Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

[Johan]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

(this post just an excuse to dump some interesting links on you, that
I've stumbled accross in the last couple of days. it doesn't get much
more off topic than this; I'm off topic and already off topic discussion)
[color=blue]
> Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate. I think it's
> fairly clear that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're
> not going to change my mind, and there we are.[/color]

You can't argue these things; for some reason, otherwise sane people
decide that they must stick sticks into people who wear towels on their
heads (because for some reason that gets in the way of the first group's
be-nice-to-each-other credo). Similarly, the fact that some woman in
texas doesn't use recreational chemicals is somehow justification for
incarcerating 10-15 % of black males [1] in some states. I guess the
point I'm trying to make is that if you approach this as a rational
discussion, you've already lost. You're either open minded or not.

[1] http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/

Personally, I'm tempted by biblical marriage, but that's just because
they've promised me virgins, polygamy, AND concubines [2] (unclear
whether the concubines were virgins, tho). However, if they don't
deliver the virgins soon, I'll be switching sides.

[2] http://www.thecommongood.org/CGN/3_3...lmarriage.html
[color=blue][color=green]
>>ok Japan after Commodore Perry.[/color][/color]

The MIT open courseware project has a fascinating [3] (but annoyingly
image heavy---accessibility advocates abandon hope ye who enter) website
on how japanese and western artists painted the same events.

[3] http://blackshipsandsamurai.com/
[color=blue]
> Therefore, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming
> language holy wars. Static vs. dynamic typing, anyone? :-)[/color]

Kill! Burn the unbeliever!

[Richard C. Cobbe]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis andtransformati on

Johan <johan.NO@SPAM. ccs.neu.PLEASE. edu> writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate. I think it's
> > fairly clear that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're
> > not going to change my mind, and there we are.[/color]
>
> You can't argue these things; for some reason, otherwise sane people
> decide that they must stick sticks into people who wear towels on their
> heads (because for some reason that gets in the way of the first group's
> be-nice-to-each-other credo). I guess the point I'm trying to make is
> that if you approach this as a rational discussion, you've already lost.
> You're either open minded or not.[/color]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate here. If we can show
more people that the anti-same-sex-marriage folks are motivated primarily
by hatred, fear, and intolerance, then it becomes that much harder to pass
laws that deny us basic civil rights. In other words, give the anti-gay
folks just enough rope to hang themselves.

Richard

[David Fisher]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

cobbe@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) wrote in message news:<t2pad2763 k7.fsf@denali.c cs.neu.edu>...

[...]

Maybe Marc indeed gave poor arguments against gay marrage, but at
least his arguments weren't religious. Some here were just trying to
misrepresent his opinion.

Here's my $0.02. Any ambiguity in the law should be amended (if there
is any). Some laws in some jurisdictions give homosexuals equal rights
(for different or ambiguous meanings of "equal"). The laws have to be
followed (without laws we have anarchy). However, what you are saying
here goes far beyond the legal argument. You are suggesting that
homosexual sex is somehow very moral and natural, and needs to be sort
of encouraged by the state by giving homosexual relationships legal
status.

[Johan]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

David Fisher wrote:[color=blue]
> cobbe@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) wrote in message
> news:<t2pad2763 k7.fsf@denali.c cs.neu.edu>...
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe Marc indeed gave poor arguments against gay marrage, but at
> least his arguments weren't religious. Some here were just trying to
> misrepresent his opinion.[/color]

I must not have been paying attention. Can you please quote where this
mis-attribution was made?
[color=blue]
> You are suggesting that homosexual sex is somehow very moral and
> natural, and needs to be sort of encouraged by the state by giving
> homosexual relationships legal status.[/color]

Fundamentally, society either disallows something, or condones it. Our
laws are not about encouraging anything (appart from not breaking laws),
they are about prohibiting illegal things. In effect, anything not
specifically prohibited is explicitly condoned. This is part of the
fundamental rights that we take as inalienable, and I think a good thing.

Now, whether one thing or anther should be prohibited is another debate
(which we appear to have already had, ad-exhaustion) altogether.

