"Vox Humana" wrote in
:


"Wil" wrote in message
...
Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind,
like room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally
enter into
the
marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a couple
who
is
in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with a
legal
contract. The contract says between a man and a woman.


I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex
couples SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's
simply a legal matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex
couples, that's their business. Remember, at one time marriage was
only open to two white people of opposite genders. People in mixed
race marriages were criminals in many states. People saw that as a
partnership of a different kind. Things change.



Bush and Kerry are both for civil unions among gay couples that would give
them the same legal rights (and punishments!) that married couples receive.
Both Bush and Kerry are against gay marraige saying that "marraige" should
be between a man and a woman. So, if you're gonna complain about Bush you
need to complain about Kerry as well. BTW, Edwards (the REALLY liberal
Democratic contender) was against gay marraige (and for civil unions) as
well.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/work.../JohnKerry.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...bush.marriage/

In article , wrote:

Vox Humana wrote:


I would be interested in some specifics. For instance, how many messages
have you been unable to post because of this thread? What happens if this
thread is taken to another newsgroup on the same server?


Its not that one can't post, its that postings disappear very shortly as
they are replaced by newer postings, and we get a message that the
posting is no longer available. The ISP allocates a given amount of
space to the newsgroups they carry, individually, so taking this to an
appropriate newsgroup would not free space for this newsgroup, which
would still have its alloted space.

You have one weird ISP then, because that's not how any others do it. Each
ISP sets a TIME allocation. For cheapskate outfits with insufficient
equipment, they may carry group messages for only one day each, & skip
carrying the majority of groups at all. But most ISPs carry all messages
for at least a week, after which the outdated messages you'd have to
access through the google archive rather than from the local server.

Supposing you're not just confused, you need to get another ISP, because
the one you describe is being run wrong. They'd just have to be doing
everything else bassackwards too.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

"Charlie C." wrote in message
.4...
"Vox Humana" wrote in
:


"Wil" wrote in message
...
Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind,
like room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally
enter into
the
marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a couple
who
is
in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with a
legal
contract. The contract says between a man and a woman.


I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex
couples SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's
simply a legal matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex
couples, that's their business. Remember, at one time marriage was
only open to two white people of opposite genders. People in mixed
race marriages were criminals in many states. People saw that as a
partnership of a different kind. Things change.



Bush and Kerry are both for civil unions among gay couples that would give
them the same legal rights (and punishments!) that married couples
receive.
Both Bush and Kerry are against gay marraige saying that "marraige" should
be between a man and a woman. So, if you're gonna complain about Bush you
need to complain about Kerry as well. BTW, Edwards (the REALLY liberal
Democratic contender) was against gay marraige (and for civil unions) as
well.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/work.../JohnKerry.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...bush.marriage/

No doubt that I am not happy about Kerry's position. Here is the
difference. Kerry is NOT for amending the constitution. Kerry has an
excellent record in the Senate in regards to gay rights. Bush wouldn't even
meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, and as governor supported the
prohibition of gays to adopt children and favored the sodomy law struck down
in the recent Lawrence vs.. Texas Supreme Court Ruling. Bush has
demonstrated that he is good about talking "compassion" but doesn't deliver.
Kerry has demonstrated that he does deliver by his voting record. Bush is
beholding to the religious-right and will, under no circumstances, promote
civil unions. He is just walking a tight rope, trying to please his base
while not alienating undecided voters who are much more moderate.
Therefore, I think we can work with Kerry, but not with Bush.

Like may things in life, there is no absolute good or bad. I would much
rather be voting for Dean, but if the choice is Bush or Kerry, I will vote
for Kerry. I'm sure that in fifty years people will be fighting over this
issue just as they do now about civil rights for blacks. Same-sex marriage
will have been in existence for years. Life will be largely unaffected for
most people and better for some. The Democrats will be pointing fingers at
the Republicans for trying to amend the Constitution and the Republicans
will point to the fact that Clinton signed DOMA and candidates like Kerry
and Hillary Clinton were also against same-sex marriage. There will be
plenty of shame to go around. It is just too bad that we have only a choice
between sort of bad and really bad.

In article , "Charlie C."
wrote:

"Vox Humana" wrote in
:


"Wil" wrote in message
...
Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind,
like room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally
enter into
the
marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a couple
who
is
in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with a
legal
contract. The contract says between a man and a woman.


I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex
couples SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's
simply a legal matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex
couples, that's their business. Remember, at one time marriage was
only open to two white people of opposite genders. People in mixed
race marriages were criminals in many states. People saw that as a
partnership of a different kind. Things change.



Bush and Kerry are both for civil unions among gay couples that would give
them the same legal rights (and punishments!) that married couples receive.
Both Bush and Kerry are against gay marraige saying that "marraige" should
be between a man and a woman. So, if you're gonna complain about Bush you
need to complain about Kerry as well. BTW, Edwards (the REALLY liberal
Democratic contender) was against gay marraige (and for civil unions) as
well.

Only Bush, however, calls for a Constitutional Convention to revise the
Constitution so that homosexuals can never have equal rights under law.
This would be the first time the Constitution was ammended to restrict
rather than to extend rights.

Kerry thinks it's fine if Massachussetts extends gay right of marriage,
but California bans it. Kerry's stance is that it should be each state's
right to decide for or against, & from my p.o.v. his stance sucks raw
eggs, is wussy, & certainly not pro-gay. But it's not the high degree of
EVIL that calling for Constitutional restrictions of civil rights happens
to be.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:

I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word
"hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party
based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians
to toe the line according to those beliefs?

