From: Wim Vanhoof
Subject: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <1078474121.503260@news.fundp.ac.be>
Dear all,

I would like to announce that the department of computer
science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
of

   (logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.


Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
years at a university outside Belgium.

For more details, please contact Wim Vanhoof (···@info.fundp.ac.be)
or visit http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~cri/PostDocProjects/index.html
Please note the deadline for application is april 2, 2004.

Kind regards,
Wim Vanhoof.

------------------------------------------------------------
Wim Vanhoof    E-mail: ···@info.fundp.ac.be
University of Namur   Tel.  ++32(0)81.72.49.77
Rue Grandgagnage, 21   Fax. ++32(0)81.72.52.80
B-5000 Namur     http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~wva
Belgium

From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <VdSdnSw6PfW58dXdRVn-hw@dls.net>
Wim Vanhoof wrote:

> 
> Candidates should not be older than 35 years

Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)

	Paul
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2ac11$1r64pm$1@ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de>
Oops! "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>
>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>
> Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
> discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)

The last time I heard, Belgium was not even on the same continent as
the United States, so it would seem pretty irrelevant what US law has
to say.

Unless you were planning to send in a platoon of M1 Abrams tanks...
-- 
select 'cbbrowne' || ·@' || 'acm.org';
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
Seen in dust on Lucent truck:
"Test dirt - do not remove."
From: Chris Perkins
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <6cb6c81f.0403051653.36d5086d@posting.google.com>
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> wrote in message news:
> 
> The last time I heard, Belgium was not even on the same continent as
> the United States, so it would seem pretty irrelevant what US law has
> to say.

Belgium is a place? Go figure.  I always thought it was just a type of chocolate.  

Learn something new every day.  ;-)
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <YH32c.11322$Wo2.10613@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Oops! "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> 
>>Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>>
>>Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
>>discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)
> 
> 
> The last time I heard, Belgium was not even on the same continent as
> the United States, so it would seem pretty irrelevant what US law has
> to say.

The relevance is that even a barbaric thug of a country is sophisticated 
enough to outlaw such an asinine job requirement.

> 
> Unless you were planning to send in a platoon of M1 Abrams tanks...

Sure. Belgium /could/ develop WMDs, couldn't they?

kenneth

-- 
http://tilton-technology.com

Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film

Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87d67r6soq.fsf@cubx.internal>
[other newsgroups spared]

>>>>> "KT" == Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
[...]
    KT> The relevance is that even a barbaric thug of a country is
    KT> sophisticated enough to outlaw such an asinine job
    KT> requirement. [...]

Aw c'mon.  I disagree with all of what you are saying above!  I'll
leave the barbaric bit aside, but it is the employer's money and they
can choose to pay whoever they want with it (they do anyway, it just
illegal to say it outright and save candidates time in the US).

B<not American and over 35>M
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <Y352c.11918$Wo2.8769@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:

> [other newsgroups spared]
> 
> 
>>>>>>"KT" == Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
>     KT> The relevance is that even a barbaric thug of a country is
>     KT> sophisticated enough to outlaw such an asinine job
>     KT> requirement. [...]
> 
> Aw c'mon.  I disagree with all of what you are saying above!  I'll
> leave the barbaric bit aside, but it is the employer's money and they
> can choose to pay whoever they want with it..

I do not question their freedom, I question their judgment.

Well, I see from other articles that this just might be part of an 
attempt at social engineering, and in fact mandated by some stipulations 
attached to the money. But they also said candidates must have graduated 
in the past five years, so there goes any justification of the age limit 
(of course a mandate is a mandate). So...

Is it only in the US that old farts like me return to school to get 
advanced degrees? Or is it only in the US that social sophistication has 
risen to the level where I would be protected from such insults by law?

I thought be were the big dummies.

kenneth


-- 
http://tilton-technology.com

Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film

Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <86oerad948.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:

>
> I thought be were the big dummies.

Thats what you get for reading the New York Times.

marc
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2b4jb$20au$1@otis.netspace.net.au>
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
··························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > Unless you were planning to send in a platoon of M1 Abrams tanks...
>
> Sure. Belgium /could/ develop WMDs, couldn't they?

I overheard a friend of mine who once knew a Belgian say he thinks they
already have them.  I have emailed the Whitehouse, the tanks should be there
shortly...

-- 
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
From: Yoyoma_2
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <xkm2c.695963$JQ1.117551@pd7tw1no>
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Oops! "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> 
>>Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>>
>>Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
>>discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)
> 
> 
> The last time I heard, Belgium was not even on the same continent as
> the United States, so it would seem pretty irrelevant what US law has
> to say.
> 

Never the less it is still grossly improper.  I actually question the 
validity of this post.
From: Remko Troncon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <1078591747.910027@seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be>
> I actually question the validity of this post.

The post is valid. And the original poster did not make the request up
himself, so there really is not much use in ranting on him either.

cheers,
Remko
From: Simon Helsen
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403072114270.12150@bsr4.uwaterloo.ca>
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Remko Troncon wrote:

>The post is valid. And the original poster did not make the request up
>himself, so there really is not much use in ranting on him either.

I agree. I know Wim personally and I cannot imagine he would ever come up
with such a restriction himself. As some people pointed out, there are
good reasons for age restrictions and honestly, I rather have the
information upfront than silently being put off after the interview
because you are too old (which happens everywhere, even the US). Typical
that the loudest criticism comes from people of a country that is
violating civil rights in a rather grotesk way itself. This is getting
off-topic...

	Simon
From: Jacek Generowicz
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <tyfeks37mik.fsf@pcepsft001.cern.ch>
Simon Helsen <·······@computer.org> writes:

> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Remko Troncon wrote:
> 
> >The post is valid. And the original poster did not make the request up
> >himself,

This sounds like a typical restriction for jobs funded by the European
Union. (And, yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the restriction were
violating some law set by the European Union itself.)
From: c7517665
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and	transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <BC7406B2.3CA58%c7517665@wanadoo.nl>
in article ···············@ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de, Christopher Browne
at ········@acm.org wrote on 5/3/04 18:05:

> Oops! "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
>> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>> 
>>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>> 
>> Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
>> discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)
> 
> The last time I heard, Belgium was not even on the same continent as
> the United States, so it would seem pretty irrelevant what US law has
> to say.
> 
> Unless you were planning to send in a platoon of M1 Abrams tanks...

The Netherlands shares a border with Belgium (in case you didn't hear
this the last time) and here age discrimination is forbidden and
only done in a sneaky way. I think the position is already given
away (also because of the short notice), or the boss is 36.
Good luck young man!

Henk Schotel (from the grave).
From: Markus Mottl
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2n48e$dug$1@bird.wu-wien.ac.at>
In comp.lang.functional c7517665 <········@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> Henk Schotel (from the grave).

To add my two cents to the discussion on age discrimination, I once
heard the following story: some guy aged 40 went to a club to have some
entertainment.  On seeing him a guy in his twenties turned around in
disgust and said to his friend: "Look, now they even already come here
to die!".

Oh well, in this world it is obviously better to live fast and die
young... ;-)

Regards,
Markus Mottl (30 and almost dead)

-- 
Markus Mottl          http://www.oefai.at/~markus          ······@oefai.at
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87brn4zi41.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
"Markus Mottl" <······@oefai.at> writes:

> In comp.lang.functional c7517665 <········@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> > Henk Schotel (from the grave).
> 
> To add my two cents to the discussion on age discrimination, I once
> heard the following story: some guy aged 40 went to a club to have some
> entertainment.  On seeing him a guy in his twenties turned around in
> disgust and said to his friend: "Look, now they even already come here
> to die!".
> 
> Oh well, in this world it is obviously better to live fast and die
> young... ;-)

Actually, with the  extasy they eat in these club,  they don't live so
old.  Hence their misconception.
 
> Regards,
> Markus Mottl (30 and almost dead)


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Don Groves
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <opr4758exerb65ig@news.web-ster.com>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <·····@dls.net> wrote:

> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>
>>
>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>
> Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
> discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)

How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
a violation of those same laws?
-- 
dg
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Erik Max Francis
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <405E11BC.D2946BF8@alcyone.com>
Don Groves wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <·····@dls.net> wrote:
> 
> > Wim Vanhoof wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
> >
> > Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
> > discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)
> 
> How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
> a violation of those same laws?

By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution.  A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutional, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.

But really what you're talking about here can't be discrimination (as
the term is usually meant).  Children can't vote, much less hold public
office.  It's well-established that children do not have the same rights
as adults until they reach a certain age (what age that is varies from
state to state).  You don't, for instance, need a search warrant to
search a child's school locker (with the principal's permission), a
search that would be deemed illegal if it were an adult's personal
locker at work (even if the boss gave permission to perform the search).

Infants are incapable of voting or holding public office or being
drafted into the armed services (or _speaking_ for that matter), so a
line has to be drawn somewhere.  Certainly one could debate where that
line should be drawn -- but clearly an age limit on holding public
office isn't unconstitutional, since age limits are everywhere and,
quite frankly, _required_ in the justice system.

-- 
 __ Erik Max Francis && ···@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/  \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ If the sky should fall, hold up your hands.
    -- (a Spanish proverb)
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <877jxder0d.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
Erik Max Francis <···@alcyone.com> writes:
> > How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
> > a violation of those same laws?
> 
> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution.  A law changing or
> removing that age limit would be unconstitutional, and would get thrown
> out by the Supreme Court.

Of course.  We're not questioninng the constitutionality of
inequalities, but on a higher level, if any inequality is morally
justified.

First, an unfortunate  thing is that a lot of people lose of sight
that equality of "all" is guaranted only in front of the  law.
Private persons and private corporation must be free to make all the
discriminations they want.  Only the state should be prevented to
discriminate between people.

Now, if you accept that you may make a distinction between children
and adults, and apply different sections of the law, and then you
discriminate between women and men, and then between "white" and
"black" and then between rich and poor, etc,  you can easily have in
the laws 28 binary questions to discriminate each person and you don't
have any equality in front of the law, you have 268,435,456 categories
with exactly one person per category.  I think that that's the case
(there's enough laws to make it so), and it's unfortunate.  There
should be no if and no case in the laws for them to be really
equitative.


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Joan Estes
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <ab19fe13.0403221122.399fba97@posting.google.com>
Erik Max Francis <···@alcyone.com> wrote 

> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution.  A law changing or
> removing that age limit would be unconstitutional, and would get thrown
> out by the Supreme Court.

Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system.  Without a formal notion
of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the U.S. would 
perhaps be better off having no constitution at all.  As evidence,
I present the current sorry efforts to change state and federal constitutions 
to make certain discriminatory practices universal.
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <86brmoaajr.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
·············@yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:

> Erik Max Francis <···@alcyone.com> wrote 
>
>> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution.  A law changing or
>> removing that age limit would be unconstitutional, and would get thrown
>> out by the Supreme Court.
>
> Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system.  Without a formal
> notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
> U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all.  As
> evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
> federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
> universal.

You are talking about gay marriage right?  If you are there is nothing
preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
woman doing the same with a man.  So they are not being discriminated
against.

Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to.  Now the financial and legal benefits
of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do.  Now
gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?

We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
the amendments to the constitution.  And the people who wrote the US
constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the 
best document they could write after years of trying.  Also the fact 
that the bar is so high for changing it is good because it prevents 
all kinds of stupidity from happening.  Societies that change too fast
fall apart.  

marc
From: Richard C. Cobbe
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <t2p4qsgr3pq.fsf@denali.ccs.neu.edu>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:

> ·············@yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
>
>> Erik Max Francis <···@alcyone.com> wrote 
>>
>>> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution.  A law changing or
>>> removing that age limit would be unconstitutional, and would get thrown
>>> out by the Supreme Court.
>>
>> Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system.  Without a formal
>> notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
>> U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all.  As
>> evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
>> federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
>> universal.
>
> You are talking about gay marriage right?  If you are there is nothing
> preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
> woman doing the same with a man.  So they are not being discriminated
> against.

Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
scrutiny.

They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals.  In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.

Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage.  I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health.  No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.

And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
"sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)?  Then, you have people
getting married primarily for tax benefits.  That's not the kind of
commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
Health are trying to make.

> Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
> relationship if they want to.

Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway....  (Granted, this wasn't about
their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
recently.)

> Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
> social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
> that is very expensive to do.

This argument doesn't hold water.  In particular, in its recent decision,
the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
purposes of procreation.

So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage.  While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books.  Because then, we could enforce it.  Vigorously.

Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
those straight couples in which:

 - either he or she is naturally infertile
 - he's had a vasectomy
 - she's had her tubes tied
 - she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
   the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
   wants to have children)
 - they've simply chosen not to have kids
 - (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
   prefers to use a condom.

Is that really what you want?

This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either.  I don't think there's a
state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
the preceding conditions.  So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
marriage is all about procreation.

> Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
> economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
> benefit's?

Because they may want to adopt children?  Because they may have children of
their own from previous straight marriages?  Because the benefits of
marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
children?

> We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
> the amendments to the constitution.  And the people who wrote the US
> constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the 
> best document they could write after years of trying.  

Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
summer, not "years of trying."

That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
(legally) fundamental notion of human rights.  Trying to add another layer
above that is somewhat problematic.

> Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
> good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.

Agreed.  This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
fails.  If only state constitutions were as hard to change.

> Societies that change too fast fall apart.

This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?

Richard
From: Yoyoma_2
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <QHI7c.879486$ts4.567495@pd7tw3no>
We were discussing age discrimination...



Richard C. Cobbe wrote:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>·············@yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Erik Max Francis <···@alcyone.com> wrote 
>>>
>>>
>>>>By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution.  A law changing or
>>>>removing that age limit would be unconstitutional, and would get thrown
>>>>out by the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system.  Without a formal
>>>notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
>>>U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all.  As
>>>evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
>>>federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
>>>universal.
>>
>>You are talking about gay marriage right?  If you are there is nothing
>>preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
>>woman doing the same with a man.  So they are not being discriminated
>>against.
> 
> 
> Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
> scrutiny.
> 
> They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
> sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
> not affect heterosexuals.  In general, a heterosexual person is not
> prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.
> 
> Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
> marriage.  I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
> an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
> public health.  No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
> the case of same-sex marriages.
> 
> And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
> telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
> "sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)?  Then, you have people
> getting married primarily for tax benefits.  That's not the kind of
> commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
> of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
> Health are trying to make.
> 
> 
>>Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
>>relationship if they want to.
> 
> 
> Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway....  (Granted, this wasn't about
> their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
> closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
> recently.)
> 
> 
>>Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
>>social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
>>that is very expensive to do.
> 
> 
> This argument doesn't hold water.  In particular, in its recent decision,
> the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
> contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
> purposes of procreation.
> 
> So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
> that established procreation as the basis of marriage.  While this effort
> seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
> have this law on the books.  Because then, we could enforce it.  Vigorously.
> 
> Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
> those straight couples in which:
> 
>  - either he or she is naturally infertile
>  - he's had a vasectomy
>  - she's had her tubes tied
>  - she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
>    the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
>    wants to have children)
>  - they've simply chosen not to have kids
>  - (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
>    prefers to use a condom.
> 
> Is that really what you want?
> 
> This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either.  I don't think there's a
> state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
> the preceding conditions.  So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
> marriage is all about procreation.
> 
> 
>>Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
>>economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
>>benefit's?
> 
> 
> Because they may want to adopt children?  Because they may have children of
> their own from previous straight marriages?  Because the benefits of
> marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
> children?
> 
> 
>>We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
>>the amendments to the constitution.  And the people who wrote the US
>>constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the 
>>best document they could write after years of trying.  
> 
> 
> Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
> summer, not "years of trying."
> 
> That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
> particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
> (legally) fundamental notion of human rights.  Trying to add another layer
> above that is somewhat problematic.
> 
> 
>>Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
>>good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
> fails.  If only state constitutions were as hard to change.
> 
> 
>>Societies that change too fast fall apart.
> 
> 
> This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
> this claim up?
> 
> Richard
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <XlJ7c.1598$t_4.2138221@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Yoyoma_2 wrote:

> We were discussing age discrimination...
> 

I started this, didn't I? Sorry.

