Homosexual marriage II

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Quite right, quite right, indeed, sah! Shall do. Speaking of homosexuality and marriage, I wonder what this about Dick Cheney's daughter, I wonder how thing'sll pan out for her and her - wife? Wife by common-law marriage, if they've been together for fifteen years? This is the first I've heard about Mary Cheney being preggers; cool news but I'm sure more than a bit sweat-inducing for her ultra-conservative dad. Hmm. We'll see how Virginia state legislation proceeds concerinig legalising gay marriage... didn't the state of Virginia just elect a new - senator or House Rep or something who could have some sway concerning the gay marriage issue?

Yeah, Yeah, Lotesse,

Remind me, which lesbians' sperm was it that got Mary Cheney preggers?

[Lotesse]

Please don't flame.

-Tessar

[Tessar]

Lets all please try to remember to keep our comments and questions productive and polite .

[Lotesse]

Of course! Fair enough, dear Tessar, of course! Please note, though, that I was not flaming. - And' let's speak of flaming. Speaking of flaming, why is Inked allowed to be ugly to me? His post - see above - is utterly meaningless, except to sarcastically and meanly and meaninglessly bait me in particular to a response. Tessar, is it right that this guy should be given free reign to spout sarcastic and purely bait-worthy posts directed at others, yet others may not reply by calling this person on their nasty-flavoured negativity? I'm just sayin.' What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Perhaps something can be done about mr Negative Nastypants, eh? Please? Please, I implore you, Tessar, speak to this man and please ask him to cease and desist with his pointless baiting and ugliness. For the good of all of us here... Please?

[Tessar]

Although I found his post to be boarderline, Ink's reply was as a means of pointing out what he felt was a flaw in your argument. Hense I did not delete his post since he did have a point he was trying to illustrate, however close he might have come to having his own post deleted.

[Lotesse]

O.K., and well judged, bello. All right, then... I think you're a pretty damn good moderator, Tessar, BTW, for what it's worth; I definitely have a goodly bit of respect for you. Your calls always seem to be very fair-minded and well-thought-out, not hasty at all; very cool, babe! Very cool...

[The Gaffer]

As far as I know, Mary Cheney is not advocating the abolition of men in the state of virginia.

Hey, maybe she was inseminated by the shrapnel from one of her dad's hunting partners..

[Insidious Rex]

And of course whats ironic (and sad) is that if she had been raped the "father" would have had more rights over the child then her lesbian mate who will be helping to raise the child. I think thats an attrocity. For the child and our society. And I dont think thats something we should just be shrugging off and saying essentially Hey too bad. Thats just the way the public wants it. Deal with it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Physicists are REAL scientists!!! They know how to separate actual observation from educated guesses about the past. And atoms ARE IN THE PRESENT and CAN be observed

Show me an electron Rian. By definition you could not pin down an electron or any atomic particle. All you can do is say its somewhere in there. Because it doesn’t exist in a static state in the same way we do. So JUST like evolution you are saying from the abundance of logical evidence (and math in the case of electrons) we can determine that this is within this realm of possibility. Just to say “Nope! Cant see it!� Doesn’t take away from that fact.

changes from one type of being to another does NOT happen in the present and has NOT been observed.

Its been “observed� in the fossil and genetic record. Saying if it cant happen in front of your eyes then it cant be true is an enormous cop out especially for someone who says they value science so much. Theres going to be things that take longer then your ability to watch… That’s just silly. I guess with that logic we should also say that all super novas are myth because we cant observe them IN THE PRESENT. After all, most of those suckers are older then any earth fossil…

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Of course! Fair enough, dear Tessar, of course! Please note, though, that I was not flaming. - And' let's speak of flaming. Speaking of flaming, why is Inked allowed to be ugly to me? His post - see above - is utterly meaningless, except to sarcastically and meanly and meaninglessly bait me in particular to a response. Tessar, is it right that this guy should be given free reign to spout sarcastic and purely bait-worthy posts directed at others, yet others may not reply by calling this person on their nasty-flavoured negativity? I'm just sayin.' What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Perhaps something can be done about mr Negative Nastypants, eh? Please? Please, I implore you, Tessar, speak to this man and please ask him to cease and desist with his pointless baiting and ugliness. For the good of all of us here... Please?

