Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Sashank Varma

    #61
    Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

    I have not been reading this thread, just glancing at random
    postings.

    In article <3d6111f1.04032 41238.540124bc@ posting.google. com>,
    mikecoxlinux@ya hoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote:
    [color=blue]
    > Joe Sixpack <complaintdepar tment2002@yahoo .com> wrote in message
    > news:<kgpq3c.pb c.ln@192.168.1. 75>...[color=green]
    > > I believe it was Mike Cox who said...[color=darkred]
    > > > Children need a mom and a dad.[/color]
    > >
    > > Prove it.[/color]
    >
    > http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523[/color]

    This study does not prove your point, and I am quite sure that either
    you did not read it or are unfamiliar with how to read research studies.

    The web page contains the following information:

    ===
    (1) This finding looks at relationships between family structure,
    mobility, high-school dropout rates.

    (2) Finding: "Students from single-parent and step-parent families were
    more likely than students from two-parent families to change schools and
    to drop out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies.

    (3) Sample or Data Description
    11,671 students from the 1988-1994 National Educational Longitudinal
    Study

    (4) Source
    Russell W. Rumberger, and Katherine A. Larson
    "Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout"
    American Journal of Education.
    Vol. 107, Number . , 1998. Page(s) 1-35.

    (5) Associated Keywords: Drop-out, Family relocation, Single-parent
    household, Stepfamilies,

    (6) FindingID: 3523
    ===

    (I added the numbers to facilitate references.)

    Sentence (1), The Heritage Foundation's summary of the study is
    incorrect, which is to say it distorts the research goal of the
    study.

    Here is the article's abstract:

    ===
    A variety of evidence suggests that students in the United States change
    schools frequently. But there has been relatively little research that
    examines the educational consequences of student mobility. This study
    examined the incidence of student mobility between the eighth and
    twelfth grades and its effect on high school completion using the
    National Educational Longitudinal Survey third follow-up data. Three
    models were tested on two groups of students. For eighth-grade students
    in 1988, we predicted (1) whether students changed schools or dropped
    out between the eighth and twelfth grades and (2) high school completion
    status two years after twelfth grade. For twelfth-grade students in 1992
    we predicted high school completion status two years after twelfth
    grade. The models were developed from a conceptual framework based on
    theories of dropping out, postsecondary institutional departure, and
    student transfer adjustment that suggest school mobility may represent a
    less severe form of educational disengagement similar to dropping out.
    The results generally support this idea. That is, measures of social and
    academic engagement, such as low grades, misbehavior, and high
    absenteeism, predicted both whether students changed schools or dropped
    out. The results further indicate that, controlling for other
    predictors, students who made even one nonpromotional school change
    between the eighth and twelfth grades were twice as likely to not
    complete high school as students who did not change schools. Together,
    the findings suggest that student mobility is both a symptom of
    disengagement and an important risk factor for high school dropout.
    ===

    The last sentence of the abstract summarizes the paper's
    conclusion: High school students who move between schools are
    at a greater risk to drop out.

    How about that juicy quote, statement (2)? Here it is in the
    context of the article:

    ===
    Only six studies have examined the causes or consequences of student
    mobility during high school. Two of these focus on the causes of
    mobility. The first study examined predictors of school and residential
    mobility between the fifth and tenth grades on high school sophomores
    and its effect on high school graduation with a specific focus on family
    structure (Astone and McLanahan 1994). The study found that students
    from single-parent and stepparent families were more likely to change
    schools and less likely to complete high school than were students from
    two-parent families, even after controlling for differences in SES.
    Mobility also reduced the odds of completing high school.
    ===

    So in fact the quote is not a conclusion drawn from Rumberger and
    Larson's (1998) review of "11,671 students from the 1988-1994 National
    Educational Longitudinal Study", as statement (3) tells us. It is
    their summary of a study by Astone and McLanahan (1994) on an
    unknown sample. Furthermore, if you read the previous paragraph,
    you learn that this data (and other prior studies) are methodologicall y
    flawed; this is precisely why Rumberger and Larson conducted their
    study. To quote:

    ===
    There is very limited empirical research that specifically focuses on
    student mobility. Most empirical research on student mobility consists
    of descriptive statistics compiled by federal, state, and local
    education agencies, which document the incidence of student mobility. A
    few other empirical studies have also examined descriptively the
    differences in the academic achievement between mobile and stable
    students (Ingersoll et al. 1989). There are relatively few studies that
    have examined either the causes or consequences of student mobility, and
    most of them have focused on the educational effect of student mobility
    during elementary or junior high school. In general, such studies have
    found that transfer students experience both social and academic
    adjustment problems that affect their academic achievement, with older
    students more likely to develop problems than younger ones (Benson et
    al. 1979; Crockett et al. 1989; Holland et al. 1974; Jason et al. 1992).
    ===

    I confess I did not read the rest of the article. I could not
    check your second reference easily because I do not have on-line
    access to that journal.