[Daniel C. Wang]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Johan wrote:
{stuff deleted}[color=blue]
> Our
> laws are not about encouraging anything (appart from not breaking laws),
> they are about prohibiting illegal things.[/color]
{stuff deleted}

Have you looked at the tax code recently? There are tax laws written to
encourage home ownership, sending the kids to college and all other sorts of
economic tax incentives to encourage behavior that the government feels is
advantageous.

BTW the legal system and our laws need not be logically consistent. They
fundamentally reflect the values of the society however logically
inconsistent societies view points are.

[Mike Cox]

Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

gat@flownet.com (Erann Gat) wrote in message news:<1f4c5c5c. 0403230903.2379 642b@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@opton line.net> wrote in message news:<86llls817 r.fsf@bogomips. optonline.net>. ..
>[color=green]
> > Now the court in question in this case told the legislature to come up
> > with a law we like or else and that is not the courts job.[/color]
>
> No, the court told the legislature to come up with a law that is
> compatible with the state and national constitutions, and that is
> precisely the court's job.
>[color=green]
> > But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids[/color]
>
> Hogwash. *Having* kids is easy -- too easy, and notwithstanding the
> situation in France, people generally don't need any encouragement to
> reproduce.
>
> The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
> the kids but *raising* them. That's the process that the institution
> of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
> reproduction. That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
> commitment. If the purpose of marriage were just to *have* kids
> people would be getting married for nine months at a time, and we'd be
> celebrating teen pregnancy and single motherhood. It's all about
> raising kids, not producing them, and in that regard gays are just as
> capable as anyone else (more if my gay friends are any guide).[/color]

If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
children. Children need a mom and a dad. Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households. Parental
role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
and dad. Those without one or the other have been proven to have
higher drop out rates, drug use and more.

I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
does.


[color=blue]
> The idea that gay marriage ought to be banned because society has a
> vested interest in producing babies is absurd on its face. If it were
> true, the very same argument could be used to ban the marriage of
> sterile people (who as a class cannot produce babies), post-menopausal
> women (who as a class cannot produce babies).[/color]

Marriage is something between a man and woman. That is a very special
relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
something that homosexuality cannot ever do.

I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
between a man and woman. I know it isn't fair, but if gay men wanted
to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
a woman to marry.

Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? To some it may not
be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage!
Marriage is unfair because it is so unique in that men and women are
made for each other. The result of a healthy man and woman coupling
is a child, proof of the intent of whoever desined man and woman had a
goal. Whether it is god or evolution.
[color=blue]
>It could also be used
> to argue that lesbians should be allowed to marry because they as a
> class can (and do) produce babies.[/color]

But they need a man to produce a baby.
[color=blue]
> The premise that the mere
> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
> pregnancy.[/color]

The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
both parties consent to it. The future welfare of the child is a
great concern, and products of rape will not have a father figure
because he will be in prison.
[color=blue]
> Finally, I can't help but wonder how many Americans who oppose gay
> marriage on the grounds that we are facing an imminent shortage of
> babies also support stricter enforcement of our immigration laws. I
> don't have any data, but I suspect the correlation is high, because
> the mindset that is required to argue against gay marriage is exactly
> the same as the one you need to argue against interracial marriage.
> Both positions are simply untenable on any grounds other than pure
> bigotry.[/color]

This goes back to my last point. People need to be responsible when
they have children and consider the childs future welfare. The REASON
people are not having kids is because they cannot afford it because of
the high taxes they pay to care for the immigrant's child. They are
being RESPONSIBLE when the delay having kids because of the high cost,
unfortunatly they just end up paying for some imigrant who pumps out
kids because they get government help and have no incentive to keep it
under control.

Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
lead to disaster and sociatal destruction. Just look at the middle
east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.

[André Thieme]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Marc Spitzer wrote:
[color=blue]
> I used the word produce, ie make. And as a class gay( male or female)
> sex does not produce children. And as a class straight couples who
> have sex do, or at least *can*, produce children.[/color]

Your idea:
"Only couples who can produce children should be allowed to marry"

Marc, the problem in your argumentation is, that you forgot that your
argument is only an opinion and not an objective truth.
You think this is right. Other people think this is not a factor.
They have different opinions of how the laws should be. Objectively
noone is right.
It all depends on your personal rating system.
The question is: what group of people is allowed to make the descision
for all other people in the country and what is their rating system?

