|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 57 of 293:
| 
Dec 6 10:10 UTC 2003 |
Figures != truth. HMG (Her Majesty's Government)
currently estimates that *upto* five thousand
people a year die from "superbugs" contracted
whilst in hospital which are resistant to
antibiotics. Independent research suggest the
number may be closer to *at least* twenty
thousand. Since HMG also claims that the *total*
number of people who are infected with superbugs
is 100,000 a year, unless the independent
statistics have higher figures on the total
number of infections (i.e. those who are infected
and die, and those who are infected but
recover), that's eithe one hell of a discrepancy,
or one hell of a large proportion of the total
*and* a large discrepancy.
(The discrepancy arises because the methods of
recrding death certificates are not sufficiently
rigorous to record every case of death which was
*not* the direct result of infection with a
superbug, but where such infection was a
contributing factor. Thus HMG's figurtes are in
fact extrapolited from US Govt. statistics,
adjusting for demographicsd and population size.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 58 of 293:
|
Dec 6 18:53 UTC 2003 |
("Figures don't lie, but liars figure.")
|
klg
|
|
response 59 of 293:
|
Dec 7 03:43 UTC 2003 |
Yes, Mr. gull. The (gay) people who conducted the studies actually
want to make homosexuals look bad. Makes sense to us!
Mr. richard,
Watch your blood pressure (and please either use a dictionary or cease
using terms that, quite obviously, you do not understand)! We have no
desire for governmental control of how homosexcuals wish to conduct
their personal lives. But, quite obviously, since marriage is
commonly known as a relationship between two people of different
sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other. We have
no desire to change a definition for a social institution that has
been effective and useful for thousands of years. (Which, we would
think, is the definition of conservative.)
regards,
klg
|
lk
|
|
response 60 of 293:
|
Dec 7 06:30 UTC 2003 |
I strongly suspect that the "surveys" referenced were as scientific as
web polls. Vote early, vote often, and tell us whatever fancy you wish.
Brag and exaggerate to your heart's content. And never mind that the
survey was conducted in a porn magazine that is self-selective and not
representative of the gay population....
All of which misses the point. We don't deny marriage to heterosexuals
because some of them lack fidelity. Why should we deny marriage to
homosexuals for that reason?!
|
willcome
|
|
response 61 of 293:
|
Dec 7 07:06 UTC 2003 |
Because they're fags.
|
keesan
|
|
response 62 of 293:
|
Dec 7 15:12 UTC 2003 |
Marriage would not be the first word to change its meaning. Family used to
be the people who lived in your house and worked for you.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 63 of 293:
|
Dec 7 15:57 UTC 2003 |
Quite obviously, since marriage is
commonly known as a relationship between two people of different
sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other
It was equally obvious, once upon a time, that women shouldn't have the
right to vote. That black people shouldn't be allowed to use the same
water fountains as white people, or serve in the same military units as
them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 64 of 293:
|
Dec 7 16:07 UTC 2003 |
Of course, since you don't fall off or lose your balance, the world must be
flat, too.
|
klg
|
|
response 65 of 293:
|
Dec 7 23:22 UTC 2003 |
re: 62. Ahhh. So you understand what we are getting at.
and Mr. jmsaul tries to take us off on tangents.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 66 of 293:
|
Dec 8 01:51 UTC 2003 |
No, I'm pointing out that "it's always been this way, so it's obvious we
shouldn't do it any other way" is a dumb argument.
|
scott
|
|
response 67 of 293:
|
Dec 8 04:15 UTC 2003 |
My favorite take on this argument comes from a very old Doonesbury cartoon:
Clyde (a black male): I heard you're gay.
Andy (a gay male): I heard you're black.
Clyde: Yeah, but that's normal.
Andy: Didn't used to be.
|
bru
|
|
response 68 of 293:
|
Dec 8 04:19 UTC 2003 |
Okay we shouldn't do it that way because marriage is a religious ceremony,
a sacrament, and homosexuality is a sin. as such, they are not entitled to
teh sacraments of CHRISTIAN marriage. If they can find a religion that
sanctions gay relationships, then they should join that religion.
civil relationshios are another matter. If they wish to establish a civil
union, then they should be so allowed. But then you also have to offer said
civil union to other lifestyle choices.
