Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Sometimes stupid loses

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Sometimes stupid loses

 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2011
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:56:02 -0700, "Bill Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law that forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
>>>>>>>>>>>> concealed
>>>>>>>>>>>> firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
>>>>>>>>>>> might be
>>>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
>>>>>>>>>>> marriages
>>>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific
>>>>>>>>>>> and not include all the other things we are licensed for.
>>>>>>>>>>> "Umbrella" in that
>>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>>>>>>> understatement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
>>>>>>>>>> matter of
>>>>>>>>>> licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of
>>>>>>>>>> license and
>>>>>>>>>> *only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based
>>>>>>>>> on: recognition that the group was discriminated against by
>>>>>>>>> previous law and that discrimination on those grounds are
>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue.
>>>>>>> If a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything
>>>>>> else. There are state laws concerning marriage that have no
>>>>>> religious connection
>>>>>> whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
>>>>
>>>> How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom
>>>> of religion"?
>>>
>>> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
>>> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
>>> that freedom.

>>
>> Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding
>> bigamy infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many
>> wives as they wanted, and I would have to agree with you. Similarly,
>> I suppose Muslims' mutliple marriages would be forbidden in this
>> country. I am not aware that many people want the right to bigamy
>> allowed *and recognized* in this country, however.
>>
>> Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right to
>> create laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men
>> and women, on the basis that the people have some right to establish
>> reasonable and acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In
>> most localities you cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia
>> in public, relieve yourself on a public street, etc., even if you
>> follow some religion that regards such actions as proper and
>> desirable.
>>>
>>> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
>>> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.

>>
>> There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community makes
>> rules about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but the
>> community is not obliged to change its standards to make you happy.
>> This is especially true when it is *your* intention to infringe on
>> *their* reasonable standards of behavior, by forcing them to accept a
>> change that they don't want to accept.
>> This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom."
>> Those are just red herrings, and silly ones at that.

>
>Yes. Even though I intentionally break unenforceable laws, I would not drive
>around with a couple of hundred pounds of dynamite in the trunk of my car.
>Some laws are of an "advisory" nature rather than ones expected to be police
>enforced.


Not driving around with a couple hundred pounds of dynamite in your
trunk: it's not just a good idea - it's the law.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2011
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:25:21 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:eocgr69teg68liajc4aa5j5v1qskft7sjv@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:2nh3r65pv2grp6abs9hk3cpmehjr5pij4c@4 ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:um71r69fgc4psk4tsqmmiqrf9c8tjtl536 @4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:d170r6lhqivmq749ijdv7e8bs5glkp1p (E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>concealed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>surrounding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized
>>>>>>>>>>>> marriages
>>>>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>>>>>>>>understatement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
>>>>>>>>>>>matter
>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of
>>>>>>>>>>>license
>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>>>>>>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous
>>>>>>>>>> law
>>>>>>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No one is being discriminated against here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom issue. If
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious anything
>>>>>>>else.
>>>>>>>There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious
>>>>>>>connection
>>>>>>>whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate freedom of
>>>>>religion"?
>>>>
>>>> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
>>>> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does violate
>>>> that freedom.
>>>
>>>Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding bigamy
>>>infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many wives as they
>>>wanted, and I would have to agree with you. Similarly, I suppose Muslims'
>>>mutliple marriages would be forbidden in this country. I am not aware that
>>>many people want the right to bigamy allowed *and recognized* in this
>>>country, however.

>>
>> I think that bigamy (and polyandry too, if that's the right term)
>> should be legal too. Not my style but I don't begrudge anyone it works
>> for so long as everyone in it likes it. (The plural of 'spouse' is
>> 'spice', they say.) The whole one-man-one-woman thing is, I think, an
>> artifact of the early Christian dominance in this country.

>
>I doubt it. Except for those cultures that allow multiple wives, I think the
>traditional pairing off of one-man-one-woman really has little if anything
>to do with religion of any flavor. Religions have poked their noses into it
>and to a large extent expropriated it as far as official endorsement is
>concerned, but it's of such a practical nature (sharing household workload
>etc.) I think we'd still have pretty much the same thing if religions didn't
>exist.
>
>> When
>> religion in a country is a bit homogenous people tend to be a bit
>> blind as to what is universal and what is particular to their own
>> religion. As people become more aware of the diversity that exists,
>> corrections can be and are made.