Ask 10 people about their opinions and you will get 11 answers...
or something like that.

As a programmer I am a bit amazed about your arguments. This comes
because I thought that programmers are so influenced by their job and
hobby (programming) that it even influences their all day behaviour. I
thought that logical reasoning is implemented into the behaviour.
But it can't be, cause your argumentation is logically not correct,
as others already pointed out.


André
--

[André Thieme]

Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

Mike Cox wrote:
[color=blue]
> Marriage is something between a man and woman. That is a very special
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.[/color]

Why should this factor (that a couple potentially could produce children)
be the most important one, on which the descision is beeing made, who is
allowed to marry and who not?

Why not creating a psychological test how much happyness a married
couple can potentially bring the society? Or how much income they will
probably produce? Or how nice they will potentially be to other children
who will all be so friendly people in the future?

You cannot know that a homosexual couple will not give even more rewards
back to the society after their marriage.

And your argument also results in another logical problem: if the law is
that only people who potentially could produce children are allowed to
marry, then several marriages which are now legal would immediately
become illegal.


André
--

[Thant Tessman]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Daniel C. Wang wrote:[color=blue]
> Johan wrote:
> {stuff deleted}
>[color=green]
>> Our laws are not about encouraging anything (appart from not breaking
>> laws), they are about prohibiting illegal things.[/color]
>
> {stuff deleted}
>
> Have you looked at the tax code recently? There are tax laws written to
> encourage home ownership, sending the kids to college and all other
> sorts of economic tax incentives to encourage behavior that the
> government feels is advantageous.
>
> BTW the legal system and our laws need not be logically consistent. They
> fundamentally reflect the values of the society however logically
> inconsistent societies view points are.[/color]

No, they don't. They reflect the values of the politically influential.
There's a difference. Hell, none of the representatives that voted for
the so-called "Patriot Act" had even read it.

Power lies not in the hands of the voters, but in the hands of those who
decide for what and whom it is we are given the 'opportunity' to vote.

-thant

[Joe Sixpack]

Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

I believe it was Mike Cox who said...[color=blue]
>
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children.[/color]

False.
[color=blue]
> Children need a mom and a dad.[/color]

Prove it.
[color=blue]
> Look at all the research
> that has been done on kids from single parent households.[/color]

We're not talking about single parent households.
[color=blue]
> Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children
> have a mom and dad.[/color]

Prove it.
[color=blue]
> Those without one or the other have been proven to have higher drop
> out rates, drug use and more.[/color]

Where did those with 2 mothers rate? Two fathers? More than likely they
rated much higher.
[color=blue]
> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.[/color]

Prove it, homophobe.
[color=blue]
> Marriage is something between a man and woman.[/color]

And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
Luckily humankind evolves...excep t for overly religous types.
[color=blue]
> That is a very special
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.[/color]

Sperm donors.
[color=blue]
> I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> between a man and woman.[/color]

Why?
[color=blue]
> I know it isn't fair,[/color]

Then why suggest it. idiot?
[color=blue]
> but if gay men wanted
> to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
> a woman to marry.[/color]

No, there are even limitations on that.

Therefore, marriage *isnt* between a man and a woman, it is between
certain men and certain women.

Therefore, society places the goal posts wherever it is currently
convenient.

Therefore, there is no problem with same-sex marriages.
[color=blue]
> Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? To some it may not
> be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage![/color]

Marriage is not a foundation of life.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The premise that the mere
>> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
>> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
>> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
>> pregnancy.[/color]
>
> The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> both parties consent to it.[/color]

Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
*encouraging* gay marriage.
[color=blue]
> Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> lead to disaster and sociatal destruction. Just look at the middle
> east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
> are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
> lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
> cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
> will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.[/color]

Thanks for reminding why voting Republican is not an option anymore.


