious marriage.  So pretty much the same here as 
> there.

Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My 
parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil 
marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:03:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.

Used to, "Blacks" can now be members of the Mormon clergy.  Oddly, that 
revelation coincided with the civil rights movement's success.

Funny, that.

Women still can not be members of the Mormon clergy, AIUI.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:03:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
> 
> Used to, "Blacks" can now be members of the Mormon clergy. 

But are they still descendants of Satan? Or did they just retro-edit their 
holy works to change that?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Replace man with penis and woman with vagina and there you have your full proof.
>
> I will point out that there is such a thing as a hermaphrodite. They aren't
> common, but I know two.

Whoa!  You must be living in a circus! :P

Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.  They are *given* choice,
I guess...

> > Hey, one can always start a new religion for their beliefs and hope it
> > catches... seems to have worked with mormons, scientologists etc (one would
> > also say so of all religions)...
>
> Pastafarians, Jedi, ...

tolkien myths...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases. 

And the answer to them is...?  :)

I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case them, so 
on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying gay marriage on 
the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and women?

Nevermind. It's pointless to argue with illogic.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:14:54 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> Here in the US, a civil marriage is required.  A religious marriage is
>> optional.  In most cases, you get get both at the same time by being
>> married by clergy.  A justice of the peace (JP - aka a "judge") cannot
>> generally perform a religious marriage.  So pretty much the same here
>> as there.
> 
> Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My
> parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil
> marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.

That is an interesting difference.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
> > Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
> > and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.
>
> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be able to
> get married if you can't have children?

That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.

Oh, you're talking about 2 guys!  Well, science eventually will get around that.
 Science already permit many men to pretend they are women, by taking away the
penis, slashing away a vagina and drinking many hormonal beverages for the
breasts.  It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
as men and are not fulfilling it.

> We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about fundamental human
> rights.

Right.

> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
> Does that mean we should reinstitute segregation?

No, Mormonism is a man-made myth.  OTOH, in the Old Testment YAWEH ordened many
tribes to be slaghtered by the Jews.  It seems they still listen to an enraged
YAWEH even to this day.

And yes, I realize this is where you want to get:  that homossexualism shouldn't
be condemned because all religions are just man-made myths, in your view.  From
a humanitarian perspective I agree, which is why I'm not against their civil
rights.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:19:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:03:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
>> 
>> Used to, "Blacks" can now be members of the Mormon clergy.
> 
> But are they still descendants of Satan? Or did they just retro-edit
> their holy works to change that?

Depending on whom you talk to, there is a lot of revisionist history in 
the Mormon church.  I don't think you'll find those references in the 
current versions of the Book of Mormon (or the supplemental books like 
the C&D book).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:50:19 -0500, nemesis wrote:

>> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be
>> able to get married if you can't have children?
> 
> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try
> hard.

You know, I'm going to try really hard not to take that personally, 
because some people are simply physically incapable of having kids.

>> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such. Does
>> that mean we should reinstitute segregation?
> 
> No, Mormonism is a man-made myth.  OTOH, in the Old Testment YAWEH
> ordened many tribes to be slaghtered by the Jews.  It seems they still
> listen to an enraged YAWEH even to this day.

Your lack of knowledge about the Mormon faith is pretty deep, it would 
seem.  Do you even know what Mormons believe?

Some say that Judiaism and Christianity are man-made myths.  Defend that 
they're not and that Mormonism is - prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
Christ didn't visit North America after he was crucified, but prove that 
he is in fact the Son of God.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.

No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.

In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who 
"tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?

> It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
> as men and are not fulfilling it.

I'm so glad you have a direct line to God's mind, to know what role he has 
for each and every human on the planet.  Ask him for me where I can get a 
better job?  KTHXBYE.

> a humanitarian perspective I agree, which is why I'm not against their civil
> rights.

Sure. Sadly, many are.  Or rather, enough are, which is really the problem.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Jan-09 22:05, Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> 
>> It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
>> as men and are not fulfilling it.
> 
> I'm so glad you have a direct line to God's mind, to know what role he 
> has for each and every human on the planet.  Ask him for me where I can 
> get a better job?  KTHXBYE.
HAI, it was Andy that was looking for a better job if I am not mistaken. 
Or can there be more than one in a newsgroup? Was there something in the 
bible about seeking jobs?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:24:34 +0100, andrel wrote:

> HAI, it was Andy that was looking for a better job if I am not mistaken.
> Or can there be more than one in a newsgroup? Was there something in the
> bible about seeking jobs?

