Karen Y Byrd wrote:
> Sure he can offer an opinion. But where folks differ is just how
> legitmate his opinion is.
Anyone who thinks his opinion wasn't legitimate need only read the
recently handed down SC opinion, especially the dissents...
Santorum's comments were validated completely. Anyone who argues
otherwise simply isn't being honest.
--
--
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:32:34 -0400
Me wrote:
>Dumping toxic waste in your back yard would more
>than likely cause harm to other individuals because the >chemicals from the waste
would run off into other areas that >do not belong to you.
Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture by refusing to draw a line
between right and wrong.
--
[Social programs are] the least inflationary, most productive kind of government
spending...Government funds spent on poor people go directly into purchasing the
necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter - thus subsidizing production and
employment in those basic industries. - Danny Collum
root@no-spam wrote:
> In phl.media Ric <riccardo@no-spam> wrote:
> : I understand people have prejudices and other baggage to carry with them
> : through life. As long as they keep these repugnant ideas to themselves, I
> : don't mind. Unfortunately some radical bigots think it shoud be in everyones
> : faces, and this is what upsets me.
>
> I found this interesting. Liberals really have no idea why non-liberals
> feel the way they do, and grab for a multitude of possible causes ---
> prejudices, baggage, hate.
What choice do we have when so few "non-liberals" fail to give any good,
specific, detailed support for their beliefs?
> The fact is that the core reason for non-liberal values in such things
> is because God says it is wrong, and if you don't believe there is a
> God, such beliefs are unfathomable. Of course, the great multitude of
> people who do believe also must be confusing.
Faith-based foreign policy, folks! Facts are irrelevant.
Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
> In article <srhi-BCEE97.10101529062003@no-spam>,
> Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>You Republicans got all bent out of shape because Clinton said he didn't
>>have sex with Monica Lewinsky,
> "Said" is not really the right word there. He lied under oath, in a
> dishonest attempt to influence the outcome of the Paula Jones lawsuit,
> and then suborned perjury from Monica Lewinsky and Betty Curie in an
> attempt to disguise his earlier perjury.
As it turns out, the evidence is clear that Clinton did not suborn
perjury. Yet apparently this is still believed.
Aaron
source: _The Clinton Wars_ by Sidney Blumenthal, page 354 (look in the
index (p. 814) under "Lewinsky scandal, suborning perjury charges" for
other pages) and page 396
I am certain one could find other sources on the Internet, but I am not
going to right now.
Paul wrote:
>
>
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
>> In article <3F021A11.84E72B28@no-spam>,
>> Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture by refusing
>>> to draw a line between right and wrong.
>> How does what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their bedroom
>> affect you or anybody else?
> Well let's just grab a few of the simple ones off the shelf...
>
> What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom can AND DOES lead to
> the spread of disease that threatens the general public's health driving
> up health care costs as a disproportionate amount of resources are
> needed to combat those illnesses. It can AND DOES result in unintended
> pregnancy which leaves lives shattered for those not equipped to deal
> with them it and that in turn leads to increased demand on society to
> provide for the needs of those involved. It can AND DOES result in the
> breaking of legal and social contracts, know to some as marriages, the
> dissolution of families and the myriad costs and burdens to society that
> result from that.
>
> How are those for starters?
You're right, Paul, time to BAN SEX except under strictly controlled
disease-free chronic marital conditions. In fact, socially, we can't
afford otherwise. This should also boost any police recruitment drives,
thanks to the much more interesting work to be done as an officer. Victory!
Also, if the free-market system decrees that the country needs more
kids, no birth control. Less, then on with the birth control. Also, if
through some miracle (but surely through the fault of the worker), the
free-market capitalist system has failed to provide them with
outstanding wages, required birth control, nay, no sex, between marital
couples earning below a set amount (note: I got that idea from Republicans).
Sign me up!
So if homosexual marriage is allowed, and the couple is disease-free and
not breaking up any sort of marriage or family, then you would be in
favor, right, Paul? We don't even need to discuss unwanted pregnancies.
Aaron
(Underneath Paul's rhetoric are a lot of causes working at cross-purposes.)
Paul wrote:
> One would think that simply looking around and seeing the rates of
> violent crime, homicide, rape, the rampant spread of STDs, tens of
> millions of unplanned pregnancies, abortions, chronic substance abuse
> problems etc. etc. etc. anyone could see that there's nothing metaphoric
> about it. Just as we'd demand laws to prevent the harm resulting from
> dumping of toxic waste in someone's backyard, failing to draw
> distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad behavior leads to
> exactly the same result...
>
> Social, cultural and physical decay & death.
>
> Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
>
On a serious note, I think Paul does discuss a very real phobia of his,
and anyone working for civil rights for all people must at least work to
overcome it.
(The phobia is real, if not the underpinning backing up the reasoning.)
Paul wrote:
>
>
> Me wrote:
>
>> But the issue that Santorum spoke about was a sex act between
>> consenting adults in private.
>
>
> No it was not.
>
> The issue Santorum spoke to is whether the SC should intervene is a
> issue the state has traditional held sway in and in doing so establish
> new federal law.
