06-02-2004 21:10									#121
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara My point you claim proves your point has nothing to do with children. My point was that the state provides no extra protection for married families with children than to unmarried families with children except if one of the partners isn't working, which isn't that common anymore.

This just in from CheNews unemployment at record lows. Yayy capitialism!!!!

	06-02-2004 21:13									#122
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by JohnT I'm still trying to figure out how the upcoming MrFun/Starchild nuptials will make Laura love me less.

	06-02-2004 21:30									#123
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by mindseye Excluding lesbians? Excluding half of gay people? Well, I guess that narrows it down a little.

From what I'm lead to believe, the vast majority of gays are male and lesbians account for a rather small minority of all gays.

	06-02-2004 21:35									#124
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe This just in from CheNews unemployment at record lows. Yayy capitialism!!!!

5.6 percent today, yes, I heard. That's not a record low. Also, between 120,000 (Fed numbers) and 200,000 new jobs added last month.

Question, what does this have to do with more families being double income rather than one?

	06-02-2004 21:37									#125
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think Ogie was joking, Che, and not making a reference to the new US unemployment figures.

However, I think MrFun and Boris would be a better match than MrFun/Starchild.

	06-02-2004 21:39									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What JohnT said.

	06-02-2004 21:47									#127
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by mindseye Excluding lesbians? Excluding half of gay people? Well, I guess that narrows it down a little.

That part was too easy considering you said within the context of a relationship and I wished to skip the obvious answers.

quote: Anyway, regarding the other (male) half of gay people, gay men can (and do) sire children.

I suppose. This requires extending the definition of the word relationship a small bit esp. in light of the last otion you alluded to.

	06-02-2004 21:56									#128
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

the fact that there are more male gays that female makes me suspect that people becoming gay has something to do with the fabric of our society. It couldn't be genetic, could it?

	06-02-2004 21:57									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Why not? If the gene is on the X chomosome, then men would be more likely to get it, like baldness.

	06-02-2004 22:04									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Why not? If the gene is on the X chomosome, then men would be more likely to get it, like baldness.

I'm by no means a geneticist but I believe thats "y" chromosome.

XX= female
Xy= male

	06-02-2004 22:04									#131
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by mindseye I can't believe anyone would trot this old nag out again. EST, could you maybe explain why heterosexuals incapable of having children (infertile, or past the age) are allowed to get married? No one seems to have any problem about that. But more importantly (listen up, now): gay people can have kids, too! And many already do! Even within a gay relationship!

I agree that there are people who marry who have no intention of founding a family. For the reasons you give and for other reasons also.

And it is possible to add the point that society has never demanded of persons recording themselves as married that they must undertake any obligation - whether to found a family or indeed to do anything else.

But that is not enough to negate the proposition that marriage as an idea is largely predicated upon the need for society to create the right social and legal conditions for families to be founded and to thrive. It simply shows that this is not something worked out to comply with a blueprint but rather arrived at by the usual sort of human muddling through. A minor anomaly (very bad pun fully intended ).

I acknowledge your point being a homosexual does not prevent a man being a father nor being a lesbian prevent a woman from being a mother. But that is of no relevance unless there is an intention for the child concerned to be brought up in a family composed of the homosexual/lesbian couple and the child. And in that case I stick to my guns. It is not clear to me that all the explanation which registering the couple concerned as married would entail is worth it.

I defer, on this, to anyone with worthwhile experience of actual situations. I have no real handle on how the child in such a case would feel. I can perfectly well imagine such a child liking the two adults they depend on being married but I can just as easily imagine such a child finding that it just caused lots of unprofitable confusions.

From the point of view of the adults I would take quite a bit of convincing that the mere title is of any significance.

	06-02-2004 22:22									#132
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe I'm by no means a geneticist but I believe thats "y" chromosome. XX= female Xy= male

Baldness is carried on the X. With two X's, there is a chance that the gene will be blocked by the other gene. With an X and a Y, with a the Y chromosome being much smaller, there's nothing to block the single recessive gene.

	06-02-2004 22:40									#133
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

See told you I was no geneticist, despite my Father being a Biology Prof.

	06-02-2004 23:42									#134
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by JohnT I think Ogie was joking, Che, and not making a reference to the new US unemployment figures. However, I think MrFun and Boris would be a better match than MrFun/Starchild.

Um . . . . . .


no -- I would rather keep my distance from Boris.

	07-02-2004 08:39									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

Editorial in Today's Washington Post

Why Not Civil Unions?

Friday, February 6, 2004; Page A22

THE HIGH COURT of Massachusetts delivered a hard-line response this week to the state Senate's request for guidance on the subject of gay marriage. The Senate had asked for clarification of the court's earlier ruling that, under the state's constitution, gay men and lesbians were entitled to marry -- specifically, whether the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling might be satisfied by a bill creating Vermont-style civil unions, which confer all the benefits of marriage on gay partnerships while reserving the word "marriage" for opposite-sex couples. The idea was to avert a showdown over amending the state constitution by passing a civil-union bill instead. "The answer to the question is 'No,' " the court responded. Civil unions were akin to the separate-but-equal doctrine that permitted racial segregation, and the "history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

We support gay marriage. It is, in our view, wrong to deny to people in loving, lifelong relationships the benefits and rights that normally attach to being married. At the same time, we are skeptical that American society will come to formally recognize gay relationships as a result of judicial fiats, and we felt that the 4 to 3 majority on the Massachusetts court had stretched to find a right to gay marriage in that commonwealth's 224-year-old constitution.