Say cousins, uncles and nieces, mother adn son, father and daughter, cats adn
dogs, as nauseum.
|
scott
|
|
response 69 of 293:
|
Dec 8 04:23 UTC 2003 |
It's been possible to get a completely civil marriage from mayors, ship's
captains, etc., for many many years now. Marriages with all the same legal
rights, responsibilities, privileges, and the same license as a church
marriage.
|
bru
|
|
response 70 of 293:
|
Dec 8 05:13 UTC 2003 |
Note I didn't say Civil Marriage, rather civil union.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 71 of 293:
|
Dec 8 05:19 UTC 2003 |
So if marriage is a religious ceremony, do you think there should be
such a thing as Civil Marriage?
Would you prefer to see the current form civil marriage generalized into
this concept of civil union or would you want to see two separate forms
of civil ceremony maintained, one for marriage and one for unions?
|
lk
|
|
response 72 of 293:
|
Dec 8 09:36 UTC 2003 |
The term "civil marriage" already [um] divorces the term from "religous
marriage" and any divine connotation that may have to some people.
Or would you also argue for "Muslim Unions", too?
If god[s] consider 2 people to be married is between them and their god[s].
What the state considers is an entirely different issue, one which involves
the separation of church and state.
|
bru
|
|
response 73 of 293:
|
Dec 8 13:57 UTC 2003 |
marriage still denotes a man and a woman and does not violate any religious
laws even if it is non-religious in function.
Why do the gay members of this society feel the need to have a union between
them be a "marriage"? Is it not because they want to weaken the bonds, or
expand the borders of what is exceptable to the majority of our citizens?
|
keesan
|
|
response 74 of 293:
|
Dec 8 14:05 UTC 2003 |
Webster: Marriage: 3. an intimate or close union.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 75 of 293:
|
Dec 8 14:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 76 of 293:
|
Dec 8 14:12 UTC 2003 |
Like "The marriage of two minds"
That is a good point keesan. By using the word "marriage", I don't
think the religios angle should be implied. After all, a lot of
atheists get married. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't
mean that their marriages are not recognised.
|
edina
|
|
response 77 of 293:
|
Dec 8 16:01 UTC 2003 |
Exactly - a marriage is performed by a myriad of people - clergy, politicians,
judges, sea captains, various m-netters . . .only the clergy make it a
"religious" union. Other than that, it's all legality.
|
jp2
|
|
response 78 of 293:
|
Dec 8 16:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 79 of 293:
|
Dec 8 16:31 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:56: You're confused. Trying to control other people's private
lives doesn't make you communist, it makes you authoritarian. Communism
is more of an economic philosophy, but when governments implement it
they tend to result to authoritarianism to maintain control. Hence the
confusion between the two.
Re resp:59: The problem is the studies are being quoted out of context.
The writer of the article is cherry-picking passages that support his
position, then saying "but see, it's from something by a gay group" to
lend more legitimacy.
Re resp:68: Marriage, as practiced in the U.S., is both a civil and a
religious ceremony. I'm all for seperating the two, as suggested in
resp:71; perhaps everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) should get
a civil union that carries the secular benefits currently associated
with marriage, and then if they want to have their church "marry them in
the eyes of God" they can go ahead and do so. I expect to see this
happen in the U.S. about the time pigs fly, however; we seem to be
heading towards *more* ties between church and government lately, not less.
Re resp:73: Actually, I don't know anyone who favors it because they
want to "weaken the bonds" of marriage. Actually, most people I know
who favor gay marriage favor it because they *want* the strong bond that
marriage represents. Tell someone you have "a partner", and the
suggestion is that you could seperate at any time. Tell someone you're
"married", and there's a whole different and entirely more favorable set
of assumptions.
Let me repeat the point again, more clearly: I know of NO group or
individual who is proposing gay marriage because they deliberately want
to weaken marriage as an institution. That's not to say there aren't
ulterior motives. Some people see it as a stepping stone to greater
acceptance of their lifestyle by society. But destroying the
institution of marriage is *not* one of the motives here.
If you're worried about marriage losing its strength and reputation as
an institution, you might want to start talking to FOX about shows like
"Married by America" and "Joe Millionaire". I know they generally get a
pass from the right for supporting FOX News, but I think that the FOX
network has done more to weaken marriage than any other institution in
the last couple of years.
Re resp:77: Actually, sea captains cannot legally perform marriages in
the U.S.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 80 of 293:
|
Dec 8 16:44 UTC 2003 |
Neither can m-netters, for that matter :)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 81 of 293:
|
Dec 8 17:06 UTC 2003 |
As I understand things, gays ar looking to marriage for the ancillaries:
next-of-kin, inheritance, joint tax returns.
In the European novels involving a wedding that I've read, two marriage
ceremonies, one civil and one religious, are common.
NB: polyandry and polygyny have both been practiced, with success. Marriage
is not necessarily _a_ man and _a_ woman.
|