473,839 Members | 1,494 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation


Dear all,

I would like to announce that the department of computer
science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
of

(logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.
Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
years at a university outside Belgium.

For more details, please contact Wim Vanhoof (wv*@info.fundp .ac.be)
or visit http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~cri/Pos...cts/index.html
Please note the deadline for application is april 2, 2004.

Kind regards,
Wim Vanhoof.

------------------------------------------------------------
Wim Vanhoof E-mail: wv*@info.fundp. ac.be
University of Namur Tel. ++32(0)81.72.49 .77
Rue Grandgagnage, 21 Fax. ++32(0)81.72.52 .80
B-5000 Namur http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~wva
Belgium


Jul 17 '05
72 7003
Ketil Malde <ke***@ii.uib.n o> writes:
Yoyoma_2 <Yoyoma_2@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:
We were discussing age discrimination. ..


Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...


It takes all types....
Jul 17 '05 #31
Don Groves <dgroves_AT_ccw ebster_DOT_net> writes:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <di***@dls.ne t> wrote:
Wim Vanhoof wrote:

Candidates should not be older than 35 years


Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
discrimination laws. (But IANAL)


How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
a violation of those same laws?


US courts have recently ruled that the US age discrimination laws only
prohibit discrimination against older workers. They do nothing to
protect younger workers.

The case dealt with pension rights where younger workers were being
given less desireable treatment than older workers. They sued under the
age discrimination statute and lost, since they were not in the age
group that was protected by those laws.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute

Jul 17 '05 #32
co***@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
Marc Spitzer <ms******@opton line.net> writes:
jo***********@y ahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.co m> wrote

By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.

Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal
notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As
evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
universal.
You are talking about gay marriage right? If you are there is nothing
preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
woman doing the same with a man. So they are not being discriminated
against.


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.

They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals. In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.
Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.

Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage. I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health. No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.
WTF?!?! You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?
Does this only apply to people who are not members of your class of
people?

My point is that the state has no reason to provide economic and legal
special status to couples who by definition can not produce children and
perpetuate the state by assuming a major financial obligation, caring
for their children.

And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
"sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)? Then, you have people
I am not talking about that so lets keep it on topic.
getting married primarily for tax benefits. That's not the kind of
commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
Health are trying to make.
Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other
in the case I am making. The things society give to people who are
going to ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel
expense, are in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of
marriage) does not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so
why should it get the economic benefits.
Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to.
Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway.... (Granted, this wasn't about
their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
recently.)
Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
that is very expensive to do.


This argument doesn't hold water. In particular, in its recent decision,
the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
purposes of procreation.


First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case. And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
is a pretty hard court to beat.

So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage. While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books. Because then, we could enforce it. Vigorously.
So you do not support Row V Wade?

Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
those straight couples in which:

- either he or she is naturally infertile
- he's had a vasectomy
- she's had her tubes tied
- she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
wants to have children)
- they've simply chosen not to have kids
- (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
prefers to use a condom.

Is that really what you want?
I never said that. But the point is that simple fact is that without
a man and a woman having sex *with each other* it is very unlikely
that you will have children result from said sex act. And with out at
least a reasonable potential for children to exist society has no
interest in supporting you in you lifestyle with special privileges
because you are not even potentially supporting society by possibly
having children. Also there is the fact that with children removed
from the picture there is no reason that both people can not have jobs
that allow them to bring in money and benefits/pensions that the
traditional atomic family did not have. The wife generally worked at
taking care of the kids and house and this did not come with a check.


This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either. I don't think there's a
state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
the preceding conditions. So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
marriage is all about procreation.
I never said it was, I said that society's benefit was the continuation
of society and because of that it granted some special privileges to
the class of people that were doing this. It did this out of self
interest.
Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?
Because they may want to adopt children? Because they may have children of


produce not get surplus.
their own from previous straight marriages? Because the benefits of
if they were married to a person with a different count of X
chromosomes, then yes it is possible. And did not society grant them
the special privileges also?
marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
children?
but as a class straight couples produce children, and bear the cost of
them, and gay couples do not produce children.

We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
the amendments to the constitution. And the people who wrote the US
constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
best document they could write after years of trying.
Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
summer, not "years of trying."

That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
(legally) fundamental notion of human rights. Trying to add another layer
above that is somewhat problematic.
Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.


Agreed. This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
fails. If only state constitutions were as hard to change.
Societies that change too fast fall apart.


This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?


Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real
problems.

marc

Richard

Jul 17 '05 #33
"Anton van Straaten" <an***@appsolut ions.com> writes:
Marc Spitzer wrote:
Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to. Now the financial and legal benefits
of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do. Now
gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?
This argument makes no sense. First, gay people can and do adopt, and this
would presumably be easier for gay couples if they were legally recognized.
Second, there's no legal requirement for married couples to have children,
so childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same marital benefits
as childless straight couples.


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.

Also the legal assumption for marriage is that there is one person
earning money to support two adults(husband and wife) and some children.
The legal protections granted the adult that stayed home was granted
to them because their job was to raise the kids and this benefits
society.

Also please keep in mind that when I say society I am not talking about
goverment.

Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds. It boils down
to your acceptance of principles. If you fundamentally don't believe in the
concept of same-sex marriage, and perhaps believe that some book written
thousands of years ago prohibits this (alongside its exhortations to kill
I never brought religion in to this. My argument was purely secular,
you want something from society so what does society get from you to
balance it.
marc

all the women and children in the villages of your enemies[*]), then no
amount of rational argument is going to help, and whatever happens will have
to be decided as the result of a political war.

Anton

[*] http://mindprod.com/biblestudy.html references, among many others,
Ezekiel 9:6, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
and women".

Jul 17 '05 #34
On 22 Mar 2004 14:24:19 -0800, Thomas A. Russ <ta*@sevak.isi. edu> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <di***@dls.ne t> wrote:
> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>
>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>
> Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
> discrimination laws. (But IANAL)


How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
a violation of those same laws?


US courts have recently ruled that the US age discrimination laws only
prohibit discrimination against older workers. They do nothing to
protect younger workers.

The case dealt with pension rights where younger workers were being
given less desireable treatment than older workers. They sued under the
age discrimination statute and lost, since they were not in the age
group that was protected by those laws.


Ah, thanks!

--
dg
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Jul 17 '05 #35
This is off-topic in a somewhat bizarre manner, and the relation with any
of the comp.lang.* newsgroups above is really hard to see ("discrimina ted
sums": that's a good one ;-). Well, I can find at least one point of the
discussion which is related to elementary logic.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Marc Spitzer wrote:
First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case. And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
is a pretty hard court to beat.


Courts should not make law. I absolutely agree. In fact, they have never
done so and even today, are not doing this! People claiming that courts
are making new laws, should take a introductory course in logic. A supreme
court in any democracy has one primary goal: make sure that our body of
laws remains internally consistent. So, when certain laws or bills exist
(or are introduced), it is their role to make sure they do not violate
"soundness" as your theoretical computer scientist would say. In order to
do this effectively, there is a priority mechanism and the constitution is
at the highest level (everyone agrees). In all gay marriage cases where a
court has decided (negatively or positively), they only did something
along the lines of: "this cannot be forbidden, because it violates...", or
"this cannot be allowed, because it violates..." etc. They *never* say
something like "we think this is a good thing, so let us make a law
saying...". This is, of course, why Bush wants/needs a constitutional
ammendment, which is a purely political decision made by a political
person (in this case the executive). It is like changing your axiom
system. Here in Canada, people were criticising along the same lines
because the supreme court of Canada had decided that you cannot forbid a
gay marriage if you want to stay consistent with the "charter of rights".
That latter - I beleive it is tied to the constitution - has a higher
priority and basically says that every person (or every Canadian) is equal
in his/her rights and duties. Forbidding gay people to marry each others
obviously violated the charter, so, they told the government: "change the
laws". They did *not* say "legalize same-sex marriage", even though that
is the obvious answer (I think they recommended it as a possible solution,
but that is something entirely different!) The alternative answer is to
change the charter of rights and make not everybody equal for the law. But
most Canadians wouldn't want that either. Interesting enough, Bush's wish
to change the constitution is also rejected by a majority of the
Americans. Of course, because the body of laws is incomplete and not
entirely formal, judges interprete them one way or the other. This is why
such verdicts are made by several people and voted for. Saying that they
are making new laws is simplistic and wrong.

To me, it seems that people just want a logically inconsistent set of laws
and society ('some sheep are jmore equal than others'). Hence my
recommendation above: they ought to take an introductory course in logic
(or admit hypocrisy - but I do not assume that everybody is like that)

My 5c,

Simon
Jul 17 '05 #36
Marc Spitzer <ms******@opton line.net> writes:
co***@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
Marc Spitzer <ms******@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.
They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals. In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.


Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.


First, I should obviously have said `a heterosexual person is not prevented
*by the government* from marrying the person of his/her choice'. People
who propose and are rejected aren't the problem. Second, I dealt with
people who are too closely related in the following paragraph.
Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage. I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health. No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.