>
>I still think it's traditional (family- and friends-related) behavior that
>seems pretty much the same with or without religion being in the mix.
>
>>
>>>Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right to
>>>create
>>>laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men and women,
>>>on
>>>the basis that the people have some right to establish reasonable and
>>>acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In most localities you
>>>cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia in public, relieve
>>>yourself
>>>on a public street, etc., even if you follow some religion that regards
>>>such
>>>actions as proper and desirable.

>>
>> Such actions have an effect on the general public so are reasonable to
>> regulate.

>
>Right. But of course in any community there are community values that one is
>more or less expected to conform to.
>
>>
>>>> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
>>>> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.
>>>
>>>There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community makes rules
>>>about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but the community is
>>>not
>>>obliged to change its standards to make you happy. This is especially true
>>>when it is *your* intention to infringe on *their* reasonable standards of
>>>behavior, by forcing them to accept a change that they don't want to
>>>accept.

>>
>> When enough of the community is aware of the inequities of an existing
>> law it can change.

>
>Again, you are hung up on the idea that there is some sort of "inequity"
>involved here.


Well, there is. A pair of adults who love each other should be able to
get married. Under current law not everyone can.

>>>This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom." Those
>>>are
>>>just red herrings, and silly ones at that.

>>
>> Not at all. What's silly is your insistence that things don't change,
>> and that people who don't currently enjoy the rights that others do
>> shouldn't. In both cases, they do.

>
>The rights are the same for all.


No, they're not. And you seem to be blind to that.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2011
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that forces
>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states provide for their
>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>
>>>>>What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry concealed
>>>>>firearms is not recognized in any of the three states surrounding mine.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There might be
>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states recognized marriages
>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific and not
>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for. "Umbrella" in that
>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>
>>>If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>understatement.
>>>
>>>And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the matter of
>>>licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type of license and
>>>*only* for the benefit of a single group?

>>
>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.

>
>No one is being discriminated against here.


Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.

>
>As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for the
>same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, not a man and
>a kitty/TV set/other man.


And this one.
>
>> This is discrimination rendering them
>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
>> suffrage amendments were.

>
>What you want is not equal rights under the law


And this one.

>This has been explained to you many times now.


And the nonsense of your positions to you.

>Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages were
>cantaloupes.
>

And this one.

Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out by
the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
wrong.

