Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

[Wim Vanhoof]

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

[Mike Cox]

ga*@flownet.com (Erann Gat) wrote in message news:<1f**************************@posting.google. com>...

Marc Spitzer <ms******@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<86************@bogomips.optonline.net>...

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.
No, the court told the legislature to come up with a law that is
compatible with the state and national constitutions, and that is
precisely the court's job.

But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids

Hogwash. *Having* kids is easy -- too easy, and notwithstanding the
situation in France, people generally don't need any encouragement to
reproduce.

The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
the kids but *raising* them. That's the process that the institution
of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
reproduction. That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
commitment. If the purpose of marriage were just to *have* kids
people would be getting married for nine months at a time, and we'd be
celebrating teen pregnancy and single motherhood. It's all about
raising kids, not producing them, and in that regard gays are just as
capable as anyone else (more if my gay friends are any guide).

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

I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Unfortunatly, being gay and
having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
does.
The idea that gay marriage ought to be banned because society has a
vested interest in producing babies is absurd on its face. If it were
true, the very same argument could be used to ban the marriage of
sterile people (who as a class cannot produce babies), post-menopausal
women (who as a class cannot produce babies).
Marriage is something between a man and woman. That is a very special
relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
something that homosexuality cannot ever do.

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

Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? To some it may not
be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage!
Marriage is unfair because it is so unique in that men and women are
made for each other. The result of a healthy man and woman coupling
is a child, proof of the intent of whoever desined man and woman had a
goal. Whether it is god or evolution.
It could also be used
to argue that lesbians should be allowed to marry because they as a
class can (and do) produce babies.
But they need a man to produce a baby.
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. The future welfare of the child is a
great concern, and products of rape will not have a father figure
because he will be in prison.
Finally, I can't help but wonder how many Americans who oppose gay
marriage on the grounds that we are facing an imminent shortage of
babies also support stricter enforcement of our immigration laws. I
don't have any data, but I suspect the correlation is high, because
the mindset that is required to argue against gay marriage is exactly
the same as the one you need to argue against interracial marriage.
Both positions are simply untenable on any grounds other than pure
bigotry.

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

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

[André Thieme]

Marc Spitzer wrote:

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.

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

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

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

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

[André Thieme]

Mike Cox wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Thant Tessman]

Daniel C. Wang wrote:

Johan wrote:
{stuff deleted}

Our laws are not about encouraging anything (appart from not breaking
laws), they are about prohibiting illegal things.

{stuff deleted}

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

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

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

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

-thant

[Joe Sixpack]

I believe it was Mike Cox who said...

If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
children.
False.
Children need a mom and a dad.
Prove it.
Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households.
We're not talking about single parent households.
Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children
have a mom and dad.
Prove it.
Those without one or the other have been proven to have higher drop
out rates, drug use and more.
Where did those with 2 mothers rate? Two fathers? More than likely they
rated much higher.
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.
Prove it, homophobe.
Marriage is something between a man and woman.
And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
Luckily humankind evolves...except for overly religous types.
That is a very special
relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
something that homosexuality cannot ever do.
Sperm donors.
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.
Why?
I know it isn't fair,
Then why suggest it. idiot?
but if gay men wanted
to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
a woman to marry.
No, there are even limitations on that.

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

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

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

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.

Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
*encouraging* gay marriage.
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.

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

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

[mlw]

Mike Cox wrote:

If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
children. Recent studies have shown that it may not, in fact, be a choice at all.
There may be a biological/generic predisposition.
Children need a mom and a dad.
This is fiction. Children *need* a workable support network.
Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households.
What research?
Parental
role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
and dad. Those without one or the other have been proven to have
higher drop out rates, drug use and more.
Please site that example, because I've seen studies that indicate that
dropout rate has mostly to do with poverty.

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.
Since when did gay marriage become a "gay parent" issue? We, as a society,
*already* allow gays to adopt.


[snip]
Marriage is something between a man and woman.
Why? 50 years ago, people of different races couldn't marry, ironically
enough, the exact same arguments were presented.

That is a very special
relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being.
something that homosexuality cannot ever do.
Are you saying that A woman with a hysterectomy or a man with a vasectomy
can not get married because there is no potential for children?