Yes, I believe it's in Matthew, something about "turning the other cheek".

(<scnr>, someone quoted that passage at me earlier today)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> There are people who seem to have both or neither or have one but all
> other characteristics of the opposite sex. There are boys that in
> puberty transform into females. You have XY females, XX males, persons
> with three sex chromosomes, XXY and XXX (I think both sort of females
> (sorry, don't feel like googling today)) and IIRC also the persons with
> only a single sex chromosome survive, etc etc. And we are not even
> talking about transgender surgery.

Those are freaks.  These are sinners. ;)

Guess the freaks may have the option to decide by themselves.

> So whatever you choose there will
> always be persons that you cannot define or that others will consider to
> be of the opposite sex with just as much reason. Hence, even if for the
> large majority you can with reasonable certainty say what gender they
> have, the concepts are fundamentally undefined.

Look, man (?).  Perhaps one day our descendants won't even know what sex is,
being just streams of couscious bytes roaming freely through a hardware network
encopassing all of our galaxy and perhaps more.  Until that day, man is whatever
gives sperm and woman whatever takes it to give birth to a new being.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.
>
> And the answer to them is...?  :)
>
> I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case them, so
> on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying gay marriage on
> the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and women?

Most gays are not hermaphrodites.

And I'm not denying gay marriage.  Go, live happily in their nature denial.

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Jan-09 22:41, nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.
>> And the answer to them is...?  :)
>>
>> I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case them, so
>> on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying gay marriage on
>> the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and women?
> 
> Most gays are not hermaphrodites.

Nobody said so. It is simply a way of applying basic logic to law. There 
is a law that only allows a man and a woman to marry. That implies that 
for every person it should be clear what sex they have. We provide a 
number of counterexamples, and only one would be enough. And thus we 
come to the simple conclusion that the premise of the law is faulty and 
the law should never have been approved.

> And I'm not denying gay marriage.  Go, live happily in their nature denial.

Being gay is their nature. Living different would be living in denial.

At which point a pointer to Janis Ian's song "When I Lay Down" would be 
appropriate. Yet, not even quasi-legally available on youtube :(
well, here are the lyrics: 
http://www.janisian.com/graphics/BBwhen-i-lay-down-lyric.jpg
and a short musical abstract on e.g. 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Billies-Bones-Janis-Ian/dp/B0001ACK5C/

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:41:27 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>> > Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.
>>
>> And the answer to them is...?  :)
>>
>> I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case
>> them, so on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying
>> gay marriage on the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and
>> women?
> 
> Most gays are not hermaphrodites.
> 
> And I'm not denying gay marriage.  Go, live happily in their nature
> denial.

But you are avoiding the question Darren is asking.

What's the answer for hermaphrodites who want to marry another human 
being?  Who are they allowed to marry?  Who are they not allowed to marry?

Be specific.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:31:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Until that day, man is whatever
> gives sperm and woman whatever takes it to give birth to a new being.

So, a sterile man isn't a man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy is 
no longer a woman?

And those who are in that situation shouldn't be allowed to be married in 
the eyes of God?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:50:19 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> >> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be
> >> able to get married if you can't have children?
> >
> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try
> > hard.
>
> You know, I'm going to try really hard not to take that personally,
> because some people are simply physically incapable of having kids.

I know that and they are the ones I'm talking about.  I don't know why you'd
take that personally as I don't know you sufficiently well nor was after
personal insults, Jim.

> Your lack of knowledge about the Mormon faith is pretty deep, it would
> seem.  Do you even know what Mormons believe?

I read the whole wikipedia article some months ago.  Very interesting.
Specially as it seems to be the first Holy Book covered by copyright!  I guess
L. Ron Hubbard got his inspiration...

All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental america,
it's a very american thing.

> Some say that Judiaism and Christianity are man-made myths.

Yes, like you and Darren, constantly. :)

> Defend that
> they're not and that Mormonism is - prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> Christ didn't visit North America after he was crucified, but prove that
> he is in fact the Son of God.

Jesus is supposed to come back just at the end of times, why would he be roaming
about America?  Why would he come to the USA out of all places?  Does it have
bigger sins than other places on Earth?

