I'll happily discuss WMDs once they finish the search. When the issue hit
the media the search was only 85% complete.
xxoo,
Q.M.
* * *
Holy #^%$! LMA kinda agrees with LMM on something....now let's talk
about WMDs...
-Ozzy
(It's Hell Monday. I don't get my 9:30 feeding due to stupid,
non-productive meetings and I'm already cranky. Where's my nuk and
blanky?)
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann
<jmmccann_at_s...> wrote:
> I don't think the legal definition of marriage should have to
include the
> possibility of procreation. After all, that would exclude a lot of
elderly
> and infertile couples anyway. But I think we need to be mindful that
the
> main reason for the existence of marriage *is* to provide a
(theoretically)
> stable environment for the raising of children.
>
> I'd go with Ozzy's definition--or bag entirely the idea that the
government
> should be giving its blessing to private unions. Probably the
former, since
> there should be a legal "shorthand" for the various benefits married
people
> need/enjoy. That way, the union doesn't have to be constructed
> piece-by-piece by lawyers every single time.
>
> As it is, people occasionally do get legally divorced just to detach
their
> finances--and then still live together as a couple. So it already
happens.
> As for yahoos out in Nevada and New Mexico who marry family members,
I don't
> really have a problem with it--though if the state ever recognizes
this, it
> should also insist on birth control. And I have no problem with
legalizing
> prostitution, though that's a separate issue from marriage.
>
> --Q.M.
>
> * * * * *
>
> OK, that takes care of sex between family members and "humans too
> young to know any better, legally". That probably also covers
> animals, since it's kind of hard to prove consent on BOTH ends - er,
> sides. I suppose prostitution is also out of the mix since some
> states have legalized it. That leaves homosexual &
> polygamous/polyandrous relationships, "alternate" methods (sodomy,
> etc), and ??? (Am I missing anything else?) So perhaps not such a
> slippery slope after all.
>
> Oz proposed (in one of his blogs) that marriage simply be defined as
a
> legalized relationship between two consenting adults. Emphasis on
> CONSENTING. All the tax benefits, etc. thereof included. Something
> bothers me about this. I see the potential for including things like
> child-parent relationships, or perhaps a legalized union for 10
years,
> then stopping it as tax-ically useful, etc.
>
> Should the definition of marriage include procreation?
>
> --G.H.
>
>
> --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann
> <jmmccann_at_s...> wrote:
> > I liked the general point it was making, and disliked that it
rested
> so
> > heavily on defending Santorum. I still feel Santorum's arguments
> were bogus,
> > but I have to admit I don't really fear marriage will be legalized
> between
> > sisters/brothers and parents/children, because I think it will be
> found that
> > the state has a compelling interest in controlling the
circumstances
> under
> > which it licenses potential procreation (that is, if it is going
to
> continue
> > to issue marriage licenses at all, which I have mixed feelings
about
> in the
> > first place).
> >
> > I blogged on this at the time, since I was outraged by Santorum's
> remarks.
> > See my archives from last spring--at the old Blogspot site.
(Haven't
> moved
> > 'em yet.)
> >
> > --Q.M.
> >
> > * * * *
> >
> > I had no idea what this article was about, so I looked it up.
> >
> > Bowers v. Hardwick was a 1986 decision of the Supreme Court. The
> > Bowers decision upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy
law
> > that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting
> > adults. (Not distinguishing between homo- or heterosexual couples.
)
> > Seventeen years later, in 2003, the Supreme Court explicitly
> overruled
> > Bowers in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, and held that such laws
> are
> > unconstitutional.
> >
> > It all centers around the 14th amendment. "No state shall make or
> > enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of
> > citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
> person
> > of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny
> to
> > any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
> "
> >
> > In May 2003 the senator said he did not like homosexual acts
> (although
> > he had "nothing against homosexuals") and said if the Lawrence
> > decision about the right to privacy were extended, then not only
> > sodomy, but also fornication, adultery, polygamy, group sex,
> > prostitution, adult brother-sister or parent-child incest, and
> > (arguably) bestiality are protected as specifications of the
> > constitutional right of privacy. All of these acts and practices
> are,
> > or can be, consensual. If consent provides the standard of
inclusion
> > within the right of privacy, they must all be admitted.
> >
> > Slippery slope?
> >
> > G.H.
> >
> > --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann
> > <jmmccann_at_s...> wrote:
> > > A topic for our times (and, um, places).
> > >
> > > --Q.M.
> > >
> > > http://www.techcentralstation.com/061703B.html
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OliveStarlightOrchestra/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?
> subject=Unsubscr
> > ibe>
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OliveStarlightOrchestra/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscr
> ibe>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OliveStarlightOrchestra/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscr
ibe>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2004-04-12 15:02:18