I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
you can convince yourself.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2011
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:00:28 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>John A. wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:25:21 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:34:17 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:54:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through state legislation. The only federal aspect is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an umbrella law that forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states to recognize the rights that other states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry concealed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a need for some federal law to ensure that states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognized marriages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed in other states. It could be marriage-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all the other things we are licensed for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Umbrella" in that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to all states, not all licenses and permits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> masterpiece of understatement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of license
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were
>>>>>>>>>>>> based on: recognition that the group was discriminated
>>>>>>>>>>>> against by previous law
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. They most certainly are. This is a religious freedom
>>>>>>>>>> issue. If a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has nothing to do with religious freedom or religious
>>>>>>>>> anything else.
>>>>>>>>> There are state laws concerning marriage that have no religious
>>>>>>>>> connection
>>>>>>>>> whatever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And those laws violate freedom of religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can laws with no religious connection whatever "violate
>>>>>>> freedom of religion"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it restricts which participants in a religious ritual will be
>>>>>> recognized by the state as having done so, it certainly does
>>>>>> violate that freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in any *reasonable* usage. You could say that laws forbidding
>>>>> bigamy infringed on 19th century Mormons' freedom to have as many
>>>>> wives as they wanted, and I would have to agree with you.
>>>>> Similarly, I suppose Muslims' mutliple marriages would be
>>>>> forbidden in this country. I am not aware that many people want
>>>>> the right to bigamy allowed *and recognized* in this country,
>>>>> however.
>>>>
>>>> I think that bigamy (and polyandry too, if that's the right term)
>>>> should be legal too. Not my style but I don't begrudge anyone it
>>>> works for so long as everyone in it likes it. (The plural of
>>>> 'spouse' is 'spice', they say.) The whole one-man-one-woman thing
>>>> is, I think, an artifact of the early Christian dominance in this
>>>> country.
>>>
>>> I doubt it. Except for those cultures that allow multiple wives, I
>>> think the traditional pairing off of one-man-one-woman really has
>>> little if anything to do with religion of any flavor. Religions have
>>> poked their noses into it and to a large extent expropriated it as
>>> far as official endorsement is concerned, but it's of such a
>>> practical nature (sharing household workload etc.) I think we'd
>>> still have pretty much the same thing if religions didn't exist.
>>>
>>>> When
>>>> religion in a country is a bit homogenous people tend to be a bit
>>>> blind as to what is universal and what is particular to their own
>>>> religion. As people become more aware of the diversity that exists,
>>>> corrections can be and are made.
>>>
>>> I still think it's traditional (family- and friends-related)
>>> behavior that seems pretty much the same with or without religion
>>> being in the mix.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Same-sex "marriage" is much the same thing. States have the right
>>>>> to create
>>>>> laws to protect the traditional civil arrangements between men and
>>>>> women, on
>>>>> the basis that the people have some right to establish reasonable
>>>>> and acceptable (read traditional) rules of behavior. In most
>>>>> localities you cannot walk around naked, expose your genitalia in
>>>>> public, relieve yourself
>>>>> on a public street, etc., even if you follow some religion that
>>>>> regards such
>>>>> actions as proper and desirable.
>>>>
>>>> Such actions have an effect on the general public so are reasonable
>>>> to regulate.
>>>
>>> Right. But of course in any community there are community values
>>> that one is more or less expected to conform to.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> A law does not have to mention a religion, or even religion in
>>>>>> general, to infringe on religious freedoms.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are certain kinds of behavior that the larger community
>>>>> makes rules about and/or restricts. This may make you unhappy, but
>>>>> the community is not
>>>>> obliged to change its standards to make you happy. This is
>>>>> especially true when it is *your* intention to infringe on *their*
>>>>> reasonable standards of behavior, by forcing them to accept a
>>>>> change that they don't want to accept.
>>>>
>>>> When enough of the community is aware of the inequities of an
>>>> existing law it can change.
>>>
>>> Again, you are hung up on the idea that there is some sort of
>>> "inequity" involved here.

>>
>> Well, there is. A pair of adults who love each other should be able to
>> get married. Under current law not everyone can.

>
>The same laws apply to all. That is as *equal* as you can get.


No, a law that treats all equally would be as equal as you can get.

>>>>> This has nothing to do with "equal rights" or "religious freedom."
>>>>> Those are
>>>>> just red herrings, and silly ones at that.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. What's silly is your insistence that things don't
>>>> change, and that people who don't currently enjoy the rights that
>>>> others do shouldn't. In both cases, they do.
>>>
>>> The rights are the same for all.

>>
>> No, they're not. And you seem to be blind to that.

>
>Yes, they are. And your repeated claim that they are not, which you cannot
>show after all this yakitayakitayakita, remains just so much hogwash.


Nope. It is your claim that a law that differentiates by sexual
orientation constitutes equal rights that is hogwash.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2011
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:36:48 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
>>>>>>>> forces states to recognize the rights that other states provide
>>>>>>>> for their citizens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
>>>>>>> concealed firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
>>>>>>> surrounding mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
>>>>>> might be a need for some federal law to ensure that states
>>>>>> recognized marriages performed in other states. It could be
>>>>>> marriage-specific and not include all the other things we are
>>>>>> licensed for. "Umbrella" in that it pertains to all states, not
>>>>>> all licenses and permits.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>> understatement.
>>>>>
>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
>>>>> matter of licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single
>>>>> type of license and *only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>
>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous law
>>>> and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>
>>> No one is being discriminated against here.

>>
>> Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.
>>
>>>
>>> As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for
>>> the same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman,
>>> not a man and a kitty/TV set/other man.

>>
>> And this one.
>>>
>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
>>>> suffrage amendments were.
>>>
>>> What you want is not equal rights under the law

>>
>> And this one.
>>
>>> This has been explained to you many times now.

>>
>> And the nonsense of your positions to you.
>>
>>> Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages
>>> were cantaloupes.
>>>

>> And this one.

>
>You have not refuted any of them, and cannot.
>
>Tell you what: as soon as you can show where any single one of them is
>wrong, I'll promptly drop that one. Then you can move on to the next, and so
>on.
>
>The fact that you cannot produce a single logical argument against any of
>them should tell you something, but apparently it does not. So you remain
>unhappy. That is neither my fault nor my problem.