    My conclusion is that you are unable or unwilling to give
    evidence for your claim.

    Comment

    • Rayiner Hashem

      #62
      Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

      > I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in[color=blue]
      > 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]

      See, this is where the anti-gay-marriage argument falls on its face.
      It sets a *very* dangerous precedence concerning the relationship
      between Church and state. Basically, the Church wants the state to
      pass laws protecting marriage. This in and of itself is not
      unprecedented. The problem here is that the Church wants the state to
      adopt its definition of the word "marriage." If the Church controls
      the definitions of the words used by the state, it exerts an
      unacceptable power over it.

      Thus, those who say "marriage is defined as a something between a man
      and a women" are missing the point. What we are talking about here is
      seperating the legal definition of marriage from the religious
      definition of marriage. Such a seperation is warrented, and has
      precedence. Consider: the Biblical definition of adultry says "if you
      look at women with lust, you have already commited adultry with her in
      your heart." However, the legal definition of adultry is something
      wholly different and quite a bit more permissive. As much as it might
      annoy some elements of society, the religious definition of marriage
      and the legal definition of marriage must be similarly seperated.

      Comment

      • Daniel C. Wang

        #63
        Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

        Thant Tessman wrote:
        {stuff deleted}[color=blue][color=green]
        >> 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.[/color]

        Fair... my real point is that the values of the politically influential are
        not and in fact need not be logically consistent. Just sufficently
        consistent to keep the peons happy.

        Comment

        • Joe Sixpack

          #64
          Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

          I believe it was Mike Cox who said...[color=blue]
          > Joe Sixpack <complaintdepar tment2002@yahoo .com> wrote in message news:<kgpq3c.pb c.ln@192.168.1. 75>...[color=green]
          >> I believe it was Mike Cox who said...[color=darkred]
          >> >
          >> > 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.[/color]

          So?
          [color=blue]
          > 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]

          You have no data backing up your accusations about gay homes, first of
          all.

          Secondly, if the likelihood of drug problems in the children will be a
          deciding factor in marriage, should we ban black couples from marriage
          as well? Or inner city folks? Or the Bush family?
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > Children need a mom and a dad.[/color]
          >>
          >> Prove it.[/color]
          >
          > http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523[/color]

          ""Students from single-parent and step-parent families were more likely
          than students from two-parent families to change schools and to drop
          out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies."

          Where do you see the word "gay" or the phrase "same sex" in that
          statement? You dont. Gay marriages qualify as two-parent families.
          [color=blue]
          > http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3654[/color]

          Same.
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > 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?[/color]

          Probably you are either a religous sheep, or you have questions about
          your own sexuality.
          [color=blue]
          > 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]

          Of course they should.
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > 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]

          We are not talking about single parents... why do you keep bringing
          that up? We are talking about MARRIAGE, not single parents.
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > 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]

          So what? That is not the definition of marriage, unless you want to
          disclude anyone who cannot have children.
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > 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.[/color]

          No you jackass, that has nothing to do with biology, that has to do
          with our government's policy.

          Get a clue.
          [color=blue]
          > If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
          > discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
          > SERVICE LEGAL![/color]

          Completely off topic.
          [color=blue]
          > 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]

          Yes, but you and the courts are wrong....just like people were wrong
          when they said that black people only counted for 2/3 of a vote. They
          were wrong and now we look back at how stupid they were....just like
          people will look back at people like you and wonder how you could be
          so fucking stupid.
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > 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.[/color]

          Wrong...ever state has different goal posts when it comes to marriage.
          The age, for example, isnt internationally agreed upon.

          And in most places, you may not marry your first of kin.
          [color=blue]
          > 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]

          In what way?
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > 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]

          Are you saying two wealthy, healthy, homosexuals would make worse
          parents than male and female crack addicted ghetto dwellers? It sounds
          like you are.
          [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.
          >> >
          >> > 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.[/color]

          Of course it is.
          [color=blue]
          > Russia is losing its young as is
          > Europe.[/color]

          So?
          [color=blue]
          > 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]

          A surplus of food is a good thing.
          [color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
          >> > 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.[/color]

          What? Brainwashed by whom? Are you suggesting that I was taught
          respect for homosexuals in school? Thats laughable.