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.
Why?
I know it isn't fair, but if gay men wanted
to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
a woman to marry.
Why does a gay man have to marry a woman? That would just be another
divorce.
Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies?
This is a purely biological argument, and unless you want to ban all
marriages between people incapable of having children, it is a failed
argument.
To some it may not
be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage!
I know lots of people who's marriage almost killed them. Divorce was their
only hope.
Marriage is unfair because it is so unique in that men and women are
made for each other.
Says who? Statistically speaking, 5% to 10% of the population may be gay. To
deny these people the right to marry the person they love is criminal.
The result of a healthy man and woman coupling
is a child, proof of the intent of whoever desined man and woman had a
goal.
You don't need marriage to have children, and you don't need to be planning
or able to have children to get married, so your argument is failed.

It could also be used
to argue that lesbians should be allowed to marry because they as a
class can (and do) produce babies.
But they need a man to produce a baby.

Only sperm. Just as "straight" couples can get from a sperm bank.

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.

The first reasonable thing you've said so far.
The future welfare of the child is a
great concern, and products of rape will not have a father figure
because he will be in prison.
You fail to mention that a woman should not have to carry a baby, especially
if it is the result of an act of violence.

[snip offensive racial crap]
Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.
I don't know about that, George W. was supposed to be well raised, and he
lies, steals, and invades countries.
Just look at the middle
east.
Religious zealots of all kinds are harmful to all societies.
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.

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

[Milo T.]

On 23 Mar 2004 15:26:54 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:

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

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

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

[Espen Vestre]

ga*@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:

The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
the kids but *raising* them. That's the process that the institution
of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
reproduction. That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
commitment.

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

[Marc Spitzer]

co***@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

Marc Spitzer <ms******@optonline.net> writes:

co***@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

Marc Spitzer <ms******@optonline.net> writes:

co***@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

> Marc Spitzer <ms******@optonline.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?
Ok.

- Discrimination against a group of people who are distinguished from the
rest of society, due to a factor that they themselves cannot control,
is wrong. (Social conservatives like to argue that being gay is a
choice, not an innate characteristic. While I won't rule out the
possibility for some folks, most of the gay men I know, including
myself, reject the idea that we chose to be gay.)

umm, you contradict that 2 paragraphs down, "comes to the conclusion that
he's gay" assumes a decision.

- The legalization of same-sex marriage will not affect an existing
straight marriage: both spouses in that marriage will still have
exactly the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as before.

I've seen some folks argue that same-sex marriage will affect existing
straight marriages, in the case where one partner decides that he's
really gay and wants to get married to some guy he's met. I don't buy
this argument: if the husband in a straight marriage comes to the
conclusion that he's gay, the marriage is going to have problems
whether same-sex marriage is legal or not. And legal same-sex
marriages are not necessary to allow a divorce in these circumstances.
The above is a good reason why women should not marry gay men but has
no bearing on what I was saying.


- The legalization of same-sex marriage will not make it harder for
straight couples to get married. (It is not, after all, as though we
have a limited number of marriage certificates, available only on a
first-come-first-serve basis.)
Never said it would,

- Many gay and lesbian couples want to adopt children. Having the
stability of a legal marriage will make it significantly easier for
those couples to raise their children in a stable home environment.
Are you saying with out a marriage certificat they are not in stable
relationships?

- Gays and lesbians pay taxes just like everyone else. Therefore we
should be entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else.
And you have them, what you do not have is a special privalage.

- It is not acceptable to say that gay men can marry; they just have to
marry women instead. This is the equivalent of saying that a white man
and a black woman can't get married, even though they have fallen in
love and are building a relationship together, but that's OK, because
he can just go marry some white woman instead.
That does not apply, man + woman lead to children, man and man no kids.

In your France `counter-example', you have done nothing to indicate that
the aging of the country and the low birth rate has anything to do with
their recent introduction of something approximating Vermont's civil
unions. As a general rule, the higher the standard of living and the level
of education in a country, the lower the birth rate, and France ranks
pretty high in both areas. Nor have you described any reason why this
should lead to the fall of their fifth republic and the introduction of a
new constitution.
No it gets back to, from what I hav read, that making a family/marriage
was weakend as the default behavior of adults and children are very
expensive.