WTF?!?! You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?


(I don't mean to be rude, but you do know what `consanguinity' means, right?)

Yes. Inbreeding produces less healthy children. If you like, I'll gladly
support the right of cousins, even siblings, to marry, so long as they
don't have kids.
Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other in
the case I am making. The things society give to people who are going to
ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel expense, are
in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of marriage) does
not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so why should it get
the economic benefits.
[Snipped lots more of the same.]

Look: as long as married heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or
who can and choose not to, are granted all the economic and legal
privileges that couples with children enjoy, then you cannot deny those
rights to same-sex couples simply because they cannot have children. You
have two options in that case:

- deny the privileges associated with marriage to *all* couples who do
not have children, gay or straight; or

- allow same-sex couples to marry, with all attendant privileges.

Anything else singles out a group of citizens for special treatment and is
thus unconstitutiona l. (And also plain wrong.)
First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case. And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
is a pretty hard court to beat.
What law did they make? And why is protecting the rights of citizens `way
out in left field'? For full credit, your answer must also explain why
the judicial decisions in Brown v. Board of Education and Loving
v. Virginia (the decision which struck down antimiscegenati on laws) were
not also `way out in left field.'

I'm sorry, but that sort of argument no longer convinces me: too many
people have used it to complain not about a fundamental problem but about a
decision with which they don't happen to agree. Just like the complaint
about "activist judges."
So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage. While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books. Because then, we could enforce it. Vigorously.


So you do not support Row V Wade?


Irrelevant.

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.
Also there is the fact that with children removed from the picture there
is no reason that both people can not have jobs that allow them to bring
in money and benefits/pensions that the traditional atomic family did not
have. The wife generally worked at taking care of the kids and house and
this did not come with a check.


A) The wife may generally have been a stay-at-home-mom in the 50s, but an
increasing number of mothers, in straight marriages, are working
full-time jobs today. Lots of straight couples have two incomes too.

B) The benefits of a legal marriage are not purely economic; they also
involve things like hospital visitation rights, custody over adopted
children, bereavement leave, authority to make funeral arrangements,
etc. So, even if gay couples do have an economic edge over straight
couples (which you have not demonstrated), that still doesn't make up
for the inequalities.
Societies that change too fast fall apart.


This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?


Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real
problems.


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.

Richard
Jul 17 '05 #37
Marc Spitzer wrote:
First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case.


From Boston.com: "The court, in a 4-3 ruling, ordered the Legislature
to come up with a solution within 180 days."

What is your understanding of the system of checks and balances provided
by the US Constitution? How is the judiciary to check the power of the
legislature and the executive if every petitioner must be told "Well,
son, it may not be fair, nor even constitutional, but that's the law as
written by the legislature."?

Explain your answer.

If you were to walk into a law library, would the books be filled with
the writing of judges, or of legislators?

Does a law student spend his nights reading judgments, or legislation?

--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada

Jul 17 '05 #38
Cameron MacKinnon <cm********@cle arspot.net> writes:
Marc Spitzer wrote:
First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case.
From Boston.com: "The court, in a 4-3 ruling, ordered the Legislature
to come up with a solution within 180 days."


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.

What is your understanding of the system of checks and balances
provided by the US Constitution? How is the judiciary to check the
power of the legislature and the executive if every petitioner must be
told "Well, son, it may not be fair, nor even constitutional, but
that's the law as written by the legislature."?

Explain your answer.

If you were to walk into a law library, would the books be filled with
the writing of judges, or of legislators?
yes, both. Did it once by accident.

Does a law student spend his nights reading judgments, or legislation?


Does watching reruns of the "paper chase" count for an informed
oppinion.

marc
Jul 17 '05 #39
co***@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
Marc Spitzer <ms******@opton line.net> writes:
co***@ccs.neu.e du (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
Marc Spitzer <ms******@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.


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?
They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals. In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.
Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.


First, I should obviously have said `a heterosexual person is not prevented
*by the government* from marrying the person of his/her choice'. People
who propose and are rejected aren't the problem. Second, I dealt with
people who are too closely related in the following paragraph.


Yes you did in the paragraph below
Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage. I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health. No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.
WTF?!?! You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?


(I don't mean to be rude, but you do know what `consanguinity' means, right?)


I just double checked to be sure, close blood relations.