<sigh>
From: Ketil Malde
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <egu10g7evo.fsf@havengel.ii.uib.no>
Yoyoma_2 <········@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:

> We were discussing age discrimination...

Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...

:-)

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <brmo7ddv.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Ketil Malde <·····@ii.uib.no> writes:

> Yoyoma_2 <········@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> We were discussing age discrimination...
>
> Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
> back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...

It takes all types....
From: Yoyoma_2
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <t8J7c.879648$ts4.668754@pd7tw3no>
Ketil Malde wrote:
> Yoyoma_2 <········@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>We were discussing age discrimination...
> 
> 
> Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
> back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...
> 
> :-)

I don'want to comment on the actual, previous or future state of US 
civil rights.  But lets say that the US should maby model itself after 
pretty much every other modern country in terms of civil rights :). So i 
guess that was my comment hehe.


> 
> -kzm
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <867jxca3dy.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> ·············@yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
>>
>>> Erik Max Francis <···@alcyone.com> wrote 
>>>
>>>> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution.  A law changing or
>>>> removing that age limit would be unconstitutional, and would get thrown
>>>> out by the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system.  Without a formal
>>> notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
>>> U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all.  As
>>> evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
>>> federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
>>> universal.
>>
>> You are talking about gay marriage right?  If you are there is nothing
>> preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
>> woman doing the same with a man.  So they are not being discriminated
>> against.
>
> Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
> scrutiny.

Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.

>
> They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
> sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
> not affect heterosexuals.  In general, a heterosexual person is not
> prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.

Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.

>
> Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
> marriage.  I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
> an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
> public health.  No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
> the case of same-sex marriages.

WTF?!?!  You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?
Does this only apply to people who are not members of your class of
people?  

My point is that the state has no reason to provide economic and legal
special status to couples who by definition can not produce children and
perpetuate the state by assuming a major financial obligation, caring
for their children.

>
> And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
> telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
> "sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)?  Then, you have people

I am not talking about that so lets keep it on topic.

> getting married primarily for tax benefits.  That's not the kind of
> commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
> of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
> Health are trying to make.

Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other
in the case I am making.  The things society give to people who are
going to ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel
expense, are in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of
marriage) does not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so
why should it get the economic benefits.

>
>> Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
>> relationship if they want to.
>
> Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway....  (Granted, this wasn't about
> their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
> closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
> recently.)
>
>> Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
>> social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
>> that is very expensive to do.
>
> This argument doesn't hold water.  In particular, in its recent decision,
> the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
> contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
> purposes of procreation.

First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case.  And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
is a pretty hard court to beat.

>
> So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
> that established procreation as the basis of marriage.  While this effort
> seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
> have this law on the books.  Because then, we could enforce it.  Vigorously.

So you do not support Row V Wade?  

>
> Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
> those straight couples in which:
>
>  - either he or she is naturally infertile
>  - he's had a vasectomy
>  - she's had her tubes tied
>  - she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
>    the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
>    wants to have children)
>  - they've simply chosen not to have kids
>  - (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
>    prefers to use a condom.
>
> Is that really what you want?

I never said that.  But the point is that simple fact is that without
a man and a woman having sex *with each other* it is very unlikely
that you will have children result from said sex act.  And with out at
least a reasonable potential for children to exist society has no
interest in supporting you in you lifestyle with special privileges
because you are not even potentially supporting society by possibly
having children.  Also there is the fact that with children removed
from the picture there is no reason that both people can not have jobs
that allow them to bring in money and benefits/pensions that the
traditional atomic family did not have.  The wife generally worked at
taking care of the kids and house and this did not come with a check.


>
> This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either.  I don't think there's a
> state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
> the preceding conditions.  So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
> marriage is all about procreation.

I never said it was, I said that society's benefit was the continuation
of society and because of that it granted some special privileges to
the class of people that were doing this.  It did this out of self
interest.

>
>> Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
>> economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
>> benefit's?
>
> Because they may want to adopt children?  Because they may have children of

produce not get surplus.

> their own from previous straight marriages?  Because the benefits of

if they were married to a person with a different count of X
chromosomes, then yes it is possible.  And did not society grant them
the special privileges also?

> marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
> children?

but as a class straight couples produce children, and bear the cost of
them, and gay couples do not produce children.


>
>> We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
>> the amendments to the constitution.  And the people who wrote the US
>> constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the 
>> best document they could write after years of trying.  
>
> Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
> summer, not "years of trying."
>
> That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
> particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
> (legally) fundamental notion of human rights.  Trying to add another layer
> above that is somewhat problematic.
>
>> Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
>> good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.
>
> Agreed.  This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
> fails.  If only state constitutions were as hard to change.
>
>> Societies that change too fast fall apart.
>
> This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
> this claim up?

Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real 
problems.

marc

>
> Richard
From: Simon Helsen
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403222006210.1350@bsr4.uwaterloo.ca>
This is off-topic in a somewhat bizarre manner, and the relation with any
of the comp.lang.* newsgroups above is really hard to see ("discriminated
sums": that's a good one ;-). Well, I can find at least one point of the
discussion which is related to elementary logic.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Marc Spitzer wrote:

>First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
>this case.  And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
>is a pretty hard court to beat.

Courts should not make law. I absolutely agree. In fact, they have never
done so and even today, are not doing this! People claiming that courts
are making new laws, should take a introductory course in logic. A supreme
court in any democracy has one primary goal: make sure that our body of
laws remains internally consistent. So, when certain laws or bills exist
(or are introduced), it is their role to make sure they do not violate
"soundness" as your theoretical computer scientist would say. In order to
do this effectively, there is a priority mechanism and the constitution is
at the highest level (everyone agrees).  In all gay marriage cases where a
court has decided (negatively or positively), they only did something
along the lines of: "this cannot be forbidden, because it violates...", or
"this cannot be allowed, because it violates..." etc. They *never* say
something like "we think this is a good thing, so let us make a law
saying...". This is, of course, why Bush wants/needs a constitutional
ammendment, which is a purely political decision made by a political
person (in this case the executive). It is like changing your axiom
system. Here in Canada, people were criticising along the same lines
because the supreme court of Canada had decided that you cannot forbid a
gay marriage if you want to stay consistent with the "charter of rights".
That latter - I beleive it is tied to the constitution - has a higher
priority and basically says that every person (or every Canadian) is equal
in his/her rights and duties. Forbidding gay people to marry each others
obviously violated the charter, so, they told the government: "change the
laws". They did *not* say "legalize same-sex marriage", even though that
is the obvious answer (I think they recommended it as a possible solution,
but that is something entirely different!) The alternative answer is to
change the charter of rights and make not everybody equal for the law. But
most Canadians wouldn't want that either. Interesting enough, Bush's wish
to change the constitution is also rejected by a majority of the
Americans. Of course, because the body of laws is incomplete and not
entirely formal, judges interprete them one way or the other. This is why
such verdicts are made by several people and voted for. Saying that they
are making new laws is simplistic and wrong.

To me, it seems that people just want a logically inconsistent set of laws
and society ('some sheep are jmore equal than others'). Hence my
recommendation above: they ought to take an introductory course in logic
(or admit hypocrisy - but I do not assume that everybody is like that)

My 5c,

	Simon
From: Wim Vanhoof
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <1080051792.365686@news.fundp.ac.be>
> This is off-topic in a somewhat bizarre manner, and the relation with any
> of the comp.lang.* newsgroups above is really hard to see ("discriminated
> sums": that's a good one ;-).

... and saying that I just wanted to make some publicity for a postdoc
position! :-)

For those that seem to question the validity of my original post (see at the
bottom of this mail):
I can assure you that the position *is* available (and that it was *not*
attributed beforehand, as
was suggested by some). Deadline for applications still is April 2nd.

Regarding the age (and other) restrictions that started the whole
discussion; these are imposed
by the institution that provides the funding.

For the record, my *personal* interest is in finding a postdoc. I don't mind
whether this
person is younger or older than 35, has a PhD from a belgian or a
non-belgian university,
is gay or straight, married or not married,... Nor do I mind whether he or
she has an inner
or outer belly button!

Regards,
Wim.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
(apologies for multiple copies)


Dear all,

I would like to announce that the department of computer
science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
of

   (logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.


Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
years at a university outside Belgium.

For more details, please contact Wim Vanhoof (···@info.fundp.ac.be)
or visit http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~cri/PostDocProjects/index.html
Please note the deadline for application is april 2, 2004.

Kind regards,
Wim Vanhoof.

------------------------------------------------------------
Wim Vanhoof                             E-mail: ···@info.fundp.ac.be
University of Namur                     Tel.  ++32(0)81.72.49.77
Rue Grandgagnage, 21                    Fax. ++32(0)81.72.52.80
B-5000 Namur                            http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~wva
Belgium
From: Richard C. Cobbe
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <t2pad28cj7t.fsf@denali.ccs.neu.edu>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:

> ·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>
>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>> Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
>> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
>> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
>> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
>> scrutiny.
>
> Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.

Then do.  Put your money where your mouth is and explain why our
justifications for asking to be allowed to marry don't hold up.  Explain
the overriding interest the state has in preventing us from marrying.  The
ability to procreate doesn't cut it; see below.

>> They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
>> sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
>> not affect heterosexuals.  In general, a heterosexual person is not
>> prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.
>
> Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
> and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.

First, I should obviously have said `a heterosexual person is not prevented
*by the government* from marrying the person of his/her choice'.  People
who propose and are rejected aren't the problem.  Second, I dealt with
people who are too closely related in the following paragraph.

>> Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
>> marriage.  I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
>> an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
>> public health.  No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
>> the case of same-sex marriages.
>
> WTF?!?!  You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
> for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
> want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?

(I don't mean to be rude, but you do know what `consanguinity' means, right?)

Yes.  Inbreeding produces less healthy children.  If you like, I'll gladly
support the right of cousins, even siblings, to marry, so long as they
don't have kids.

> Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other in
> the case I am making.  The things society give to people who are going to
> ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel expense, are
> in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of marriage) does
> not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so why should it get
> the economic benefits.

[Snipped lots more of the same.]

Look: as long as married heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or
who can and choose not to, are granted all the economic and legal
privileges that couples with children enjoy, then you cannot deny those
rights to same-sex couples simply because they cannot have children.  You
have two options in that case:

  - deny the privileges associated with marriage to *all* couples who do
    not have children, gay or straight; or

  - allow same-sex couples to marry, with all attendant privileges.

Anything else singles out a group of citizens for special treatment and is
thus unconstitutional.  (And also plain wrong.)

> First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
> this case.  And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
> is a pretty hard court to beat.

What law did they make?  And why is protecting the rights of citizens `way
out in left field'?  For full credit, your answer must also explain why
the judicial decisions in Brown v. Board of Education and Loving
v. Virginia (the decision which struck down antimiscegenation laws) were
not also `way out in left field.'

I'm sorry, but that sort of argument no longer convinces me: too many
people have used it to complain not about a fundamental problem but about a
decision with which they don't happen to agree.  Just like the complaint
about "activist judges."

>> So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
>> that established procreation as the basis of marriage.  While this effort
>> seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
>> have this law on the books.  Because then, we could enforce it.  Vigorously.
>
> So you do not support Row V Wade?  

Irrelevant.

No, see, I think this law would be wonderful, in the short term, as an
object lesson.  Since it would almost certainly prevent many heterosexual
couples from marrying each other, and might possibly annul existing
straight marriages, it would demonstrate to a large number of people that
legally basing marriage on procreation is a bad idea.  One would hope that,
after a short time of that sort of thing, the legislature or the people
would come to their senses and strike the law down.

> Also there is the fact that with children removed from the picture there
> is no reason that both people can not have jobs that allow them to bring
> in money and benefits/pensions that the traditional atomic family did not
> have.  The wife generally worked at taking care of the kids and house and
> this did not come with a check.

A) The wife may generally have been a stay-at-home-mom in the 50s, but an
   increasing number of mothers, in straight marriages, are working
   full-time jobs today.  Lots of straight couples have two incomes too.

B) The benefits of a legal marriage are not purely economic; they also
   involve things like hospital visitation rights, custody over adopted
   children, bereavement leave, authority to make funeral arrangements,
   etc.  So, even if gay couples do have an economic edge over straight
   couples (which you have not demonstrated), that still doesn't make up
   for the inequalities.

>>> Societies that change too fast fall apart.
>>
>> This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
>> this claim up?
>
> Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
> on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
> chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real 
> problems.

Again, sounds plausible, but without evidence, this is just rhetoric.  Show
me the history.  We've got lots of examples of societies falling apart: the
fall of the Roman Empire, various dynastic changes in China, various
dynastic changes in India, and so on.  Surely you should be able to trace
at least *one* of those instances back to excessively rapid social change.

Richard
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <86ptb481ig.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> ·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>>
>>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>>>
>>> Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
>>> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
>>> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
>>> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
>>> scrutiny.
>>
>> Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.
>
> Then do.  Put your money where your mouth is and explain why our
> justifications for asking to be allowed to marry don't hold up.  Explain
> the overriding interest the state has in preventing us from marrying.  The
> ability to procreate doesn't cut it; see below.

Please list the arguments and I will be happy to.  But could you also
post some links to the studies that show that your dilution of the meaning
of family will not harm this country.  For a counter example look at France,
they have a birth rate of about 1.2 children per woman.  What this means is
that the population is getting older and they will soon have 1 retired person
per person working.  Can you say N++ th republic?  

>
>>> They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
>>> sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
>>> not affect heterosexuals.  In general, a heterosexual person is not
>>> prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.
>>
>> Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
>> and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.
>
> First, I should obviously have said `a heterosexual person is not prevented
> *by the government* from marrying the person of his/her choice'.  People
> who propose and are rejected aren't the problem.  Second, I dealt with
> people who are too closely related in the following paragraph.

Yes you did in the paragraph below

>
>>> Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
>>> marriage.  I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
>>> an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
>>> public health.  No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
>>> the case of same-sex marriages.
>>
>> WTF?!?!  You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
>> for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
>> want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?
>
> (I don't mean to be rude, but you do know what `consanguinity' means, right?)

I just double checked to be sure, close blood relations. 

>
> Yes.  Inbreeding produces less healthy children.  If you like, I'll gladly
> support the right of cousins, even siblings, to marry, so long as they
> don't have kids.

But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids from societies POV,
next generation and all that.  And same sex marriages produce none so
why should your class get the privileges that go with marriage?  And
from society's POV no children should result from incest, because it is
in society's best interest to have close blood relations not have
sex/children with each other, that is why there are laws against just
that behavior and they can not get married.

>
>> Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other in
>> the case I am making.  The things society give to people who are going to
>> ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel expense, are
>> in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of marriage) does
>> not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so why should it get
>> the economic benefits.
>
> [Snipped lots more of the same.]
>
> Look: as long as married heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or
> who can and choose not to, are granted all the economic and legal
> privileges that couples with children enjoy, then you cannot deny those
> rights to same-sex couples simply because they cannot have children.  You
> have two options in that case:

First of all I am talking about groups, not individuals.  And as a
class gay marriages can not produce children as a consequence of sex.
As a class straight marriages do so that class gets the protection
because as a class it perpetuates society.  And your class does not so
no brass ring.