It just doesn't make any sense.  Well, more than any other religion, anyway...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:16:30 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:50:19 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> >> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be
>> >> able to get married if you can't have children?
>> >
>> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't
>> > try hard.
>>
>> You know, I'm going to try really hard not to take that personally,
>> because some people are simply physically incapable of having kids.
> 
> I know that and they are the ones I'm talking about.  I don't know why
> you'd take that personally as I don't know you sufficiently well nor was
> after personal insults, Jim.

Partly I was making a point.  You never know when you're damning specific 
people with generalities.

Personally, I don't care whether you think my marriage to my wife is 
"legitimate in the eyes of God" because we can't have children (mostly 
because I don't believe in your God, as we've discussed before), however 
I'm making the point that if the purpose of marriage is procreation, then 
(a) you exclude normal people like me, and (b) you really should be 
preaching about polygamy, since (1) it's more traditional than monogamy 
through history, and (2) you end up with a hell of a lot more procreation 
as a result.

>> Your lack of knowledge about the Mormon faith is pretty deep, it would
>> seem.  Do you even know what Mormons believe?
> 
> I read the whole wikipedia article some months ago.  Very interesting.
> Specially as it seems to be the first Holy Book covered by copyright!  I
> guess L. Ron Hubbard got his inspiration...

Holy shit, Wikipedia as an authoritative source on the entirely of a 
religion.   My mind boggles.

It's not like the Book of Mormon is hard to find - damned near every 
Marriott property includes a copy in every single room, after all.

> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
> america, it's a very american thing.

Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any 
more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got 
coworkers who have family serving missions in South America, and my 
wife's ex-husband served his in Finland.  It's everywhere.

As for "inaccurate visions", well, that's a matter of opinion and very 
much in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?  Kinda like the "visions" 
people in the OT had.

>> Some say that Judiaism and Christianity are man-made myths.
> 
> Yes, like you and Darren, constantly. :)

Oh, you noticed? ;-)

>> Defend that
>> they're not and that Mormonism is - prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>> that Christ didn't visit North America after he was crucified, but
>> prove that he is in fact the Son of God.
> 
> Jesus is supposed to come back just at the end of times, why would he be
> roaming about America?  Why would he come to the USA out of all places? 
> Does it have bigger sins than other places on Earth?
> 
> It just doesn't make any sense.  Well, more than any other religion,
> anyway...

You'd have to ask a true-believing Mormon about that.  Personally, I 
think it's a great "life guide", and most Mormons I know very much more 
follow the golden rule (particularly compared to followers of other 
Christian faiths) and in general are much more tolerant of people with 
differing points of view.

"The Bible" as we know it today has been through a lot of changes over 
the years - books added and removed.  As I understand it, Mormons believe 
that the Book of Mormon is an extension of the Bible and that their text 
is consistent with the rest of the Bible.  I've not studied it 
extensively, but I've had discussions with people who do believe it, 
which I daresay is just a bit more knowledge about it than reading the 
entry on Wikipedia. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>
> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.

Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
of you was Satan.  You either overcome them or get around them and continue your
way through another path.  Or you just sit and cry for the rest of your life.

> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?

No, failures please Satan.

If a guy can't find love as a man, perhaps he should just forget sex and find
another path for happiness.  Sex is not an end, just a way.

> > It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
> > as men and are not fulfilling it.
>
> I'm so glad you have a direct line to God's mind, to know what role he has
> for each and every human on the planet.  Ask him for me where I can get a
> better job?  KTHXBYE.

I don't know my role, let alone yours or anyone else.  But I'm trying my best at
not looking like a third rate actor.

I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What's the answer for hermaphrodites who want to marry another human
> being?  Who are they allowed to marry?  Who are they not allowed to marry?
>
> Be specific.

I think I answered before:  they were *given* choice.  Just choose a side.  Or
none.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.
> 
> Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
> of you was Satan. 

Nope. You're mistaken. Go re-read Job, for example. Or Genesis.

> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.

I have nothing against you praying to me for help, certainly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
>> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
>> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?
> 
> No, failures please Satan.

So, when God makes you gay, and you try to be straight but fail, this 
displeases God?  Yet it's Satan putting obstacles in your way?

> If a guy can't find love as a man, perhaps he should just forget sex and find
> another path for happiness.  Sex is not an end, just a way.