Egads, Lotesse, I did not intend to be ugly to you! Do emoticons have no meaning? is the universal symbol for "I'm funning!", isn't it? My point was well taken by our moderator. I was trying to point the flaw in the argument, not attack you personally. Now, with that clarification, I note that the Boston Globe reports on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on the disposition of parental rights in a lesbian divorce.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...s_of_lesbians/

Please note that biology rules. The mother (a biologically determinant state) is given custody because the burden of proof is on the "male"-partner (e.g., the person figuring as the masculine role in this particular case) to prove interest. No requisite adoption to establish parenthood was conducted by this "partner". This partner loses out.

Maternity is a fact. Paternity is an assumption. "It's not just for heterosexuals anymore."

***********************************************

Commentary at titusonenine.com is worth a read:
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules on parental rights of lesbians
The state’s highest court ruled yesterday against a lesbian who sought to establish parental rights to the 5-year-old biological child of her former partner, because she did not adopt the child during the 18 months they were together after the infant’s birth.

The case reflects the Supreme Judicial Court’s view that same-sex couples who fall out of love while raising children must abide by the same legal rules as any other dissolving couples: What counts in the court system are birth certificates, marriage licenses, adoption papers, or proof that you share equally in the nurturing of the youngsters.

In a complex legal case that stretched over three years, a lesbian from Middlesex County put forward some novel legal theories to establish her parental role. She said she deserved to be a legal parent because she and her former partner had effectively formed an agreement to raise a child together. She also argued she should be, at least, a de facto parent with visitation rights, because what she lacked in time with the child she gave in money as the primary breadwinner.

Her case was backed by briefs from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders of Boston, a legal rights group for gays and lesbians, and Fathers and Families, a father’s rights group that represents many divorced fathers.

But in a unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the court said the woman failed to meet the state’s requirement for legal parental rights or prove that her emotional bond was so strong that she deserved at least court-mandated visitation.

The justices said the woman never took up her option to adopt the baby, which would have given her the same rights as the biological mother. (Same-sex marriage was not an option when the women ended their relationship in 2003, when the child was about 18 months old.) The court also said the woman, who toiled long hours as codirector of a nonprofit organization, did not spend enough time caring for the child to establish her parental rights while the biological mother tended to most of the caretaking.

Marshall wrote that while the plaintiff may love the child and the child may derive some benefit from spending time with her, “these facts are insufficient, in themselves, to accord the plaintiff parental rights.�

Lawyers for the biological mother — Regina Hurley and John Foskett of the law firm Deutsch Williams — said the court’s opinion shows that courts now apply its child-protection measures equally, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple.

“They’re neutral on whether they are same-sex or heterosexual,� Foskett said.

Elizabeth Zeldin, a Boston lawyer who represented the plaintiff, said her client is deeply upset by the result, especially because the biological mother has said she planned to end the temporary court-mandated visitation if she prevailed in the SJC.

“It’s very sad for this child,� Zeldin said.

[captain carrot]

No comment.

[hectorberlioz]

I had supposed that Mary Cheney had been artificially inseminated...or...

She's lying about her Lesbianity.

Rex, getting all mad about an IF theory. I thought that wasn't your way!

and BTW, with finals this week, I'm just sortof out of it as far as debating goes. I'll pick up when I'm more energized....no telling when that'll be though.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with Lotesse Inked; there's a nice way to poke fun, and there's a nasty way to poke fun. IMO you were reeeeeally toeing the line there.