Yes. Inbreeding produces less healthy children. If you like, I'll gladly
support the right of cousins, even siblings, to marry, so long as they
don't have kids.
But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids from societies POV,
next generation and all that. And same sex marriages produce none so
why should your class get the privileges that go with marriage? And
from society's POV no children should result from incest, because it is
in society's best interest to have close blood relations not have
sex/children with each other, that is why there are laws against just
that behavior and they can not get married.
Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other in
the case I am making. The things society give to people who are going to
ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel expense, are
in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of marriage) does
not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so why should it get
the economic benefits.
[Snipped lots more of the same.]

Look: as long as married heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or
who can and choose not to, are granted all the economic and legal
privileges that couples with children enjoy, then you cannot deny those
rights to same-sex couples simply because they cannot have children. You
have two options in that case:


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.

- deny the privileges associated with marriage to *all* couples who do
not have children, gay or straight; or

- allow same-sex couples to marry, with all attendant privileges.
In a word, no. Your group does not bring the potential for children
to the table, so why should you get privileges that are there to help
and encourage people to get together to have children and bear the
cost? Just because you want it does not make it a good idea.

Anything else singles out a group of citizens for special treatment and is
thus unconstitutiona l. (And also plain wrong.)
We single out lots of groups for special treatment in society, for
example men register for the draft, and can be drafted, and women do
not.
First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case. And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
is a pretty hard court to beat.
What law did they make? And why is protecting the rights of citizens `way
out in left field'? For full credit, your answer must also explain why


What right? Who is stopping you from going out finding a woman, asking
her to marry you, getting her to say yes and then getting married?
Who said gay men can not do that? The same as any other man.
the judicial decisions in Brown v. Board of Education and Loving
v. Virginia (the decision which struck down antimiscegenati on laws) were
not also `way out in left field.'
If I remember what little I know about it the court found that as long
as long as things were separate they were never equal and it was
always tilted in one direction. And this conflicted with several
parts of the constitution, including the 14th amendment.


I'm sorry, but that sort of argument no longer convinces me: too many
people have used it to complain not about a fundamental problem but about a
decision with which they don't happen to agree. Just like the complaint
about "activist judges."
All I need to say to that is "Living Constitution".
So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage. While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books. Because then, we could enforce it. Vigorously.
So you do not support Row V Wade?


Irrelevant.

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.


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.
Also there is the fact that with children removed from the picture there
is no reason that both people can not have jobs that allow them to bring
in money and benefits/pensions that the traditional atomic family did not
have. The wife generally worked at taking care of the kids and house and
this did not come with a check.
A) The wife may generally have been a stay-at-home-mom in the 50s, but an
increasing number of mothers, in straight marriages, are working
full-time jobs today. Lots of straight couples have two incomes too.

B) The benefits of a legal marriage are not purely economic; they also
involve things like hospital visitation rights, custody over adopted
children, bereavement leave, authority to make funeral arrangements,
etc. So, even if gay couples do have an economic edge over straight
couples (which you have not demonstrated), that still doesn't make up
for the inequalities.


No children vs children. And so what you do not as a gay couple bring
anything to the table to justify any special privileges. You just are
saying that since things are not going your way it needs to be fixed.
Societies that change too fast fall apart.

This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?


Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real
problems.


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.


ok Japan after Commodore Perry.
marc
Jul 17 '05 #40

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

12
2075
by: Aaron Watters | last post by:
I'm doing a heart/lung bypass procedure on a largish Python program at the moment and it prompted the thought that the methodology I'm using would be absolutely impossible with a more "type safe" environment like C++, C#, java, ML etcetera. Basically I'm ripping apart the organs and sewing them back together, testing all the while and the majority of the program at the moment makes no sense in a type safe world... Nevertheless, since...
22
3620
by: edgrsprj | last post by:
PROPOSED EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING COMPUTER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EFFORT Posted July 11, 2005 My main earthquake forecasting Web page is: http://www.freewebz.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html Newsgroup Readers: If you circulate copies of this report to groups of computer programmers at different universities etc. around the world then they might find the subject matter to be interesting.
1
1472
by: cablespeed | last post by:
We currently are looking to fill two positions for our client (a large MNC) in Lancaster PA. Please reply ASAP to careers@techneers.com Here is the position description: Principal Responsibilities o Analyze requirements from primary stakeholders
5
1285
by: abhi | last post by:
Hello, My name is Abhilash and I am recruiting for an experienced Bioinformatics Programmer. This opportunity is permanent, full-time, and on site in Bethesda/Rockville, MD. The opportunity is with a team that has been tasked with providing scientific computing support for national and international research and development projects in Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics. Our clients produce some of the largest and most rapidly...
0
9854
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9696
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
10903
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10584
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
10290
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9425
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
0
7015
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5681
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
5865
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.