Article on gay and single parenting [Archive]

Tony Miller

03-07-2004, 08:20 PM

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB
<bc00973@ace.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com... And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are children under 16 in the house. I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce, i don't see it as anyone's business but their own.

That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're about to
take is important. And the problem with it being "anyone's business but
thier own" it becomes someone else's business when one partner becomes
unreasonable, and the other partner asks for the force of law to help
clear it up. Like any other contract.

I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, a car
lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front going into
it (at least that's the plan).

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Doug Anderson

03-07-2004, 08:38 PM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
You mean JWB has intolerant views? Perhaps. I hadn't noticed. Intolerant of what? Of people *daring* to disagree...

Do you know him in real life? I haven't seen evidence of that here.

Joy

03-07-2004, 08:41 PM

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB <bc00973@ace.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com... And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are children
under 16 in the house. I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would just make
it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce, i don't see it as anyone's business but their own. That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're about to take is important. And the problem with it being "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other partner asks for the force of law to help clear it up. Like any other contract. I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front going into it (at least that's the plan).

I'd like it to be harder to get INTO than a car lease. I think that would
result in a lot more thought up front going into it.

Andre Lieven

03-07-2004, 09:20 PM

"JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2gf7q$86f$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2g96l$l27$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... ( Things that JWB snipped out, to *avoid* appearing more absurd )> Now, get professional mental health care for your NetCop delusions... I love it when angry, bitter people tell others to get professional help. LOL ! Thanks for showing us all that you view anger as being *bad*. Of course, its not, and its, in fact, the impetus behind fighting all forms of injustice... As for " bitter ", that looks that way only through Feminised glasses... Sure I can.

't...
I stated that gay's can make fine parents.

No, you said that *one gay person you know*, is a good parent.

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

Apparently you cannot tell the difference between the two...

And, in trying to insanely extrapolate *one person*, you offer NO
*proof*...

Thus, your claim stands... *empty*...

So, *nothing for me to refute*, at all...
You haven't said much save stuff akin to "no they can't",

Nope. I said, YOUR positive claim, YOUR burden to prove...
which only works in a Monty Python skit.

Which is where you get your " debating " skills from...

Now, when you have PROOF that gay " marriage " is good *for
children and society*, DO let us know...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-07-2004, 09:31 PM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: You mean JWB has intolerant views? Perhaps. I hadn't noticed. Intolerant of what? Of people *daring* to disagree... Do you know him in real life? I haven't seen evidence of that here.

Well, your blindness isn't exactly news...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Bill in Co.

03-07-2004, 10:03 PM

Doug Anderson wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: You mean JWB has intolerant views? Perhaps. I hadn't noticed. Intolerant of what? Of people *daring* to disagree... Do you know him in real life? I haven't seen evidence of that here.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Geeeez.

JWB

03-07-2004, 10:44 PM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2gvrh$g09$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2gf7q$86f$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message > news:c2g96l$l27$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > > ( Things that JWB snipped out, to *avoid* appearing more absurd ) > >> Now, get professional mental health care for your NetCop
delusions... > > I love it when angry, bitter people tell others to get professional > help. LOL ! Thanks for showing us all that you view anger as being *bad*. Of course, its not, and its, in fact, the impetus behind fighting all forms of injustice... As for " bitter ", that looks that way only through Feminised glasses... Sure I can. 't... I stated that gay's can make fine parents. No, you said that *one gay person you know*, is a good parent. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " Apparently you cannot tell the difference between the two... And, in trying to insanely extrapolate *one person*, you offer NO *proof*... Thus, your claim stands... *empty*... So, *nothing for me to refute*, at all... You haven't said much save stuff akin to "no they can't", Nope. I said, YOUR positive claim, YOUR burden to prove... which only works in a Monty Python skit. Which is where you get your " debating " skills from... Now, when you have PROOF that gay " marriage " is good *for children and society*, DO let us know... Andre

My statement was obviously an opinion. Nowhere did I make any "claims".

You *wasted* all those *'s and "'s (not to mention the caps) *trying* to
REFUTE ME, which *didn't* MATTER because I *stated* an "opinion", one which
so RILED your *tiny* mind that you carefully STRUCTURED your post with *all
sorts* of "things" to make your "points" stand OUT.

I "must" say, you look *very* SILLY doing such.

Philip Lewis

03-07-2004, 11:55 PM

Doug Anderson

03-08-2004, 12:01 AM

"Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> writes:
Your anecdotal 'evidence' backing your opinion didn't impress much - neither does your attempt to divert attention from the exposed (by Andre) weakness of your argument by attacking your opponents writing style as oposed to it's content. ;-o)

He made no argument, nor did he claim to. It was Andre's confusion to
believe that the anecdote JWB presented was presented as anything
other than his experience, and then to give a hostile contemptuous
reply to that.

Philip Lewis

03-08-2004, 12:28 AM

--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote
in message
news:rLV2c.202926$uV3.818737@attbi_s51...
| "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com>
writes:
|
| > Your anecdotal 'evidence' backing your
| > opinion didn't impress much - neither
does
| > your attempt to divert attention from the
| > exposed (by Andre) weakness of your
argument
| > by attacking your opponents writing style
as
| > oposed to it's content. ;-o)
|
| He made no argument, nor did he claim to.
| It was Andre's confusion to
| believe that the anecdote JWB presented was
presented as anything
| other than his experience, and then to give
a hostile contemptuous
| reply to that.

JWB's own responses do not back up your
defence of his position for example he said
Message-ID:
<lvP2c.25234$Wo2.15566@twister.nyc.rr.com>
'Sure I can. I stated that gay's can make
fine parents.'

Now that sounds like a claim to me - and his
offering of anecdotal evidence was his
'argument' to support that claim.

Phil

Doug Anderson

03-08-2004, 12:30 AM

"Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> writes:
-- Phil THE mens movement website:- http://www.angryharry.com/ "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rLV2c.202926$uV3.818737@attbi_s51... | "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> writes: | | > Your anecdotal 'evidence' backing your | > opinion didn't impress much - neither does | > your attempt to divert attention from the | > exposed (by Andre) weakness of your argument | > by attacking your opponents writing style as | > oposed to it's content. ;-o) | | He made no argument, nor did he claim to. | It was Andre's confusion to | believe that the anecdote JWB presented was presented as anything | other than his experience, and then to give a hostile contemptuous | reply to that. JWB's own responses do not back up your defence of his position for example he said Message-ID: <lvP2c.25234$Wo2.15566@twister.nyc.rr.com> 'Sure I can. I stated that gay's can make fine parents.' Now that sounds like a claim to me - and his offering of anecdotal evidence was his 'argument' to support that claim.

But all a claim like "gays can make fine parents" requires is one
example. He gave one. He never claimed "all gays are fine parents"
or anything of the sort.

If I say some cats can climb trees, all I need to do to demonstrate
that is to show a single cat which can climb trees.

Philip Lewis

03-08-2004, 04:17 AM

Ignoramus10668

03-08-2004, 05:30 AM

In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB<bc00973@ace.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com... And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are children under 16 in the house. I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce, i don't see it as anyone's business but their own. That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're about to take is important. And the problem with it being "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other partner asks for the force of law to help clear it up. Like any other contract. I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front going into it (at least that's the plan).

As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of.

I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make
people any happier.

i

JWB

03-08-2004, 07:54 AM

JWB

03-08-2004, 07:58 AM

"Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2harv$1t8ofa$1@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de... -- Phil THE mens movement website:- http://www.angryharry.com/ "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rLV2c.202926$uV3.818737@attbi_s51... | "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> writes: | | > Your anecdotal 'evidence' backing your | > opinion didn't impress much - neither does | > your attempt to divert attention from the | > exposed (by Andre) weakness of your argument | > by attacking your opponents writing style as | > oposed to it's content. ;-o) | | He made no argument, nor did he claim to. | It was Andre's confusion to | believe that the anecdote JWB presented was presented as anything | other than his experience, and then to give a hostile contemptuous | reply to that. JWB's own responses do not back up your defence of his position for example he said Message-ID: <lvP2c.25234$Wo2.15566@twister.nyc.rr.com> 'Sure I can. I stated that gay's can make fine parents.' Now that sounds like a claim to me - and his offering of anecdotal evidence was his 'argument' to support that claim.

The can make fine parents. It's my opinion. If you disagree, let's see some
of your evidence why. You state I supplied mine - you say it's weak. Fine.
But at least I supplied something. You haven't supplied squat.

Andre Lieven

03-08-2004, 08:13 AM

"JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2gvrh$g09$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2gf7q$86f$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes:> > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> > news:c2g96l$l27$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> >> > ( Things that JWB snipped out, to *avoid* appearing more absurd )> >> >> Now, get professional mental health care for your NetCop delusions...> >> > I love it when angry, bitter people tell others to get professional> > help.>> LOL ! Thanks for showing us all that you view anger as being *bad*.>> Of course, its not, and its, in fact, the impetus behind fighting> all forms of injustice...>> As for " bitter ", that looks that way only through Feminised> glasses... Sure I can. 't... I stated that gay's can make fine parents. No, you said that *one gay person you know*, is a good parent. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " Apparently you cannot tell the difference between the two... And, in trying to insanely extrapolate *one person*, you offer NO *proof*... Thus, your claim stands... *empty*... So, *nothing for me to refute*, at all... You haven't said much save stuff akin to "no they can't", Nope. I said, YOUR positive claim, YOUR burden to prove... which only works in a Monty Python skit. Which is where you get your " debating " skills from... Now, when you have PROOF that gay " marriage " is good *for children and society*, DO let us know... Andre My statement was obviously an opinion. Nowhere did I make any "claims".

Non sequitur. " No one is entitled to their opinion. They are only
entitled to an *informed* opinion. " Harlan Ellison.

You just... *flunked*. Due to your *ignorance*. QED.
You *wasted* all those *'s and "'s (not to mention the caps) *trying* to REFUTE ME, which *didn't* MATTER because I *stated* an "opinion", one which

Was *devoid of facts*...
so RILED your *tiny* mind that you carefully STRUCTURED your post with *all sorts* of "things" to make your "points" stand OUT.

Ah, more ignorant amateur net-shrinking...
I "must" say, you look *very* SILLY doing such.

<yawn> More empty " opinions "...

Thanks for again admitting that your " opinion " is *devoid of
any facts*...