Many of us have produced several logical arguments. You simply refuse
to admit that sometimes words of necessity do change meanings or scope
of application.

At this point I must say that you have not produced a single logical
argument that you even *believe* that the current (or not-so-current,
actually) dictionary definition of anything should limit who it can
ever legally apply to. I think it's fairly obvious that you simply do
not like gay people, fault them for what they are, and by way of
punishment don't want them to have the same rights as the rest of us.

>> Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out by
>> the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
>> with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
>> wrong.

>
>"Same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and being nonexistent has
>no power to "creep me out." It is sort of like "Cocker Spaniel kitten." Now
>*that* might very well creep me out, if there were such a thing.


You betray your true position here. You are so repulsed by the
prospect you are in denial that it can even be a real thing.

>> I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
>> about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
>> can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
>> concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
>> gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
>> you can convince yourself.

>
>It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
>understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not change
>with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that, you're most
>of the way home.


Or you could just stick you fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA!"

Works just as well.

>In only five of our states, most of them small liberal states in the
>northeast, and one city, all combined having only a very small portion of
>the country's population, and much of that population disagreeing with the
>change in definition anyway, has the meaning of "marriage" been changed,
>quite arbitrarily, to mean something different from what it has meant. In
>the vast majority of the rest of the world the meaning of "marriage" has not
>changed at all. In our own federal government it has not changed.


It goes beyond the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_...e-sex_marriage

And the question remains whether restricting marriage to heterosexuals
is constitutional.

>The question, then, is, not how can I convince myself of anything, but how
>can *you* convince yourself that the definition of "marriage" is other than
>what it is and has always been?


It's meaning is not changing, actually. Its scope of application is
changing. The male+female parts of what you see in old dictionaries
never really spoke to the meaning of the word but rather who was
generally referred to when the word was used. It's been used in the
context of inanimate objects, organizations, concepts, etc., so
expanding its scope merely among humans is really no big leap. If
there weren't people like you who simply don't like the people it's
being expanded to refer to there would be barely any notice of it
other than the occasional kid being puzzled by the entry in an old
dictionary.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2011
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:32:04 -0400, John A. <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>>It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
>>understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not change
>>with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that, you're most
>>of the way home.

>
>Or you could just stick you fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA!"


Funny, I thought of him doing the same thing and saying "Woo, woo,
woo". And that was before I read your post.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2011
On 4/29/2011 4:11 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Neil Harrington wrote:
> This is a racist country
>>> with a racist government that engages in racist practices and has all
>>> of my life. They single out special groups and either take away
>>> priviledges or give extra priviledges to them (you can't give extra
>>> priviledges to one group without taking them away from some other
>>> group.) We give special priviledges to Native Americans, Black
>>> people, heterasexuals, and many other groups. We prosecute crimes
>>> more heavily against some groups than others. Also, we don't even do
>>> a good job of it. We frequently leave it up to some clerk to decide
>>> who gets the priviledge and who doesn't based on appearance alone. It
>>> is one of the things I hate most about my country.

>>
>> There are planes leaving every day, but I doubt you will ever be
>> satisfied anywhere.
>>
>> You might want to try Iraq, now that we have "brought democracy" to
>> them.
>> <guffaw!>

>
> There is no place that is any better than here, unfortunately. And all
> the available land already belongs to someone, so there is no way I can
> start my own country. I was born about 300 years too late for that. But
> that doesn't stop me from bitching about it. It is possible to change
> it, you know. Maybe it will become less racist if there are enough
> people like me yapping about it.


If you had real courage of your convictions, you would walk in front of
the local police station waving your gun. When they arrest you, then
bring your claim that the gun law is unconstitutional as a defense. Do
it quick, while our Supreme Court is still largely conservative. Better
yet, carry it unloaded the next time you fly.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2011
On 4/29/2011 4:18 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
>>>>>>>>> forces states to recognize the rights that other states provide
>>>>>>>>> for their citizens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
>>>>>>>> concealed firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
>>>>>>>> surrounding mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
>>>>>>> might be a need for some federal law to ensure that states
>>>>>>> recognized marriages performed in other states. It could be
>>>>>>> marriage-specific and not include all the other things we are
>>>>>>> licensed for. "Umbrella" in that it pertains to all states, not
>>>>>>> all licenses and permits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>>> understatement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
>>>>>> matter of licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single
>>>>>> type of license and *only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>>
>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous
>>>>> law and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
>>>
>>> Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for
>>>> the same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman,
>>>> not a man and a kitty/TV set/other man.
>>>
>>> And this one.
>>>>
>>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
>>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
>>>>> suffrage amendments were.
>>>>
>>>> What you want is not equal rights under the law
>>>
>>> And this one.
>>>
>>>> This has been explained to you many times now.
>>>
>>> And the nonsense of your positions to you.
>>>
>>>> Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages
>>>> were cantaloupes.
>>>>
>>> And this one.