>
>   - deny the privileges associated with marriage to *all* couples who do
>     not have children, gay or straight; or
>
>   - allow same-sex couples to marry, with all attendant privileges.

In a word, no.  Your group does not bring the potential for children
to the table, so why should you get privileges that are there to help
and encourage people to get together to have children and bear the
cost?  Just because you want it does not make it a good idea.

>
> Anything else singles out a group of citizens for special treatment and is
> thus unconstitutional.  (And also plain wrong.)

We single out lots of groups for special treatment in society, for
example men register for the draft, and can be drafted, and women do
not.  

>
>> First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
>> this case.  And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
>> is a pretty hard court to beat.
>
> What law did they make?  And why is protecting the rights of citizens `way
> out in left field'?  For full credit, your answer must also explain why

What right?  Who is stopping you from going out finding a woman, asking
her to marry you, getting her to say yes and then getting married?
Who said gay men can not do that?  The same as any other man.

> the judicial decisions in Brown v. Board of Education and Loving
> v. Virginia (the decision which struck down antimiscegenation laws) were
> not also `way out in left field.'

If I remember what little I know about it the court found that as long
as long as things were separate they were never equal and it was
always tilted in one direction.  And this conflicted with several
parts of the constitution, including the 14th amendment.


>
> I'm sorry, but that sort of argument no longer convinces me: too many
> people have used it to complain not about a fundamental problem but about a
> decision with which they don't happen to agree.  Just like the complaint
> about "activist judges."

All I need to say to that is "Living Constitution".

>
>>> So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
>>> that established procreation as the basis of marriage.  While this effort
>>> seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
>>> have this law on the books.  Because then, we could enforce it.  Vigorously.
>>
>> So you do not support Row V Wade?  
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> No, see, I think this law would be wonderful, in the short term, as an
> object lesson.  Since it would almost certainly prevent many heterosexual
> couples from marrying each other, and might possibly annul existing
> straight marriages, it would demonstrate to a large number of people that
> legally basing marriage on procreation is a bad idea.  One would hope that,
> after a short time of that sort of thing, the legislature or the people
> would come to their senses and strike the law down.

Well you will fuck over anyone you can to get your way, how childish.
And there is a very good chance that the politicians who passed that
law would get shot and they know that.  That they would get removed from 
office is a given and they know that as well.

>
>> Also there is the fact that with children removed from the picture there
>> is no reason that both people can not have jobs that allow them to bring
>> in money and benefits/pensions that the traditional atomic family did not
>> have.  The wife generally worked at taking care of the kids and house and
>> this did not come with a check.
>
> A) The wife may generally have been a stay-at-home-mom in the 50s, but an
>    increasing number of mothers, in straight marriages, are working
>    full-time jobs today.  Lots of straight couples have two incomes too.
>
> B) The benefits of a legal marriage are not purely economic; they also
>    involve things like hospital visitation rights, custody over adopted
>    children, bereavement leave, authority to make funeral arrangements,
>    etc.  So, even if gay couples do have an economic edge over straight
>    couples (which you have not demonstrated), that still doesn't make up
>    for the inequalities.

No children vs children.  And so what you do not as a gay couple bring
anything to the table to justify any special privileges.  You just are
saying that since things are not going your way it needs to be fixed.

>
>>>> Societies that change too fast fall apart.
>>>
>>> This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
>>> this claim up?
>>
>> Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
>> on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
>> chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real 
>> problems.
>
> Again, sounds plausible, but without evidence, this is just rhetoric.  Show
> me the history.  We've got lots of examples of societies falling apart: the
> fall of the Roman Empire, various dynastic changes in China, various
> dynastic changes in India, and so on.  Surely you should be able to trace
> at least *one* of those instances back to excessively rapid social change.

ok Japan after Commodore Perry. 


marc
From: Richard C. Cobbe
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <t2pad2763k7.fsf@denali.ccs.neu.edu>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:

> ·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>
>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>>> ·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>>>
>>>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
>>>> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
>>>> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
>>>> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
>>>> scrutiny.
>>>
>>> Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.
>>
>> Then do.  Put your money where your mouth is and explain why our
>> justifications for asking to be allowed to marry don't hold up.  Explain
>> the overriding interest the state has in preventing us from marrying.  The
>> ability to procreate doesn't cut it; see below.


>
> Please list the arguments and I will be happy to.  But could you also
> post some links to the studies that show that your dilution of the meaning
> of family will not harm this country.  For a counter example look at France,
> they have a birth rate of about 1.2 children per woman.  What this means is
> that the population is getting older and they will soon have 1 retired person
> per person working.  Can you say N++ th republic?  

Ok.

  - Discrimination against a group of people who are distinguished from the
    rest of society, due to a factor that they themselves cannot control,
    is wrong.  (Social conservatives like to argue that being gay is a
    choice, not an innate characteristic.  While I won't rule out the
    possibility for some folks, most of the gay men I know, including
    myself, reject the idea that we chose to be gay.)

  - The legalization of same-sex marriage will not affect an existing
    straight marriage: both spouses in that marriage will still have
    exactly the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as before.

    I've seen some folks argue that same-sex marriage will affect existing
    straight marriages, in the case where one partner decides that he's
    really gay and wants to get married to some guy he's met.  I don't buy
    this argument: if the husband in a straight marriage comes to the
    conclusion that he's gay, the marriage is going to have problems
    whether same-sex marriage is legal or not.  And legal same-sex
    marriages are not necessary to allow a divorce in these circumstances.

  - The legalization of same-sex marriage will not make it harder for
    straight couples to get married.  (It is not, after all, as though we
    have a limited number of marriage certificates, available only on a
    first-come-first-serve basis.)

  - Many gay and lesbian couples want to adopt children.  Having the
    stability of a legal marriage will make it significantly easier for
    those couples to raise their children in a stable home environment.

  - Gays and lesbians pay taxes just like everyone else.  Therefore we
    should be entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else.

  - It is not acceptable to say that gay men can marry; they just have to
    marry women instead.  This is the equivalent of saying that a white man
    and a black woman can't get married, even though they have fallen in
    love and are building a relationship together, but that's OK, because
    he can just go marry some white woman instead.

In your France `counter-example', you have done nothing to indicate that
the aging of the country and the low birth rate has anything to do with
their recent introduction of something approximating Vermont's civil
unions.  As a general rule, the higher the standard of living and the level
of education in a country, the lower the birth rate, and France ranks
pretty high in both areas.  Nor have you described any reason why this
should lead to the fall of their fifth republic and the introduction of a
new constitution.

For that matter, the US population is also aging, although perhaps not as
badly as France's.  That, rather obviously, has *nothing* to do with
same-sex marriage rights, since Vermont's civil unions only became
available as of June 1, 2000, and our population has been aging since the
end of the baby boom, generally reckoned to be in 1965.

To summarize: there aren't any studies that prove that gay marriage will
not cause societal problems.  There can't be: there hasn't been gay
marriage to study until roughly the last decade, and that's not long
enough.  So any predictions that this will bring about the downfall of our
civilization are purely predictions and therefore not to be trusted.

> But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids from societies POV,
> next generation and all that.

<SNIP>

> First of all I am talking about groups, not individuals.  And as a
> class gay marriages can not produce children as a consequence of sex.
> As a class straight marriages do so that class gets the protection
> because as a class it perpetuates society.  And your class does not so
> no brass ring.

Last time, and then I'm going to let this issue drop.  The claim that
procreation is the sole purpose of marriage *DOES* *NOT* *EXPLAIN* current
practice.

If you want to deal with classes of people, then please explain why
infertile heterosexual couples are grouped in the same class with fertile
heterosexual couples.  It's certainly not the case that they can all have
children.

Your class definitions don't fit the rest of your logic.

>> No, see, I think this law would be wonderful, in the short term, as an
>> object lesson.  Since it would almost certainly prevent many heterosexual
>> couples from marrying each other, and might possibly annul existing
>> straight marriages, it would demonstrate to a large number of people that
>> legally basing marriage on procreation is a bad idea.  One would hope that,
>> after a short time of that sort of thing, the legislature or the people
>> would come to their senses and strike the law down.
>
> Well you will fuck over anyone you can to get your way, how childish.
> And there is a very good chance that the politicians who passed that
> law would get shot and they know that.  That they would get removed from 
> office is a given and they know that as well.

First, I'm not actively campaigning for such a law; I'm simply trying to
explain why such a law would be a bad idea.  Second, if you really think
that such a law is a bad idea, then what does this do to your claim that
marriage exists only for procreation?  The law under discussion would
simply make that enforceable.

> And so what you do not as a gay couple bring anything to the table to
> justify any special privileges.

We are not asking for special privileges.  We are simply asking for the
same privileges, opportunities, and responsibilities enjoyed by everyone
else.

>> Again, sounds plausible, but without evidence, this is just rhetoric.  Show
>> me the history.  We've got lots of examples of societies falling apart: the
>> fall of the Roman Empire, various dynastic changes in China, various
>> dynastic changes in India, and so on.  Surely you should be able to trace
>> at least *one* of those instances back to excessively rapid social change.
>
> ok Japan after Commodore Perry. 

That's a possibility; there's a lot I don't know about Japan in the 1890s
and 1900s.  However, to support your argument, you would have to
demonstrate that the society fell apart simply because of rapid changes
forced by Commodore Perry.  Further, you would also have to demonstrate
that allowing same-sex marriage represents a large enough change to cause
the deterioration of our society.

Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate.  I think it's fairly clear
that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change my
mind, and there we are.

For those following along at home, my primary aim in this discussion has
*not* been to convince Mr. Spitzer that same-sex marriage is a good thing.
No, my goal has been to demonstrate to those folks who are still trying to
work out how they feel that the arguments made against same-sex marriage
don't hold water.  Continuing this discussion would simply make the same
points over and over again.

Therefore, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming
language holy wars.  Static vs. dynamic typing, anyone?  :-)

Richard
From: David Fisher
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <14030ca9.0403231149.587b4e63@posting.google.com>
·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) wrote in message news:<···············@denali.ccs.neu.edu>...

[...]

Maybe Marc indeed gave poor arguments against gay marrage, but at
least his arguments weren't religious. Some here were just trying to
misrepresent his opinion.

Here's my $0.02. Any ambiguity in the law should be amended (if there
is any). Some laws in some jurisdictions give homosexuals equal rights
(for different or ambiguous meanings of "equal"). The laws have to be
followed (without laws we have anarchy). However, what you are saying
here goes far beyond the legal argument. You are suggesting that
homosexual sex is somehow very moral and natural, and needs to be sort
of encouraged by the state by giving homosexual relationships legal
status.
From: Johan
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <4060972b$0$6648$45beb828@newscene.com>
David Fisher wrote:
> ·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) wrote in message
> news:<···············@denali.ccs.neu.edu>...
> 
> [...]
> 
> Maybe Marc indeed gave poor arguments against gay marrage, but at 
> least his arguments weren't religious. Some here were just trying to 
> misrepresent his opinion.

I must not have been paying attention. Can you please quote where this
mis-attribution was made?

> You are suggesting that homosexual sex is somehow very moral and
> natural, and needs to be sort of encouraged by the state by giving
> homosexual relationships legal status.

Fundamentally, society either disallows something, or condones it. Our 
laws are not about encouraging anything (appart from not breaking laws), 
they are about prohibiting illegal things. In effect, anything not 
specifically prohibited is explicitly condoned. This is part of the 
fundamental rights that we take as inalienable, and I think a good thing.

Now, whether one thing or anther should be prohibited is another debate 
(which we appear to have already had, ad-exhaustion) altogether.
From: Daniel C. Wang
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3qgn7$2b895j$1@ID-216221.news.uni-berlin.de>
Johan wrote:
{stuff deleted}
> Our 
> laws are not about encouraging anything (appart from not breaking laws), 
> they are about prohibiting illegal things.
{stuff deleted}

Have you looked at the tax code recently? There are tax laws written to 
encourage home ownership, sending the kids to college and all other sorts of 
economic tax incentives to encourage behavior that the government feels is 
advantageous.

BTW the legal system and our laws need not be logically consistent. They 
fundamentally reflect the values of the society however logically 
inconsistent societies view points are.
From: Thant Tessman
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3qmcn$uj6$1@terabinaries.xmission.com>
Daniel C. Wang wrote:
> Johan wrote:
> {stuff deleted}
> 
>> Our laws are not about encouraging anything (appart from not breaking 
>> laws), they are about prohibiting illegal things.
> 
> {stuff deleted}
> 
> Have you looked at the tax code recently? There are tax laws written to 
> encourage home ownership, sending the kids to college and all other 
> sorts of economic tax incentives to encourage behavior that the 
> government feels is advantageous.
> 
> BTW the legal system and our laws need not be logically consistent. They 
> fundamentally reflect the values of the society however logically 
> inconsistent societies view points are.

No, they don't. They reflect the values of the politically influential. 
There's a difference. Hell, none of the representatives that voted for 
the so-called "Patriot Act" had even read it.

Power lies not in the hands of the voters, but in the hands of those who 
decide for what and whom it is we are given the 'opportunity' to vote.

-thant
From: Daniel C. Wang
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3tb7j$2bgmou$1@ID-216221.news.uni-berlin.de>
Thant Tessman wrote:
{stuff deleted}
>> BTW the legal system and our laws need not be logically consistent. 
>> They fundamentally reflect the values of the society however logically 
>> inconsistent societies view points are.
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They reflect the values of the politically influential. 
> There's a difference. Hell, none of the representatives that voted for 
> the so-called "Patriot Act" had even read it.

Fair... my real point is that the values of the politically influential are 
not and in fact need not be logically consistent. Just sufficently 
consistent to keep the peons happy.
From: Johan
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <406078ed$0$268$45beb828@newscene.com>
(this post just an excuse to dump some interesting links on you, that 
I've stumbled accross in the last couple of days. it doesn't get much 
more off topic than this; I'm off topic and already off topic discussion)

 > Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate.  I think it's
 > fairly clear that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're
 > not going to change my mind, and there we are.

You can't argue these things; for some reason, otherwise sane people 
decide that they must stick sticks into people who wear towels on their 
heads (because for some reason that gets in the way of the first group's 
be-nice-to-each-other credo).  Similarly, the fact that some woman in 
texas doesn't use recreational chemicals is somehow justification for 
incarcerating 10-15 % of black males [1] in some states.  I guess the 
point I'm trying to make is that if you approach this as a rational 
discussion, you've already lost.  You're either open minded or not.

[1] http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/

Personally, I'm tempted by biblical marriage, but that's just because 
they've promised me virgins, polygamy, AND concubines [2] (unclear 
whether the concubines were virgins, tho). However, if they don't 
deliver the virgins soon, I'll be switching sides.

[2] http://www.thecommongood.org/CGN/3_3/biblicalmarriage.html

>>ok Japan after Commodore Perry. 

The MIT open courseware project has a fascinating [3] (but annoyingly 
image heavy---accessibility advocates abandon hope ye who enter) website 
on how japanese and western artists painted the same events.