That was my point. Thnaks for *agreeing* with me...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-08-2004, 08:40 AM

"JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c2harv$1t8ofa$1@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de... -- Phil THE mens movement website:- http://www.angryharry.com/ "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rLV2c.202926$uV3.818737@attbi_s51... | "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> writes: | | > Your anecdotal 'evidence' backing your | > opinion didn't impress much - neither does | > your attempt to divert attention from the | > exposed (by Andre) weakness of your argument | > by attacking your opponents writing style | > as oposed to it's content. ;-o) | | He made no argument, nor did he claim to. | It was Andre's confusion to believe that | the anecdote JWB presented was presented as | anything other than his experience, and then | to give a hostile contemptuous reply to that. JWB's own responses do not back up your defence of his position for example he said Message-ID: <lvP2c.25234$Wo2.15566@twister.nyc.rr.com> 'Sure I can. I stated that gay's can make fine parents.' Now that sounds like a claim to me - and his offering of anecdotal evidence was his 'argument' to support that claim. The can make fine parents.

IRRELEVENT to the *topic* of " rights for ALL gays "...
It's my opinion.

" No one is entitled to their opinion. They are only
entitled to an *informed* opinion. " Harlan Ellison.
If you disagree, let's see some of your evidence why.

This IS *rich* ! So, YOUR " opinion " needs NO backing,
but *anyone having a contrary " opinion " MUST back
theirs ?

Yes, you *are* a HYPOCRITE. Plain and... simple.
You state I supplied mine - you say it's weak. Fine.

Indeed.
But at least I supplied something.

An UNSUPPORTED anecdotal " opinion "...

<laughs> Thats a lot of... nothing...
You haven't supplied squat.

Neither Phil or I are *advancing a positive claim
for " rights " to be granted to an, as we've shown,
UNQUALIFIED group*...

Burden of proof remains... with YOU. So far, you've
totally rejected it. Oh well, no cookie for you...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

JWB

03-08-2004, 09:04 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2i7ss$6n8
Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay parent... "

You completely made that up.

Or perhaps you can show where I said anything about gay marriage in this
thread (key words - "in this thread" - just so you don't miss it)

Or is it you can't argue anything without adding your fiction? It's right
there in black and white - you "quoted" me saying something I didn't say.

Wiggle out of it, Andre.

audrey in velvet

03-08-2004, 09:05 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<WaW2c.137155$Xp.586364@attbi_s54>... "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> writes: -- Phil THE mens movement website:- http://www.angryharry.com/ "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rLV2c.202926$uV3.818737@attbi_s51... | "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> writes: | | > Your anecdotal 'evidence' backing your | > opinion didn't impress much - neither does | > your attempt to divert attention from the | > exposed (by Andre) weakness of your argument | > by attacking your opponents writing style as | > oposed to it's content. ;-o) | | He made no argument, nor did he claim to. | It was Andre's confusion to | believe that the anecdote JWB presented was presented as anything | other than his experience, and then to give a hostile contemptuous | reply to that. JWB's own responses do not back up your defence of his position for example he said Message-ID: <lvP2c.25234$Wo2.15566@twister.nyc.rr.com> 'Sure I can. I stated that gay's can make fine parents.' Now that sounds like a claim to me - and his offering of anecdotal evidence was his 'argument' to support that claim. But all a claim like "gays can make fine parents" requires is one example. He gave one. He never claimed "all gays are fine parents" or anything of the sort. If I say some cats can climb trees, all I need to do to demonstrate that is to show a single cat which can climb trees.

why dont all of you take this topic to gaychat? im getting an eyeache
reading this shyt

Tony Miller

03-08-2004, 09:20 AM

On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668
<ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB<bc00973@ace.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are children under> 16 in the house.> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce, i don't see it as anyone's business but their own. That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're about to take is important. And the problem with it being "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other partner asks for the force of law to help clear it up. Like any other contract. I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front going into it (at least that's the plan). As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of. I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make people any happier.

The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the forefront of
my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the children
involved.

I'm also not suggesting making divorce illegal, or changing the parameters
of current secular marriage. After all that was the contract folks
entered into.

What I AM advocating is a possible addition to marriage called a "Covenant
Marriage". This is a stronger contract, with more benefits that what is
currently defined as "marriage". Those who wish to take advantage of the
increased benefits can upgrade their marriage with a small filing fee
"converting", if you will, their "wimpy" marriage to one harder to break.

Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through an
approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It will
not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a
secular alternative to non-religious people.

The layout is something akin to "Classic Marriage" outlined here...

http://www.divorcereform.org/cla.html

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Rauni

03-08-2004, 09:56 AM

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:04:01 GMT, "JWB" <bc00973@ace.com> wrote:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2i7ss$6n8 Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay parent... "You completely made that up.Or perhaps you can show where I said anything about gay marriage in thisthread (key words - "in this thread" - just so you don't miss it)Or is it you can't argue anything without adding your fiction? It's rightthere in black and white - you "quoted" me saying something I didn't say.Wiggle out of it, Andre.
He's just call you names.

Doug Anderson

03-08-2004, 10:04 AM

"JWB" <bc00973@ace.com> writes:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2i7ss$6n8 Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay parent... " You completely made that up. Or perhaps you can show where I said anything about gay marriage in this thread (key words - "in this thread" - just so you don't miss it) Or is it you can't argue anything without adding your fiction? It's right there in black and white - you "quoted" me saying something I didn't say. Wiggle out of it, Andre.

He seems to have a collection of stock responses. I don't think he
even bothers to read some of the things he replies to.

Or maybe stuff like

"It's not *my* job to CORRECT your ASSumptions due to your _limited_
reading *comprehension*!"

and

"hypocrite much?"

is just part of his signature.

The funny thing is how he uses the phrase "NON SEQUITUR." He throws
it in randomly so that its insertion into his post _is_ ususally a non
sequitur. It has a kind of cool self-referential twist.

Tsam Nami

03-08-2004, 10:23 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:iPS2c.201928$uV3.817101@attbi_s51... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
[snip] And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are children
under 16 in the house. See, I think it should be done on the other end. Make it harder to get married. I don't think we want to get into the business of forcing people to stay together who want to be apart. I suppose we could keep them from getting divorced, but there is no way without erecting a fairly oppressive police state to keep people who want to separate from doing so.

I have some anecdotes that support this point...

Among my stories of famly ancestors
in late 1800s in the western US
there are a few men who left home for many years
to prospect in a gold rush
or similar speculative enterprises.

My family has concluded that these long-term separations
acted as divorces, disconnecting financial responsibility
as well as personal contact.
Even in an age when divorce was discouraged,
there were ways around the prohibition.
--
Tsam

Bill in Co.

03-08-2004, 10:23 AM

Doug Anderson wrote: "JWB" <bc00973@ace.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2i7ss$6n8 Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay parent... " You completely made that up. Or perhaps you can show where I said anything about gay marriage in this thread (key words - "in this thread" - just so you don't miss it) Or is it you can't argue anything without adding your fiction? It's right there in black and white - you "quoted" me saying something I didn't say. Wiggle out of it, Andre. He seems to have a collection of stock responses. I don't think he even bothers to read some of the things he replies to. Or maybe stuff like "It's not *my* job to CORRECT your ASSumptions due to your _limited_ reading *comprehension*!" and "hypocrite much?" is just part of his signature. The funny thing is how he uses the phrase "NON SEQUITUR." He throws it in randomly so that its insertion into his post _is_ ususally a non sequitur. It has a kind of cool self-referential twist.

You left out:

ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid
ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid
ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid
ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid
ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid
ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid ibid

and

ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad
hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem
ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad
hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem

Tsam Nami

03-08-2004, 10:26 AM

"JWB" replied to "Andre Lieven"
[snip] Sure I can. I stated that gay's can make fine parents. You haven't said
much save stuff akin to "no they can't", which only works in a Monty Python
skit.
Bingo!
--
Tsam

Andre Lieven

03-08-2004, 11:10 AM

"JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2i7ss$6n8 Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay parent... " You completely made that up.

ROTFLMAO ! So then, you *had no point*, when you posted your
widdle story ?

<laughs>
Or perhaps you can show where I said anything about gay marriage in this thread (key words - "in this thread" - just so you don't miss it)

Sorry, toots. Thats not how it works. You did make claims that gay
" marriage " was fine, so I asked you, *based on what*.

And, you gave us your widdle story, about *one* gay person...

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

HTH.
Or is it you can't argue anything without adding your fiction? It's right there in black and white - you "quoted" me saying something I didn't say.

Wiggle out of it, Andre.

<yawn> Nothing to " wiggle " out of...

Either you're for or against gay " marriage '. If one is against it,
as is *the law* most places today, then one is consistant with the
law.

If one is for it, then one is NOT consistant with the law, and
one *is making a positive claim*, that one has a *burden to
prove*...

I'm in the former area, bucko. I'm the Case For The Defense.
*I don't go on, until the Case For The Prosecution HAS OFFERED
ANY CASE*.

None of you, on this thread, and on the others, has *done so*.

So, theres NOTHING for me to refute...

Hand wave that away, and be sure to insist that everyone prove
that black is white...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

JWB

03-08-2004, 11:15 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7q65dfrzaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "JWB" <bc00973@ace.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2i7ss$6n8 Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay parent... " You completely made that up. Or perhaps you can show where I said anything about gay marriage in this thread (key words - "in this thread" - just so you don't miss it) Or is it you can't argue anything without adding your fiction? It's
right there in black and white - you "quoted" me saying something I didn't
say. Wiggle out of it, Andre. He seems to have a collection of stock responses. I don't think he even bothers to read some of the things he replies to.

I'm beginning to think the same thing. First he crossposts this to soc.men
and the feminism group, which is almost guaranteed to start an argument,
then he replies to everything with his meaningless "burden of proof"
replies.

He'll probably reply to THIS post of mine, but ignore the one where I ask
him to show where I said anything about gay marriage - like he quoted me
saying.

Andre Lieven

03-08-2004, 11:34 AM

"Tsam Nami" (tsam-nami@tidal.wav) writes: "JWB" replied to "Andre Lieven" [snip] Sure I can. I stated that gay's can make fine parents. You haven't said much save stuff akin to "no they can't", which only works in a Monty Python skit. Bingo!

Well, you MS-called that game, too...

Because, the crux of the issue is *that those pushing for lega;
and social change, that of allowing gay people to " marry ", ARE
the ones who bear a positive burden of proof*.

Yet, JWB, et al, have offered NOTHING but " opinions " and the
so called tale of *one gay parent*. ( " The plural of 'anecdote'
is NOT 'citation' " )

Thus, they have *failed to even begin to try to meet their
burden of proof*.

If you, Tasm, *claim* that gay " marriage " is a good idea,
pray, wheres *your proof of this claim* ?