Seems to be a basic disagreement over what exactly Santorum said. This
should be easy to rectify in the Internet age, right?
I can't speak about who's right about what Santorum was speaking about
(I'm sure someone can find the direct quotes), and whether Scalia said
he that anti-sodomy laws are "silly" (which, if his "homosexual agenda"
remarks are any indication, he did not). That's someone else's job for now.
The state has NOT recently had sway in civil rights cases.
And besides, what does a state have jurisdiction over? Surely not its
election laws, according to a majority of the Supreme Court. No, that's
not a state issue (or maybe in Gore v. Bush, just this once it's not!).
Let's say a state decides to allow homosexual couples to marry. I guess
that's a state issue as well? Is it? I want an answer to that one! Oh,
right, there's the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that some
Republicans and Democrats want to become a Constitutional amendment. I
guess no states' rights there! Can homosexual couples have sex together?
No states' rights there, apparently, but many Republicans want that to
be a state issue. What is going on here?
Well, now, nothing wrong with picking and choosing, *I guess*, but I
feel that this is a civil rights issue, and I believe that that falls
under Federal jurisdiction.
Aaron
(A lot of Democrats supported the Defense of Marriage Act, by the way)
Me wrote:
> You missed the point as clearly as Santorum has. The point is that the
> government has no business interfering in the private decisions that we
> make. Do you want the government telling you what you can do with a
> consenting adult in your bedroom and literally watching you do it, as
> was the case in Texas? That's the problem, not Santorum's objection to
> a homosexual lifestyle.
Hmmmmm, world of no rules??? Sounds like anarchy to me.
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> In article <3F05C927.BB451742@no-spam>,
> Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" wrote:
> >
> > > Alcohol use causes liver disease, heart disease, neurological disorders,
> > > fetal alcohol syndrome and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
> >
> > Which is why we have some rules to restrict its abuse.
>
> What restrictions? Aside from banning its sale to and use by minors,
> and aside from a few states circumscribing its sale, there are no
> rules restricting alcohol abuse.
Debateable
>
>
> > > Smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, respiratory illnesses, heart disease,
> > > birth defects and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
> >
> > Which is why we have some rules to restrict it.
>
> Again, what restrictions? There are even fewer restrictions on the
> sale of tobacco than on alcohol.
Gee most products don't have a whole agency to govern its use. ATF
>
>
> > > So by your reasoning we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco
> >
> > So by common sense we should restrict immoral sexual behaviors the same we
> > restrict other immoral behaviors that drive up health care costs.
>
> I note that you carefully edited out my argument about overeating and
> junk food. You had no comeback to that, did you?
Hey eat all the Mc Griddles you please.....
>
>
> > > If the law didn't place obstacles in the way of distributing birth control
> > > or in obtaining abortions
> >
> > So to solve the problem of births out of wedlock, we should practice
> > infanticide
>
> It's only infanticide to the fanatics who want to outlaw it for
> religious reasons.
Well you could keep your pants on..........
>
>
> > instead of simply trying to cut back on the behaviors that lead to
> > births out of wedlock. What a silly solution. We should strive to prevent a
> > problem from existing, not address it after it exists by using a solution that
> > creates worse problems.
>
> There's a difference between trying to discourage behaviors that cause
> health problems and banning them by law.
> --
> D.F. Manno
> dommanno@no-spam
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
I like liberty, but if you want no hold bared we will be like Somaila or Liberia...
Tiger wrote:
> Hmmm, so I wish to have a romantic relationship with a Sheepdog or keep a Meth lab
> in the basement for personal use thats cool too??? I'll use a pooper scooper to
> stop the run off. I think this how Rome started going down hill........
>
Sheepdog yes, meth lab no.
Meth labs tend to blow,....
Training your sheepdog to do so might be tricky ;)
--
Best regards,
A.N.
"I am a man of constant sorrow
I've seen trouble all my day."
In article <beeglr$g4p$1@no-spam>,
Paul <send_it_to@no-spam> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > So you're saying it's wrong because people say it's wrong. You're
> > arguing in circles.
>
> You're argument is asinine. EVERY law, every legislative action we have
> on the books is based on someone's saying something is right or wrong.
Usually when you want to make something illegal, you give reasons for
doing so. Saying that something should be illegal because it's wrong
is a tautology.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:38:08 -0400
Me wrote:
> No, but you are changing the subject.
The subject was how activities of people in their bedroom affected other people. I
provided numerous examples to show that it did so affect other people. This is
hardly changing the subject, but instead I answered your question directly.
> We are talking about an action between two consenting adults.
So you're changing the subject from one of "It's my house. I can do what I want" to
"Two people agree to it. They should be allowed to do it." So, again, if two people
consent to beat puppies or do research on toxic chemicals or live in a house filled
with filth and bugs or open a house of prostitution, these are all fine by you?
> As long as the prostitution is conducted in the house and none of the neighbors'
> rights are violated, I have no problem with that.
Okay. Just checking to see if you were in favor of an immoral society and it sounds
like you're all for the use of women as sex objects and a lack of respect for
healthy relationships.