If emoticons were the only requirement to making a comment light-hearted, someone could write "Nurvingiel is a big dumb stupid-head " and I wouldn't be annoyed.

Anyway, about the paternity thing... well, that's why we invented paternity tests! The only way to be sure.

Some societies count ancestry solely through the mother for this very reason!


I agree with IRex on all counts.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If emoticons were the only requirement to making a comment light-hearted, someone could write "Nurvingiel is a big dumb stupid-head " and I wouldn't be annoyed.

"Nurvingiel is a big dumb stupid-head "
Heh, the rolleye smiley didn't make the comment much more light-hearted at all, did it? One better stick with the smileys that are actually smiling
Or one can just refrain from insulting Nurv

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Some societies count ancestry solely through the mother for this very reason!

That makes sense.
According to Jewish faith, children inherit their Jewishness from their mothers.

[hectorberlioz]

*Hugs Nurv*

You don't get a hug, Jonathan, go away

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Sounds more reasonable then god created us in whole form in his image. When a sculptor makes a sculpture does he not use the law of gravity in the process of his creation? Why shouldn’t a divinity take advantage of natural laws (whether he created them or not) in his creating?

So you think that a person can only believe in creation as a "magical" thing, or evolution, the "realist" theory?
Just because we don't fully believe the evolutionary way does not mean that we believe in the magic wand theory either. God may have employed evolution, but maybe if he did, we are looking at it the wrong way. God indeed may have created the universe in a split second, because he is God. Perhaps for us though, the universe "recorded" it as taking billions of years.

Independently from what? Werent you JUST scoffing at the suggestion that god may be using evolution to his purpose?

I scoff at the notion that says God "steered" evolution.

You “frown� on “macro� evolution because it seems more conflicting with the notion that man was created in whole form in gods image rather then a descendent of ancient hominids which seems to disturb some Christians like nothing else.

I'm trembling like an earthquake; your thunderous tone is really rattling my spine.

But Ive never understood how one can support a concept in some instances but then turn around and say it could never work in other instances (and it seems disingenuous when those other instances all happen to tread on your theological toes aka: man’s decent).

but thats how some things just are, some things don't go ALL THE WAY. I could just as much ask why evolutionists believe everything evolved from one thing. What makes them think that? Evolutionists didn't invent the fact that things change, like a growing child, but they started to assume inter-species changes, when all they had evidence for-and all they still have evidence for-is variation within a species.

I would disagree. I think the millions and millions of people who don’t think evolution is all hogwash have little problem with the idea that “science� and god can coexist without conflict. In fact I would say the average American thinks evolution is probably true AND that god exists.

Do we agree or not? I can't remember what I said
I'll edit.

Even the most “rabid evolutionists� don’t maintain that evolution is the proof that god doesn’t exist.

Maybe they don't personally, or say they don't personally, but they fight against teaching that God may have used evolution, they fight against all the bridges.

Many just happen to believe that god doesn’t exist independent of evolution (the atheists). And they state that.

That they do means about as much to me as a bee squashed underneath a boulder in Arizona.

It’s the anti-evolution Christians that want to set up the scientific community to be simply a vehicle for disproving god and that’s their problem.

Go look Rex, go look at all the famous evolutionists who get the most screen time etc, you will know what I mean. It may be NOW your side that wants to set up my side as "Arrogant fools who think they can disprove Science!"

How is that relevant to evolution or the discussion we were having exactly? Im getting the feeling that you are continually trying to position evolution to be more then what it really is. Why stick fake horns on it and call it the devil?

Appropriately it would be the rabid evolutionists that deserve the horns and tail...

Behe’s main assertion is that biological mechanisms show an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be fully explained by evolution. When shown numerous examples of exactly HOW some of the biological mechanisms he sites CAN be explained within the bounds of evolution Behe has balked and basically said “nuh uh�. This is why the concept of intelligent design has lost court cases recently as well. Because when exposed, its thin skin of “scientific� respectability begins to frail

and the creationist bones stick through…

The Magical-Creation believing Creationists eh?