Uh huh.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-08-2004, 11:45 AM

"JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7q65dfrzaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "JWB" <bc00973@ace.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2i7ss$6n8 > Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we > should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay > parent... " You completely made that up. Or perhaps you can show where I said anything about gay marriage in this thread (key words - "in this thread" - just so you don't miss it) Or is it you can't argue anything without adding your fiction? It's right there in black and white - you "quoted" me saying something I didn't say. Wiggle out of it, Andre. He seems to have a collection of stock responses. I don't think he even bothers to read some of the things he replies to. I'm beginning to think the same thing.

Why not, as thats easier for you two stand-for-nothings than actually
*proving your cases*...

<laughs.
First he crossposts this to soc.men and the feminism group, which is almost guaranteed to start an argument,

ROTFLMAO ! So far, the only " argument " has been from youse guys.

So, I call cow**** on this self serving claim...
then he replies to everything with his meaningless "burden of proof" replies.

ROTFLMAO again ! So, when *you all* advocate CHANGES, you ought to be
just believed on your words ?

But, *I* have to back up an " opinion " ?

Man, this IS funny ! Self serving, hypocritical, and " discriminatory ",
but as long as it's *your kind of discrimination*, right ?
He'll probably reply to THIS post of mine, but ignore the one where I ask him to show where I said anything about gay marriage - like he quoted me saying.

LOL ! So, you brought up the *one gay parent* you know, in support
of WHAT SPECIFIC POINT, then ?

Or, do you simply type in a stream of unconsciousness... ?

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

JWB

03-08-2004, 11:45 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2igeh$nhf$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2i7ss$6n8 Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay parent... " You completely made that up. ROTFLMAO ! So then, you *had no point*, when you posted your widdle story ?

It doesn't matter. You cited me saying something I didn't say. You obviously
can't argue without making things up. That is clear.

Now, go ahead and post MORE stuff, and PLEASE, don't forget the CAPS and
*asterisks* to show everyone you REALLY mean "business". You seem to post
THREE PARAGRAPHS worth of *crap* for every sentence *I* write. It's almost
like a game.

Tsam Nami

03-08-2004, 11:59 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
wrote in message news:c2ihs7$q7n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Tsam Nami" (tsam-nami@tidal.wav) writes:
Because, the crux of the issue is *that those pushing for legal and social change, that of allowing gay people to " marry ", ARE the ones who bear a positive burden of proof*. Yet, JWB, et al, have offered NOTHING but " opinions " and the so called tale of *one gay parent*. ( " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation' " ) Thus, they have *failed to even begin to try to meet their burden of proof*. If you, Tsam, *claim* that gay " marriage " is a good idea, pray, wheres *your proof of this claim* ? Uh huh.

My opinions are largely subjective,
and I expect many to disagree with them.

I meet committed gay couples in church every week,
many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine.
We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry
of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize.

The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits --
the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured --
not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories.

For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love.
You're welcome to disagree.
--
Tsam

Andre Lieven

03-08-2004, 12:46 PM

"JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2igeh$nhf$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2i7ss$6n8> Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we> should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay> parent... " You completely made that up. ROTFLMAO ! So then, you *had no point*, when you posted your widdle story ? It doesn't matter.

Indeed, your widdle story didn't matter in the slightest.
You cited me saying something I didn't say.

Oh ? Then, you're *against* gay " marriage " ?

Good. Carry on...
You obviously can't argue without making things up. That is clear.

Projection...
Now, go ahead and post MORE stuff, and PLEASE, don't forget the CAPS and *asterisks* to show everyone you REALLY mean "business". You seem to post THREE PARAGRAPHS worth of *crap* for every sentence *I* write. It's almost like a game.

Well, games are for trolls, such as yourself, who CANNOT address
the topic...

Thanks for once again showing your *inability* to do so...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

JWB

03-08-2004, 12:49 PM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2im3c$5i8$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes:
You obviously can't argue without making things up. That is clear. Projection...

But it sums you up so nicely.

JWB

03-08-2004, 01:58 PM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2iqb1$e61$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Thank you once again, for *showing* that you have NO actual argument,

sure I do. I said gays would make wonderful parents.

and you DO make things up.

Andre Lieven

03-08-2004, 01:58 PM

"JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2im3c$5i8$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: You obviously can't argue without making things up. That is clear. Projection... But it sums you up so nicely.

Thank you once again, for *showing* that you have NO actual
argument, only abuse at peaople who dare *disagree* with you...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

shinypenny

03-08-2004, 02:36 PM

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>...
My opinions are largely subjective, and I expect many to disagree with them. I meet committed gay couples in church every week, many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine. We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize. The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -- the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -- not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories. For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love. You're welcome to disagree.

Tsam,

I was sharing some of your posts this weekend with my DF. We are both
struck by the poetic quality of your writing. By any chance are you a
poet, and are you writing in a certain type of verse? (All I vaguely
remember from my writing courses are iambic pentameter and haiku, and
it doesn't seem to be one of those).

Just curious!

jen

Tsam Nami

03-08-2004, 03:43 PM

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0403081436.192f8d1d@posting.google.c om... "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>... My opinions are largely subjective, and I expect many to disagree with them. I meet committed gay couples in church every week, many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine. We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize. The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -- the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -- not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories. For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love. You're welcome to disagree. Tsam, I was sharing some of your posts this weekend with my DF. We are both struck by the poetic quality of your writing. By any chance are you a poet, and are you writing in a certain type of verse? (All I vaguely remember from my writing courses are iambic pentameter and haiku, and it doesn't seem to be one of those). Just curious! jen

Hardly -- I'm a computer programmer and would-be scientist.

Thank you for what you see in my posts.
(Once I became concerned with long lines being truncated,
I began ending lines where the thought changes.)
--
Tsam

Rauni

03-08-2004, 04:41 PM

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:45:55 GMT, "JWB" <bc00973@ace.com> wrote:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in messagenews:c2igeh$nhf$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bc00973@ace.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in messagenews:c2i7ss$6n8> Oh, and all we have from you on the *topic* is, " we> should let ALL gays marry, because I know *A* good gay> parent... " You completely made that up. ROTFLMAO ! So then, you *had no point*, when you posted your widdle story ?It doesn't matter. You cited me saying something I didn't say. You obviouslycan't argue without making things up. That is clear.

Andre does that a lot. He has problems with who posted what.Now, go ahead and post MORE stuff, and PLEASE, don't forget the CAPS and*asterisks* to show everyone you REALLY mean "business". You seem to postTHREE PARAGRAPHS worth of *crap* for every sentence *I* write. It's almostlike a game.

Tai

03-08-2004, 05:00 PM

Tony Miller wrote: On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668 <ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB <bc00973@ace.com> wrote:> "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message> news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com...>>> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it>> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are>> children under 16 in the house.>>>> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would> just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce,> i don't see it as anyone's business but their own. That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're about to take is important. And the problem with it being "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other partner asks for the force of law to help clear it up. Like any other contract. I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front going into it (at least that's the plan). As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of. I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make people any happier. The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the forefront of my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the children involved. I'm also not suggesting making divorce illegal, or changing the parameters of current secular marriage. After all that was the contract folks entered into. What I AM advocating is a possible addition to marriage called a "Covenant Marriage". This is a stronger contract, with more benefits that what is currently defined as "marriage". Those who wish to take advantage of the increased benefits can upgrade their marriage with a small filing fee "converting", if you will, their "wimpy" marriage to one harder to break.

What sort of benefits do you envisage? State-borne financial ones?

Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through an approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It will not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a secular alternative to non-religious people.

I think it's likely that the couples who would be attracted by this sort of
contract, both religious and secular, would be the ones who would tend to
stick at their marriages anyway.

The main problem I have with arguments proposing making marriage harder to
get into and/or out of it is that neither will do much to protect the
interests of dependent children. It doesn't matter how hard it is to get
married when it's so easy to create a child and, married or not, no one can
force a married couple to stay together. All making divorce difficult does
is stop people from remarrying. It doesn't stop them from forming new
families or living as if they were officially divorced.

Look at the example of Ireland where divorce was impossible until recent
years. For a very long time there was a real social stigma to being
separated but eventually the social conditions changed such that the divorce
ban was seen as unnecessarily harsh and a new law allowing divorce in some
circumstances was passed by a national referendum.

Mandatory classes before marriage might help some couples who shouldn't
marry realise that and give others some clues how to communicate within
their relationship but that's about as far as they could go, imo. The
aspects of living in a long term relationship differ greatly between the
practical and the academic.

Tai

Doug Anderson

03-08-2004, 05:03 PM

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> writes:
Tony Miller wrote: On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668 <ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote:> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB> <bc00973@ace.com> wrote:>> "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message>> news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com...>>>>> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it>>> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are>>> children under 16 in the house.>>>>>>> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would>> just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce,>> i don't see it as anyone's business but their own.>> That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're> about to take is important. And the problem with it being> "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's> business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other> partner asks for the force of law to help> clear it up. Like any other contract.>> I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say,> a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front> going into> it (at least that's the plan). As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of. I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make people any happier. The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the forefront of my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the children involved. I'm also not suggesting making divorce illegal, or changing the parameters of current secular marriage. After all that was the contract folks entered into. What I AM advocating is a possible addition to marriage called a "Covenant Marriage". This is a stronger contract, with more benefits that what is currently defined as "marriage". Those who wish to take advantage of the increased benefits can upgrade their marriage with a small filing fee "converting", if you will, their "wimpy" marriage to one harder to break. What sort of benefits do you envisage? State-borne financial ones? Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through an approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It will not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a secular alternative to non-religious people. I think it's likely that the couples who would be attracted by this sort of contract, both religious and secular, would be the ones who would tend to stick at their marriages anyway.

It seems that way. It isn't completely clear though - in the US there
are states (in the Bible Belt) with covenant marriage laws.

I haven't yet seen statistics about whether those marriages do better
than marriages outside of the Bible Belt (in the U.S. the Bible Belt
states have the highest divorce rates).
The main problem I have with arguments proposing making marriage harder to get into and/or out of it is that neither will do much to protect the interests of dependent children. It doesn't matter how hard it is to get married when it's so easy to create a child and, married or not, no one can force a married couple to stay together. All making divorce difficult does is stop people from remarrying. It doesn't stop them from forming new families or living as if they were officially divorced.

Yes, I think this is an apt analysis.