          --

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

          Comment

          • Simon Helsen

            #65
            Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

            On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
            [color=blue]
            >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]

            it is truely amazing that you beleive there is an increased chance that
            kids in a gay relationship will drop out of school or use drugs. Honestly,
            how many gay people do you personally know? I know quite a few, some even
            friends, and honestly, I cannot see a difference between their capacity to
            raise children and that of my straight friends.

            I think the big problem with people like you is the lack of truely knowing
            gay people. This is why never escaped your homophobia.
            [color=blue]
            >http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523
            >
            >http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3654[/color]

            as other people pointed out, this says nothing about gay people,
            independently of the quality of the study. It is scary that you even try
            to use it for your argument, even though it is obviously wrong.
            [color=blue]
            >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]

            If you beleive sweeping comments like "kids in a gay relationship have an
            increased chance on higher drug usage", you obviously are homophobe.
            [color=blue]
            >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]

            This argument is logically flawed of course. Why is the distinction
            between a man and a woman more relevant that between a woman and an
            infertile woman? Besides, why on earth is the production of a kid that
            important? Wouldn't you think that raising them is way more the issue?
            [color=blue]
            >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
            >discriminati on against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
            >SERVICE LEGAL![/color]

            In the early 20th century, in most European countries (I don't know about
            N.A.), women could not vote. The reason was obvious for the people at the
            time: women could not think, women were supposed to raise children (which
            is there biological function), women did not understand politics, etc.
            Today, these practices do not exist anymore in western democracies because
            it is considered discrimination. So tell me, why is your viewpoint on gay
            marriage different from what most people (men probably) thought about
            women's ability to vote in the 19th century?
            [color=blue]
            >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.[/color]

            But this implies that marriage is only there for biological procreation
            and as many people have stated, it is not!
            [color=blue]
            >Discriminati on on irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is
            >wrong because most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.[/color]

            nor is marriage!
            [color=blue]
            > 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]

            not really. Most courts do not see marriage as an institution for
            procreation, but as a set of rights that allows two people to live
            together and give them rights and obligations towards each other and the
            state (the church probably does think it is only about procreation, but
            they should not dictate such decisions of course)
            [color=blue]
            >It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
            >children.[/color]

            good. I agree in fact. And I beleive that gay (wo)men are perfectly
            capable to raise children, so they should be able to marry.
            [color=blue]
            >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]

            wow. You obviously need to take some lessons in demography. We are
            currently at 6billion people and we are expected to reach 9billion by
            2050. The burden on this planet is reaching dangerous levels.
            Overpopulation is a *major* issue (the UN projects that by the end of the
            21st century, we will fight wars over water). However, what you are saying
            is something entirely different, namely that there is a large difference
            between population in the developing and developed world (and inequality
            between rich and poor). This schema will collapse one day, sure, but that
            does not mean that we have to produce more kids. Rather, we should allow
            more flexible immigration mechanisms (and Europe has some catching up to
            do). But, sorry, I am sure you don't want that considering the fact that
            your rather homophobic about gays...
            [color=blue]
            >Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly brainwashed
            >in school.[/color]

            This is bizarre. To me, it seems that you were brainwashed at home (very
            likely - I don't know any homophobe person who grew up in an open-minded
            home). As for me, I learned this stuff by traveling, meeting with people
            from other cultures, backgrounds, and yes, having gay friends. In fact,
            what they tought me in my (catholic) high-school made me even better
            understand how 'wrong' they were.

            I hope you will learn (it is never too late)

            Simon

            Comment

            • John Bailo

              #66
              Re: [Off topic] Ban Straight Marriage Now !

              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[/color]

              Absolutely wrong. There is no data showing that children of divorced
              parents have any detrimental bias.

              However, what has been documented is that little or no learning occurs
              between the parent and the child. That is, almost 100% of knowledge and
              behavior is learned from peers and siblings in school and at play.

              This makes sense biologically. The parents have already contributed 100% of
              the genetic material, it would be stupid to then have the child stick
              around them when he's already inherited their behavior. I believe that
              most parents *smother* children with overprotective and extreme dad-momism.

              I think the British system was best -- ship them off to boarding school
              asap.
              [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[/color]

              The problem isn't gay marriage. It's marriage, period, which I personally
              feel is banned by the 13th and 14th amendments of the Constitution banning
              slavery.

              Marriage is clearly a personal slavery contract. If there were say, an
              employment contract, that had the same stipulations as marriage, it would
              be struck down in the courts. No other contract has as much power over the
              individual and oppresses the individual as much.

              I believe straigh marriage should be outlawed.