They propose to teach this to kids in high school yet there is nothing there to teach other then “evolution cant be because things are too complex. Therefore it must be god�. Well what garbage. Complexity can be a perfectly acceptable issue to ASK about in biology but it is by no means a field unto itself or an alternative to evolution…

Why not though? For ages evolution has been painted as "random, bleak, unmerciful"...when the reality was that things seem to be arranged quite purposefully, even the crude stuff.

No hector. The “evolutionists� are just annoyed. Wouldn’t you be annoyed if scientist types were constantly insisting that they not teach the Noahs Ark legend in Sunday School and were constantly attempting to take over church boards in order to accomplish that?

Here it is, what I've been suspecting rightly all along. Evolutionists think that their ideology is neutral.

And that the tactic they used to do that was to gather a few “free thinking� pastors around who wrote in genuinely theological style saying well the idea of maintaining all the animals in the world on one ship for 40 days is simply too complex to be accomplished by a wood cutter and his family… And we think that’s what you should teach in place of the Noah’s Ark legend…

That’s what they call IRONY my dear hector… of the self deprecating sort… work with me here…

I'm trying, I'm trying...

I only believe what there is evidence for generally. How bout you?

No you don't, because you believe that just because we can't see evolution working Macro, that that doesn't mean it's not real.

History? Were we talking about history or science? Science would have told you Rome had a 78.389367% chance of victory. Science always allows room for the underdog.

You're right, we were putting stuff into the 'Science Machine', which is what I meant and still hold. It would not allow room for the underdog, because it may not know that underdogs are capable of overthrowing the overdog.

Then why program us with whats right and wrong in the first place? So that there will always be moral tests for us to fail? Does this just come down to a heaven/hell selection mechanism?

I never said anything about the Heaven/Hell thing...

[hectorberlioz]

Edited: Never ye mind

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with Lotesse Inked; there's a nice way to poke fun, and there's a nasty way to poke fun. IMO you were reeeeeally toeing the line there.

If emoticons were the only requirement to making a comment light-hearted, someone could write "Nurvingiel is a big dumb stupid-head " and I wouldn't be annoyed.

Anyway, about the paternity thing... well, that's why we invented paternity tests! The only way to be sure.

Some societies count ancestry solely through the mother for this very reason!

"Which lesbians' sperm was it that got Mary Cheney preggers?", NURV. There is no "natural" lesbian pregnancy by two female partners, just as there is none for two male homosexuals. Notice that there is not an attack on Lotesse or you here.

So, what'd ya think of the great and glorious ruling of the Massachusetts Court in the case above. I mean the Court was all high and mighty and perfect in its ruling about gay "marriage" so it must be all high and mighty and perfect in this ruling too, right? Equality often means things people don't want it to mean and this is a perfect case in point. Notice that male fathers were attempting to support the "dispossessed" because that would help them in the battle against biology. Didn't work. A true case of judicial equality applied equally.

And this is just the beginning.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by inked

So, what'd ya think of the great and glorious ruling of the Massachusetts Court in the case above. I mean the Court was all high and mighty and perfect in its ruling about gay "marriage" so it must be all high and mighty and perfect in this ruling too, right? Equality often means things people don't want it to mean and this is a perfect case in point. Notice that male fathers were attempting to support the "dispossessed" because that would help them in the battle against biology. Didn't work. A true case of judicial equality applied equally.

Interesting tone... but I, for one, agree with the court's ruling in this case. She's not legally the mother, she didn't (trial court determination) establish a unique bond with the child; it's just like two unmarried straight people breaking up where one of them has a child and the other doesn't adopt that child. Note, unmarried. This is not a lesbian divorce, because they were in fact never married (they broke up in 2003).

[hectorberlioz]

Are we still talking about Mary Cheney? I thought she was still with her partner...