Tony Miller

03-08-2004, 05:50 PM

On 08 Mar 2004 17:03:19 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> writes: Tony Miller wrote: On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668 <ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote:> In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller> wrote:>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB>> <bc00973@ace.com> wrote:>>> "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message>>> news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com...>>>>>>> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it>>>> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are>>>> children under 16 in the house.>>>>>>>>>> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would>>> just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce,>>> i don't see it as anyone's business but their own.>>>> That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're>> about to take is important. And the problem with it being>> "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's>> business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other>> partner asks for the force of law to help>> clear it up. Like any other contract.>>>> I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say,>> a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front>> going into>> it (at least that's the plan).>> As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of.>> I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make> people any happier. The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the forefront of my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the children involved. I'm also not suggesting making divorce illegal, or changing the parameters of current secular marriage. After all that was the contract folks entered into. What I AM advocating is a possible addition to marriage called a "Covenant Marriage". This is a stronger contract, with more benefits that what is currently defined as "marriage". Those who wish to take advantage of the increased benefits can upgrade their marriage with a small filing fee "converting", if you will, their "wimpy" marriage to one harder to break. What sort of benefits do you envisage? State-borne financial ones? Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through an approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It will not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a secular alternative to non-religious people. I think it's likely that the couples who would be attracted by this sort of contract, both religious and secular, would be the ones who would tend to stick at their marriages anyway. It seems that way. It isn't completely clear though - in the US there are states (in the Bible Belt) with covenant marriage laws. I haven't yet seen statistics about whether those marriages do better than marriages outside of the Bible Belt (in the U.S. the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates).

I'm going to want a cite for that.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller

03-08-2004, 05:50 PM

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:00:19 +1100, Tai
<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668 <ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote:> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB> <bc00973@ace.com> wrote:>> "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message>> news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com...>>>>> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it>>> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are>>> children under 16 in the house.>>>>>>> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would>> just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce,>> i don't see it as anyone's business but their own.>> That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're> about to take is important. And the problem with it being> "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's> business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other> partner asks for the force of law to help> clear it up. Like any other contract.>> I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say,> a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front> going into> it (at least that's the plan). As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of. I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make people any happier. The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the forefront of my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the children involved. I'm also not suggesting making divorce illegal, or changing the parameters of current secular marriage. After all that was the contract folks entered into. What I AM advocating is a possible addition to marriage called a "Covenant Marriage". This is a stronger contract, with more benefits that what is currently defined as "marriage". Those who wish to take advantage of the increased benefits can upgrade their marriage with a small filing fee "converting", if you will, their "wimpy" marriage to one harder to break. What sort of benefits do you envisage? State-borne financial ones?

Sure. Since it's secular, and really, financial is one of the only
benefits (though I envision it making it easier for people to adopt) it's
probably the way things might work.
Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through an approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It will not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a secular alternative to non-religious people. I think it's likely that the couples who would be attracted by this sort of contract, both religious and secular, would be the ones who would tend to stick at their marriages anyway.

Sure. But one of the neat points is, you want a "covenant marriage" but
your fiance doesn't. Would this be an indicator of a serious difference
in what you think marriage is?

I think it would be a nice litmus test of whether you're in it for the
same things or not.
The main problem I have with arguments proposing making marriage harder to get into and/or out of it is that neither will do much to protect the interests of dependent children. It doesn't matter how hard it is to get married when it's so easy to create a child and, married or not, no one can force a married couple to stay together. All making divorce difficult does is stop people from remarrying. It doesn't stop them from forming new families or living as if they were officially divorced.

The main part about these proposals is that it immediately stops "one
sided divorce". And those living together won't get the benefits of being
married (with each other anyway).
Look at the example of Ireland where divorce was impossible until recent years. For a very long time there was a real social stigma to being separated but eventually the social conditions changed such that the divorce ban was seen as unnecessarily harsh and a new law allowing divorce in some circumstances was passed by a national referendum. Mandatory classes before marriage might help some couples who shouldn't marry realise that and give others some clues how to communicate within their relationship but that's about as far as they could go, imo. The aspects of living in a long term relationship differ greatly between the practical and the academic.

One thing it DOES do is gives special status to those who are already
committed (like you mentioned above). I think this is a good thing.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

JWB

03-08-2004, 06:00 PM

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc4q8li.eer.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 08 Mar 2004 17:03:19 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> writes: Tony Miller wrote: > On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668 > <ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote: >> In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB >>> <bc00973@ace.com> wrote: >>>> "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message >>>> news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com... >>>> >>>>> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it >>>>> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are >>>>> children under 16 in the house. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would >>>> just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce, >>>> i don't see it as anyone's business but their own. >>> >>> That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're >>> about to take is important. And the problem with it being >>> "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's >>> business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other >>> partner asks for the force of law to help >>> clear it up. Like any other contract. >>> >>> I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, >>> a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front >>> going into >>> it (at least that's the plan). >> >> As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of. >> >> I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make >> people any happier. > > The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the > forefront of > my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the > children involved. > > I'm also not suggesting making divorce illegal, or changing the > parameters > of current secular marriage. After all that was the contract folks > entered into. > > What I AM advocating is a possible addition to marriage called a > "Covenant Marriage". This is a stronger contract, with more benefits > that what is currently defined as "marriage". Those who wish to take > advantage of the increased benefits can upgrade their marriage with a > small filing fee "converting", if you will, their "wimpy" marriage to > one harder to break. What sort of benefits do you envisage? State-borne financial ones? > > Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through
an > approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It > will > not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a > secular alternative to non-religious people. I think it's likely that the couples who would be attracted by this
sort of contract, both religious and secular, would be the ones who would tend
to stick at their marriages anyway. It seems that way. It isn't completely clear though - in the US there are states (in the Bible Belt) with covenant marriage laws. I haven't yet seen statistics about whether those marriages do better than marriages outside of the Bible Belt (in the U.S. the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates). I'm going to want a cite for that.

I heard the same.

http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html

http://www.uwyo.edu/ces/FAMILY/LIFE/Marriage/Trends/divrate/sld001.htm

Doug Anderson

03-08-2004, 06:10 PM

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668 <ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB<bc00973@ace.com> wrote:> "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message> news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com...>>> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it>> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are children under>> 16 in the house.>>>> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would just make it> for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce, i don't see it as> anyone's business but their own. That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're about to take is important. And the problem with it being "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other partner asks for the force of law to help clear it up. Like any other contract. I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front going into it (at least that's the plan). As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of. I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make people any happier. The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the forefront of my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the children involved.

Me too. And as I said, I'm not convinced that making it difficult to
divorce will result in making people (I include children as people)
any happier.

Doug Anderson

03-08-2004, 06:20 PM

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 08 Mar 2004 17:03:19 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> writes: Tony Miller wrote: > On 8 Mar 2004 13:30:08 GMT, Ignoramus10668 > <ignoramus10668@NOSPAM.10668.invalid> wrote: >> In article <slrnc4nsqr.ca9.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:56:32 GMT, JWB >>> <bc00973@ace.com> wrote: >>>> "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message >>>> news:slrnc4nk27.c3r.tony@home.cigardiary.com... >>>> >>>>> And I would love to tighten down divorce requirements. Making it >>>>> difficult to get, and *very* difficult to get if there are >>>>> children under 16 in the house. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. Although I would >>>> just make it for kids. If two people without kids want to divorce, >>>> i don't see it as anyone's business but their own. >>> >>> That's nice, but understanding the implications of the act you're >>> about to take is important. And the problem with it being >>> "anyone's business but thier own" it becomes someone else's >>> business when one partner becomes unreasonable, and the other >>> partner asks for the force of law to help >>> clear it up. Like any other contract. >>> >>> I'd like a marriage contract to be harder to get out of then, say, >>> a car lease. If that's the case, there'll be more thought up front >>> going into >>> it (at least that's the plan). >> >> As far as I understand, a car lease is very difficult to get out of. >> >> I am not convinced that making it difficult to divorce, will make >> people any happier. > > The happiness of the people planning a divorce is not in the > forefront of > my mind on this one. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the > children involved. > > I'm also not suggesting making divorce illegal, or changing the > parameters > of current secular marriage. After all that was the contract folks > entered into. > > What I AM advocating is a possible addition to marriage called a > "Covenant Marriage". This is a stronger contract, with more benefits > that what is currently defined as "marriage". Those who wish to take > advantage of the increased benefits can upgrade their marriage with a > small filing fee "converting", if you will, their "wimpy" marriage to > one harder to break. What sort of benefits do you envisage? State-borne financial ones? > > Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through an > approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It > will > not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a > secular alternative to non-religious people. I think it's likely that the couples who would be attracted by this sort of contract, both religious and secular, would be the ones who would tend to stick at their marriages anyway. It seems that way. It isn't completely clear though - in the US there are states (in the Bible Belt) with covenant marriage laws. I haven't yet seen statistics about whether those marriages do better than marriages outside of the Bible Belt (in the U.S. the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates). I'm going to want a cite for that.

A cite for what? Higher divorce rates in the Bible Belt?
A google search under bible belt divorce (no quotes) will do you well. If you are statistcally minded and can digest a big table, here is one:

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/99_01mardiv.pdf

Here is some general information about divorce rates

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

Here is an article about the Barna study (the study itself is no
longer available online).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Caren

03-08-2004, 07:12 PM

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>... "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ihs7$q7n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Tsam Nami" (tsam-nami@tidal.wav) writes: Because, the crux of the issue is *that those pushing for legal and social change, that of allowing gay people to " marry ", ARE the ones who bear a positive burden of proof*. Yet, JWB, et al, have offered NOTHING but " opinions " and the so called tale of *one gay parent*. ( " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation' " ) Thus, they have *failed to even begin to try to meet their burden of proof*. If you, Tsam, *claim* that gay " marriage " is a good idea, pray, wheres *your proof of this claim* ? Uh huh. My opinions are largely subjective, and I expect many to disagree with them. I meet committed gay couples in church every week, many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine. We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize. The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -- the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -- not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories. For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love. You're welcome to disagree.

You are so incredibly eloquent Tsam. I have much respect for you.

What I'm finding interesting about this thread is that what often
happens in ASM is that if you state that you feel a certain way, then
you get jumped on if you don't have facts. Yet in this post there are
some facts and a fight is ensuing regardless. Isn't life funny
sometimes.

I like your thoughts on nurturing. Not to sound to Hilary(ish) but it
does take a village. If a majority is spending energy hating a
minority, that in itself causes harm. In other words, they are
perpetuating the cycle of bad virtues. Hatred, after all, is NOT a
family value as they say :-)

Doug Anderson

03-08-2004, 07:34 PM

caren50@msn.com (Caren) writes:
"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>... "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ihs7$q7n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Tsam Nami" (tsam-nami@tidal.wav) writes: Because, the crux of the issue is *that those pushing for legal and social change, that of allowing gay people to " marry ", ARE the ones who bear a positive burden of proof*. Yet, JWB, et al, have offered NOTHING but " opinions " and the so called tale of *one gay parent*. ( " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation' " ) Thus, they have *failed to even begin to try to meet their burden of proof*. If you, Tsam, *claim* that gay " marriage " is a good idea, pray, wheres *your proof of this claim* ? Uh huh. My opinions are largely subjective, and I expect many to disagree with them. I meet committed gay couples in church every week, many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine. We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize. The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -- the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -- not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories. For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love. You're welcome to disagree. You are so incredibly eloquent Tsam. I have much respect for you. What I'm finding interesting about this thread is that what often happens in ASM is that if you state that you feel a certain way, then you get jumped on if you don't have facts. Yet in this post there are some facts and a fight is ensuing regardless. Isn't life funny sometimes.