>>
>> You have not refuted any of them, and cannot.
>>
>> Tell you what: as soon as you can show where any single one of them is
>> wrong, I'll promptly drop that one. Then you can move on to the next,
>> and so on.
>>
>> The fact that you cannot produce a single logical argument against
>> any of them should tell you something, but apparently it does not. So
>> you remain unhappy. That is neither my fault nor my problem.
>>
>>>
>>> Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out
>>> by the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
>>> with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
>>> wrong.

>>
>> "Same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and being
>> nonexistent has no power to "creep me out." It is sort of like
>> "Cocker Spaniel kitten." Now *that* might very well creep me out, if
>> there were such a thing.
>>>
>>> I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
>>> about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
>>> can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
>>> concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
>>> gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
>>> you can convince yourself.

>>
>> It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
>> understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not
>> change with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that,
>> you're most of the way home.
>>
>> In only five of our states, most of them small liberal states in the
>> northeast, and one city, all combined having only a very small
>> portion of the country's population, and much of that population
>> disagreeing with the change in definition anyway, has the meaning of
>> "marriage" been changed, quite arbitrarily, to mean something
>> different from what it has meant. In the vast majority of the rest of
>> the world the meaning of "marriage" has not changed at all. In our
>> own federal government it has not changed.
>> The question, then, is, not how can I convince myself of anything,
>> but how can *you* convince yourself that the definition of "marriage"
>> is other than what it is and has always been?

>
> It isn't the definition that's the problem. Its the governments addition
> to the definition. They took what was a religious ritual, and put it
> into their form 1040 so there was a seperate tax table for marrieds., As
> soon as they did that, they left themselves open to other people who
> couldn't marry their significant others to bitch about it. What goes
> around comes around. Now, they have this big problem on their hands. A
> million or more gay couples are screaming to get, "Married", and whose
> fault is that?


What's wrong with that?

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2011
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:11:42 -0700, "Bill Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Neil Harrington wrote:
> This is a racist country
>>> with a racist government that engages in racist practices and has all
>>> of my life. They single out special groups and either take away
>>> priviledges or give extra priviledges to them (you can't give extra
>>> priviledges to one group without taking them away from some other
>>> group.) We give special priviledges to Native Americans, Black
>>> people, heterasexuals, and many other groups. We prosecute crimes
>>> more heavily against some groups than others. Also, we don't even do
>>> a good job of it. We frequently leave it up to some clerk to decide
>>> who gets the priviledge and who doesn't based on appearance alone. It
>>> is one of the things I hate most about my country.

>>
>> There are planes leaving every day, but I doubt you will ever be
>> satisfied anywhere.
>>
>> You might want to try Iraq, now that we have "brought democracy" to
>> them.
>> <guffaw!>

>
>There is no place that is any better than here, unfortunately. And all the
>available land already belongs to someone, so there is no way I can start my
>own country. I was born about 300 years too late for that. But that doesn't
>stop me from bitching about it. It is possible to change it, you know. Maybe
>it will become less racist if there are enough people like me yapping about
>it.