Who said anything about sex?  You're telling me God makes some people gay, 
and he wants them not to live the love he put in their hearts? I thought 
Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.
>> And the answer to them is...?  :)
>>
>> I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case them, so
>> on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying gay marriage on
>> the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and women?
> 
> Most gays are not hermaphrodites.
> 
> And I'm not denying gay marriage.  Go, live happily in their nature denial.
> 
Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain 
level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc. 
Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak 
grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that 
there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are 
somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence. There 
are perfectly *valid* reasons why nature produces such things, including 
in **humans**. In humans, for example, there are clear indications that 
over-production of offspring is countered *directly* by the change in 
hormone levels in *each* pregnancy, which causes a direct and observable 
correlation with how likely it is that the "next" kid they have will be 
homosexual. Its not the only factor, but it seems to be a "strong" 
influence on the odds of them developing same sex attractions.

Another similar issue was found in deer populations, where it was found 
that aggressive females tended to mate less, and successfully raise 
"fewer" offspring, while passive males also mated less, but since male 
and female is "entirely" a result of a few missing genes, which *causes* 
a female body to "morph" into male during development, its functionally 
impossible to produce a species to produce all aggressive males and all 
passive females, instead of constantly trading off between the two, with 
inevitable outsiders, which range from "not quite as male or female as 
optimal", to, "so completely the wrong way around they don't produce 
'any' offspring."

Sexuality is a spectrum, which evolved to "try" to keep most people in 
the middle ground, where the tendency is to be 90% attracted to the 
opposite sex, but where mechanisms also "co-evolved" to limit over 
population, by "lowering" the odds of a viable male or female, if the 
female bearing the offspring produces too large of a population. You get 
someone that is the 8th child, who is mostly ignored and not constantly 
forced to be the right "sex", and *also" by chance happens to land in 
the category of having a too "female" a mind (i.e., like the over 
passive male deer), and your odds of them turning out "normal" just went 
from 98% to like 10%. Still possible, but only by, in that case, 
fighting an uphill battle with a sex drive that keeps telling them that 
they like males 90%, and women 10%, instead of the other way around.

Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything 
much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't 
exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain 
different behavior models for males and females) and population 
controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply 
can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which 
included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most 
general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form, 
differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate 
psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to 
get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).

And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people 
choose "for them" based on how close they where to one or the other, and 
not on their actual DNA. It still, unfortunately, happens in some cases 
like that today, when we should know better. So, if they do end up one 
sex or the other, they may still end up the *wrong* one for their DNA, 
the *wrong* one for their sexual preferences, or *both*.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
>>> Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
>>> and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.
>> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be able to
>> get married if you can't have children?
> 
> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
> 
> Oh, you're talking about 2 guys!  Well, science eventually will get around that.
>  Science already permit many men to pretend they are women, by taking away the
> penis, slashing away a vagina and drinking many hormonal beverages for the
> breasts.  It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
> as men and are not fulfilling it.
> 
>> We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about fundamental human
>> rights.
> 
> Right.
> 
>> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
>> Does that mean we should reinstitute segregation?
> 
> No, Mormonism is a man-made myth.  OTOH, in the Old Testment YAWEH ordened many
> tribes to be slaghtered by the Jews.  It seems they still listen to an enraged
> YAWEH even to this day.
> 
And, if you trace that name back a bit farther than the fracking Babble, 
you find that Yaweh is the third son of the one true God, who made all 
things. Yaweh was also a warmonger, and assigned to rule over one 
kingdom in the ancient world, at least up until all three of the sons 
screwed up their collective kingdoms and "daddy" took rule of them all 
back. Your point is what exactly? That a large number of people have no 
bloody clue what the pre-history of their own religion is, or deny it, 
but insist that the whole thing is the word of their God and nothing 
prior to Genesis was ever written? Hardly a rousing endorsement for its 
prominence as the one true rule book of life, never mind dominance in 
modern society (which has more to do with persecution complexes, where 
by, by its own rules, every time someone points out that your are an 
idiot, you are justified in your faith, because only persecuted people 
know the "true word of the lord"). Sorry, but I don't think most people 
bought that BS when Christians where 1% of those that rules society, now 
that they are 90%+ of the ruling class, it just makes the ones saying it 
look like whiny idiots, and makes people question if its worth believing 
in the first place.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My
>> parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil
>> marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.
> 
> That is an interesting difference.

	Isn't it the same in the US? For the government to recognize a
marriage, it has to be registered. Isn't the use of religious figures
just a cultural move that has no legal significance?

(Unmarried person asking)

-- 
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
>> america, it's a very american thing.
> 
> Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any 
> more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got 

	I believe roughly half of Mormons are not in the US. They're very
successful at proselytizing.



-- 
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message