[3] http://blackshipsandsamurai.com/

> Therefore, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming
> language holy wars.  Static vs. dynamic typing, anyone?  :-)

Kill! Burn the unbeliever!
From: Richard C. Cobbe
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <t2pu10fml1i.fsf@denali.ccs.neu.edu>
Johan <········@SPAM.ccs.neu.PLEASE.edu> writes:

>  > Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate.  I think it's
>  > fairly clear that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're
>  > not going to change my mind, and there we are.
>
> You can't argue these things; for some reason, otherwise sane people
> decide that they must stick sticks into people who wear towels on their
> heads (because for some reason that gets in the way of the first group's
> be-nice-to-each-other credo).  I guess the point I'm trying to make is
> that if you approach this as a rational discussion, you've already lost.
> You're either open minded or not.

Yes.  That's exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate here.  If we can show
more people that the anti-same-sex-marriage folks are motivated primarily
by hatred, fear, and intolerance, then it becomes that much harder to pass
laws that deny us basic civil rights.  In other words, give the anti-gay
folks just enough rope to hang themselves.

Richard
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87u10fbc9g.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
> To summarize: there aren't any studies that prove that gay marriage will
> not cause societal problems.  There can't be: there hasn't been gay
> marriage to study until roughly the last decade, and that's not long
> enough.  So any predictions that this will bring about the downfall of our
> civilization are purely predictions and therefore not to be trusted.

It's cited as one of the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire:
    
    http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

Of course, gays don't agree:

    http://www.adam-carr.net/014.html


In my opinion in both cases (today, and 2000 years ago), homosexuality
is only a symptom of the same cause, leading to the same fall.

We don't need and don't want to fight homosexality. But we need to
fight the causes of homosexuality!  Of course, in doing so we should
not allocate resources  to support it, let's them handle themselves.


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Cameron MacKinnon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <Iuudna13qs6GCv3d4p2dnA@golden.net>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> We don't need and don't want to fight homosexality. But we need to
> fight the causes of homosexuality!

What would those be? Keep in mind that it's documented in the animal 
kingdom, so it can't be something you catch from reading the liberal 
media. It's documented in pre-Roman times, so it's not a "modern 
problem", it occurs in the most repressive and un-gay-positive societies 
(e.g. Islamic theocracies, Wyoming).

Genetic "flaws"? Overprotective mothers?

-- 
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87d673b34w.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:

> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> > We don't need and don't want to fight homosexality. But we need to
> > fight the causes of homosexuality!
> 
> What would those be? Keep in mind that it's documented in the animal
> kingdom, so it can't be something you catch from reading the liberal
> media. It's documented in pre-Roman times, so it's not a "modern
> problem", it occurs in the most repressive and un-gay-positive
> societies (e.g. Islamic theocracies, Wyoming).
> 
> Genetic "flaws"? Overprotective mothers?

Surpopulation?  Easyliving?  

Had Western settlers (cow-boys) time to be gay?

My solution would be to send a good third of the population colonize
Mars, and another third to colonize Venus, but that's just me...

-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <BO58c.1170$%%1.7468@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>
In article <··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>,
	Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> 
>> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> > We don't need and don't want to fight homosexality. But we need to
>> > fight the causes of homosexuality!
>> 
>> What would those be? Keep in mind that it's documented in the animal
>> kingdom, so it can't be something you catch from reading the liberal
>> media. It's documented in pre-Roman times, so it's not a "modern
>> problem", it occurs in the most repressive and un-gay-positive
>> societies (e.g. Islamic theocracies, Wyoming).
>> 
>> Genetic "flaws"? Overprotective mothers?
> 
> Surpopulation?  Easyliving?  

iirc, in one of his books (forgot which one, among its subjects was an
outline of a "calculus of genetics", i.e. some sort of mathematical
treatment of what kind of traits are good of the survival of a
species) richard dawkins gave some reasons why a certain percentage of
homosexual members is good for the survival of a species

> Had Western settlers (cow-boys) time to be gay?

apparently they had time for prostitutes, so probably yes

hs

-- 

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel
                                     Samuel Johnson

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all
others because you were born in it
                                     George Bernard Shaw
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <873c7z5hvz.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:

["It" here is homosexuality:]
> It's cited as one of the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire:
>     
>     http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html

Along with "Anti-Germanism", "Emancipation of slaves", "Female
emancipation", "Gout", "Jewish influence", and "Moral idealism".
Is anyone supposed to take this seriously? I suspect that the
author either has tongue somewhat in cheek or is entirely nuts.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87y8pr42sp.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> 
> ["It" here is homosexuality:]
> > It's cited as one of the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire:
> >     
> >     http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html
> 
> Along with "Anti-Germanism", "Emancipation of slaves", "Female
> emancipation", "Gout", "Jewish influence", and "Moral idealism".
> Is anyone supposed to take this seriously? I suspect that the
> author either has tongue somewhat in cheek or is entirely nuts.

I also couldn't help noticing that the author of that page
inexplicably failed to list "Infix Syntax" and "Static Typing".
What does this have to do with Lisp, again?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <isgvdtgp.fsf@comcast.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> 
>> ["It" here is homosexuality:]
>> > It's cited as one of the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire:
>> >     
>> >     http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html
>> 
>> Along with "Anti-Germanism", "Emancipation of slaves", "Female
>> emancipation", "Gout", "Jewish influence", and "Moral idealism".
>> Is anyone supposed to take this seriously? I suspect that the
>> author either has tongue somewhat in cheek or is entirely nuts.
>
> I also couldn't help noticing that the author of that page
> inexplicably failed to list "Infix Syntax" and "Static Typing".
> What does this have to do with Lisp, again?

It's well known that Rome had it's share of insane emporers.  I
suggest that infix had a lot to do with that.


-- 
~jrm
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87fzbz3ur4.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
Joe Marshall wrote:

[I said:]
> > I also couldn't help noticing that the author of that page
> > inexplicably failed to list "Infix Syntax" and "Static Typing".
> > What does this have to do with Lisp, again?

[Joe:]
> It's well known that Rome had it's share of insane emporers.  I
> suggest that infix had a lot to do with that.

Hmm, yes. And I understand they had a lot of trouble with
both syn and tax, too. But at least they were allowed to wear
headscarves.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2k71alvvo.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:

> It's well known that Rome had it's share of insane emporers.  I
> suggest that infix had a lot to do with that.

An infix of lead perhaps.

-- 
It would not be too unfair to any language to refer to Java as a
stripped down Lisp or Smalltalk with a C syntax.
--- Ken Anderson
    http://openmap.bbn.com/~kanderso/performance/java/index.html
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <878yhrb33p.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> 
> ["It" here is homosexuality:]
> > It's cited as one of the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire:
> >     
> >     http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html
> 
> Along with "Anti-Germanism", "Emancipation of slaves", "Female
> emancipation", "Gout", "Jewish influence", and "Moral idealism".
> Is anyone supposed to take this seriously? 

Of course not! :-)

> I suspect that the author either has tongue somewhat in cheek or is
> entirely nuts.

-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <86hdwe8rv6.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> ·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>>
>>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> ·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
>>>>> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
>>>>> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
>>>>> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
>>>>> scrutiny.
>>>>
>>>> Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Then do.  Put your money where your mouth is and explain why our
>>> justifications for asking to be allowed to marry don't hold up.  Explain
>>> the overriding interest the state has in preventing us from marrying.  The
>>> ability to procreate doesn't cut it; see below.
>
>
>>
>> Please list the arguments and I will be happy to.  But could you also
>> post some links to the studies that show that your dilution of the meaning
>> of family will not harm this country.  For a counter example look at France,
>> they have a birth rate of about 1.2 children per woman.  What this means is
>> that the population is getting older and they will soon have 1 retired person
>> per person working.  Can you say N++ th republic?  
>
> Ok.
>
>   - Discrimination against a group of people who are distinguished from the
>     rest of society, due to a factor that they themselves cannot control,
>     is wrong.  (Social conservatives like to argue that being gay is a
>     choice, not an innate characteristic.  While I won't rule out the
>     possibility for some folks, most of the gay men I know, including
>     myself, reject the idea that we chose to be gay.)

umm, you contradict that 2 paragraphs down, "comes to the conclusion that
he's gay" assumes a decision.

>
>   - The legalization of same-sex marriage will not affect an existing
>     straight marriage: both spouses in that marriage will still have
>     exactly the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as before.
>
>     I've seen some folks argue that same-sex marriage will affect existing
>     straight marriages, in the case where one partner decides that he's
>     really gay and wants to get married to some guy he's met.  I don't buy
>     this argument: if the husband in a straight marriage comes to the
>     conclusion that he's gay, the marriage is going to have problems
>     whether same-sex marriage is legal or not.  And legal same-sex
>     marriages are not necessary to allow a divorce in these circumstances.

The above is a good reason why women should not marry gay men but has
no bearing on what I was saying.


>
>   - The legalization of same-sex marriage will not make it harder for
>     straight couples to get married.  (It is not, after all, as though we
>     have a limited number of marriage certificates, available only on a
>     first-come-first-serve basis.)

Never said it would, 

>
>   - Many gay and lesbian couples want to adopt children.  Having the
>     stability of a legal marriage will make it significantly easier for
>     those couples to raise their children in a stable home environment.

Are you saying with out a marriage certificat they are not in stable
relationships?

>
>   - Gays and lesbians pay taxes just like everyone else.  Therefore we
>     should be entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else.

And you have them, what you do not have is a special privalage.

>
>   - It is not acceptable to say that gay men can marry; they just have to
>     marry women instead.  This is the equivalent of saying that a white man
>     and a black woman can't get married, even though they have fallen in
>     love and are building a relationship together, but that's OK, because
>     he can just go marry some white woman instead.

That does not apply, man + woman lead to children, man and man no kids.

>
> In your France `counter-example', you have done nothing to indicate that
> the aging of the country and the low birth rate has anything to do with
> their recent introduction of something approximating Vermont's civil
> unions.  As a general rule, the higher the standard of living and the level
> of education in a country, the lower the birth rate, and France ranks
> pretty high in both areas.  Nor have you described any reason why this
> should lead to the fall of their fifth republic and the introduction of a
> new constitution.

No it gets back to, from what I hav read, that making a family/marriage
was weakend as the default behavior of adults and children are very 
expensive.

>
> For that matter, the US population is also aging, although perhaps not as
> badly as France's.  That, rather obviously, has *nothing* to do with
> same-sex marriage rights, since Vermont's civil unions only became
> available as of June 1, 2000, and our population has been aging since the
> end of the baby boom, generally reckoned to be in 1965.

Yes we are, for 2 main reasons:
1: better medical care
2: baby boomers, huge jump in population because of goverment subsady of 
   family

>
> To summarize: there aren't any studies that prove that gay marriage will
> not cause societal problems.  There can't be: there hasn't been gay
> marriage to study until roughly the last decade, and that's not long
> enough.  So any predictions that this will bring about the downfall of our
> civilization are purely predictions and therefore not to be trusted.

And for such a fundmental change to a working system we should just
do it any way because you want it.  The burden that it will do no 
harm is on you and you are proving anything, just saying you want it. 


>
>> But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids from societies POV,
>> next generation and all that.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> First of all I am talking about groups, not individuals.  And as a
>> class gay marriages can not produce children as a consequence of sex.
>> As a class straight marriages do so that class gets the protection
>> because as a class it perpetuates society.  And your class does not so
>> no brass ring.
>
> Last time, and then I'm going to let this issue drop.  The claim that
> procreation is the sole purpose of marriage *DOES* *NOT* *EXPLAIN* current
> practice.

Well for you that would be true.  

>
> If you want to deal with classes of people, then please explain why
> infertile heterosexual couples are grouped in the same class with fertile
> heterosexual couples.  It's certainly not the case that they can all have
> children.

umm heterosexual, as I am sure you know when these social norms came
about there was no way to test for these things.  But the thing is the
system has worked pretty well over the centuries.   

>
> Your class definitions don't fit the rest of your logic.

Sure it does man + woman generaly lead to children, indvidual results
may vary.  Man and man can not ever lead to children, the plumbings 
wrong.

>
>>> No, see, I think this law would be wonderful, in the short term, as an
>>> object lesson.  Since it would almost certainly prevent many heterosexual
>>> couples from marrying each other, and might possibly annul existing
>>> straight marriages, it would demonstrate to a large number of people that
>>> legally basing marriage on procreation is a bad idea.  One would hope that,
>>> after a short time of that sort of thing, the legislature or the people
>>> would come to their senses and strike the law down.
>>
>> Well you will fuck over anyone you can to get your way, how childish.
>> And there is a very good chance that the politicians who passed that
>> law would get shot and they know that.  That they would get removed from 
>> office is a given and they know that as well.
>
> First, I'm not actively campaigning for such a law; I'm simply trying to
> explain why such a law would be a bad idea.  Second, if you really think
> that such a law is a bad idea, then what does this do to your claim that
> marriage exists only for procreation?  The law under discussion would
> simply make that enforceable.

My argument has been that from societys POV the benefit is that 
it gets the next generation of that society from marriage.  Now
there is a wee bit more to it then bummping hips.  You do have to
raise thos children after all, as you well know.

>
>> And so what you do not as a gay couple bring anything to the table to
>> justify any special privileges.
>
> We are not asking for special privileges.  We are simply asking for the
> same privileges, opportunities, and responsibilities enjoyed by everyone
> else.

Yes you are.  

>
>>> Again, sounds plausible, but without evidence, this is just rhetoric.  Show
>>> me the history.  We've got lots of examples of societies falling apart: the
>>> fall of the Roman Empire, various dynastic changes in China, various
>>> dynastic changes in India, and so on.  Surely you should be able to trace
>>> at least *one* of those instances back to excessively rapid social change.
>>
>> ok Japan after Commodore Perry. 
>
> That's a possibility; there's a lot I don't know about Japan in the 1890s
> and 1900s.  However, to support your argument, you would have to
> demonstrate that the society fell apart simply because of rapid changes
> forced by Commodore Perry.  Further, you would also have to demonstrate
> that allowing same-sex marriage represents a large enough change to cause
> the deterioration of our society.

No you are asking for the change, you prove it is not.  

>
> Anyway, I think that's enough of this debate.  I think it's fairly clear
> that I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change my
> mind, and there we are.
>
> For those following along at home, my primary aim in this discussion has
> *not* been to convince Mr. Spitzer that same-sex marriage is a good thing.
> No, my goal has been to demonstrate to those folks who are still trying to
> work out how they feel that the arguments made against same-sex marriage
> don't hold water.  Continuing this discussion would simply make the same
> points over and over again.

oppinions differ.  

>
> Therefore, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming
> language holy wars.  Static vs. dynamic typing, anyone?  :-)
>
> Richard

marc
From: Cameron MacKinnon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and
Date: 
Message-ID: <-a-dnbYdue8DU8LdRVn-gw@golden.net>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
> this case.  

 From Boston.com: "The court, in a 4-3 ruling, ordered the Legislature 
to come up with a solution within 180 days."

What is your understanding of the system of checks and balances provided 
by the US Constitution? How is the judiciary to check the power of the 
legislature and the executive if every petitioner must be told "Well, 
son, it may not be fair, nor even constitutional, but that's the law as 
written by the legislature."?

Explain your answer.

If you were to walk into a law library, would the books be filled with 
the writing of judges, or of legislators?

Does a law student spend his nights reading judgments, or legislation?

-- 
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and
Date: 
Message-ID: <86llls817r.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:

> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
>> this case.
>
>  From Boston.com: "The court, in a 4-3 ruling, ordered the Legislature
>  to come up with a solution within 180 days."

Now the court in question in this case told the legislature to come up
with a law we like or else and that is not the courts job.