You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing
Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers.

billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:

I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the
word
"hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party
based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local
politicians
to toe the line according to those beliefs?

You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing
Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers.

I think he has been clear. He only equates the right wingers with
terrorists and murders, just like Franklin Graham equates Muslims with
terrorism. You do realize that not all religious people are right-wing nut
cases? I know how you hate religious bigotry, so I await your unequivocal
condemnation of Rev. Franklin Graham.

"The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the
Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it
[Islam] is a very evil and wicked religion." Rev. Franklin Graham
11/16/2001 MSNBC

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:17:13 -0000, (Bill Oliver) opined:

In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:

I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word
"hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party
based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians
to toe the line according to those beliefs?

You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing
Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers.

billo

When they bomb abortion clinics and burn crosses they are terrorists.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than carrying a fetus
to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is always a
medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility probably
carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth control" is
not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after pills or
taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better methodology when
normal birth control measure fail.
In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more than it
would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily.
Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be absolutely the
best ethical/moral choice for herself and family.
I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion".
Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
I have heard some pro-abortion advocates lately. Alexander Sanger, the
grandson of Margaret Sanger, wrote a book on the subject called "Beyond
Choice." I heard an interview with him on the Signorile show on Sirius
Radio. He made some good points and didn't appear to be a lunatic. Unless
you think that abortion is a moral issue instead of a medical issue, there
is no reason to make moralistic judgment about the person who has an
abortion. In fact, Sanger argues that a person who chooses an abortion can
actually be doing the moral thing for herself, her family, and society. The
anti-abortion movement has been wonderfully successful in framing the issue
in religious and moralistic terms just as they have turned same-sex marriage
into a religious argument instead of a civil rights or legal argument.
http://www.alexandersanger.com/book.html




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

wrote in message
...
It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some
risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than
carrying a fetus
to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is
always a
medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility
probably
carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth
control" is
not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after
pills or
taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better
methodology when
normal birth control measure fail.
In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more
than it
would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily.
Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be
absolutely the
best ethical/moral choice for herself and family.
I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion".
Ingrid


We don't disagree on this. I said the same thing about the medical aspect
of abortion. But, you can be pro-abortion, and not a lunatic, especial if
the alternative is to be anti-abortion. The religious-right tries to assert
that abortions are used as form of birth control. I'm sure that is true for
a few people as in any large sample you will find people at the extremes. I
don't think that the average person would see abortion as a rational form of
birth control. As for Sanger, he claimed to be pro-abortion in the
interview that I heard. I believe his point is that if you look at abortion
as a medical procedure, then there is no reason to avoid the term
"pro-abortion" assuming that you approach it in a rational manner just as
you would any other invasive procedure.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:46:29 GMT, wrote:

It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than carrying a fetus
to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is always a
medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility probably
carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth control" is
not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after pills or
taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better methodology when
normal birth control measure fail.
In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more than it
would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily.
Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be absolutely the
best ethical/moral choice for herself and family.
I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion".

I don't think anybody advocating choice is any more "pro abortion" than the
people advocating controlling women's lives are "pro life".

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:17:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Let's compare evil religions, shall we?
Billy can't get anyone to engage in a gardening discussion. Leave
the Doc where he belongs.....in a kill file!

In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


I think he has been clear. He only equates the right wingers with
terrorists and murders, just like Franklin Graham equates Muslims with
terrorism. You do realize that not all religious people are right-wing nut
cases? I know how you hate religious bigotry, so I await your unequivocal
condemnation of Rev. Franklin Graham.


You mean all right wingers are terrorists and murderers the same
way all leftists are mass murderers and genocidal maniacs? The
way all Democrats are the equivalent of Stalin and the Khmer
Rouge? That way? I can see why you defend that attitude so.

billo

In article ,
escapee wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:17:13 -0000, (Bill Oliver) opined:

In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:

I don't hate right wing Kristians. Matter of fact, I only reserve the word
"hate" for dogs. But, how would you feel if I started a political party
based on the beliefs of Osama bin Laden , and hounded YOUR local politicians
to toe the line according to those beliefs?

You would be more convincing if you didn't insist on characterizing
Christians by equating them with terrorists and murderers.

billo

When they bomb abortion clinics and burn crosses they are terrorists.


Oh? And how many of "them" do that? The same way atheists all commit
genocide?

billo

In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:


If you'd stop removing the words "right wing" from "Christians", you'd
understand that I'm referring to a small, but intrusive segment of the
religious community as a whole. But, you've chosen to ignore that fact.

Let's compare evil religions, shall we?

Right. The same way all atheists are guilty of gulags and mass
starvation and genocide. Sure. Oh, I mean only the *leftist*
atheists.

billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


I think he has been clear. He only equates the right wingers with
terrorists and murders, just like Franklin Graham equates Muslims with
terrorism. You do realize that not all religious people are right-wing
nut
cases? I know how you hate religious bigotry, so I await your
unequivocal
condemnation of Rev. Franklin Graham.


You mean all right wingers are terrorists and murderers the same
way all leftists are mass murderers and genocidal maniacs? The
way all Democrats are the equivalent of Stalin and the Khmer
Rouge? That way? I can see why you defend that attitude so.


Still waiting for that condemnation of the Rev. Graham for being a religious
bigot.