So my impression in this thread (and on this topic) there are certain
people who are stating their feelings _as_ facts. Which encourages
getting jumped on in ASM.
I like your thoughts on nurturing. Not to sound to Hilary(ish) but it does take a village. If a majority is spending energy hating a minority, that in itself causes harm. In other words, they are perpetuating the cycle of bad virtues. Hatred, after all, is NOT a family value as they say :-)

I always liked that bumper sticker (as bumper stickers go).

JWB

03-08-2004, 07:46 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fXa3c.148788
So my impression in this thread (and on this topic) there are certain people who are stating their feelings _as_ facts. Which encourages getting jumped on in ASM.

heh heh - at this point, it's a joke. My lesbian friend is obviously
representative of all lesbians. That's a fact for Andre and the boys.

Tai

03-08-2004, 10:16 PM

Tony Miller wrote:
.. What sort of benefits do you envisage? State-borne financial ones? Sure. Since it's secular, and really, financial is one of the only benefits (though I envision it making it easier for people to adopt) it's probably the way things might work.

'Kay.

Before getting a "Covenant Marriage' it one will have to go through an approved marriage counseling program, possibly including FOCCUS. It will not supplant the counseling required by your church, but will offer a secular alternative to non-religious people. I think it's likely that the couples who would be attracted by this sort of contract, both religious and secular, would be the ones who would tend to stick at their marriages anyway. Sure. But one of the neat points is, you want a "covenant marriage" but your fiance doesn't. Would this be an indicator of a serious difference in what you think marriage is?

Potentially, yes.
I think it would be a nice litmus test of whether you're in it for the same things or not. The main problem I have with arguments proposing making marriage harder to get into and/or out of it is that neither will do much to protect the interests of dependent children. It doesn't matter how hard it is to get married when it's so easy to create a child and, married or not, no one can force a married couple to stay together. All making divorce difficult does is stop people from remarrying. It doesn't stop them from forming new families or living as if they were officially divorced. The main part about these proposals is that it immediately stops "one sided divorce".

Is that a good thing, though? I don't think it's a good thing for a couple
to be tied together when one definitely wants out of the marriage. I am
happy enough with the one year wait we have here before a divorce can be
finalised. I'd be happy enough to see some form of mandatory counselling for
divorcing couples where there are minor children, too.

And those living together won't get the benefits of being married (with each other anyway). Look at the example of Ireland where divorce was impossible until recent years. For a very long time there was a real social stigma to being separated but eventually the social conditions changed such that the divorce ban was seen as unnecessarily harsh and a new law allowing divorce in some circumstances was passed by a national referendum. Mandatory classes before marriage might help some couples who shouldn't marry realise that and give others some clues how to communicate within their relationship but that's about as far as they could go, imo. The aspects of living in a long term relationship differ greatly between the practical and the academic. One thing it DOES do is gives special status to those who are already committed (like you mentioned above). I think this is a good thing.

I'll have to think about that further. I do regard marriage as special
(especially mine!) and a stabilising force in society but I'm not sure how
we can make others value it so.

Tai

JWB

03-09-2004, 06:50 AM

"Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2ke8k$1t1nn0$1@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...

If you had been attentive you would have realised that I had already been very explicit about my views on this issue - all you had to offer was an unsupported anecdote that did not even address the very real issues that I had highlighted.

I don't care about your views. To be honest, I didn't even read them. You
are the one who had a problem with mine. So you disprove them.

JWB

03-09-2004, 06:51 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2khg7
YOU make a claim, YOU back it up... FIRST.

I did back it up. You didn't like my "proof". Ok, fine. So, let's see yours.

JWB

03-09-2004, 06:52 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2ki4b$re3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Those of *you* who claim that gay " marriage " is OK. As well as gay parenting...

I didn't say anything about gay marriage in this thread. Where are you
getting that from?

Tony Miller

03-09-2004, 07:10 AM

On 8 Mar 2004 19:12:36 -0800, Caren
<caren50@msn.com> wrote: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>... "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ihs7$q7n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Tsam Nami" (tsam-nami@tidal.wav) writes: Because, the crux of the issue is *that those pushing for legal and social change, that of allowing gay people to " marry ", ARE the ones who bear a positive burden of proof*. Yet, JWB, et al, have offered NOTHING but " opinions " and the so called tale of *one gay parent*. ( " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation' " ) Thus, they have *failed to even begin to try to meet their burden of proof*. If you, Tsam, *claim* that gay " marriage " is a good idea, pray, wheres *your proof of this claim* ? Uh huh. My opinions are largely subjective, and I expect many to disagree with them. I meet committed gay couples in church every week, many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine. We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize. The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -- the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -- not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories. For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love. You're welcome to disagree. You are so incredibly eloquent Tsam. I have much respect for you. What I'm finding interesting about this thread is that what often happens in ASM is that if you state that you feel a certain way, then you get jumped on if you don't have facts. Yet in this post there are some facts and a fight is ensuing regardless. Isn't life funny sometimes.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "fact".
I like your thoughts on nurturing. Not to sound to Hilary(ish) but it does take a village. If a majority is spending energy hating a minority, that in itself causes harm. In other words, they are perpetuating the cycle of bad virtues. Hatred, after all, is NOT a family value as they say :-)

Why do you believe that because someone doesn't want gays to marry they
"hate" gays. I don't want drunks driving and I don't hate drunks. I
don't want children smoking but I don't hate children.

It's funny. Like the term 'racist' which is overused by the likes of
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the term 'hate' means practically nothing.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller

03-09-2004, 07:10 AM

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:16:53 +1100, Tai
<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller wrote:

<Snip>
The main part about these proposals is that it immediately stops "one sided divorce". Is that a good thing, though? I don't think it's a good thing for a couple to be tied together when one definitely wants out of the marriage. I am happy enough with the one year wait we have here before a divorce can be finalised. I'd be happy enough to see some form of mandatory counselling for divorcing couples where there are minor children, too.

I think you misunderstood me. "Weenie marriage" (:)) will still be
available to those couples who both agree they may want an easy out.
Nobody is forcing "covenant marriage" on anyone against their will.

But I think the idea of articulating and signing off on acceptable divorce
options for the both of you before marriage is a good thing.
And those living together won't get the benefits of being married (with each other anyway). Look at the example of Ireland where divorce was impossible until recent years. For a very long time there was a real social stigma to being separated but eventually the social conditions changed such that the divorce ban was seen as unnecessarily harsh and a new law allowing divorce in some circumstances was passed by a national referendum. Mandatory classes before marriage might help some couples who shouldn't marry realise that and give others some clues how to communicate within their relationship but that's about as far as they could go, imo. The aspects of living in a long term relationship differ greatly between the practical and the academic. One thing it DOES do is gives special status to those who are already committed (like you mentioned above). I think this is a good thing. I'll have to think about that further. I do regard marriage as special (especially mine!) and a stabilising force in society but I'm not sure how we can make others value it so.

We can't and won't :)

What this will do is give special benefits to those who "voluntarily
stabilize" :)

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 07:35 AM

"JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2khg7 YOU make a claim, YOU back it up... FIRST. I did back it up.

LOL ! Fallicy: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

So, NO *proof* at all. Just one... *story, absent of context*...

<laughs>
You didn't like my "proof".

LOL ! Even YOU realise that you offered " proof ", as in,
" fictional ".

You offered *one anecdote*, fool. Do look up " proof " and
" anecdote " in a good dictionary: www.dictionary.com.

Note that they're NOT synonyms...
Ok, fine. So, let's see yours.

Why ? *I'm not the one* advocating a *change in society*...

YOUR claim that its OK, YOUR burden to prove. FIRST.

Until you DO, I have *nothing* to refute...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 07:37 AM

"JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ki4b$re3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Those of *you* who claim that gay " marriage " is OK. As well as gay parenting... I didn't say anything about gay marriage in this thread.

Sure you did. You claimed that you " knew " a good gay parent.

Now, did you say that, because you realised that *one example,
absent of ANY context*, means *nothing*, so you were just...
blabbering, to NO purpose, or...

Did you try to sneak that in, so as to make the claim without
actually being *honest* about it ?
Where are you getting that from?

Your words, as posted.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

JWB

03-09-2004, 07:49 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2ko7o$9hn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
YOUR claim that its OK, YOUR burden to prove. FIRST. Until you DO, I have *nothing* to refute...

I did prove it. You just didn't like my "proof". That's fine. But now YOU
disprove it.

JWB

03-09-2004, 07:51 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2koc2$9pj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes:

*on Andre's claim that I said in this thread that I am for gay marriage*
Where are you getting that from? Your words, as posted.

Then you wouldn't mind citing such. Remember - this thread. Not something I
posted last week in some other place.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 07:59 AM

"JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ko7o$9hn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... YOUR claim that its OK, YOUR burden to prove. FIRST. Until you DO, I have *nothing* to refute... I did prove it.

ROTFLMAO ! Since you seem UNABLE to refute this, I'll say it
*again*...

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

And, you didn't *even offer a plural*... you offered ONE.

<laughs>
You just didn't like my "proof".

LOL ! Even you admit that it wasn't a " proof "...

It was an... *unsupported anecdote*...
That's fine.

You MS-spelled " crap "...
But now YOU disprove it.

No problem: Your putative gay parent has FAILED to provide
a necessity for that child: *It's other bio parent*.

Thus, said putative gay parent is NOT, in *fact*, a " good
parent "...

Twist in your wind, oh dishonest *fool*...

<laughs>

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 08:23 AM

"JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2koc2$9pj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: *on Andre's claim that I said in this thread that I am for gay marriage*

Well, either you *are*, as suggested by your *anecdotal claim* of
" knowing a gay parent ", or... you're not.

DO make up your mind... if you ever find it, that is...
Where are you getting that from? Your words, as posted. Then you wouldn't mind citing such.

Why ? You'll do as you keep doing, snipping it out...

I have NO obligation to oblige dishonest people's demands...

Deal with it.
Remember - this thread.

'Net Cop wannabe...
Not something I posted last week in some other place.

Why not ? Does your addled mind shift that often, from one view
to others ?

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Bill in Co.