              --
              W '04 <:> Open

              Comment

              • Sean Russell

                #67
                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][color=green]
                > > Children need a mom and a dad.[/color]
                >
                > Prove it.[/color]

                Interestingly, I heard on the radio a report about the benefits of
                dual-parent households (over single-parent households). They didn't
                discuss at all the gay marriage issue, but I found it significant that
                they always said "two parent", not "married couple" or "mother and
                father".

                I strongly suspect that the significant factor in having a healthy
                household is having two parents, not that they be of different sex.

                Finally, if you (not You, Joe Sixpack, but You the Conservative Right)
                are going to ban gay marriage on the basis that they can't provide a
                healthy environment for children, I suggest that you focus your
                attentions on restricting the right of couples to marry full stop.
                The same secular logic used to ban gay marriage could be used to ban
                marriage for people who can't financially afford to support another
                human being, or who show a tendancy for criminal negligence, or who
                are just plain bad role models (such as our drunk-driving president).
                It is a slippery slope, pretending that you can tell what kind of
                parents a couple will be and restricting their freedoms as a result.

                [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]

                I think Mike is (intentionally or not) misquoting the research. He's
                right, insofar as I've seen research that shows that two-parent
                households are generally an improvement over single-parent households,
                but I've seen no research suggesting that mixed-sex, two-parent
                households are an improvement over same-sex, two-parent households.

                In fact, he points to the Heritage Foundation's research, which -- on
                the front page -- says:

                "Finding: "Students from single-parent and step-parent families were
                more likely than students from two-parent families to change schools
                and to drop out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies."

                Notice that they say "two-parent", not "husband and wife", or
                "heterosexu al couples".
                [color=blue][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]

                Yeah, I'd like to see that research, too.

                "Homophobe" is good, but the best argument I've seen in this thread,
                bar none, was the "dumbass" argument. Man, was that compelling, and
                so versitile, too! Calling someone a "dumbass" really exposes them as
                the lying, unethical, uneducated fascist that they are. It really
                shuts them up, too!
                [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]

                No, they evolve, too, just more slowly. Sometimes, they're leading
                the evolutionary wave. The mormons defined marriage as something
                between a man and one or more women, until they were crushed by the US
                government.
                [color=blue][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]

                Earlier, Mike was arguing that the important thing was to have both a
                man and wife in the household, and now he's arguing that procreating
                is the important thing. So, if I understand him correctly, a man and
                a woman who adopt are better than a same-sex couple who adopt
                because... they *could* breed? Dang! So we have to ban marriages
                between people who are infertile, whether they're same-sex or not.
                [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]

                Actually, Mike is mistaken here. In most states, marriage confers
                upon the partners many benefits -- and responsibilitie s -- than civil
                unions do.

                (1) Marriages are portable; civil unions may not be. That is, if
                you're married in Pennsylvania, California must recognize also the
                marriage[1]. The same is not true of civil unions.

                (2) You can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident,
                regardless of where you are married. You must be a resident in the
                state where you engaged in the civil union to disolve the civil union.
                This means that if you get a civil union in Vermont and move to
                California, you must both move BACK to Vermont and establish residency
                before you can disolve the legal union.

                (3) The federal government does not respect civil unions for tax
                purposes. IE, you can't file jointly for your federal taxes in a
                civil union.

                (4) You've seen "Single" and "Married" options on forms (EG, medical
                forms) you fill out... have you ever seen a "Civil Union" option?

                (5) "Hey... we gave them blacks their own drinking fountains -- why
                should they want to drink out of ours, too?" It is fundamentally
                demeaning, and I've yet to hear a substantive secular argument against
                gay marriage.
                [color=blue][color=green]
                > > I know it isn't fair,[/color]
                >
                > Then why suggest it. idiot?[/color]

                I have to admit, I'm puzzled by this, too. If it isn't fair, why is
                he opposed to changing the laws so that it *is* fair?
                [color=blue][color=green]
                > > 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]

                Hey, he may be misled, he may be biggotted, and he may have poor
                arguments... but, seriously, is insulting him going to assist your
                argument? Is he likely to suddenly say "Dang, he called me a moron.
                Maybe I should really re-evaluate my beliefs and see whether I *have*
                been a moron?" Not likely. It makes YOU feel better, maybe, but it
                isn't a good way to convince people that they're wrong.

                Furthermore, to his benefit, Mike has done a really good job of not
                resorting to personal attacks. He's trying really hard to keep this
                argument on a secular basis, which is why all of his arguments are so
                weak. He doesn't have anything to stand on. But at least he's not
                getting personal.



                --- SER

                [1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
                extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).