--

"I have bowel movements worth more than Italy" --Bill Gates

[mlw]

Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

Mike Cox wrote:[color=blue]
>
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children.[/color]
Recent studies have shown that it may not, in fact, be a choice at all.
There may be a biological/generic predisposition.
[color=blue]
> Children need a mom and a dad.[/color]

This is fiction. Children *need* a workable support network.
[color=blue]
> Look at all the research
> that has been done on kids from single parent households.[/color]

What research?
[color=blue]
> Parental
> role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
> and dad. Those without one or the other have been proven to have
> higher drop out rates, drug use and more.[/color]

Please site that example, because I've seen studies that indicate that
dropout rate has mostly to do with poverty.
[color=blue]
>
> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.[/color]

Since when did gay marriage become a "gay parent" issue? We, as a society,
*already* allow gays to adopt.
[color=blue]
>
>
>[/color]
[snip][color=blue]
>
> Marriage is something between a man and woman.[/color]

Why? 50 years ago, people of different races couldn't marry, ironically
enough, the exact same arguments were presented.

[color=blue]
> That is a very special
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being.
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.[/color]

Are you saying that A woman with a hysterectomy or a man with a vasectomy
can not get married because there is no potential for children?
[color=blue]
>
> I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> between a man and woman.[/color]

Why?
[color=blue]
> I know it isn't fair, but if gay men wanted
> to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
> a woman to marry.[/color]

Why does a gay man have to marry a woman? That would just be another
divorce.[color=blue]
>
> Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies?[/color]

This is a purely biological argument, and unless you want to ban all
marriages between people incapable of having children, it is a failed
argument.
[color=blue]
> To some it may not
> be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage![/color]

I know lots of people who's marriage almost killed them. Divorce was their
only hope.
[color=blue]
> Marriage is unfair because it is so unique in that men and women are
> made for each other.[/color]

Says who? Statistically speaking, 5% to 10% of the population may be gay. To
deny these people the right to marry the person they love is criminal.
[color=blue]
> The result of a healthy man and woman coupling
> is a child, proof of the intent of whoever desined man and woman had a
> goal.[/color]

You don't need marriage to have children, and you don't need to be planning
or able to have children to get married, so your argument is failed.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>It could also be used
>> to argue that lesbians should be allowed to marry because they as a
>> class can (and do) produce babies.[/color]
>
> But they need a man to produce a baby.[/color]

Only sperm. Just as "straight" couples can get from a sperm bank.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> The premise that the mere
>> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
>> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
>> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
>> pregnancy.[/color]
>
> The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> both parties consent to it.[/color]

The first reasonable thing you've said so far.
[color=blue]
> The future welfare of the child is a
> great concern, and products of rape will not have a father figure
> because he will be in prison.[/color]

You fail to mention that a woman should not have to carry a baby, especially
if it is the result of an act of violence.

[snip offensive racial crap][color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
>
> Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.[/color]

I don't know about that, George W. was supposed to be well raised, and he
lies, steals, and invades countries.
[color=blue]
> Just look at the middle
> east.[/color]

Religious zealots of all kinds are harmful to all societies.
[color=blue]
> The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
> are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
> lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
> cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
> will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.[/color]

As was said before, it isn't about "children." Gay partners can have
children already. It is about rights.

[Milo T.]

Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

On 23 Mar 2004 15:26:54 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:[color=blue]
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children. Children need a mom and a dad. Look at all the research
> that has been done on kids from single parent households. Parental
> role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
> and dad. Those without one or the other have been proven to have
> higher drop out rates, drug use and more.
>
> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.[/color]

So presumably, you also want to actively prevent divorces where children
are involved then?
--
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 3/24/2004
12:25:38 AM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin. Matt Templeton (scored down)

[Espen Vestre]

Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

gat@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
[color=blue]
> The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
> the kids but *raising* them. That's the process that the institution
> of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
> reproduction. That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
> commitment.[/color]

Hmm. Not sure if I like this off-topic cross-posting, but here I go:
Where I live (Norway), marriage is sort of out-dated, lots of couples,
even with kids, live together un-married. Ironically, these people
often pay a lawyer to help them produce a contract regulating their
relationship (to simplify the money matters if a breakup occurs).
That's when I ask myself: "Why not use the official, well-proven,
well documented contract known as marriage?". The _contract_ aspect
of marriage is its most important role in a modern society! And
then there's no reason why gay couples (or even polygamic or poly-
andric relationships.. . maybe I'm throwing a little too much fuel
on the fire...) shouldn't be allowed to use the good old well-
known contract for "living together in a long-term relationship"
that marriage is.
--
(espen)