> The reality is that prostitution is illegal in most parts of the United States and
> it is illegal for all classes of people, not just homosexuals.
So what are you doing to overturn these laws that are such an abomination to you?
> > If your neighbor decides to torture puppies in the privacy >of his house, I
> guess that's alright?
>
> Of course not. There are laws against torturing animals.
But by your logic such rules should not exist because
A) the person is in the privacy of their home
B) all people involved consent to the activity
> Those laws also apply equally to all people in society, not just homosexuals.
And some of the sodomy laws applied to all people as well, not just homosexuals.
What's your point? Who's singling out homosexuals here?
> Hah! In my previous residence, the neighbor below me did engage in smuggling, but
> it was electronic goods, not weapons. Either way, smuggling is illegal for all
> classes of people, not just homosexuals.
But by your logic it should be legal because:
A) It's in the privacy of his house
B) The people in the house consent to it
The only people who don't consent are other members of society - the same people who
don't consent to the presence of sodomy in their community as well.
> Smuggling also causes harm to individuals outside the smugglers' home, but
> committing an act of sodomy harms no one outside the home.
It harms society at large.Arms smuggling, OTOH, could be helping a repressed group
against a dictatorship. What if someone had been smuggling arms into Afghanistan to
help a revolt against the Taliban? How is this more wrong than conducting immoral
activity?
> > If your neigbhor decides never to clean his house and it >becomes a breeding
> ground for ants, termites and other >pests, by golly, that's his right.
>
> Again, not comparable to a sex act in private between two consenting adults.
Why? By your logic, it's okay since
A) It's in the privacy of his house
B) All people in the house consent
The only people who don't consent are those who live next door - who may also not
consent to sodomy in their community. Why can they have a say about the one and not
the other?
> Live next door to a neighbor like this sometime and you'll see that his actions do
> impact you and your other neighbors and that will happen regardless of your
> neighbor's sexual preference.
What does sexual preference have to do with this?
> > If your neighbor decides to drunk to excess and beat his >wife in the privacy of
> house, I'm not that thrilled you'll >support his right to do what he wants.
>
> Of course not. An unwilling individual is being asaulted. I do not condone
> assault.
But what if she does consent? After all, many victims of abuse forgive and return to
the abusing situation.
> Yet again, you pose a situation that has nothing at
> all to do with the discussion at hand.
Good bloody lord, can't you morons read?
You asked "How does what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their bedroom
affect you or anybody else?" I"m giving you examples. If you're too blind to see
this, I really worry about your ability to follow a logical discussion.
> > Face it - just being in the "privacy of your house" entitles >you to no special
> benefits.
>
> Sure it does, provided the individuals in that room are not hurting anyone else
You people just keep adding on more disclaimers. You start off by claiming that
privacy is enough - then admit it isn't and add on other conditions like whether
people consent and whether it hurts others. Well, alot of people certainly are hurt
by the perpetuation of immoral activity, whether it be animal abuse, spousal abuse,
prostitution, slavery, pollution or sodomy. And ALOT of people don't consent to the
presence of these things in their community.
>None of your examples involves legal acts between two >consenting adults with no
legal impediments based purely >on sexual orientation.
A) Some of the sodomy laws were not based on sexual orientation
B) I was wondering to your question about whether the affairs of people in their
bedroom affects anybody else. You did not ask about legal acts between two
consenting adults with no impediments based purely on sexual orientation. If you
want to change the topic, fine.
C) Up till now, those acts were not legal in some states. So an argument based on
"legal acts between two consenting adults" falls short, especially when the question
involves whether those acts should be legal. It's like claiming slavery was okay
because it was legal. It wasn't okay. It's like claiming segregation or the lack of
equal rights for women or pollution is okay because it is/was legal. It's a pathetic
argument to claim something should be legal because...it's legal.
--
Freddie Patek, asked how it feels to be the smallest player in major league
baseball: "A heck of a lot better than being the smallest player in the minors"
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:41:21 -0400
Me wrote:
> But the rates of violent crime, homicide, rape, etc. are all falling.
Is that still true? I thought crime was taking an uptick now that the Bush regime
has started its policy of creating more poor Americans and inciting violence
worldwide. Do you have any recent statistics? I may well be wrong.
--
Freddie Patek, asked how it feels to be the smallest player in major league
baseball: "A heck of a lot better than being the smallest player in the minors"
i'm from north of here wrote:
>>The inability of the fetus to live independent of the mother.
>
>
> Eventually, medical science will create an artificial womb. Then a fetus
> will be able to live independtly of its mother. What will your standard then
> be? I think you need to do a lot better.
Here's my prediction:
Long before an artificial womb is created science will perfect a safe
reliable male contraceptive along the lines of the birth control pill.
When that happens, and it's a lot close than many people realize with
some suggesting within the next ten years, and women no long have sole
control over reproduction, birth rates are going to plummet to
unimaginable levels, the impact on society will be enormous and there
will be a major shift in attitudes that will lead to outlawing of
abortion and strict regulation if not bans on birth control...
And it'll be those who currently call themselves "pro-choice" will be
leading the charge.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0