03-09-2004, 08:42 AM

Tony Miller wrote: Why do you believe that because someone doesn't want gays to marry they "hate" gays. I don't want drunks driving and I don't hate drunks. I don't want children smoking but I don't hate children.

Because that is the ONLY way they can understand it! (If you call that,
understanding).

JWB

03-09-2004, 08:54 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2kr1l$f5r$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2koc2$9pj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: *on Andre's claim that I said in this thread that I am for gay marriage* Well, either you *are*, as suggested by your *anecdotal claim* of " knowing a gay parent ", or... you're not.

But that's not the argument.

I see you still didn't post what I asked.

Coward.

JWB

03-09-2004, 08:55 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2kpkc$cck$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ko7o$9hn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... YOUR claim that its OK, YOUR burden to prove. FIRST. Until you DO, I have *nothing* to refute... I did prove it. ROTFLMAO ! Since you seem UNABLE to refute this, I'll say it *again*...

That's the whole point.

Good dog.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 09:05 AM

"JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2kr1l$f5r$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2koc2$9pj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: *on Andre's claim that I said in this thread that I am for gay marriage* Well, either you *are*, as suggested by your *anecdotal claim* of " knowing a gay parent ", or... you're not. But that's not the argument.

Says who ? You ?

LOL !
I see you still didn't post what I asked.

'Net Cop wannabe...
Coward.

No, thats *you*, for your complete *failure/refusal* to
post your claims' proofs...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 09:07 AM

"JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2kpkc$cck$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (bigtom@servo.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ko7o$9hn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> YOUR claim that its OK, YOUR burden to prove. FIRST.>> Until you DO, I have *nothing* to refute... I did prove it. ROTFLMAO ! Since you seem UNABLE to refute this, I'll say it *again*... That's the whole point.

Ah, so you *admit* that you are a *simple* ad hom slinging,
hating, troll, who has actually NO argument at all...

Good. My point *stands*. Yours... never existed.
Good dog.

Far more useful to society than you.

I'm done. Plonk.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

JWB

03-09-2004, 09:39 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
I'm done. Plonk.

Thank God.

Tsam Nami

03-09-2004, 10:10 AM

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc4rn05.fni.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 8 Mar 2004 19:12:36 -0800, Caren <caren50@msn.com> wrote: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>... My opinions are largely subjective, and I expect many to disagree with them. I meet committed gay couples in church every week, many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine. We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize. The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -- the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -- not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories. For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love. You're welcome to disagree. You are so incredibly eloquent Tsam. I have much respect for you. What I'm finding interesting about this thread is that what often happens in ASM is that if you state that you feel a certain way, then you get jumped on if you don't have facts. Yet in this post there are some facts and a fight is ensuing regardless. Isn't life funny sometimes. The plural of "anecdote" is not "fact". I like your thoughts on nurturing. Not to sound to Hilary(ish) but it does take a village. If a majority is spending energy hating a minority, that in itself causes harm. In other words, they are perpetuating the cycle of bad virtues. Hatred, after all, is NOT a family value as they say :-) Why do you believe that because someone doesn't want gays to marry they "hate" gays. I don't want drunks driving and I don't hate drunks. I don't want children smoking but I don't hate children.

I disagree with your belief that gays are intrinsically immoral,
but you still show some concern for them as people.
That is light years from the unmitigated hate of Rev. Phelps.
Thank you for living your beliefs with the best consistency you understand.

I don't acccept the analogy between gays and drunk drivers,
because I see direct harm that drunk drivers cause
and I don't see a corresponding direct harm caused by
gays finding and making love with partners.

Some will see your side in such a disagreement as being hateful.
I doubt that you would use this analogy in a conversation
with a friend or acquaintance who you know is gay.

The restraint to disagree with people without hating them
reflects concern about what one accepts from their own self.
It's funny. Like the term 'racist' which is overused by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the term 'hate' means practically nothing.

It still is meaningful for the truly frightening people such as Rev. Phelps.
--
Tsam

Emma Anne

03-09-2004, 10:17 AM

Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:
Gay people are living together and having childern. So arguing weather it is good or bad is silly. It happens to be a fact of life.

This, to me, is key. Gays are acting as married couples. They have
proven themselves. It's time. The same is not true for the other
hypotheticals which get bandied around (polygamy and such).

Rauni

03-09-2004, 10:26 AM

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:10:55 GMT, "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav>
wrote:
"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnc4rn05.fni.tony@home.cigardiary.co m... On 8 Mar 2004 19:12:36 -0800, Caren <caren50@msn.com> wrote: "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>...>> My opinions are largely subjective,> and I expect many to disagree with them.>> I meet committed gay couples in church every week,> many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine.> We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry> of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize.>> The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits --> the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured --> not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories.>> For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love.> You're welcome to disagree. You are so incredibly eloquent Tsam. I have much respect for you. What I'm finding interesting about this thread is that what often happens in ASM is that if you state that you feel a certain way, then you get jumped on if you don't have facts. Yet in this post there are some facts and a fight is ensuing regardless. Isn't life funny sometimes. The plural of "anecdote" is not "fact". I like your thoughts on nurturing. Not to sound to Hilary(ish) but it does take a village. If a majority is spending energy hating a minority, that in itself causes harm. In other words, they are perpetuating the cycle of bad virtues. Hatred, after all, is NOT a family value as they say :-) Why do you believe that because someone doesn't want gays to marry they "hate" gays. I don't want drunks driving and I don't hate drunks. I don't want children smoking but I don't hate children.I disagree with your belief that gays are intrinsically immoral,but you still show some concern for them as people.That is light years from the unmitigated hate of Rev. Phelps.Thank you for living your beliefs with the best consistency you understand.I don't acccept the analogy between gays and drunk drivers,because I see direct harm that drunk drivers causeand I don't see a corresponding direct harm caused bygays finding and making love with partners.

Exactly. It is a stupid analogy. My daughter was killed by a drunk
driver. I hardly think the gay couple down the street is going to harm
or kill anyone.Some will see your side in such a disagreement as being hateful.I doubt that you would use this analogy in a conversationwith a friend or acquaintance who you know is gay.The restraint to disagree with people without hating themreflects concern about what one accepts from their own self. It's funny. Like the term 'racist' which is overused by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the term 'hate' means practically nothing.It still is meaningful for the truly frightening people such as Rev. Phelps.

Bill in Co.

03-09-2004, 10:51 AM

Rauni wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:10:55 GMT, "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc4rn05.fni.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 8 Mar 2004 19:12:36 -0800, Caren <caren50@msn.com> wrote:> "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message> news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>...>>>> My opinions are largely subjective,>> and I expect many to disagree with them.>>>> I meet committed gay couples in church every week,>> many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine.>> We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry>> of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize.>>>> The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -->> the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -->> not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories.>>>> For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love.>> You're welcome to disagree.>> You are so incredibly eloquent Tsam. I have much respect for you.>> What I'm finding interesting about this thread is that what often> happens in ASM is that if you state that you feel a certain way, then> you get jumped on if you don't have facts. Yet in this post there are> some facts and a fight is ensuing regardless. Isn't life funny> sometimes. The plural of "anecdote" is not "fact".> I like your thoughts on nurturing. Not to sound to Hilary(ish) but it> does take a village. If a majority is spending energy hating a> minority, that in itself causes harm. In other words, they are> perpetuating the cycle of bad virtues. Hatred, after all, is NOT a> family value as they say :-) Why do you believe that because someone doesn't want gays to marry they "hate" gays. I don't want drunks driving and I don't hate drunks. I don't want children smoking but I don't hate children. I disagree with your belief that gays are intrinsically immoral, but you still show some concern for them as people. That is light years from the unmitigated hate of Rev. Phelps. Thank you for living your beliefs with the best consistency you understand. I don't acccept the analogy between gays and drunk drivers, because I see direct harm that drunk drivers cause and I don't see a corresponding direct harm caused by gays finding and making love with partners. Exactly. It is a stupid analogy. My daughter was killed by a drunk driver. I hardly think the gay couple down the street is going to harm or kill anyone.

THAT is HORRIBLE!! My Lord! How did you get past this, Rauni? I can't
even imagine how it is possible.

Bill in Co.

03-09-2004, 10:52 AM

Emma Anne wrote: Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: Gay people are living together and having childern. So arguing weather it is good or bad is silly. It happens to be a fact of life. This, to me, is key. Gays are acting as married couples. They have proven themselves. It's time. The same is not true for the other hypotheticals which get bandied around (polygamy and such).

Why not? How can you arbitrarily stop there?

Doug Anderson

03-09-2004, 10:54 AM

"JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> writes:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... I'm done. Plonk. Thank God.

I have to say, I didn't think it could be done. Surely usenet is full
of people who've killfiled Andre. But _he's_ killfiling people?

JWB

03-09-2004, 11:22 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ppo3c.160542$4o.209824@attbi_s52... "JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... I'm done. Plonk. Thank God. I have to say, I didn't think it could be done. Surely usenet is full of people who've killfiled Andre. But _he's_ killfiling people?

It got to the point where no matter what he wrote, I'd just snip it and say
"I already did back my claim", and he'd write three MORE paragraphs full of
bullet points and caps stating how I didn't. Then his friends did the same.
It was amusing.

Emma Anne

03-09-2004, 01:15 PM

Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Emma Anne wrote: Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote: Gay people are living together and having childern. So arguing weather it is good or bad is silly. It happens to be a fact of life. This, to me, is key. Gays are acting as married couples. They have proven themselves. It's time. The same is not true for the other hypotheticals which get bandied around (polygamy and such). Why not? How can you arbitrarily stop there?

Please reread what I said in the paragraph above.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 02:18 PM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: "JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... I'm done. Plonk. Thank God. I have to say, I didn't think it could be done.

We are very well aware of many numerous things that you are
unaware of...
Surely usenet is full of people who've killfiled Andre.

Surely, you can *prove* that *claim*, eh ?

Uh huh...
But _he's_ killfiling people?

Amazing, innit ? That it works *both ways*, even the point
of *proving your claims*...

BTW, to be on topic, if you examine Fatherless America;
Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, by David
Blankenhorn, you find, on page 191, for instance,
research that proves that even families with a mom and
a step father are worse for the kids, measureably so,
than are intact, two bio parent families:

" youngsters living in stepfamilies are *equally at risk*
( Emphasis added ) for involvement in deviant behavior
as are their peers living in single-parent households.
Although an additional adult is present in the
adolescent's stepfamily, this may be a case in which
two parents are not enough. " 16.

Note: Laurence Steinberg, " Single Parents, Stepparents,
and the Susceptability of Adolescents to Antisocial
Peer Pressure ", Child Development 58 ( 1987 ), 275.