>
> What is your understanding of the system of checks and balances
> provided by the US Constitution? How is the judiciary to check the
> power of the legislature and the executive if every petitioner must be
> told "Well, son, it may not be fair, nor even constitutional, but
> that's the law as written by the legislature."?
>
> Explain your answer.
>
> If you were to walk into a law library, would the books be filled with
> the writing of judges, or of legislators?

yes, both.  Did it once by accident.

>
> Does a law student spend his nights reading judgments, or legislation?

Does watching reruns of the "paper chase" count for an informed
oppinion.

marc
From: Erann Gat
Subject: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <1f4c5c5c.0403230903.2379642b@posting.google.com>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<··············@bogomips.optonline.net>...

> Now the court in question in this case told the legislature to come up
> with a law we like or else and that is not the courts job.

No, the court told the legislature to come up with a law that is
compatible with the state and national constitutions, and that is
precisely the court's job.

> But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids

Hogwash.  *Having* kids is easy -- too easy, and notwithstanding the
situation in France, people generally don't need any encouragement to
reproduce.

The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
the kids but *raising* them.  That's the process that the institution
of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
reproduction.  That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
commitment.  If the purpose of marriage were just to *have* kids
people would be getting married for nine months at a time, and we'd be
celebrating teen pregnancy and single motherhood.  It's all about
raising kids, not producing them, and in that regard gays are just as
capable as anyone else (more if my gay friends are any guide).

The idea that gay marriage ought to be banned because society has a
vested interest in producing babies is absurd on its face.  If it were
true, the very same argument could be used to ban the marriage of
sterile people (who as a class cannot produce babies), post-menopausal
women (who as a class cannot produce babies).  It could also be used
to argue that lesbians should be allowed to marry because they as a
class can (and do) produce babies.  The premise that the mere
production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
pregnancy.

Finally, I can't help but wonder how many Americans who oppose gay
marriage on the grounds that we are facing an imminent shortage of
babies also support stricter enforcement of our immigration laws.  I
don't have any data, but I suspect the correlation is high, because
the mindset that is required to argue against gay marriage is exactly
the same as the one you need to argue against interracial marriage. 
Both positions are simply untenable on any grounds other than pure
bigotry.

Erann Gat
···@flownet.com
From: Mike Cox
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <3d6111f1.0403231526.1dad0033@posting.google.com>
···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<··············@bogomips.optonline.net>...
> 
> > Now the court in question in this case told the legislature to come up
> > with a law we like or else and that is not the courts job.
> 
> No, the court told the legislature to come up with a law that is
> compatible with the state and national constitutions, and that is
> precisely the court's job.
> 
> > But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids
> 
> Hogwash.  *Having* kids is easy -- too easy, and notwithstanding the
> situation in France, people generally don't need any encouragement to
> reproduce.
> 
> The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
> the kids but *raising* them.  That's the process that the institution
> of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
> reproduction.  That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
> commitment.  If the purpose of marriage were just to *have* kids
> people would be getting married for nine months at a time, and we'd be
> celebrating teen pregnancy and single motherhood.  It's all about
> raising kids, not producing them, and in that regard gays are just as
> capable as anyone else (more if my gay friends are any guide).

If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
children. Children need a mom and a dad.  Look at all the research
that has been done on kids from single parent households.  Parental
role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
and dad.  Those without one or the other have been proven to have
higher drop out rates, drug use and more.

I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
does.
 


> The idea that gay marriage ought to be banned because society has a
> vested interest in producing babies is absurd on its face.  If it were
> true, the very same argument could be used to ban the marriage of
> sterile people (who as a class cannot produce babies), post-menopausal
> women (who as a class cannot produce babies).  

Marriage is something between a man and woman.  That is a very special
relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
something that homosexuality cannot ever do.

I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
between a man and woman.  I know it isn't fair, but if gay men wanted
to be married, they HAVE the right currently.  They just need to find
a woman to marry.

Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies?  To some it may not
be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage! 
Marriage is unfair because it is so unique in that men and women are
made for each other.  The result of a healthy man and woman coupling
is a child, proof of the intent of whoever desined man and woman had a
goal.  Whether it is god or evolution.

>It could also be used
> to argue that lesbians should be allowed to marry because they as a
> class can (and do) produce babies. 

But they need a man to produce a baby.

> The premise that the mere
> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
> pregnancy.

The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
both parties consent to it.  The future welfare of the child is a
great concern, and products of rape will not have a father figure
because he will be in prison.

> Finally, I can't help but wonder how many Americans who oppose gay
> marriage on the grounds that we are facing an imminent shortage of
> babies also support stricter enforcement of our immigration laws.  I
> don't have any data, but I suspect the correlation is high, because
> the mindset that is required to argue against gay marriage is exactly
> the same as the one you need to argue against interracial marriage. 
> Both positions are simply untenable on any grounds other than pure
> bigotry.

This goes back to my last point.  People need to be responsible when
they have children and consider the childs future welfare.  The REASON
people are not having kids is because they cannot afford it because of
the high taxes they pay to care for the immigrant's child. They are
being RESPONSIBLE when the delay having kids because of the high cost,
unfortunatly they just end up paying for some imigrant who pumps out
kids because they get government help and have no incentive to keep it
under control.

Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.  Just look at the middle
east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <d673dsw0.fsf@comcast.net>
············@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:

> Look at all the research that has been done on kids from single
> parent households.  Parental role models are very important, and it
> is best if children have a mom and dad.  Those without one or the
> other have been proven to have higher drop out rates, drug use and
> more.
>
> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.

There is plenty of research that indicates that one parent is less
optimal than two.  I have seen research that indicates that the sexual
orientation of the two parents is unimportant.  I have seen no
research that suggests that two gay partners are no more effective
than a single heterosexual parent.

> Marriage is something between a man and woman.  

Circular reasoning.

> That is a very special relationship that has the *potential* to
> produce another living being, something that homosexuality cannot
> ever do.

Not always.  Do you wish to predicate marriage on the potential to
have children?

> The REASON people are not having kids is because they cannot afford
> it because of the high taxes they pay to care for the immigrant's
> child. They are being RESPONSIBLE when the delay having kids because
> of the high cost, unfortunatly they just end up paying for some
> imigrant who pumps out kids because they get government help and
> have no incentive to keep it under control.

The `welfare' fallacy has been discredited in many studies.

> Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.  Just look at the middle
> east. 

Ah, that's the problem with the middle east.  And here I was thinking
that it had something to do radical Islam and despotic leaders.

-- 
~jrm
From: André Thieme
Subject: Re: [Off topic] islam
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3qkar$c16$1@ulric.tng.de>
Joe Marshall wrote:

> Ah, that's the problem with the middle east.  And here I was thinking
> that it had something to do radical Islam and despotic leaders.

There are in fact some radical islamic people who want that the whole
world becomes an islamic state, and where every human believes in Alah.

However, most of islamic (I don't have real numbers but I guess it can
be around 98%) are not so radical and do not care so much about other
people. They still believe their belief is the (only) right belief.
But they have some other problems with the usa.. They don't like it when
some us people come and say "Now you get democracy. This is what we have
and you also should have it, it is good."


Andr�
--
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: [Off topic] islam
Date: 
Message-ID: <86smfyt1ex.fsf@web.de>
Andr� Thieme <······································@justmail.de> writes:

[Muslims]
> But they have some other problems with the usa.. They don't like it when
> some us people come and say "Now you get democracy. This is what we have
> and you also should have it, it is good."

It would be not so sad, if the USA really had something you could call
democracy.

Regards,
-- 
Julian Stecklina                Key-ID: 0xD65B2AB5
FA38 DCD3 00EC 97B8 6DD8  D7CC 35D8 8D0E D65B 2AB5

"I meant," said Iplsore bitterly, "what is there in 
this world that makes living worthwhile?" Death 
thought about it. "CATS," he said eventually, "CATS 
ARE NICE." - Terry Pratchett, Sourcery
From: Don Groves
Subject: Re: [Off topic] islam
Date: 
Message-ID: <opr5d5elmc2i99y2@news.web-ster.com>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:50:30 +0100, Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> 
wrote:

> Andr� Thieme <······································@justmail.de> writes:
>
> [Muslims]
>> But they have some other problems with the usa.. They don't like it when
>> some us people come and say "Now you get democracy. This is what we have
>> and you also should have it, it is good."
>
> It would be not so sad, if the USA really had something you could call
> democracy.
>
> Regards,


You can call it whatever you want but the fact is, the US has
*never* had a true democracy.  The US Senate, from the very
beginning, was set up to insure that each *state* had equal
representation, not each *person*.  Also, by mandating an
electoral college instead of popular vote when choosing the
president, the possibility of truly radical change was diminished.
Those founding fathers didn't really trust the common man all
that much when it came to political power.
-- 
dg
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <RS58c.1171$%%1.7468@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>
In article <············@comcast.net>,
	Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:
> ...
> There is plenty of research that indicates that one parent is less
> optimal than two. 

i would modify this somewhat to "two who can live with each other"

> ...

hs

-- 

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel
                                     Samuel Johnson

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all
others because you were born in it
                                     George Bernard Shaw
From: André Thieme
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3qhnp$a8h$1@ulric.tng.de>
Mike Cox wrote:

> Marriage is something between a man and woman.  That is a very special
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.

Why should this factor (that a couple potentially could produce children)
be the most important one, on which the descision is beeing made, who is
allowed to marry and who not?

Why not creating a psychological test how much happyness a married
couple can potentially bring the society? Or how much income they will
probably produce? Or how nice they will potentially be to other children
who will all be so friendly people in the future?

You cannot know that a homosexual couple will not give even more rewards
back to the society after their marriage.

And your argument also results in another logical problem: if the law is
that only people who potentially could produce children are allowed to
marry, then several marriages which are now legal would immediately
become illegal.


Andr�
--
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <87vfkuapea.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
Andr� Thieme <······································@justmail.de> writes:

> Mike Cox wrote:
> 
> > Marriage is something between a man and woman.  That is a very special
> > relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> > something that homosexuality cannot ever do.
> 
> Why should this factor (that a couple potentially could produce children)
> be the most important one, on which the descision is beeing made, who is
> allowed to marry and who not?
> 
> Why not creating a psychological test how much happyness a married
> couple can potentially bring the society? Or how much income they will
> probably produce? Or how nice they will potentially be to other children
> who will all be so friendly people in the future?

Because that's pure socialisms, and that leads to excesses like has
been seen in Sweden, with sterilization and euthanasia of people
missing the tests.  After all, why should a socialist society support
people that can "produce"?  It's perfectly _logical_, in a socialist
mind set.

You have to fight it with with a libertarian point of view: this is
not the job of the state to mess with these matters! Accordingly, the
state must not tax people so it cannot mess with these matters.


> You cannot know that a homosexual couple will not give even more rewards
> back to the society after their marriage.

That's why the state has nothing to do with gay marriage (no more than
it should have to do with heterosexual marriage and 99% of the other
things it messes with).
 

> And your argument also results in another logical problem: if the law is
> that only people who potentially could produce children are allowed to
> marry, then several marriages which are now legal would immediately
> become illegal.

Right.  Socialisms is against the family.

-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <8yhqepbm.fsf@comcast.net>
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:

> Andr� Thieme <······································@justmail.de> writes:
>
> Because that's pure socialisms, and that leads to excesses like has
> been seen in Sweden, with sterilization and euthanasia of people
> missing the tests.  

Hey, don't leave out the US!  We did that too!

-- 
~jrm
From: Joe Sixpack
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <kgpq3c.pbc.ln@192.168.1.75>
I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
> 
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children.

 False.

> Children need a mom and a dad. 

 Prove it.

> Look at all the research
> that has been done on kids from single parent households.

 We're not talking about single parent households.

> Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children 
> have a mom and dad.  

 Prove it.

> Those without one or the other have been proven to have higher drop 
> out rates, drug use and more.

 Where did those with 2 mothers rate? Two fathers? More than likely they
 rated much higher.

> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.
 
 Prove it, homophobe.

> Marriage is something between a man and woman.

 And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
 Luckily humankind evolves...except for overly religous types.

> That is a very special
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.
 
 Sperm donors.

> I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> between a man and woman. 
 
 Why?

> I know it isn't fair,

 Then why suggest it. idiot?

> but if gay men wanted
> to be married, they HAVE the right currently.  They just need to find
> a woman to marry.

  No, there are even limitations on that. 

  Therefore, marriage *isnt* between a man and a woman, it is between
  certain men and certain women.

  Therefore, society places the goal posts wherever it is currently
  convenient.

  Therefore, there is no problem with same-sex marriages.

> Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies?  To some it may not
> be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage! 

  Marriage is not a foundation of life.

>> The premise that the mere
>> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
>> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
>> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
>> pregnancy.
> 
> The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> both parties consent to it.

  Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
  *encouraging* gay marriage.

> Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.  Just look at the middle
> east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
> are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
> lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
> cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
> will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.

  Thanks for reminding why voting Republican is not an option anymore.


-- 

 "I have bowel movements worth more than Italy" --Bill Gates
                                           
From: Mike Cox
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <3d6111f1.0403241238.540124bc@posting.google.com>
Joe Sixpack <·······················@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<·············@192.168.1.75>...
> I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
> > 
> > If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> > children.
> 
>  False.

100% true.  There are more married couples who want to adopt children
then there are children available.  It is better to put a child in the
home of a married couple then risk the increase chances of high school
drop out, and drug use that is associated with children from single
parent and gay homes.


> > Children need a mom and a dad. 
> 
>  Prove it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3523

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3654

> > Look at all the research
> > that has been done on kids from single parent households.
> 
>  We're not talking about single parent households.
> 
> > Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children 
> > have a mom and dad.  
> 
>  Prove it.
> 
> > Those without one or the other have been proven to have higher drop 
> > out rates, drug use and more.
> 
>  Where did those with 2 mothers rate? Two fathers? More than likely they
>  rated much higher.
> 
> > I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> > as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
> > having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> > does.
>  
>  Prove it, homophobe.

How am I a homophobe?  I stated in my post that I believe homosexuals
should be allowed to have civil unions that would allow them to
inherit property, and get partner benefits, and hospital visitation
rights.

> > Marriage is something between a man and woman.
> 
>  And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
>  Luckily humankind evolves...except for overly religous types.
> 
> > That is a very special
> > relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> > something that homosexuality cannot ever do.
>  
>  Sperm donors.

Requires a man.  Read the research about single parents.

> > I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> > the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> > always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> > between a man and woman. 
>  
>  Why?

Because when a man and woman come together they *can* produce a child
if they are young and healthy!  That is the only relationship that
*can* produce children!


> > I know it isn't fair,
> 
>  Then why suggest it. idiot?

Because some parts of life will be unfair do to either evolution or
nature.  Men and Women are different biologically!  That is why men
are required by LAW to register for the selective service and women
are not.  If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGAL!

Some men would probably want to carry children, but they can't because
they are men and don't have wombs!  Things like this will always be
unfair because it is nature you're dealing with.  Discrimination on
irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is wrong because
most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.

 In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is OK to
discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of the
business is about WOMEN STRIPPING.  Marriage is that.  It is a
relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
business that features women dancing not men. That is MY point and the
courts agree with me there.

> > but if gay men wanted
> > to be married, they HAVE the right currently.  They just need to find
> > a woman to marry.
> 
>   No, there are even limitations on that. 
> 
>   Therefore, marriage *isnt* between a man and a woman, it is between
>   certain men and certain women.
> 
>   Therefore, society places the goal posts wherever it is currently
>   convenient.