[Marc Spitzer]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis andtransformati on

cobbe@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
[color=blue]
> Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@opton line.net> writes:
>[color=green]
>> cobbe@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@opton line.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> cobbe@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@opton line.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, brother. Here we go again. (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
>>>>> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.) I'm
>>>>> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
>>>>> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
>>>>> scrutiny.
>>>>
>>>> Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Then do. Put your money where your mouth is and explain why our
>>> justifications for asking to be allowed to marry don't hold up. Explain
>>> the overriding interest the state has in preventing us from marrying. The
>>> ability to procreate doesn't cut it; see below.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>
>> Please list the arguments and I will be happy to. But could you also
>> post some links to the studies that show that your dilution of the meaning
>> of family will not harm this country. For a counter example look at France,
>> they have a birth rate of about 1.2 children per woman. What this means is
>> that the population is getting older and they will soon have 1 retired person
>> per person working. Can you say N++ th republic?[/color]
>
> Ok.
>
> - Discrimination against a group of people who are distinguished from the
> rest of society, due to a factor that they themselves cannot control,
> is wrong. (Social conservatives like to argue that being gay is a
> choice, not an innate characteristic. While I won't rule out the
> possibility for some folks, most of the gay men I know, including
> myself, reject the idea that we chose to be gay.)[/color]

umm, you contradict that 2 paragraphs down, "comes to the conclusion that
he's gay" assumes a decision.
[color=blue]
>
> - The legalization of same-sex marriage will not affect an existing
> straight marriage: both spouses in that marriage will still have
> exactly the same rights, privileges, and responsibilitie s as before.
>
> I've seen some folks argue that same-sex marriage will affect existing
> straight marriages, in the case where one partner decides that he's
> really gay and wants to get married to some guy he's met. I don't buy
> this argument: if the husband in a straight marriage comes to the
> conclusion that he's gay, the marriage is going to have problems
> whether same-sex marriage is legal or not. And legal same-sex
> marriages are not necessary to allow a divorce in these circumstances.[/color]

The above is a good reason why women should not marry gay men but has
no bearing on what I was saying.

[color=blue]
>
> - The legalization of same-sex marriage will not make it harder for
> straight couples to get married. (It is not, after all, as though we
> have a limited number of marriage certificates, available only on a
> first-come-first-serve basis.)[/color]

Never said it would,
[color=blue]
>
> - Many gay and lesbian couples want to adopt children. Having the
> stability of a legal marriage will make it significantly easier for
> those couples to raise their children in a stable home environment.[/color]

Are you saying with out a marriage certificat they are not in stable
relationships?
[color=blue]
>
> - Gays and lesbians pay taxes just like everyone else. Therefore we
> should be entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else.[/color]

And you have them, what you do not have is a special privalage.
[color=blue]
>
> - It is not acceptable to say that gay men can marry; they just have to
> marry women instead. This is the equivalent of saying that a white man
> and a black woman can't get married, even though they have fallen in
> love and are building a relationship together, but that's OK, because
> he can just go marry some white woman instead.[/color]

That does not apply, man + woman lead to children, man and man no kids.
[color=blue]
>
> In your France `counter-example', you have done nothing to indicate that
> the aging of the country and the low birth rate has anything to do with
> their recent introduction of something approximating Vermont's civil
> unions. As a general rule, the higher the standard of living and the level
> of education in a country, the lower the birth rate, and France ranks
> pretty high in both areas. Nor have you described any reason why this
> should lead to the fall of their fifth republic and the introduction of a
> new constitution.[/color]

No it gets back to, from what I hav read, that making a family/marriage
was weakend as the default behavior of adults and children are very
expensive.
[color=blue]
>
> For that matter, the US population is also aging, although perhaps not as
> badly as France's. That, rather obviously, has *nothing* to do with
> same-sex marriage rights, since Vermont's civil unions only became
> available as of June 1, 2000, and our population has been aging since the
> end of the baby boom, generally reckoned to be in 1965.[/color]