So, the very *best* result that a gay couple can offer
a child is as *bad* as a single parent home, and the
toxic results of that are well enough documented, such
that over 70% of all US jail inmates come from such
broken homes, wheras, their proportion of the total
population is far lower than that.

Thus, be the numbers, gay couples *cannot* parent a
child as well as can intact families, and, as such, as
we don't grant single-parents a status they don't qualify
for, that of marriage, neither do gay couples in any
way qualify, on the same grounds.

Marriage is what it is. The anti family social
experimenters' efforts notwithstanding, it fails in
*every other* form.

There: Unlike Doug and JWB, my post was even...
*on topic*, with an actual *point*, and actual
PROOF.

Match my credentials, aces...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

JWB

03-09-2004, 02:19 PM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2lfs0
There: Unlike Doug and JWB, my post was even... *on topic*, with an actual *point*, and actual PROOF. Match my credentials, aces...

My proof was just as substantial. In a lot less words.

JWB

Rauni

03-09-2004, 04:11 PM

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:51:19 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:10:55 GMT, "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc4rn05.fni.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On 8 Mar 2004 19:12:36 -0800, Caren> <caren50@msn.com> wrote:>> "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message>> news:<_g43c.28270$aT1.13499@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>...>>>>>> My opinions are largely subjective,>>> and I expect many to disagree with them.>>>>>> I meet committed gay couples in church every week,>>> many with their children, and I see their faith as genuine.>>> We live our lives, including a lot of community ministry>>> of the sort that (IMO) Tony would recognize.>>>>>> The proof of lives that please God will be in their fruits -->>> the families, friends, and communities we have nurtured -->>> not in winning an argument between pro-gay or anti-gay theories.>>>>>> For now, my claim is based on my faith in God's love.>>> You're welcome to disagree.>>>> You are so incredibly eloquent Tsam. I have much respect for you.>>>> What I'm finding interesting about this thread is that what often>> happens in ASM is that if you state that you feel a certain way, then>> you get jumped on if you don't have facts. Yet in this post there are>> some facts and a fight is ensuing regardless. Isn't life funny>> sometimes.>> The plural of "anecdote" is not "fact".>>> I like your thoughts on nurturing. Not to sound to Hilary(ish) but it>> does take a village. If a majority is spending energy hating a>> minority, that in itself causes harm. In other words, they are>> perpetuating the cycle of bad virtues. Hatred, after all, is NOT a>> family value as they say :-)>> Why do you believe that because someone doesn't want gays to marry they> "hate" gays. I don't want drunks driving and I don't hate drunks. I> don't want children smoking but I don't hate children. I disagree with your belief that gays are intrinsically immoral, but you still show some concern for them as people. That is light years from the unmitigated hate of Rev. Phelps. Thank you for living your beliefs with the best consistency you understand. I don't acccept the analogy between gays and drunk drivers, because I see direct harm that drunk drivers cause and I don't see a corresponding direct harm caused by gays finding and making love with partners. Exactly. It is a stupid analogy. My daughter was killed by a drunk driver. I hardly think the gay couple down the street is going to harm or kill anyone.THAT is HORRIBLE!! My Lord! How did you get past this, Rauni? I can'teven imagine how it is possible.

You don't get past it. You get used to it. Plus I had the most
wonderful friends. I ended up becoming close to many of my daughters
friends. (she had friends of all ages from their 20's to their 40's).

I even became very close to my daughter's Navy recruiter. And he
turned out to be a great sounding board and cheering section when I
met my husband.

And even though I really miss her a lot I am happy. I have a *good*
man in my life who I swear was custom made for me. And it was my
daughter's wish that I would some day meet someone special and
remarry.

Bill in Co.

03-09-2004, 05:15 PM

Emma Anne wrote: Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Emma Anne wrote: Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:> Gay people are living together and having childern. So arguing weather> it is good or bad is silly. It happens to be a fact of life. This, to me, is key. Gays are acting as married couples. They have proven themselves. It's time. The same is not true for the other hypotheticals which get bandied around (polygamy and such). Why not? How can you arbitrarily stop there? Please reread what I said in the paragraph above.

I just reread it, and I it doesn't negate what I asked. Well, ok, you can say
it wasn't totally arbitrary - but that's all you can say. And if you really
want to get down to it, I'm not sure WHO has "proven themselves".

Caren

03-09-2004, 08:49 PM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Ppo3c.160542$4o.209824@attbi_s52>... "JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... I'm done. Plonk. Thank God. I have to say, I didn't think it could be done. Surely usenet is full of people who've killfiled Andre. But _he's_ killfiling people?

"PLONK" me .....____please_____????"

JWB

03-09-2004, 08:58 PM

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0403092049.1f9f4393@posting.google.c om... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Ppo3c.160542$4o.209824@attbi_s52>... "JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > I'm done. Plonk. Thank God. I have to say, I didn't think it could be done. Surely usenet is full of people who've killfiled Andre. But _he's_ killfiling people? "PLONK" me .....____please_____????"\

Bet you say that to all the guys ;)

Bill in Co.

03-09-2004, 11:19 PM

Doug Anderson wrote: Whether the parents are bio parents or not has not been shown to be relevant. Neither has the gender of the parents.

Nothing has been conclusively shown to be relevant. So I guess that means
nothing IS relevant. OK, I get it now. (The logic escaped me at first, but
now it's as clear as a bell).

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 06:39 AM

"Bill in Co." (surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net) writes: Doug Anderson wrote: Whether the parents are bio parents or not has not been shown to be relevant. Neither has the gender of the parents. Nothing has been conclusively shown to be relevant. So I guess that means nothing IS relevant. OK, I get it now. (The logic escaped me at first, but now it's as clear as a bell).

Yep: True Believer=Nihlist...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Rauni

03-10-2004, 06:51 AM

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:58:25 GMT, "JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote:
"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:3754f0b3.0403092049.1f9f4393@posting.g oogle.com... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:<Ppo3c.160542$4o.209824@attbi_s52>... "JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> writes: > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message > news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > > > I'm done. Plonk. > > Thank God. I have to say, I didn't think it could be done. Surely usenet is full of people who've killfiled Andre. But _he's_ killfiling people? "PLONK" me .....____please_____????"\Bet you say that to all the guys ;)
Only the short ones standing under bridges

JWB

03-10-2004, 07:12 AM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2n995$1f1$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:

Then why did you challenge me to "match your credentials?" Why are you harping on this ? Since your *total failure* to offer ANY proofs for your claims is of far more consequence.

He's harping on it because it's fun to watch you twist and try to worm your
way out of it.

Caren

03-10-2004, 07:17 AM

"JWB" <tom765@servo.com> wrote in message news:<Rfx3c.8082$tP6.3932934@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message news:3754f0b3.0403092049.1f9f4393@posting.google.c om... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Ppo3c.160542$4o.209824@attbi_s52>... "JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> writes: > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message > news:c2ktkn$kkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > > > I'm done. Plonk. > > Thank God. I have to say, I didn't think it could be done. Surely usenet is full of people who've killfiled Andre. But _he's_ killfiling people? "PLONK" me .....____please_____????"\ Bet you say that to all the guys ;)

Yeah honey, I loved getting PLONKED. My favorite line :-)

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 07:35 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
lots of fulminations without addressing a single point.

Emma Anne

03-10-2004, 08:01 AM

Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Emma Anne wrote: Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Emma Anne wrote:> Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:>>> Gay people are living together and having childern. So arguing>> weather it is good or bad is silly. It happens to be a fact of life.>> This, to me, is key. Gays are acting as married couples. They have> proven themselves. It's time. The same is not true for the other> hypotheticals which get bandied around (polygamy and such). Why not? How can you arbitrarily stop there? Please reread what I said in the paragraph above. I just reread it, and I it doesn't negate what I asked. Well, ok, you can say it wasn't totally arbitrary - but that's all you can say. And if you really want to get down to it, I'm not sure WHO has "proven themselves".

Right. I feel gays have proven themselves, and you are not sure.

This isn't arbitrary at all. Our system of law is such that precedence
matters a lot. Those who wish to change the law need to make their
case.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 08:46 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Rauni (ladywolf@newsguy.com) writes: What's all this stuff about bio parent? Because not only is that at the core of *family*, but that path is also the proven best place for children. Andre, you do realize that there are a lot of parents out there that are not geneticaly related to their kid. Indeed. While adoptive parentS ( Note the plural ) are a blessing, providing a child with *two* parents, it stands that the data I have priorly cited shows that, that type aside, most other forms of relationship is *harmful to the children*.

Now you are being even more bizarre. The data you've cited indicates
that kids with step-parents have statistically worse outcomes. You've
been trying to massage that into "kids missing one or more bio parents
are at risk."

But now you are saying this doesn't apply to adopted kids?

That is precisely the point I was making! In addition, you've made it
manifestly clear that you have no data saying adopted kids do worse
with two moms or two dads than they do with one of each. I also am
aware of no such data.

So we ought to be done, right?

Bill in Co.

03-10-2004, 08:52 AM

Emma Anne wrote: Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: Emma Anne wrote: Bill in Co. <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:> Emma Anne wrote:>> Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:>>>>> Gay people are living together and having childern. So arguing>>> weather it is good or bad is silly. It happens to be a fact of life.>>>> This, to me, is key. Gays are acting as married couples. They have>> proven themselves. It's time. The same is not true for the other>> hypotheticals which get bandied around (polygamy and such).>> Why not? How can you arbitrarily stop there? Please reread what I said in the paragraph above. I just reread it, and I it doesn't negate what I asked. Well, ok, you can say it wasn't totally arbitrary - but that's all you can say. And if you really want to get down to it, I'm not sure WHO has "proven themselves". Right. I feel gays have proven themselves, and you are not sure.

"You feel". But YOU aren't the child who is growing up without a father and
mother, which, in the final analysis, is the MOST important thing, for setting
a precedence.
This isn't arbitrary at all. Our system of law is such that precedence matters a lot. Those who wish to change the law need to make their case.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 09:03 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Rauni (ladywolf@newsguy.com) writes: What's all this stuff about bio parent? Because not only is that at the core of *family*, but that path is also the proven best place for children. Andre, you do realize that there are a lot of parents out there that are not geneticaly related to their kid. Indeed. While adoptive parentS ( Note the plural ) are a blessing, providing a child with *two* parents, it stands that the data I have priorly cited shows that, that type aside, most other forms of relationship is *harmful to the children*. Now you are being even more bizarre. The data you've cited indicates that kids with step-parents have statistically worse outcomes. You've been trying to massage that into "kids missing one or more bio parents are at risk."

Yes.
But now you are saying this doesn't apply to adopted kids?

