"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> writes:
I am still stucj on why "natural" is even a good foundation for legislation.

Well, that's a good point.
We humans are the enathema of natural.

This, I disagree with. We are part of nature, thus we are natural by
definition. We behave (like other life) in ways that increase our
comfort and productivity.
Nothing else we legislate is based on the natural order. Our very survival has been based on the attempt to subjugate nature, from cars to belching industry.

You say "subjugate" I say "take advantage of." Sure we've abused the
earth. We may even abuse the earth enough to cause our own
extinction. But this isn't "unnatural." Most species will keep
breeding until overcrowding causes an increase in disease, predation,
or shortages of food. We've just been a bit more successful at this
strategy than some other life forms.
Laws themselves are not natural.

Depends on what you mean by natural. Other animals have social
customs. Laws are codifications of social customs.
The concept of a basic human right is different from everything else we can observe about nature. I would still like to know why one would need to argue what is and isn't natural, since it seems a poor thing on which to base legislation.

Especially since we almost never know what we mean by "natural." See,
for example, Tony's inability to do anything other than talk in
circles about it.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nn3c9iljem.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> writes: I am still stucj on why "natural" is even a good foundation for legislation. Well, that's a good point. We humans are the enathema of natural. This, I disagree with. We are part of nature, thus we are natural by definition. We behave (like other life) in ways that increase our comfort and productivity. Nothing else we legislate is based on the natural order. Our very survival has been based on the attempt to subjugate nature, from cars to belching industry. You say "subjugate" I say "take advantage of." Sure we've abused the earth. We may even abuse the earth enough to cause our own extinction. But this isn't "unnatural." Most species will keep breeding until overcrowding causes an increase in disease, predation, or shortages of food. We've just been a bit more successful at this strategy than some other life forms. Laws themselves are not natural. Depends on what you mean by natural. Other animals have social customs. Laws are codifications of social customs. The concept of a basic human right is different from everything else we can observe about nature. I would still like to know why one
would need to argue what is and isn't natural, since it seems a poor thing on which to base legislation. Especially since we almost never know what we mean by "natural." See, for example, Tony's inability to do anything other than talk in circles about it.

OK, I do not agree with you on how far we do or do not seapate or attempt to
separate ourselves from nature. But I will move to a new thought. I can
think of a decent definition of natural for this discussion. Natural is
defined as that which is observable in nature. But that would not suit
Tony's ideas.

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> writes:
OK, I do not agree with you on how far we do or do not seapate or attempt to separate ourselves from nature. But I will move to a new thought. I can think of a decent definition of natural for this discussion. Natural is defined as that which is observable in nature.

You realize that isn't a definition until you say what you mean by "in
nature." I include human beings (along with all other animals) as
being part of nature. None of the things which human beings do that
some call "unnatural" are unique to human beings. Other animals
build, harness other species to their needs, pollute, engage in
self-destructive behavior, etc.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
I'm done with you on this thread Doug. I won't be responding to anything else you write.

That makes sense. You no longer have an answer to any of my points,
and have started insulting me instead.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
I'm done with you on this thread Doug. I won't be responding to anything else you write.

This makes sense. This happened last time. You asked me what the
social benefits of allowing gay marriage were; I answered, and then
you had no response.

But since you've also started insulting me in this thread, I have no
objection if you wish to cease responding.

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: I'm done with you on this thread Doug. I won't be responding to anything else you write. That makes sense. You no longer have an answer to any of my points, and have started insulting me instead.

Methinks thou doth protest too much, old chap.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc2v4m7.phh.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:09:01 GMT, JWB <nospam1143@noplace.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <Lost In Time@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:S6DXb.4342$WW3.3612@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I put the article in here for those few who wouldn't bother to check it out (e.g.: Doug, et al). Good reference, Tony. It's homophobic ranting for the simple minded and easily led. No wonder
you like it. It's easier to call names than to adress points logically, isn't it.

Like it's easier to post links to someone else's thoughts when asked for an
opinion?

Yea, you sure addressed points logically. Search - cut - paste - post

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:09:01 GMT, JWB <nospam1143@noplace.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <Lost In Time@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:S6DXb.4342$WW3.3612@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I put the article in here for those few who wouldn't bother to check it out (e.g.: Doug, et al). Good reference, Tony. It's homophobic ranting for the simple minded and easily led. No wonder you like it. It's easier to call names than to adress points logically, isn't it.

There are no points to address logically there. The article makes no
logical points, advances no evidence, cites no social science, etc.
It just makes assertions from a conservative homophobic stance.

Tony Miller wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:09:01 GMT, JWB <nospam1143@noplace.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <Lost In Time@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:S6DXb.4342$WW3.3612@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I put the article in here for those few who wouldn't bother to check it out (e.g.: Doug, et al). Good reference, Tony. It's homophobic ranting for the simple minded and easily led. No wonder you like it. It's easier to call names than to address points logically, isn't it.

For the simple minded, it appears to be. LOL.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
Why should I come up with something "original". As far as I'm concerned, these old arguments

But Tony, there aren't any arguments there, just various assertions.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc304vt.2s9.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:47:46 GMT, JWB
so is that your take on gay behavior? Yes it is.


Do you think people can "choose" to be gay or not? Or that a gay person can
"turn" a child "gay"?

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this? I agree with the author of the articla. I don't need "thoughts of my own". They've all been said before. How about trying to counter the arguments (if you can). Otherwise don't. No skin off my nose either way.

But Tony, your "argument" basically leads off with a definition of marriage
as being between a man and a woman. Sorry, but that's a man-made definition,
about as unchangeable as, say, labor laws, which are subject to change as
society changes what is acceptable.

In other words, there's no real point to counter. If you feel different,
find me a point to counter and I'll do so.

You (or the article) are not telling me *why* it's better for society to
have *just* a man/woman marriage. Your argument basically boils down to
"it's just better this way, that's why".

If you feel society as a whole benefits from man/woman marriage for reasons
of security and stability, given that gays make up about 10% of the
population, you almost *have* to believe that gay marriage/union benefit
society in the same way. If you don't, can you please explain exactly why,
in your own words?

Unless you're against gays in general. That's all the explanation required,
then.

Are you?

JWB

The article sounds quite logical to me eventough it sometimes
exaggerates....

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:AjNXb.39935$jk2.88890@attbi_s53... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:09:01 GMT, JWB <nospam1143@noplace.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <Lost In Time@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:S6DXb.4342$WW3.3612@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> I put the article in here for those few who wouldn't bother to check
it out> (e.g.: Doug, et al). Good reference, Tony.> It's homophobic ranting for the simple minded and easily led. No
wonder you like it. It's easier to call names than to adress points logically, isn't it. There are no points to address logically there. The article makes no logical points, advances no evidence, cites no social science, etc. It just makes assertions from a conservative homophobic stance.

"Michael Schudel" <michael.schudel@gmx.ch> writes:
A true word!!! I agree.

Since you are responding to old posts, I reference my old response to it.

"Michael Schudel" <michael.schudel@gmx.ch> writes:
The article sounds quite logical to me eventough it sometimes exaggerates....

It may sound "logical" to you, but it is simply opinion and bible
references.