                Comment

                • Kees van Reeuwijk

                  #68
                  Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

                  Joe Sixpack <complaintdepar tment2002@yahoo .com> wrote:
                  [color=blue][color=green]
                  > > If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
                  > > discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
                  > > SERVICE LEGAL![/color]
                  >
                  > Completely off topic.[/color]

                  Perhaps, but then this thread has long ago become extremely off-topic
                  for ALL newsgroups it is posted to.

                  Hint. Hint.

                  Comment

                  • @(none)

                    #69
                    Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

                    Sean Russell wrote:[color=blue]
                    > Furthermore, to his benefit, Mike has done a really good job of not
                    > resorting to personal attacks. He's trying really hard to keep this
                    > argument on a secular basis, which is why all of his arguments are so
                    > weak. He doesn't have anything to stand on. But at least he's not
                    > getting personal.[/color]

                    Mike Cox's greatest hits on comp.lang.lisp:

                    2004/03/13: "I've been using lisp now for a week, and now I want to make
                    some bucks selling my software."

                    2004/03/14: "I KNOW computer science. For me to pick up another
                    language is trivial. Are you familiar with Knuth, or Dijkstra? I am,
                    and with my solid theoretical knowledge, it is expected that one be able
                    to master a language in a week."

                    2004/03/15: "2 weeks ago, I tried lisp for the first time so I could use
                    emacs. Now I'm about to write a .NET implementation of lisp, LISP.NET."

                    2004/03/16: "I know enough about lisp that I'm a master of emacs, it
                    just that I started reading about lisp macros last night."

                    2004/03/21: "This topic is too funny! I know a few "jobs" that San
                    Francisco "lispers" can do!"

                    2004/03/23: "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."

                    2004/03/24: "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."


                    Sorry, no points for not resorting to personal attacks. We should not
                    credit people for insulting broad groups rather than individuals. Alas,
                    it is to the detriment of all of us that we continue this offtopic
                    discussion. If Mike hadn't been distracted by the sirens, we'd have some
                    REALLY AMAZING software by now, and Will Hartung could save his mythical
                    $1 million (see "What would you do with 10 man years?").

                    --
                    Cameron MacKinnon
                    Toronto, Canada

                    Comment

                    • David Feuer

                      #70
                      Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

                      Sean Russell wrote:
                      [color=blue]
                      > [1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
                      > extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).[/color]

                      WEll... So the law says. But that section of the law is prima facie
                      unconstitutiona l. Whether the marriages are portable or not is
                      something the courts will ultimately decide, but the Defense of Marriage
                      Act won't have much to do with it.

                      David

                      Comment

                      • Charles Fiterman

                        #71
                        Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

                        Why is this here. Only a crackpot would put this here.

                        You are obviously more than a crackpot and worse than a bigot you are
                        a Republican.

                        The only case against gay marriage is that it would make more people
                        eligible to collect social security. I propose May-December marriages
                        between gay men and women with contracts worked out in advance to
                        protect the real partners. This would put maximum pressure on social
                        security and change the minds of all those opposed.

                        Comment

                        • Ray Dillinger

                          #72
                          Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

                          David Feuer wrote:[color=blue]
                          >
                          > Sean Russell wrote:
                          >[color=green]
                          > > [1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
                          > > extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).[/color]
                          >
                          > WEll... So the law says. But that section of the law is prima facie
                          > unconstitutiona l. Whether the marriages are portable or not is
                          > something the courts will ultimately decide, but the Defense of Marriage
                          > Act won't have much to do with it.
                          >
                          > David[/color]

                          I have often thought that when legislation is found in a court of law
                          to be unconstitutiona l, the legislators who drafted it should have to pay
                          back a year's salary, plus interest since the time the legislation was
                          passed.

                          I have much more to say about Gay Marriage, but there are far too many
                          commas in the newsgroups line for civil discussion to be expected.

                          Bear

                          Comment

                          • Shemp

                            #73
                            Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage

                            Why is this even here?

                            This is a Java newsgroup, not the "Let Me Tell You I'm Gay So Feel Sorry For
                            Me Newsgroup"

                            "Kees van Reeuwijk" <reeuwijk@few.v u.nl> wrote in message
                            news:1gb7xsl.mo 00pnp7ioquN%ree uwijk@few.vu.nl ...[color=blue]
                            > Joe Sixpack <complaintdepar tment2002@yahoo .com> wrote:
                            >[color=green][color=darkred]
                            > > > If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
                            > > > discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
                            > > > SERVICE LEGAL![/color]
                            > >
                            > > Completely off topic.[/color]
                            >
                            > Perhaps, but then this thread has long ago become extremely off-topic
                            > for ALL newsgroups it is posted to.
                            >
                            > Hint. Hint.
                            >[/color]


                            Comment

                            Working...