No the goal posts have always been there.  They have actually been
eased over time, rightly so in those cases.  But allowing gay marriage
is different from allowing interacial couples from marring.

> 
> > Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies?  To some it may not
> > be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage! 
> 
>   Marriage is not a foundation of life.

It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
children.

> >> The premise that the mere
> >> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
> >> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
> >> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
> >> pregnancy.
> > 
> > The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> > both parties consent to it.
> 
>   Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
>   *encouraging* gay marriage.

The planet is NOT over-populated.  Russia is losing its young as is
Europe.  The only places the population is rising is in the places
were there is no economic incentive to produce quality offspring. 
Those are the populations that suffer the water and food shortages. 
In the USA we have a surplus of food, hence the farm subsides.

> > Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> > lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.  Just look at the middle
> > east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
> > are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
> > lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
> > cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
> > will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.
> 
>   Thanks for reminding why voting Republican is not an option anymore.

Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly
brainwashed in school.
From: Sashank Varma
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <none-98559B.15562824032004@news.vanderbilt.edu>
I have not been reading this thread, just glancing at random
postings.

In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
 ············@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote:

> Joe Sixpack <·······················@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:<·············@192.168.1.75>...
> > I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
> > > Children need a mom and a dad. 
> > 
> >  Prove it.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3523

This study does not prove your point, and I am quite sure that either
you did not read it or are unfamiliar with how to read research studies.

The web page contains the following information:

===
(1) This finding looks at relationships between family structure, 
mobility, high-school dropout rates.

(2) Finding: "Students from single-parent and step-parent families were 
more likely than students from two-parent families to change schools and 
to drop out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies.

(3) Sample or Data Description
11,671 students from the 1988-1994 National Educational Longitudinal 
Study

(4) Source
Russell W. Rumberger, and Katherine A. Larson 
"Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout"
American Journal of Education.
Vol. 107, Number . , 1998. Page(s) 1-35. 

(5) Associated Keywords: Drop-out, Family relocation, Single-parent 
household, Stepfamilies, 

(6) FindingID: 3523
===

(I added the numbers to facilitate references.)

Sentence (1), The Heritage Foundation's summary of the study is
incorrect, which is to say it distorts the research goal of the
study.

Here is the article's abstract:

===
A variety of evidence suggests that students in the United States change 
schools frequently. But there has been relatively little research that 
examines the educational consequences of student mobility. This study 
examined the incidence of student mobility between the eighth and 
twelfth grades and its effect on high school completion using the 
National Educational Longitudinal Survey third follow-up data. Three 
models were tested on two groups of students. For eighth-grade students 
in 1988, we predicted (1) whether students changed schools or dropped 
out between the eighth and twelfth grades and (2) high school completion 
status two years after twelfth grade. For twelfth-grade students in 1992 
we predicted high school completion status two years after twelfth 
grade. The models were developed from a conceptual framework based on 
theories of dropping out, postsecondary institutional departure, and 
student transfer adjustment that suggest school mobility may represent a 
less severe form of educational disengagement similar to dropping out. 
The results generally support this idea. That is, measures of social and 
academic engagement, such as low grades, misbehavior, and high 
absenteeism, predicted both whether students changed schools or dropped 
out. The results further indicate that, controlling for other 
predictors, students who made even one nonpromotional school change 
between the eighth and twelfth grades were twice as likely to not 
complete high school as students who did not change schools. Together, 
the findings suggest that student mobility is both a symptom of 
disengagement and an important risk factor for high school dropout.
===

The last sentence of the abstract summarizes the paper's
conclusion: High school students who move between schools are
at a greater risk to drop out.

How about that juicy quote, statement (2)?  Here it is in the
context of the article:

===
Only six studies have examined the causes or consequences of student 
mobility during high school. Two of these focus on the causes of 
mobility. The first study examined predictors of school and residential 
mobility between the fifth and tenth grades on high school sophomores 
and its effect on high school graduation with a specific focus on family 
structure (Astone and McLanahan 1994). The study found that students 
from single-parent and stepparent families were more likely to change 
schools and less likely to complete high school than were students from 
two-parent families, even after controlling for differences in SES. 
Mobility also reduced the odds of completing high school.
===

So in fact the quote is not a conclusion drawn from Rumberger and
Larson's (1998) review of "11,671 students from the 1988-1994 National 
Educational Longitudinal Study", as statement (3) tells us.  It is
their summary of a study by Astone and McLanahan (1994) on an
unknown sample.  Furthermore, if you read the previous paragraph,
you learn that this data (and other prior studies) are methodologically
flawed; this is precisely why Rumberger and Larson conducted their
study.  To quote:

===
There is very limited empirical research that specifically focuses on 
student mobility. Most empirical research on student mobility consists 
of descriptive statistics compiled by federal, state, and local 
education agencies, which document the incidence of student mobility. A 
few other empirical studies have also examined descriptively the 
differences in the academic achievement between mobile and stable 
students (Ingersoll et al. 1989). There are relatively few studies that 
have examined either the causes or consequences of student mobility, and 
most of them have focused on the educational effect of student mobility 
during elementary or junior high school. In general, such studies have 
found that transfer students experience both social and academic 
adjustment problems that affect their academic achievement, with older 
students more likely to develop problems than younger ones (Benson et 
al. 1979; Crockett et al. 1989; Holland et al. 1974; Jason et al. 1992). 
===

I confess I did not read the rest of the article.  I could not
check your second reference easily because I do not have on-line
access to that journal.

My conclusion is that you are unable or unwilling to give
evidence for your claim.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <wu59syrq.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
············@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:

> Joe Sixpack <·······················@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<·············@192.168.1.75>...
>> I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
>> > 
>> > If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
>> > children.
>> 
>>  False.
>
> 100% true.  There are more married couples who want to adopt children
> then there are children available.  It is better to put a child in the
> home of a married couple then risk the increase chances of high school
> drop out, and drug use that is associated with children from single
> parent and gay homes.

I had no idea that gay parents promoted drug use.  Go figure.
From: Simon Helsen
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403242147230.12599@bsr4.uwaterloo.ca>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Mike Cox wrote:

>100% true.  There are more married couples who want to adopt children
>then there are children available.  It is better to put a child in the
>home of a married couple then risk the increase chances of high school
>drop out, and drug use that is associated with children from single
>parent and gay homes.

it is truely amazing that you beleive there is an increased chance that
kids in a gay relationship will drop out of school or use drugs. Honestly,
how many gay people do you personally know? I know quite a few, some even
friends, and honestly, I cannot see a difference between their capacity to
raise children and that of my straight friends.

I think the big problem with people like you is the lack of truely knowing
gay people. This is why never escaped your homophobia.

>http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3523
>
>http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3654

as other people pointed out, this says nothing about gay people,
independently of the quality of the study. It is scary that you even try
to use it for your argument, even though it is obviously wrong.

>How am I a homophobe?  I stated in my post that I believe homosexuals
>should be allowed to have civil unions that would allow them to
>inherit property, and get partner benefits, and hospital visitation
>rights.

If you beleive sweeping comments like "kids in a gay relationship have an
increased chance on higher drug usage", you obviously are homophobe.

>Because when a man and woman come together they *can* produce a child
>if they are young and healthy!  That is the only relationship that
>*can* produce children!

This argument is logically flawed of course. Why is the distinction
between a man and a woman more relevant that between a woman and an
infertile woman? Besides, why on earth is the production of a kid that
important? Wouldn't you think that raising them is way more the issue?

>Because some parts of life will be unfair do to either evolution or
>nature.  Men and Women are different biologically!  That is why men
>are required by LAW to register for the selective service and women
>are not.  If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
>discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
>SERVICE LEGAL!

In the early 20th century, in most European countries (I don't know about
N.A.), women could not vote. The reason was obvious for the people at the
time: women could not think, women were supposed to raise children (which
is there biological function), women did not understand politics, etc.
Today, these practices do not exist anymore in western democracies because
it is considered discrimination. So tell me, why is your viewpoint on gay
marriage different from what most people (men probably) thought about
women's ability to vote in the 19th century?

>Some men would probably want to carry children, but they can't because
>they are men and don't have wombs!  Things like this will always be
>unfair because it is nature you're dealing with.

But this implies that marriage is only there for biological procreation
and as many people have stated, it is not!

>Discrimination on irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is
>wrong because most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.

nor is marriage!

> In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is OK to
>discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of the
>business is about WOMEN STRIPPING.  Marriage is that.  It is a
>relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
>business that features women dancing not men. That is MY point and the
>courts agree with me there.

not really. Most courts do not see marriage as an institution for
procreation, but as a set of rights that allows two people to live
together and give them rights and obligations towards each other and the
state (the church probably does think it is only about procreation, but
they should not dictate such decisions of course)

>It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
>children.

good. I agree in fact. And I beleive that gay (wo)men are perfectly
capable to raise children, so they should be able to marry.

>The planet is NOT over-populated.  Russia is losing its young as is
>Europe.  The only places the population is rising is in the places
>were there is no economic incentive to produce quality offspring.
>Those are the populations that suffer the water and food shortages.
>In the USA we have a surplus of food, hence the farm subsides.

wow. You obviously need to take some lessons in demography. We are
currently at 6billion people and we are expected to reach 9billion by
2050. The burden on this planet is reaching dangerous levels.
Overpopulation is a *major* issue (the UN projects that by the end of the
21st century, we will fight wars over water). However, what you are saying
is something entirely different, namely that there is a large difference
between population in the developing and developed world (and inequality
between rich and poor). This schema will collapse one day, sure, but that
does not mean that we have to produce more kids. Rather, we should allow
more flexible immigration mechanisms (and Europe has some catching up to
do). But, sorry, I am sure you don't want that considering the fact that
your rather homophobic about gays...

>Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly brainwashed
>in school.

This is bizarre. To me, it seems that you were brainwashed at home (very
likely - I don't know any homophobe person who grew up in an open-minded
home). As for me, I learned this stuff by traveling, meeting with people
from other cultures, backgrounds, and yes, having gay friends. In fact,
what they tought me in my (catholic) high-school made me even better
understand how 'wrong' they were.

I hope you will learn (it is never too late)

	Simon
From: David Feuer
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <40626bde@news101.his.com>
Mike Cox wrote:

> 100% true.  There are more married couples who want to adopt children
> then there are children available.

There are more married couples who want to adopt children than there are 
/healthy/ /infants/ /from the U.S./ available.  An ongoing case against 
Florida's gay adoption ban involves gay men who have served as foster 
parents for little children with /AIDS/.  NOBODY wants to adopt children 
with AIDS.  Very few want the little blind children, the little mentally 
retarted children, or the little emotionally disturbed children. 
Allowing gays to marry and adopt surely won't solve any of these 
problems, but surely will do just a _bit_ do ameliorate them.

David
From: Joe Sixpack
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <r0et3c.67q.ln@192.168.1.75>
I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
> Joe Sixpack <·······················@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<·············@192.168.1.75>...
>> I believe it was Mike Cox who said...
>> > 
>> > If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
>> > children.
>> 
>>  False.
> 
> 100% true.  There are more married couples who want to adopt children
> then there are children available. 

 So?

> It is better to put a child in the home of a married couple then risk the 
> increase chances of high school drop out, and drug use that is associated 
> with children from single parent and gay homes.

 You have no data backing up your accusations about gay homes, first of
 all.  

 Secondly, if the likelihood of drug problems in the children will be a
 deciding factor in marriage, should we ban black couples from marriage
 as well? Or inner city folks? Or the Bush family?

>> > Children need a mom and a dad. 
>> 
>>  Prove it.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3523

 ""Students from single-parent and step-parent families were more likely
 than students from two-parent families to change schools and to drop
 out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies."

 Where do you see the word "gay" or the phrase "same sex" in that
 statement?  You dont. Gay marriages qualify as two-parent families.

> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/familydatabase/detail.cfm?ID1=3654

  Same.

>> > I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
>> > as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
>> > having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
>> > does.
>>  
>>  Prove it, homophobe.
> 
> How am I a homophobe?  

  Probably you are either a religous sheep, or you have questions about
  your own sexuality.

> I stated in my post that I believe homosexuals
> should be allowed to have civil unions that would allow them to
> inherit property, and get partner benefits, and hospital visitation
> rights.

  Of course they should.

>> > That is a very special
>> > relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
>> > something that homosexuality cannot ever do.
>>  
>>  Sperm donors.
> 
> Requires a man.  Read the research about single parents.
 
  We are not talking about single parents... why do you keep bringing
  that up? We are talking about MARRIAGE, not single parents.

>> > I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
>> > the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
>> > always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
>> > between a man and woman. 
>>  
>>  Why?
> 
> Because when a man and woman come together they *can* produce a child
> if they are young and healthy!  That is the only relationship that
> *can* produce children!

 So what? That is not the definition of marriage, unless you want to
 disclude anyone who cannot have children.

>> > I know it isn't fair,
>> 
>>  Then why suggest it. idiot?
> 
> Because some parts of life will be unfair do to either evolution or
> nature.  Men and Women are different biologically!  That is why men
> are required by LAW to register for the selective service and women
> are not. 

  No you jackass, that has nothing to do with biology, that has to do
  with our government's policy.

  Get a clue.

> If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
> discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
> SERVICE LEGAL!
 
  Completely off topic.

> Some men would probably want to carry children, but they can't because
> they are men and don't have wombs!  Things like this will always be
> unfair because it is nature you're dealing with.  Discrimination on
> irrelevant things like race, national origin, gender is wrong because
> most jobs are not specific enough to warrent them.
> 
>  In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is OK to
> discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of the
> business is about WOMEN STRIPPING.  Marriage is that.  It is a
> relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
> business that features women dancing not men. That is MY point and the
> courts agree with me there.

  Yes, but you and the courts are wrong....just like people were wrong
  when they said that black people only counted for 2/3 of a vote. They
  were wrong and now we look back at how stupid they were....just like
  people will look back at people like you and wonder how you could be
  so fucking stupid.

>> > but if gay men wanted
>> > to be married, they HAVE the right currently.  They just need to find
>> > a woman to marry.
>> 
>>   No, there are even limitations on that. 
>> 
>>   Therefore, marriage *isnt* between a man and a woman, it is between
>>   certain men and certain women.
>> 
>>   Therefore, society places the goal posts wherever it is currently
>>   convenient.
> 
> No the goal posts have always been there. 

  Wrong...ever state has different goal posts when it comes to marriage.
  The age, for example, isnt internationally agreed upon.

  And in most places, you may not marry your first of kin.

> They have actually been
> eased over time, rightly so in those cases.  But allowing gay marriage
> is different from allowing interacial couples from marring.

  In what way?

>> > Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies?  To some it may not
>> > be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage! 
>> 
>>   Marriage is not a foundation of life.
> 
> It is because it is the best place to bring up healthy, well adjusted
> children.

  Are you saying two wealthy, healthy, homosexuals would make worse
  parents than male and female crack addicted ghetto dwellers? It sounds
  like you are.

>> >> The premise that the mere
>> >> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
>> >> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
>> >> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
>> >> pregnancy.
>> > 
>> > The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
>> > both parties consent to it.
>> 
>>   Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
>>   *encouraging* gay marriage.
> 
> The planet is NOT over-populated.

  Of course it is.

> Russia is losing its young as is
> Europe. 

   So?

> The only places the population is rising is in the places
> were there is no economic incentive to produce quality offspring. 
> Those are the populations that suffer the water and food shortages. 
> In the USA we have a surplus of food, hence the farm subsides.
 
  A surplus of food is a good thing.

>> > Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
>> > lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.  Just look at the middle
>> > east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions
>> > are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
>> > lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
>> > cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
>> > will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.
>> 
>>   Thanks for reminding why voting Republican is not an option anymore.
> 
> Too bad you can't look at the facts because you were clearly
> brainwashed in school.

 What?  Brainwashed by whom?  Are you suggesting that I was taught
 respect for homosexuals in school? Thats laughable.

-- 

 "I have bowel movements worth more than Italy" --Bill Gates
                                           
From: David Feuer
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <4062696d$1@news101.his.com>
Joe Sixpack wrote:

>   Yes, but you and the courts are wrong....just like people were wrong
>   when they said that black people only counted for 2/3 of a vote. They
>   were wrong and now we look back at how stupid they were....just like
>   people will look back at people like you and wonder how you could be
>   so fucking stupid.

Just a reminder.  At the time when a black _slave_ counted as 3/5 of a 
free person for apportionment purposes, that black slave certainly could 
not vote.  Not to take anything from the point that the current anti-gay 
folks are in the wrong.

>>The only places the population is rising is in the places
>>were there is no economic incentive to produce quality offspring. 
>>Those are the populations that suffer the water and food shortages. 
>>In the USA we have a surplus of food, hence the farm subsides.

Side note:  we have a surplus of food _because_ of the farm subsidies. 
Look up Ever-Normal Granary.

David
From: Kees van Reeuwijk
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <1gb7xsl.mo00pnp7ioquN%reeuwijk@few.vu.nl>
Joe Sixpack <·······················@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
> > discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
> > SERVICE LEGAL!
>  
>   Completely off topic.

Perhaps, but then this thread has long ago become extremely off-topic
for ALL newsgroups it is posted to.

Hint. Hint.
From: Shemp
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <FpRec.30320$rg5.48807@attbi_s52>
Why is this even here?

This is a Java newsgroup, not the "Let Me Tell You I'm Gay So Feel Sorry For
Me Newsgroup"

"Kees van Reeuwijk" <········@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
···································@few.vu.nl...
> Joe Sixpack <·······················@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If equal protection were applied, logically it would be
> > > discrimination against men, but THE SUPREME COURT RULED SELECTIVE
> > > SERVICE LEGAL!
> >
> >   Completely off topic.
>
> Perhaps, but then this thread has long ago become extremely off-topic
> for ALL newsgroups it is posted to.
>
> Hint. Hint.
>
From: Sean Russell
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <83173408.0403250948.355aac72@posting.google.com>
Joe Sixpack <·······················@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<·············@192.168.1.75>...
> > Children need a mom and a dad. 
> 
>  Prove it.

Interestingly, I heard on the radio a report about the benefits of
dual-parent households (over single-parent households).  They didn't
discuss at all the gay marriage issue, but I found it significant that
they always said "two parent", not "married couple" or "mother and
father".

I strongly suspect that the significant factor in having a healthy
household is having two parents, not that they be of different sex.

Finally, if you (not You, Joe Sixpack, but You the Conservative Right)
are going to ban gay marriage on the basis that they can't provide a
healthy environment for children, I suggest that you focus your
attentions on restricting the right of couples to marry full stop. 
The same secular logic used to ban gay marriage could be used to ban
marriage for people who can't financially afford to support another
human being, or who show a tendancy for criminal negligence, or who
are just plain bad role models (such as our drunk-driving president). 
It is a slippery slope, pretending that you can tell what kind of
parents a couple will be and restricting their freedoms as a result.


> > Look at all the research
> > that has been done on kids from single parent households.
> 
>  We're not talking about single parent households.
> 
> > Parental role models are very important, and it is best if children 
> > have a mom and dad.  
> 
>  Prove it.

I think Mike is (intentionally or not) misquoting the research.  He's
right, insofar as I've seen research that shows that two-parent
households are generally an improvement over single-parent households,
but I've seen no research suggesting that mixed-sex, two-parent
households are an improvement over same-sex, two-parent households.

In fact, he points to the Heritage Foundation's research, which -- on
the front page -- says:

"Finding: "Students from single-parent and step-parent families were
more likely than students from two-parent families to change schools
and to drop out, a finding consistent" with earlier studies."

Notice that they say "two-parent", not "husband and wife", or
"heterosexual couples".

> > I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> > as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
> > having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> > does.
>  
>  Prove it, homophobe.

Yeah, I'd like to see that research, too.

"Homophobe" is good, but the best argument I've seen in this thread,
bar none, was the "dumbass" argument.  Man, was that compelling, and
so versitile, too!  Calling someone a "dumbass" really exposes them as
the lying, unethical, uneducated fascist that they are.  It really
shuts them up, too!

> > Marriage is something between a man and woman.
> 
>  And at one time it was only between men and women of the same color.
>  Luckily humankind evolves...except for overly religous types.

No, they evolve, too, just more slowly.  Sometimes, they're leading
the evolutionary wave.  The mormons defined marriage as something
between a man and one or more women, until they were crushed by the US
government.

> > That is a very special
> > relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being,
> > something that homosexuality cannot ever do.
>  
>  Sperm donors.

Earlier, Mike was arguing that the important thing was to have both a
man and wife in the household, and now he's arguing that procreating
is the important thing.  So, if I understand him correctly, a man and
a woman who adopt are better than a same-sex couple who adopt
because... they *could* breed?  Dang! So we have to ban marriages
between people who are infertile, whether they're same-sex or not.

> > I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> > the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> > always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> > between a man and woman. 
>  
>  Why?

Actually, Mike is mistaken here.  In most states, marriage confers
upon the partners many benefits -- and responsibilities -- than civil
unions do.

(1) Marriages are portable; civil unions may not be.  That is, if
you're married in Pennsylvania, California must recognize also the
marriage[1].  The same is not true of civil unions.

(2) You can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident,
regardless of where you are married.  You must be a resident in the
state where you engaged in the civil union to disolve the civil union.
 This means that if you get a civil union in Vermont and move to
California, you must both move BACK to Vermont and establish residency
before you can disolve the legal union.

(3) The federal government does not respect civil unions for tax
purposes.  IE, you can't file jointly for your federal taxes in a
civil union.

(4) You've seen "Single" and "Married" options on forms (EG, medical
forms) you fill out... have you ever seen a "Civil Union" option?

(5) "Hey... we gave them blacks their own drinking fountains -- why
should they want to drink out of ours, too?"  It is fundamentally
demeaning, and I've yet to hear a substantive secular argument against
gay marriage.

> > I know it isn't fair,
> 
>  Then why suggest it. idiot?

I have to admit, I'm puzzled by this, too.  If it isn't fair, why is
he opposed to changing the laws so that it *is* fair?

> > The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> > both parties consent to it.
> 
>   Bullshit, moron. This planet is overpopulated. We should be
>   *encouraging* gay marriage.

Hey, he may be misled, he may be biggotted, and he may have poor
arguments... but, seriously, is insulting him going to assist your
argument?  Is he likely to suddenly say "Dang, he called me a moron. 
Maybe I should really re-evaluate my beliefs and see whether I *have*
been a moron?"  Not likely.  It makes YOU feel better, maybe, but it
isn't a good way to convince people that they're wrong.

Furthermore, to his benefit, Mike has done a really good job of not
resorting to personal attacks.  He's trying really hard to keep this
argument on a secular basis, which is why all of his arguments are so
weak.  He doesn't have anything to stand on.  But at least he's not
getting personal.



--- SER

[1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).
From: @(none)
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <oYSdnWKPtKA6t_7dRVn-tw@golden.net>
Sean Russell wrote:
> Furthermore, to his benefit, Mike has done a really good job of not
> resorting to personal attacks.  He's trying really hard to keep this
> argument on a secular basis, which is why all of his arguments are so
> weak.  He doesn't have anything to stand on.  But at least he's not
> getting personal.

Mike Cox's greatest hits on comp.lang.lisp:

2004/03/13: "I've been using lisp now for a week, and now I want to make 
some bucks selling my software."

2004/03/14: "I KNOW computer science.  For me to pick up another 
language is trivial.  Are you familiar with Knuth, or Dijkstra?  I am, 
and with my solid theoretical knowledge, it is expected that one be able 
to master a language in a week."

2004/03/15: "2 weeks ago, I tried lisp for the first time so I could use 
emacs.  Now I'm about to write a .NET implementation of lisp, LISP.NET."

2004/03/16: "I know enough about lisp that I'm a master of emacs, it 
just that I started reading about lisp macros last night."

2004/03/21: "This topic is too funny!  I know a few  "jobs"  that San 
Francisco "lispers" can do!"

2004/03/23: "The REASON people are not having kids is because they 
cannot afford it because of the high taxes they pay to care for the 
immigrant's child. They are being RESPONSIBLE when the delay having kids 
because of the high cost, unfortunatly they just end up paying for some 
imigrant who pumps out kids because they get government help and have no 
incentive to keep it under control."

2004/03/24: "In cases like strip clubs, the courts have ruled that it is 
OK to discriminate AGAINST HIRING MEN as strippers because the nature of 
the business is about WOMEN STRIPPING.  Marriage is that.  It is a
relationship between a man and a woman just like a strip club is a
business that features women dancing not men."


Sorry, no points for not resorting to personal attacks. We should not 
credit people for insulting broad groups rather than individuals. Alas, 
it is to the detriment of all of us that we continue this offtopic 
discussion. If Mike hadn't been distracted by the sirens, we'd have some 
REALLY AMAZING software by now, and Will Hartung could save his mythical 
$1 million (see "What would you do with 10 man years?").

-- 
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
From: David Feuer
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <4063c92a$1@news101.his.com>
Sean Russell wrote:

> [1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
> extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).

WEll...  So the law says.  But that section of the law is prima facie 
unconstitutional.  Whether the marriages are portable or not is 
something the courts will ultimately decide, but the Defense of Marriage 
Act won't have much to do with it.

David
From: Ray Dillinger
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <40646C22.F94ED949@sonic.net>
David Feuer wrote:
> 
> Sean Russell wrote:
> 
> > [1] Except for gay marriages, which are not portable (conservative
> > extremists can thank Bill Clinton for that one).
> 
> WEll...  So the law says.  But that section of the law is prima facie
> unconstitutional.  Whether the marriages are portable or not is
> something the courts will ultimately decide, but the Defense of Marriage
> Act won't have much to do with it.
> 
> David

I have often thought that when legislation is found in a court of law 
to be unconstitutional, the legislators who drafted it should have to pay
back a year's salary, plus interest since the time the legislation was 
passed.  

I have much more to say about Gay Marriage, but there are far too many 
commas in the newsgroups line for civil discussion to be expected.

				Bear
From: mlw
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <mv88c.82414$po.648420@attbi_s52>
Mike Cox wrote:
> 
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children. 
Recent studies have shown that it may not, in fact, be a choice at all.
There may be a biological/generic predisposition.

> Children need a mom and a dad.  

This is fiction. Children *need* a workable support network.

> Look at all the research  
> that has been done on kids from single parent households.  

What research?

> Parental 
> role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
> and dad.  Those without one or the other have been proven to have
> higher drop out rates, drug use and more.

Please site that example, because I've seen studies that indicate that
dropout rate has mostly to do with poverty.

> 
> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.

Since when did gay marriage become a "gay parent" issue? We, as a society, 
*already* allow gays to adopt.

>  
> 
> 
[snip]
> 
> Marriage is something between a man and woman.  

Why? 50 years ago, people of different races couldn't marry, ironically
enough, the exact same arguments were presented.


> That is a very special 
> relationship that has the *potential* to produce another living being.
> something that homosexuality cannot ever do.

Are you saying that A woman with a hysterectomy or a man with a vasectomy
can not get married because there is no potential for children?

> 
> I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> between a man and woman. 

Why?

> I know it isn't fair, but if gay men wanted 
> to be married, they HAVE the right currently.  They just need to find
> a woman to marry.

Why does a gay man have to marry a woman? That would just be another
divorce. 
> 
> Besides, is it fair that men cannot carry babies? 

This is a purely biological argument, and unless you want to ban all
marriages between people incapable of having children, it is a failed
argument.

> To some it may not 
> be, but it is still the foundation of life, just like marriage!

I know lots of people who's marriage almost killed them. Divorce was their
only hope.

> Marriage is unfair because it is so unique in that men and women are
> made for each other. 

Says who? Statistically speaking, 5% to 10% of the population may be gay. To
deny these people the right to marry the person they love is criminal.

> The result of a healthy man and woman coupling 
> is a child, proof of the intent of whoever desined man and woman had a
> goal.  

You don't need marriage to have children, and you don't need to be planning
or able to have children to get married, so your argument is failed.

> 
>>It could also be used
>> to argue that lesbians should be allowed to marry because they as a
>> class can (and do) produce babies.
> 
> But they need a man to produce a baby.

Only sperm. Just as "straight" couples can get from a sperm bank.

> 
>> The premise that the mere
>> production of babies is axiomatically a good thing leads to all sorts
>> of other bizzarre conclusions, like that all birth control should be
>> banned, and that rape is a good thing as long as it results in
>> pregnancy.
> 
> The production of babies IS good as long as it is done responsibly and
> both parties consent to it.  

The first reasonable thing you've said so far.

> The future welfare of the child is a 
> great concern, and products of rape will not have a father figure
> because he will be in prison.

You fail to mention that a woman should not have to carry a baby, especially
if it is the result of an act of violence.

[snip offensive racial crap]
> 

> 
> Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.  

I don't know about that, George W. was supposed to be well raised, and he
lies, steals, and invades countries.

> Just look at the middle 
> east. 

Religious zealots of all kinds are harmful to all societies.

> The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions 
> are not right. We want to encourage Amercians to have children by
> lowering taxes, creating real competition among colleges to lower
> cost, and improving job security at home so the responsible people
> will feel secure enough to have quality raised children.

As was said before, it isn't about "children."  Gay partners can have
children already. It is about rights.
From: Milo T.
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <1lbqhf71hq8m0.1olfgrg0k2tvl@fanatastical.malaprop.net>
On 23 Mar 2004 15:26:54 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children. Children need a mom and a dad.  Look at all the research
> that has been done on kids from single parent households.  Parental
> role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
> and dad.  Those without one or the other have been proven to have
> higher drop out rates, drug use and more.
> 
> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> does.

So presumably, you also want to actively prevent divorces where children
are involved then?
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 3/24/2004
12:25:38 AM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin. Matt Templeton (scored down)
From: Mike Cox
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <3d6111f1.0403241217.2f3a33f7@posting.google.com>
"Milo T." <···········@malaprop.net> wrote in message news:<···························@fanatastical.malaprop.net>...
> On 23 Mar 2004 15:26:54 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
> > If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> > children. Children need a mom and a dad.  Look at all the research
> > that has been done on kids from single parent households.  Parental
> > role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
> > and dad.  Those without one or the other have been proven to have
> > higher drop out rates, drug use and more.
> > 
> > I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
> > as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
> > having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
> > does.
> 
> So presumably, you also want to actively prevent divorces where children
> are involved then?

Yes.  I think the only grounds for divorce should be abuse.  Other
than that, if you have children you need to stay married and be nice
to each other until your last child reaches the age of 18.  Men and
women are meant to be together, if they are kind and good to one
another there is *no* reason for divorce.

I'll go a step further.  I think almost any man and woman *could* get
married and enjoy it if they treated one another with respect, even if
they only knew each other for 24 hours.  Lots of vegas marriages could
be a success if the couples made it a priority to stay together.
From: Sashank Varma
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <none-C57A15.15312124032004@news.vanderbilt.edu>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
 ············@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote:

> I'll go a step further.  I think almost any man and woman *could* get
> married and enjoy it if they treated one another with respect, even if
> they only knew each other for 24 hours.  Lots of vegas marriages could
> be a success if the couples made it a priority to stay together.