Now the same majority has stretched still further, finding that the state constitution not only grants to same-sex couples a substantive right to marry but also dictates the nomenclature of the unions. When moral certainty bleeds into judicial arrogance in this fashion, it deprives the legislature of any ability to balance the interests of the different constituencies that care passionately about the question. Given the moral and religious anxiety many people feel on the subject and the absence of clear constitutional mandates for gay marriage, judges ought to be showing more respect for elected officials trying to make this work through a political process.

The judges' action has increased the likelihood of a state constitutional amendment that could ban gay unions under any name. Politicians at the federal level now more than ever will trip over one another to swear allegiance to traditional marriage and push a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay unions in all states. The case for this noxious proposal rests on the claim that judges are forcing gay marriage down people's throats in an anti-democratic fashion. In refusing to allow the people of Massachusetts to choose civil unions as an alternative, the court seems bent on playing to this caricature.

	07-02-2004 08:48									#136
	Tired of ads?

ha

	07-02-2004 08:50									#137
	Suffering from ads?

son of a *****, damn you you other posters!

	07-02-2004 08:51									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

work damn you!

	07-02-2004 21:34									#139
	Tired of ads?

Adam Smith, so a Democrat newspaper comes out and condemns a Republican state Supreme Court for being arrogant and extreme in its defense a civil rights. This is a twist!

	07-02-2004 22:24									#140
	Full PM-box? Change here!

And, btw, I personally agree with the Republican Massachuettes Supreme court on the law. Separate but equal is not equal.

	08-02-2004 07:45									#141
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc That part was too easy considering you said within the context of a relationship and I wished to skip the obvious answers.

Okay, now I see what you meant.

quote: quote: Anyway, regarding the other (male) half of gay people, gay men can (and do) sire children. I suppose. This requires extending the definition of the word relationship a small bit esp. in light of the last otion you alluded to.

Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear. The birth mother isn't part of the relationship, she simply agrees to carry the child. I have heard of guys who used this technique with one partner's sister. That way the offspring was genetically related to both of the guys in the relationship.

Personally, I'd go with adoption, but that's just my feeling. Others feel more strongly about their offspring being genetically related to them.

	08-02-2004 07:58									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: At the same time, we are skeptical that American society will come to formally recognize gay relationships as a result of judicial fiats

Adam Smith, I will only point out that in our society in 1967 (the time of Loving v. Virginia), support for inter-racial marriage was far lower than current support for gay marriage.

My question for you: do you think legal inter-racial marriage should have been post-poned until our society was better ready to recognize it?

Personally, I feel that fundamental human rights should never be granted through popularity polls. What do you think?

	08-02-2004 08:24									#143
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Personally, I feel that fundamental human rights should never be granted through popularity polls. What do you think?

The problem is if the public is so against it when an unelected court decides it should be law, you will have major problems, such as what is going on with all 38 states banning gay marriage. The big problem is that there is a fairly decent chance that a Constitutional admendment banning gay marriage could pass.

	08-02-2004 09:22									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Personally, I feel that fundamental human rights should never be granted through popularity polls. What do you think? The problem is if the public is so against it when an unelected court decides it should be law, you will have major problems, such as what is going on with all 38 states banning gay marriage. The big problem is that there is a fairly decent chance that a Constitutional admendment banning gay marriage could pass.

Oh, if only....

A constitution that openly discriminates against gays, insane gun laws, imprisonment without trial or representation, a concentration camp, bent elections, insane tax policy, pre-emptive wars based on lies and/or faulty intelligence, widespread religious mania, etc. etc.

Man, that will get those anti-Americans on side.

	08-02-2004 10:07									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Born again adults are more likely to experience a divorce than are non-born again adults (27% vs. 24%).

Source: Barna Research Group (Barna.org)

So much for sanctity.

	08-02-2004 10:13									#146
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by mindseye My question for you: do you think legal inter-racial marriage should have been post-poned until our society was better ready to recognize it?

Its not a matter of delay or rights. Those are already stipulated to in the editorial, and I agree. The point is that the court precluded a specific nomenclature which might well have been acceptable to all parties involved. By doing so we are likely to wind up with something far worse.

	08-02-2004 18:59									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Oh, if only.... A constitution that openly discriminates against gays, insane gun laws, imprisonment without trial or representation, a concentration camp, bent elections, insane tax policy, pre-emptive wars based on lies and/or faulty intelligence, widespread religious mania, etc. etc. Man, that will get those anti-Americans on side.

Agathon, if you want to criticized America for being socially conservative, I suggest you get a real dose. Take your ideas of communal women and gay rights to the Ayatollahs of Iran and see how you are received.

By life insurance first.

	08-02-2004 19:02									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Good call on the choromosome thingee, che.

	08-02-2004 23:34									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Agathon, if you want to criticized America for being socially conservative, I suggest you get a real dose. Take your ideas of communal women and gay rights to the Ayatollahs of Iran and see how you are received.

The Iranians may be conservative, but they aren't stupid. They've had a successful birth control program for years. A pity that barbaric nations like the US can't get past their religious prejudices when it comes to programs to curb world population growth.

America is not socially conservative, it's reactionary and postiviely mediaeval. No wonder everyone laughs at you.

	09-02-2004 20:22									#150
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The Iranians may be conservative, but they aren't stupid. They've had a successful birth control program for years. A pity that barbaric nations like the US can't get past their religious prejudices when it comes to programs to curb world population growth. America is not socially conservative, it's reactionary and postiviely mediaeval. No wonder everyone laughs at you.

Why of course we are positively Medieval! We have Lords and Ladies all over the place, just like in England!