Lobby for more funding for space exploration, then. Maybe your
great-grandkids can found a new country on another planet or moon,
once such settlements can be self-sufficient.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2011
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:18:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Neil Harrington wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:49:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:44:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As changes are made, they will be state-by-state through state
>>>>>>>>> legislation. The only federal aspect is an umbrella law that
>>>>>>>>> forces states to recognize the rights that other states provide
>>>>>>>>> for their citizens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? My Connecticut permit to carry
>>>>>>>> concealed firearms is not recognized in any of the three states
>>>>>>>> surrounding mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. I should have added "need" in there. There
>>>>>>> might be a need for some federal law to ensure that states
>>>>>>> recognized marriages performed in other states. It could be
>>>>>>> marriage-specific and not include all the other things we are
>>>>>>> licensed for. "Umbrella" in that it pertains to all states, not
>>>>>>> all licenses and permits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's what you meant, "I wasn't clear" is a masterpiece of
>>>>>> understatement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And on what grounds would you make this radical change in the
>>>>>> matter of licenses and permits that applied *only* to a single
>>>>>> type of license and *only* for the benefit of a single group?
>>>>>
>>>>> Same general grounds women's & minorities' suffrage were based on:
>>>>> recognition that the group was discriminated against by previous
>>>>> law and that discrimination on those grounds are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No one is being discriminated against here.
>>>
>>> Oh, please stop with this blatant disingenuous nonsense.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As are people who wish to marry their kitty or their TV set, and for
>>>> the same reason: marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman,
>>>> not a man and a kitty/TV set/other man.
>>>
>>> And this one.
>>>>
>>>>> This is discrimination rendering them
>>>>> unequal under the law. An amendment is needed just as much as the
>>>>> suffrage amendments were.
>>>>
>>>> What you want is not equal rights under the law
>>>
>>> And this one.
>>>
>>>> This has been explained to you many times now.
>>>
>>> And the nonsense of your positions to you.
>>>
>>>> Wishful thinking on your part. You might as well wish that cabbages
>>>> were cantaloupes.
>>>>
>>> And this one.

>>
>> You have not refuted any of them, and cannot.
>>
>> Tell you what: as soon as you can show where any single one of them is
>> wrong, I'll promptly drop that one. Then you can move on to the next,
>> and so on.
>>
>> The fact that you cannot produce a single logical argument against
>> any of them should tell you something, but apparently it does not. So
>> you remain unhappy. That is neither my fault nor my problem.
>>
>>>
>>> Go for a honest defense of your position: You are just creeped out
>>> by the idea of same-sex marriages. That's OK. There's nothing wrong
>>> with having an aversion to something that you think is inherently
>>> wrong.

>>
>> "Same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and being
>> nonexistent has no power to "creep me out." It is sort of like
>> "Cocker Spaniel kitten." Now *that* might very well creep me out, if
>> there were such a thing.
>>>
>>> I, for one, would have more respect for you if you were just honest
>>> about your aversion and prejudice. I can understand that. What I
>>> can't understand is anyone seriously thinking they are against the
>>> concept because it changes the definition of a word or thinking that
>>> gays have equal rights in the marriage issue. I can't even see how
>>> you can convince yourself.

>>
>> It's incredibly easy. You could even do it yourself. All you have to
>> understand is that words mean things, and what they mean does not
>> change with every new fad that comes along. Once you've grasped that,
>> you're most of the way home.
>>
>> In only five of our states, most of them small liberal states in the
>> northeast, and one city, all combined having only a very small
>> portion of the country's population, and much of that population
>> disagreeing with the change in definition anyway, has the meaning of
>> "marriage" been changed, quite arbitrarily, to mean something
>> different from what it has meant. In the vast majority of the rest of
>> the world the meaning of "marriage" has not changed at all. In our
>> own federal government it has not changed.
>> The question, then, is, not how can I convince myself of anything,
>> but how can *you* convince yourself that the definition of "marriage"
>> is other than what it is and has always been?

>
>It isn't the definition that's the problem. Its the governments addition to
>the definition. They took what was a religious ritual, and put it into their
>form 1040 so there was a seperate tax table for marrieds., As soon as they
>did that, they left themselves open to other people who couldn't marry their
>significant others to bitch about it. What goes around comes around. Now,
>they have this big problem on their hands. A million or more gay couples are
>screaming to get, "Married", and whose fault is that?


The people who wouldn't let them marry before. This is a correction,
not a problem.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Sometimes stupid loses tony cooper Digital Photography 614 05-12-2011 02:11 AM
Re: Sometimes stupid loses PeterN Digital Photography 112 05-12-2011 02:10 AM
Re: Sometimes stupid loses PeterN Digital Photography 14 04-28-2011 12:45 PM
Re: Sometimes stupid loses tony cooper Digital Photography 2 03-25-2011 08:12 AM
Re: Sometimes stupid loses charles Digital Photography 2 03-24-2011 12:18 PM



Advertisments