Yes we are, for 2 main reasons:
1: better medical care
2: baby boomers, huge jump in population because of goverment subsady of
family
[color=blue]
>
> To summarize: there aren't any studies that prove that gay marriage will
> not cause societal problems. There can't be: there hasn't been gay
> marriage to study until roughly the last decade, and that's not long
> enough. So any predictions that this will bring about the downfall of our
> civilization are purely predictions and therefore not to be trusted.[/color]

And for such a fundmental change to a working system we should just
do it any way because you want it. The burden that it will do no
harm is on you and you are proving anything, just saying you want it.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids from societies POV,
>> next generation and all that.[/color]
>
> <SNIP>
>[color=green]
>> First of all I am talking about groups, not individuals. And as a
>> class gay marriages can not produce children as a consequence of sex.
>> As a class straight marriages do so that class gets the protection
>> because as a class it perpetuates society. And your class does not so
>> no brass ring.[/color]
>
> Last time, and then I'm going to let this issue drop. The claim that
> procreation is the sole purpose of marriage *DOES* *NOT* *EXPLAIN* current
> practice.[/color]

Well for you that would be true.
[color=blue]
>
> If you want to deal with classes of people, then please explain why
> infertile heterosexual couples are grouped in the same class with fertile
> heterosexual couples. It's certainly not the case that they can all have
> children.[/color]

umm heterosexual, as I am sure you know when these social norms came
about there was no way to test for these things. But the thing is the
system has worked pretty well over the centuries.
[color=blue]
>
> Your class definitions don't fit the rest of your logic.[/color]

Sure it does man + woman generaly lead to children, indvidual results
may vary. Man and man can not ever lead to children, the plumbings
wrong.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> No, see, I think this law would be wonderful, in the short term, as an
>>> object lesson. Since it would almost certainly prevent many heterosexual
>>> couples from marrying each other, and might possibly annul existing
>>> straight marriages, it would demonstrate to a large number of people that
>>> legally basing marriage on procreation is a bad idea. One would hope that,
>>> after a short time of that sort of thing, the legislature or the people
>>> would come to their senses and strike the law down.[/color]
>>
>> Well you will fuck over anyone you can to get your way, how childish.
>> And there is a very good chance that the politicians who passed that
>> law would get shot and they know that. That they would get removed from
>> office is a given and they know that as well.[/color]
>
> First, I'm not actively campaigning for such a law; I'm simply trying to
> explain why such a law would be a bad idea. Second, if you really think
> that such a law is a bad idea, then what does this do to your claim that
> marriage exists only for procreation? The law under discussion would
> simply make that enforceable.[/color]

My argument has been that from societys POV the benefit is that
it gets the next generation of that society from marriage. Now
there is a wee bit more to it then bummping hips. You do have to
raise thos children after all, as you well know.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> And so what you do not as a gay couple bring anything to the table to
>> justify any special privileges.[/color]
>
> We are not asking for special privileges. We are simply asking for the
> same privileges, opportunities, and responsibilitie s enjoyed by everyone
> else.[/color]

Yes you are.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Again, sounds plausible, but without evidence, this is just rhetoric. Show
>>> me the history. We've got lots of examples of societies falling apart: the
>>> fall of the Roman Empire, various dynastic changes in China, various
>>> dynastic changes in India, and so on. Surely you should be able to trace
>>> at least *one* of those instances back to excessively rapid social change.[/color]
>>
>> ok Japan after Commodore Perry.[/color]
>
> That's a possibility; there's a lot I don't know about Japan in the 1890s
> and 1900s. However, to support your argument, you would have to
> demonstrate that the society fell apart simply because of rapid changes
> forced by Commodore Perry. Further, you would also have to demonstrate
> that allowing same-sex marriage represents a large enough change to cause
> the deterioration of our society.[/color]