For that matter, the US population is also aging, although perhaps not as
badly as France's. That, rather obviously, has *nothing* to do with
same-sex marriage rights, since Vermont's civil unions only became
available as of June 1, 2000, and our population has been aging since the
end of the baby boom, generally reckoned to be in 1965.
Yes we are, for 2 main reasons:
1: better medical care
2: baby boomers, huge jump in population because of goverment subsady of
family

To summarize: there aren't any studies that prove that gay marriage will
not cause societal problems. There can't be: there hasn't been gay
marriage to study until roughly the last decade, and that's not long
enough. So any predictions that this will bring about the downfall of our
civilization are purely predictions and therefore not to be trusted.
And for such a fundmental change to a working system we should just
do it any way because you want it. The burden that it will do no
harm is on you and you are proving anything, just saying you want it.

But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids from societies POV,
next generation and all that.
<SNIP>

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.

Last time, and then I'm going to let this issue drop. The claim that
procreation is the sole purpose of marriage *DOES* *NOT* *EXPLAIN* current
practice.

Well for you that would be true.

If you want to deal with classes of people, then please explain why
infertile heterosexual couples are grouped in the same class with fertile
heterosexual couples. It's certainly not the case that they can all have
children.
umm heterosexual, as I am sure you know when these social norms came
about there was no way to test for these things. But the thing is the
system has worked pretty well over the centuries.

Your class definitions don't fit the rest of your logic.
Sure it does man + woman generaly lead to children, indvidual results
may vary. Man and man can not ever lead to children, the plumbings
wrong.
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.

First, I'm not actively campaigning for such a law; I'm simply trying to
explain why such a law would be a bad idea. Second, if you really think
that such a law is a bad idea, then what does this do to your claim that
marriage exists only for procreation? The law under discussion would
simply make that enforceable.

My argument has been that from societys POV the benefit is that
it gets the next generation of that society from marriage. Now
there is a wee bit more to it then bummping hips. You do have to
raise thos children after all, as you well know.

And so what you do not as a gay couple bring anything to the table to
justify any special privileges.
We are not asking for special privileges. We are simply asking for the
same privileges, opportunities, and responsibilities enjoyed by everyone
else.

Yes you are.

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.

That's a possibility; there's a lot I don't know about Japan in the 1890s
and 1900s. However, to support your argument, you would have to
demonstrate that the society fell apart simply because of rapid changes
forced by Commodore Perry. Further, you would also have to demonstrate
that allowing same-sex marriage represents a large enough change to cause
the deterioration of our society.

No you are asking for the change, you prove it is not.

Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate. I think it's fairly clear
that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change my
mind, and there we are.

For those following along at home, my primary aim in this discussion has
*not* been to convince Mr. Spitzer that same-sex marriage is a good thing.
No, my goal has been to demonstrate to those folks who are still trying to
work out how they feel that the arguments made against same-sex marriage
don't hold water. Continuing this discussion would simply make the same
points over and over again.
oppinions differ.

Therefore, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming
language holy wars. Static vs. dynamic typing, anyone? :-)

Richard

marc

[Mike Cox]

Joe Sixpack <co*********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kg***********@192.168.1.75>...

I believe it was Mike Cox who said...

If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
children.
False.

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.

Children need a mom and a dad.

Prove it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3654

Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households.

We're not talking about single parent households.

Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children
have a mom and dad.

Prove it.

Those without one or the other have been proven to have higher drop
out rates, drug use and more.

Where did those with 2 mothers rate? Two fathers? More than likely they
rated much higher.

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.

Prove it, homophobe.

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.

Marriage is something between a man and woman.

And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
Luckily humankind evolves...except for overly religous types.

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

Sperm donors.

Requires a man. Read the research about single parents.

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.

Why?

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!

I know it isn't fair,

Then why suggest it. idiot?

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

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

In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is OK to
discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of the
business is about WOMEN STRIPPING. Marriage is that. It is a
relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
business that features women dancing not men. That is MY point and the
courts agree with me there.

but if gay men wanted
to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
a woman to marry.

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.

No the goal posts have always been there. They have actually been
eased over time, rightly so in those cases. But allowing gay marriage
is different from allowing interacial couples from marring.

Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? To some it may not
be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage!

Marriage is not a foundation of life.

It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
children.

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.

Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
*encouraging* gay marriage.

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.

