response 139 of 293:

Dec 12 03:35 UTC 2003

You in favor of blinding the guy?

response 141 of 293:

Dec 12 08:05 UTC 2003

Actually, the saying has nothing to do with body parts (or, necessarily) money.
It's just saying that the penalty needs to be comensurate with the crime.
It's an idiom to the tune of "apples to apples" vs. "apples to oranges".

The latter which describes the drift we've just experienced. (:

Re#129: Jeff, I was not quoting anyone else in #128 (if you referred to me).
I was quoting what I said previously and clarifying it with more commentary
as per what klg had said in response.

response 143 of 293:

Dec 12 17:00 UTC 2003

OK, here it again, indented as requested:
(Though, as I was quoting myself, I changed a word or two for clarity.)

 In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that
 Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to
 practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the
 Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread
 this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.).
 
 So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100
 years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored:
 
> More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed
> dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into
> arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love.  Scandalous!!
 
> Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to
> accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.
 
 Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new
 definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions.
 
 Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man
 and a Christian woman.
 
 Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being
 between a man and a woman of the same "race".
 
 In turn, my definition is a superset of yours.  (Shall we call
 this the evolution of an idea and institution?)
 
 The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the
 past 100-150 years.
 
> Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been
> "effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to
> be so.
 
> I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution?
> Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise
> offend your God and weaken the institution?

response 145 of 293:

Dec 12 19:36 UTC 2003

Muslims worship the same God jews and Christians do.  It just that they have
teh "particulars" wrong.  The same God the Mormons do, but they have the
"particulars" wrong.

Forget religion.  For most of human history, people have practiced a one man,
one woman relationship.  A Nuclear family, if you will.

That doesn't mean people have not strayed.
That doesn't mean some nations haven't allowed multiple marriages.
That doesn't discount the harems.
That doesn't discount prostitution.

But the majority of human societies have practiced one on one relationships.
Nature built us that way, that is why we get jealous, thats why men commit
some murders.  Because an uncontrolable age seeks to remove those who cheat
on them.  (women do this as well)

It is a lot deeper in us than religion creates.  It is rather something that
religion tries to control, to regulate, to codify.  So people who are to dumb
to see the reality in society have a place where they can be instructed in
how the society expects them to behave.

God, or nature (if you prefer) made us want to be monogomous.

response 147 of 293:

Dec 12 19:41 UTC 2003

Re #140:
    The idea that these are maximums makes sense, but do you have a specific
reference for this?

response 149 of 293:

Dec 12 20:23 UTC 2003

Re resp:145: Even a casual reading of the Bible suggests that "one man,
one woman" has been the exception, rather than the rule, for much of
human history.  Maybe you should be specific about what parts of human
history you're counting, and what parts you're editing out.

A lot of conservatives seem to feel that the 1950's were the American
utopia.  They take the norms of that time -- nuclear families, the man
going out and earning money, the woman staying home and raising quiet,
respecful kids, etc. -- and try to filter the rest of history to make it
seem like things were always and should always be that way.

response 151 of 293:

Dec 12 23:59 UTC 2003

edina, when do you think humanity learned sex led to babies?  Had to be at
the point they started domestication of animals.  Right?

100,000 years ago?

response 153 of 293:

Dec 13 03:08 UTC 2003

i think polygamy is just fine for some women, but they should be
able to treat all of their husbands EQUALLY.

re151: prove it, officer stink-o.

response 155 of 293:

Dec 13 14:32 UTC 2003

and down the slippery slope we go...

We discriminate against immoral and illegal activities all the time.

Thats why theft, murder, prostitution, drug use, rape, adn child molestation
are all illegal.  WE discriminate against them.  Lets just make them all
legal.

response 157 of 293:

Dec 13 15:13 UTC 2003

NPR has been running a series over the last week or two on the history
of Brown v Board of Education.  It's quite interesting how much the
arguments against school desegregation parallel the arguments against
gay marriage.  There was the "the bible sez it's wrong" argument, the
"we've always done it this way, and if it was good for the cavemen it's
good for us" argument, the "end of society as we know it" argument, even
the "this is a  bad thing to bring up during an election year" argument.

The only anti-desegregation argument I hadn't heard applied to gay
marriage was the "I'm not a bigot--we do it this way because it's
*better* for blacks."  Hadn't heard that one until yesterday, that is. 
Some (Republican) legislator on the news was denying that he had
anything against homosexuals or gay marriage--he was just afraid that
allowing gay marriage would create a backlash against gays from  his
less-enlightened fellow citizens, so he wanted to hold off for the good
of the homosexual community.  Right....

response 159 of 293:

Dec 13 15:47 UTC 2003

In fact, the Muslim Turks introduced the Europeans to coffee.
As I said, infidels!!

I don't think we outlaw theft, rape and murder because they are "immoral".
I think we consider them immoral and outlaw them because these HARM another.

Being gay and gay marriage harms no one.
What compelling state interest is at state for The People?

So far the only one presented is that gay marriage will "weaken" the 
nstitution of marriage.  Really?  Isn't it time someone explained how
and why this would happen or withdraw what appears to be the only
non-religious argument against gay marriage?

Bruce, as you yourself argued, "one on one relationships" go back a long
way. Why not recognize these same relationships amongst gays and lesbians?