No you are asking for the change, you prove it is not.
[color=blue]
>
> Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate. I think it's fairly clear
> that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change my
> mind, and there we are.
>
> For those following along at home, my primary aim in this discussion has
> *not* been to convince Mr. Spitzer that same-sex marriage is a good thing.
> No, my goal has been to demonstrate to those folks who are still trying to
> work out how they feel that the arguments made against same-sex marriage
> don't hold water. Continuing this discussion would simply make the same
> points over and over again.[/color]

oppinions differ.
[color=blue]
>
> Therefore, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming
> language holy wars. Static vs. dynamic typing, anyone? :-)
>
> Richard[/color]

marc

[Mike Cox]

Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

Joe Sixpack <complaintdepar tment2002@yahoo .com> wrote in message news:<kgpq3c.pb c.ln@192.168.1. 75>...[color=blue]
> I believe it was Mike Cox who said...[color=green]
> >
> > If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> > children.[/color]
>
> False.[/color]

100% true. There are more married couples who want to adopt children
then there are children available. It is better to put a child in the
home of a married couple then risk the increase chances of high school
drop out, and drug use that is associated with children from single
parent and gay homes.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > Children need a mom and a dad.[/color]
>
> Prove it.[/color]

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3523

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3654

[color=blue][color=green]
> > Look at all the research
> > that has been done on kids from single parent households.[/color]
>
> We're not talking about single parent households.
>[color=green]
> > Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children
> > have a mom and dad.[/color]
>
> Prove it.
>[color=green]
> > Those without one or the other have been proven to have higher drop
> > out rates, drug use and more.[/color]
>
> Where did those with 2 mothers rate? Two fathers? More than likely they
> rated much higher.
>[color=green]
> > I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> > as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
> > having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> > does.[/color]
>
> Prove it, homophobe.[/color]

How am I a homophobe? I stated in my post that I believe homosexuals
should be allowed to have civil unions that would allow them to
inherit property, and get partner benefits, and hospital visitation
rights.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Marriage is something between a man and woman.[/color]
>
> And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
> Luckily humankind evolves...excep t for overly religous types.
>[color=green]
> > That is a very special
> > relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> > something that homosexuality cannot ever do.[/color]
>
> Sperm donors.[/color]

Requires a man. Read the research about single parents.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> > the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> > always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> > between a man and woman.[/color]
>
> Why?[/color]

Because when a man and woman come together they *can* produce a child
if they are young and healthy! That is the only relationship that
*can* produce children!

[color=blue][color=green]
> > I know it isn't fair,[/color]
>
> Then why suggest it. idiot?[/color]

Because some parts of life will be unfair do to either evolution or
nature. Men and Women are different biologically! That is why men
are required by LAW to register for the selective service and women
are not. If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!

Some men would probably want to carry children, but they can't because
they are men and don't have wombs! Things like this will always be
unfair because it is nature you're dealing with. Discrimination on
irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is wrong because
most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.

In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is OK to
discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of the
business is about WOMEN STRIPPING. Marriage is that. It is a
relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
business that features women dancing not men. That is MY point and the
courts agree with me there.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > but if gay men wanted
> > to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
> > a woman to marry.[/color]
>
> No, there are even limitations on that.
>
> Therefore, marriage *isnt* between a man and a woman, it is between
> certain men and certain women.
>
> Therefore, society places the goal posts wherever it is currently
> convenient.[/color]

No the goal posts have always been there. They have actually been
eased over time, rightly so in those cases. But allowing gay marriage
is different from allowing interacial couples from marring.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? To some it may not
> > be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage![/color]
>
> Marriage is not a foundation of life.[/color]

It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
children.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> The premise that the mere
> >> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
> >> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
> >> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
> >> pregnancy.[/color]
> >
> > The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> > both parties consent to it.[/color]
>
> Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
> *encouraging* gay marriage.[/color]

The planet is NOT over-populated. Russia is losing its young as is
Europe. The only places the population is rising is in the places
were there is no economic incentive to produce quality offspring.
Those are the populations that suffer the water and food shortages.
In the USA we have a surplus of food, hence the farm subsides.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> > lead to disaster and sociatal destruction. Just look at the middle
> > east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
> > are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
> > lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
> > cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
> > will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.[/color]
>
> Thanks for reminding why voting Republican is not an option anymore.[/color]

Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly
brainwashed in school.