It appears not. Once a child has *neither bio parent*, AND a
family with a *mother AND a father*, they tend to do well
enough, though still not quite as well as kids from intact
two bio parent families.
That is precisely the point I was making! In addition, you've made it manifestly clear that you have no data saying adopted kids do worse with two moms or two dads than they do with one of each. I also am aware of no such data.

LOL ! The data that shows the toxic effects of fatherlessness is
*clear enough on ALL fatherless situations*. So, that eliminates
ALL gay women.

The data on kids without a mother isn't quite as toxic, but still
is demonstrably worse than with a mother. So, that eliminates
ALL gay men.
So we ought to be done, right?

Yep. NO gay situations are non-toxic for kids. The only variable
is, *how toxic*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 10:14 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Rauni (ladywolf@newsguy.com) writes: > What's all this stuff about bio parent? Because not only is that at the core of *family*, but that path is also the proven best place for children. > Andre, you do realize that > there are a lot of parents out there that are not geneticaly related > to their kid. Indeed. While adoptive parentS ( Note the plural ) are a blessing, providing a child with *two* parents, it stands that the data I have priorly cited shows that, that type aside, most other forms of relationship is *harmful to the children*. Now you are being even more bizarre. The data you've cited indicates that kids with step-parents have statistically worse outcomes. You've been trying to massage that into "kids missing one or more bio parents are at risk." Yes. But now you are saying this doesn't apply to adopted kids? It appears not. Once a child has *neither bio parent*, AND a family with a *mother AND a father*, they tend to do well enough, though still not quite as well as kids from intact two bio parent families.

So you are saying children who are given up for adoption have better
outcomes than children where the mother was artificially inseminated
because of fertility issues and the other parent adopted the child at
birth?

If you have any data for that (no, I'm not interested in data for
_other_ things which you are planning to say are equivalent) I'd be
very interested.
That is precisely the point I was making! In addition, you've made it manifestly clear that you have no data saying adopted kids do worse with two moms or two dads than they do with one of each. I also am aware of no such data. LOL ! The data that shows the toxic effects of fatherlessness is *clear enough on ALL fatherless situations*.

No, it isn't. The only situation you've referenced is a relationship
breakup after the child. That isn't ALL situations.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 10:59 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Rauni (ladywolf@newsguy.com) writes:> > What's all this stuff about bio parent?>> Because not only is that at the core of *family*, but that path is> also the proven best place for children.>> > Andre, you do realize that> > there are a lot of parents out there that are not geneticaly related> > to their kid.>> Indeed. While adoptive parentS ( Note the plural ) are a blessing,> providing a child with *two* parents, it stands that the data I> have priorly cited shows that, that type aside, most other forms> of relationship is *harmful to the children*. Now you are being even more bizarre. The data you've cited indicates that kids with step-parents have statistically worse outcomes. You've been trying to massage that into "kids missing one or more bio parents are at risk." Yes. But now you are saying this doesn't apply to adopted kids? It appears not. Once a child has *neither bio parent*, AND a family with a *mother AND a father*, they tend to do well enough, though still not quite as well as kids from intact two bio parent families. So you are saying children who are given up for adoption have better outcomes than children where the mother was artificially inseminated because of fertility issues and the other parent adopted the child at birth?

Now, you're grossly nitpicking, into overly specific and irrelevent
groups.

Please post your proof that the latter case is statistically significant...

Uh huh.
If you have any data for that (no, I'm not interested in data for _other_ things which you are planning to say are equivalent) I'd be very interested.

First, post *your proof* that your straw woman is statistically
significant.

Free Clue: Saying " No, what about *this exception* ! " is not proof
of... anything... Aside from your refusal to look at the *big picture*...

Which is, NO gay couple can give a *child* a *father and a mother*.

Period. End of story. Unqualified to marry.
That is precisely the point I was making! In addition, you've made it manifestly clear that you have no data saying adopted kids do worse with two moms or two dads than they do with one of each. I also am aware of no such data. LOL ! The data that shows the toxic effects of fatherlessness is *clear enough on ALL fatherless situations*. No, it isn't. The only situation you've referenced is a relationship breakup after the child.

Wrong. Thanks for *proving* that you are *ignorant* of the cited
material.
That isn't ALL situations.

No one, other than *you*, claimed it was.

Your straw woman, *you* play with it...

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 11:05 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> Rauni (ladywolf@newsguy.com) writes: >> > What's all this stuff about bio parent? >> >> Because not only is that at the core of *family*, but that path is >> also the proven best place for children. >> >> > Andre, you do realize that >> > there are a lot of parents out there that are not geneticaly related >> > to their kid. >> >> Indeed. While adoptive parentS ( Note the plural ) are a blessing, >> providing a child with *two* parents, it stands that the data I >> have priorly cited shows that, that type aside, most other forms >> of relationship is *harmful to the children*. > > Now you are being even more bizarre. The data you've cited indicates > that kids with step-parents have statistically worse outcomes. You've > been trying to massage that into "kids missing one or more bio parents > are at risk." Yes. > But now you are saying this doesn't apply to adopted kids? It appears not. Once a child has *neither bio parent*, AND a family with a *mother AND a father*, they tend to do well enough, though still not quite as well as kids from intact two bio parent families. So you are saying children who are given up for adoption have better outcomes than children where the mother was artificially inseminated because of fertility issues and the other parent adopted the child at birth? Now, you're grossly nitpicking, into overly specific and irrelevent groups.

Wait. I thought we were _talking_ about gay and lesbian parents. If
you think that is an insignificant or irrelevant group, why have you
been blustering about it for (hundreds?) of posts?

snip
LOL ! The data that shows the toxic effects of fatherlessness is *clear enough on ALL fatherless situations*. No, it isn't. The only situation you've referenced is a relationship breakup after the child. Wrong. Thanks for *proving* that you are *ignorant* of the cited material. That isn't ALL situations. No one, other than *you*, claimed it was.

You claim to have clear data on ALL fatherless situaions. It's right
above. Are you keeping the rest of the data (on, say, lesbian
parents) secret?

Tsam Nami

03-10-2004, 12:46 PM

"Bill in Co." replied to Emma Anne,
in a discussion of the legal implications
of recognizing gay marriages: Right. I feel gays have proven themselves, and you are not sure. "You feel". But YOU aren't the child who is growing up without a father
and mother, which, in the final analysis, is the MOST important thing, for
setting a precedence.

Feeling wanted as a child is very important.
I regard that as more important (to the childs interests)
than having a mixed-gender pair of parents.
--
Tsam

Philip Lewis

03-10-2004, 02:32 PM

"JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> wrote in message
news:IQk3c.7878$tP6.3635715@twister.nyc.rr.com...
| "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
|
news:c2ke8k$1t1nn0$1@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
|
| > If you had been attentive you would have
| > realised that I had already been very
| > explicit about my views on this issue -
all
| > you had to offer was an unsupported
anecdote
| > that did not even address the very real
| > issues that I had highlighted.
|
| I don't care about your views. To be
honest, I didn't even read them. You
| are the one who had a problem with mine. So
you disprove them.

You have failed to offer any proof so what is
there to disprove?

--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/

Rauni

03-10-2004, 04:46 PM

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:46:11 GMT, "Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav>
wrote:
"Bill in Co." replied to Emma Anne,in a discussion of the legal implicationsof recognizing gay marriages: Right. I feel gays have proven themselves, and you are not sure. "You feel". But YOU aren't the child who is growing up without a fatherand mother, which, in the final analysis, is the MOST important thing, forsetting a precedence.Feeling wanted as a child is very important.I regard that as more important (to the childs interests)than having a mixed-gender pair of parents.

Pehaps Andre should read the research done by a child who was raised
in such an environment.

http://www.familieslikemine.com/

"y difficulties were not because my dad was gay, but because of how
our anti-gay society views him and views my family. It's not easy to
listen to messages every day from the media, political leaders,
religious leaders, teachers and neighbors who say gay people are bad
or sinful or wrong. When they talk about gay people like that, they
offend and anger me as well as my father and his partner, two men I
love and respect.

If I could do it all over again, I would have talked to other kids
like me. Sure, I knew vaguely that my dad had friends who also had
kids, but I refused to spend time with them. I thought it was stupid
that I would be expected to like them just because we all had gay
dads. Now I regret not getting together with them. I know now it would
have been helpful to know that I had some allies. Not necessarily best
friends, but allies. "Allies" is a word to describe people who are on
your side and you can trust."

Bill in Co.

03-10-2004, 07:13 PM

Tsam Nami wrote: "Bill in Co." replied to Emma Anne, in a discussion of the legal implications of recognizing gay marriages: Right. I feel gays have proven themselves, and you are not sure. "You feel". But YOU aren't the child who is growing up without a father and mother, which, in the final analysis, is the MOST important thing, for setting a precedence. Feeling wanted as a child is very important. I regard that as more important (to the childs interests) than having a mixed-gender pair of parents. -- Tsam

What you guys seem to fail to realize is this does NOT have to be an "either
or" contest. And it is NOT an "either or contest"! So stop making it into
one. You can have BOTH, by keeping marriage defined as a convenant between a
man and a woman - which translates to having a father and a mother, as natural
(as in, as nature intended it) role models for their offspring. Nature
designed it this way. Any time man comes in and messes around with nature, he
(inevitably) messes up the natural order of things.

We want what is BEST for the child, and that means in ALL categories. That's
the way I see it.

Philip Lewis

03-10-2004, 11:28 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote
in message
news:WAG3c.97141$ko6.781644@attbi_s02...
| dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
writes:
|
| > lots of fulminations without addressing a
single point.

Empty vessels make the loudest noise as Doug
has proved once again.

--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/

Philip Lewis

03-11-2004, 04:37 AM

Turin

03-11-2004, 05:49 AM

"Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c2o52s$1t5tav$1@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de>... "JWB" <bigtom@servo.com> wrote in message news:IQk3c.7878$tP6.3635715@twister.nyc.rr.com... | "Philip Lewis" <NotTelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message | news:c2ke8k$1t1nn0$1@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de... | | | > If you had been attentive you would have | > realised that I had already been very | > explicit about my views on this issue - all | > you had to offer was an unsupported anecdote | > that did not even address the very real | > issues that I had highlighted. | | I don't care about your views. To be honest, I didn't even read them. You | are the one who had a problem with mine. So you disprove them. You have failed to offer any proof so what is there to disprove?

The nice thing about arguing Phil is that you can almost always rely
on him to forfeit, making his inevitable defeat even easier.

Though the neo-conservative "position" is virtually empty, and it
ought to be easy for him to memorize his two-or-so formulas and the
bag of rhymes, he still doesn't do his homework.....

- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin

I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_Politics/
------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----