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.

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

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

[Sashank Varma]

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

In article <3d**************************@posting.google.com >,
mi**********@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote:

Joe Sixpack <co*********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<kg***********@192.168.1.75>...

I believe it was Mike Cox who said...

Children need a mom and a dad.

Prove it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523

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 methodologically
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.

[Rayiner Hashem]

> 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.

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.

[Daniel C. Wang]

Thant Tessman wrote:
{stuff deleted}

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.

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.

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.

[Joe Sixpack]

I believe it was Mike Cox who said...

Joe Sixpack <co*********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kg***********@192.168.1.75>...

I believe it was Mike Cox who said...

>
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children.
False.

100% true. There are more married couples who want to adopt children
then there are children available.

So?
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.
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?

> Children need a mom and a dad.

Prove it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523

""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.
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3654
Same.

> 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.

Prove it, homophobe.

How am I a homophobe?

Probably you are either a religous sheep, or you have questions about
your own sexuality.
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.
Of course they should.

> That is a very special
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.

Sperm donors.

Requires a man. Read the research about single parents.

We are not talking about single parents... why do you keep bringing
that up? We are talking about MARRIAGE, not single parents.

> 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.

Why?

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!

So what? That is not the definition of marriage, unless you want to
disclude anyone who cannot have children.

> I know it isn't fair,

Then why suggest it. idiot?

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.

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

Get a clue.
If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!
Completely off topic.
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.
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.

> but if gay men wanted
> to be married, they HAVE the right currently. They just need to find
> a woman to marry.

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.

No the goal posts have always been there.

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.
They have actually been
eased over time, rightly so in those cases. But allowing gay marriage
is different from allowing interacial couples from marring.
In what way?

> Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? To some it may not
> be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage!

Marriage is not a foundation of life.

It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
children.

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

>> 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.

Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
*encouraging* gay marriage.

The planet is NOT over-populated.

Of course it is.
Russia is losing its young as is
Europe.
So?
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.

A surplus of food is a good thing.

> 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.

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

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

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

[Simon Helsen]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Mike Cox wrote:

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.
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.
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3523

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...l.cfm?ID1=3654
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.
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.
If you beleive sweeping comments like "kids in a gay relationship have an
increased chance on higher drug usage", you obviously are homophobe.
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!
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?
Because some parts of life will be unfair do to either evolution or
nature. Men and Women are different biologically! That is why men
are required by LAW to register for the selective service and women
are not. If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!
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?
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.
But this implies that marriage is only there for biological procreation
and as many people have stated, it is not!
Discrimination on irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is
wrong because most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.
nor is marriage!
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.
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)
It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
children.
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.
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.
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...
Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly brainwashed
in school.

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

[John Bailo]

Mike Cox wrote:

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
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.
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

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

[Sean Russell]

Joe Sixpack <co*********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kg***********@192.168.1.75>...

Children need a mom and a dad.

Prove it.

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.

Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households.

We're not talking about single parent households.

Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children
have a mom and dad.

Prove it.

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
"heterosexual couples".

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.

Prove it, homophobe.

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!

Marriage is something between a man and woman.

And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
Luckily humankind evolves...except for overly religous types.

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.

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

Sperm donors.

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.

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.

Why?

Actually, Mike is mistaken here. In most states, marriage confers
upon the partners many benefits -- and responsibilities -- 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.

I know it isn't fair,

Then why suggest it. idiot?

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?

The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
both parties consent to it.

Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
*encouraging* gay marriage.

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).

[Kees van Reeuwijk]

Joe Sixpack <co*********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!

Completely off topic.

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

Hint. Hint.

[@(none)]

Sean Russell wrote:

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.

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

[David Feuer]

Sean Russell wrote:

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

WEll... So the law says. But that section of the law is prima facie
unconstitutional. 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

[Charles Fiterman]

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.

[Ray Dillinger]

David Feuer wrote:

Sean Russell wrote:

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

WEll... So the law says. But that section of the law is prima facie
unconstitutional. 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

I have often thought that when legislation is found in a court of law
to be unconstitutional, 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

[Shemp]

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" <re******@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:1gb7xsl.mo00pnp7ioquN%re******@few.vu.nl...

Joe Sixpack <co*********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!

Completely off topic.

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

Hint. Hint.