[Curious]

Have you tried this experiment?  If so, how's it working
out?
From: Milo T.
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <1ry06bum1gbyx$.1epimpxfhdnok@fanatastical.malaprop.net>
On 24 Mar 2004 12:17:09 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:

> "Milo T." <···········@malaprop.net> wrote in message news:<···························@fanatastical.malaprop.net>...
>> On 23 Mar 2004 15:26:54 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
>>> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
>>> children. Children need a mom and a dad.  Look at all the research
>>> that has been done on kids from single parent households.  Parental
>>> role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom
>>> and dad.  Those without one or the other have been proven to have
>>> higher drop out rates, drug use and more.
>>> 
>>> I believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want
>>> as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Unfortunatly, being gay and
>>> having children does harm the child the same way single parenthood
>>> does.
>> 
>> So presumably, you also want to actively prevent divorces where children
>> are involved then?
> 
> Yes.  I think the only grounds for divorce should be abuse.  Other
> than that, if you have children you need to stay married and be nice
> to each other until your last child reaches the age of 18.  Men and
> women are meant to be together, if they are kind and good to one
> another there is *no* reason for divorce.
> 
> I'll go a step further.  I think almost any man and woman *could* get
> married and enjoy it if they treated one another with respect, even if
> they only knew each other for 24 hours.  Lots of vegas marriages could
> be a success if the couples made it a priority to stay together.

One has to wonder exactly what world you live in, because it's certainly
not the same one I live in. Humans have difficulty treating each other with
respect when they're strangers - never mind when they're living under the
same roof as one another, 365 days a year.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 3/24/2004
1:59:49 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin. Matt Templeton (scored down)
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <868yhp988i.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
"Milo T." <···········@malaprop.net> writes:

> On 24 Mar 2004 12:17:09 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
>
> One has to wonder exactly what world you live in, because it's certainly
> not the same one I live in. Humans have difficulty treating each other with
> respect when they're strangers - never mind when they're living under the
> same roof as one another, 365 days a year.

Just because something is hard to do does not mean it can not be done.
Generally people just choose not to bother with it.

marc
From: Sashank Varma
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <none-ADBB07.20371524032004@news.vanderbilt.edu>
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
 ············@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote:
> I'll go a step further.  I think almost any man and woman *could* get
> married and enjoy it if they treated one another with respect, even if
> they only knew each other for 24 hours.  Lots of vegas marriages could
> be a success if the couples made it a priority to stay together.

In article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net>,
 Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Milo T." <···········@malaprop.net> writes:
> 
> > On 24 Mar 2004 12:17:09 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
> >
> > One has to wonder exactly what world you live in, because it's certainly
> > not the same one I live in. Humans have difficulty treating each other with
> > respect when they're strangers - never mind when they're living under the
> > same roof as one another, 365 days a year.
> 
> Just because something is hard to do does not mean it can not be done.
> Generally people just choose not to bother with it.

It's not simply a matter of will.  There are cultures where
divorce is taboo and consequently divorce rates are in the
single digits.  One with which I am particularly familiar
are Asian Indians.  For example, in my whole extended
family, I know of only one divorce: an aunt of mine left
her husband after she was physically abused.

When divorce is not an option, families carry on...unhappily.
There's not some magic point after which misery becomes
honorable.

So why is this a good thing again?
From: Milo T.
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <1ozjx7zinrj6$.1rhaw6lt6zxua@fanatastical.malaprop.net>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:43:27 GMT, Marc Spitzer wrote:

> "Milo T." <···········@malaprop.net> writes:
> 
>> On 24 Mar 2004 12:17:09 -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> One has to wonder exactly what world you live in, because it's certainly
>> not the same one I live in. Humans have difficulty treating each other with
>> respect when they're strangers - never mind when they're living under the
>> same roof as one another, 365 days a year.
> 
> Just because something is hard to do does not mean it can not be done.

The doesn't mean that it *should* be done either.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 3/24/2004
5:51:49 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin. Matt Templeton (scored down)
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <u10ddclb.fsf@comcast.net>
············@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes:

>
> Yes.  I think the only grounds for divorce should be abuse.  Other
> than that, if you have children you need to stay married and be nice
> to each other until your last child reaches the age of 18.  Men and
> women are meant to be together, if they are kind and good to one
> another there is *no* reason for divorce.

He he he he.  I'll keep this one and see how you feel about twenty
years from now.

-- 
~jrm
From: Rayiner Hashem
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <a3995c0d.0403241432.373b65cd@posting.google.com>
> I support civil unions for gay people so they can visit each other in
> the hospital and inherit items when one of them dies, but we must
> always acknowledge that marriage is something *very* unique, something
> between a man and woman. 

See, this is where the anti-gay-marriage argument falls on its face.
It sets a *very* dangerous precedence concerning the relationship
between Church and state. Basically, the Church wants the state to
pass laws protecting marriage. This in and of itself is not
unprecedented. The problem here is that the Church wants the state to
adopt its definition of the word "marriage." If the Church controls
the definitions of the words used by the state, it exerts an
unacceptable power over it.

Thus, those who say "marriage is defined as a something between a man
and a women" are missing the point. What we are talking about here is
seperating the legal definition of marriage from the religious
definition of marriage. Such a seperation is warrented, and has
precedence. Consider: the Biblical definition of adultry says "if you
look at women with lust, you have already commited adultry with her in
your heart." However, the legal definition of adultry is something
wholly different and quite a bit more permissive. As much as it might
annoy some elements of society, the religious definition of marriage
and the legal definition of marriage must be similarly seperated.
From: John Bailo
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Ban Straight Marriage Now !
Date: 
Message-ID: <bSt8c.55797$aT1.31419@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Mike Cox wrote:


> If they choose to be gay, then they made their choice about having
> children. Children need a mom and a dad.  Look at all the research
> that has been done on kids from single parent households.  Parental
> role models are very important, and it is best if children have a mom

Absolutely wrong.  There is no data showing that children of divorced
parents have any detrimental bias.

However, what has been documented is that little or no learning occurs
between the parent and the child.  That is, almost 100% of knowledge and
behavior is learned from peers and siblings in school and at play.

This makes sense biologically.  The parents have already contributed 100% of
the genetic material, it would be stupid to then have the child stick
around them when he's already inherited their behavior.   I believe that
most parents *smother* children with overprotective and extreme dad-momism.

I think the British system was best -- ship them off to boarding school
asap.

> Quality raised children led to great societies. Poorly raised children
> lead to disaster and sociatal destruction.  Just look at the middle
> east. The reponsible people will not have children if the conditions

The problem isn't gay marriage.  It's marriage, period, which I personally
feel is banned by the 13th and 14th amendments of the Constitution banning
slavery.

Marriage is clearly a personal slavery contract.   If there were say, an
employment contract, that had the same stipulations as marriage, it would
be struck down in the courts.  No other contract has as much power over the
individual and oppresses the individual as much.

I believe straigh marriage should be outlawed.


-- 
W '04 <:> Open
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <kwd672aa32.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:

> The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
> the kids but *raising* them.  That's the process that the institution
> of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
> reproduction.  That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
> commitment.  

Hmm. Not sure if I like this off-topic cross-posting, but here I go:
Where I live (Norway), marriage is sort of out-dated, lots of couples,
even with kids, live together un-married. Ironically, these people
often pay a lawyer to help them produce a contract regulating their
relationship (to simplify the money matters if a breakup occurs).
That's when I ask myself: "Why not use the official, well-proven,
well documented contract known as marriage?". The _contract_ aspect
of marriage is its most important role in a modern society! And
then there's no reason why gay couples (or even polygamic or poly-
andric relationships... maybe I'm throwing a little too much fuel
on the fire...) shouldn't be allowed to use the good old well-
known contract for "living together in a long-term relationship"
that marriage is.
-- 
  (espen)
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <87lllq9n2c.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:

> ···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
> 
> > The hard part, the part that requires societal support, is not having
> > the kids but *raising* them.  That's the process that the institution
> > of marriage is designed to support, not the biological act of
> > reproduction.  That's why marriage is supposed to be a long-term
> > commitment.  
> 
> Hmm. Not sure if I like this off-topic cross-posting, but here I go:
> Where I live (Norway), marriage is sort of out-dated, lots of couples,
> even with kids, live together un-married. Ironically, these people
> often pay a lawyer to help them produce a contract regulating their
> relationship (to simplify the money matters if a breakup occurs).
> That's when I ask myself: "Why not use the official, well-proven,
> well documented contract known as marriage?". The _contract_ aspect
> of marriage is its most important role in a modern society! And
> then there's no reason why gay couples (or even polygamic or poly-
> andric relationships... maybe I'm throwing a little too much fuel
> on the fire...) shouldn't be allowed to use the good old well-
> known contract for "living together in a long-term relationship"
> that marriage is.

That's exactly the point.  The presence of the state as a third party
in the "marriage" contract is ressented so badly in Norway (and a lot
of other countries), that people prefer to avoid it and live as
informal couples, or even formalize their relationship privately with
the help of a private lawyer.

-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <lllpdcdd.fsf@comcast.net>
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:

> That's exactly the point.  The presence of the state as a third party
> in the "marriage" contract is ressented so badly in Norway (and a lot
> of other countries), that people prefer to avoid it and live as
> informal couples, or even formalize their relationship privately with
> the help of a private lawyer.

Hmmm, Norway is looking more interesting all the time.


-- 
~jrm
From: Don Groves
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <opr5d5jpai2i99y2@news.web-ster.com>
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:31 GMT, Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> 
wrote:

> Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
>
>> That's exactly the point.  The presence of the state as a third party
>> in the "marriage" contract is ressented so badly in Norway (and a lot
>> of other countries), that people prefer to avoid it and live as
>> informal couples, or even formalize their relationship privately with
>> the help of a private lawyer.
>
> Hmmm, Norway is looking more interesting all the time.
>
>


Yeah, but their immigration laws are tough, I already checked.
-- 
dg
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <kwsmfx5n4g.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:

> Hmmm, Norway is looking more interesting all the time.

Well... it snowed again today. Yuck. Enough cross-country skiing this
year!
-- 
  (espen)
From: Charles Fiterman
Subject: Re: [Off topic] Gay marriage
Date: 
Message-ID: <735ad38a.0403260616.1c14623f@posting.google.com>
Why is this here. Only a crackpot would put this here.

You are obviously more than a crackpot and worse than a bigot you are
a Republican.

The only case against gay marriage is that it would make more people
eligible to collect social security. I propose May-December marriages
between gay men and women with contracts worked out in advance to
protect the real partners. This would put maximum pressure on social
security and change the minds of all those opposed.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <wu5b617s.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:

> My point is that the state has no reason to provide economic and legal
> special status to couples who by definition can not produce children and
> perpetuate the state by assuming a major financial obligation, caring
> for their children.
>
> The things society give to people who are going to ensure the
> continuation of said society, at great personnel expense, are in
> society's best interest and gay marriage (as a class of marriage)
> does not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so why
> should it get the economic benefits.

Your argument appears to be the following:

    Raising children is expensive.  So expensive that in the absence
    of a state-sponsored initiative it is unlikely that enough
    children would be born to perpetuate society.  Therefore, the
    state should promote childrearing through various incentives.

    Married couples (of opposite sex) often have children.

    Married couples of the same sex rarely have children.

    Therefore, the state should offer incentives to married couples of
    the opposite sex, but not to married couples of the same sex.

Rebuttal is easy:

  1.  It is absurd to believe that people will not have children
      unless they get some extra benefit.  In China, there is such
      an overpopulation problem that the state is in fact offering
      incentives to *refrain* from having children.

  2.  Although married couples (of opposite sex) often have
      children, so do unmarried couples and single women.

  3.  Although men never get pregnant, couples of the same sex may
      use artificial insemination or a surrogate mother.

From 1, it is unlikely that the cost of childrearing is the reason
behind state recognition of marriage.

From 2 and 3, it is obvious that promoting marriage is orthogonal to
promoting childbirth.  

Why not just promote childbirth directly and have an incentive for
raising children?

> But the point is that simple fact is that without a man and a woman
> having sex *with each other* it is very unlikely that you will have
> children result from said sex act.  And with out at least a
> reasonable potential for children to exist society has no interest
> in supporting you in you lifestyle with special privileges because
> you are not even potentially supporting society by possibly having
> children.

There exist many married couples today that have no reasonable
potential to have children.  Should they have their privileges
stripped from them?  With technology available today, it is possible
to test for reasonable potential to have children.  Should these tests
be performed or required?  Should a survivor of testicular or ovarian
cancer be allowed to wed?  Would it be permissible for two lesbians to
wed if one or both were already pregnant?  Would it be permissible for
two gay men to wed if one or both had children from a prior
heterosexual marriage?

Why are we discussing this in comp.lang.lisp?
From: Thant Tessman
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3pods$jcg$1@terabinaries.xmission.com>
Joe Marshall wrote:

[...]

> Rebuttal is easy:

[...logic...logic...logic...]

Jumping Jesus with egg in his beard! How about: It should be none of the 
government's goddamn business what constitutes marriage regardless of 
one's own personal or religious views on the matter.

More importantly, the gay marriage issue is a deliberate and calculated 
political distraction. I recently read that that convicted embezzler 
Ahmed Chalabi and his INR, the source of all that "information" on the 
non-existent connection between Hussein and al-Quaeda and the 
non-existent WMDs is *still* getting over three hundred thousand dollars 
a month of U.S. taxpayer money. He calls himself a "hero in error." Why 
the fuck isn't he in jail? Why the fuck isn't Richard Perle in jail? 
Geez, don't get me started...

Sorry for the off-topic post.

-thant
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <smfztk0j.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Thant Tessman <·····@acm.org> writes:

> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Rebuttal is easy:
>
> [...logic...logic...logic...]
>
> Jumping Jesus with egg in his beard! How about: It should be none of
> the government's goddamn business what constitutes marriage regardless
> of one's own personal or religious views on the matter.

Being neither gay and already married, I feel that my input is almost
completely irrelevant.  I don't understand why it's the business of
anyone who isn't gay and planning on getting married.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <oeqntjwm.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> Being neither gay and already married...
What a horrible construction.  It should read:

  Being neither gay nor single...
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <873c7zb2rn.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Being neither gay and already married, I feel that my input is almost
> completely irrelevant.  I don't understand why it's the business of
> anyone who isn't gay and planning on getting married.

It concerns you because if the state is interested in providing legal
marriage licenses, it's to subside marriage.  That is, it will rob you
of your (tax) money to give it to married people.  Granted, if you're
married, you get back THIS part of your robbed money (less processing
fees), but as a principle, it's bad. Even if you break even or if you
are on the receiving end of the pipe.


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <n067dtqu.fsf@comcast.net>
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:

> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>> Being neither gay and already married, I feel that my input is almost
>> completely irrelevant.  I don't understand why it's the business of
>> anyone who isn't gay and planning on getting married.
>
> It concerns you because if the state is interested in providing legal
> marriage licenses, it's to subside marriage.  That is, it will rob you
> of your (tax) money to give it to married people.  

That's a good argument for getting the state uninvolved altogether.


~jrm
From: Richard C. Cobbe
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <t2p4qsewejp.fsf@denali.ccs.neu.edu>
Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:

> Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
>
>> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>>> Being neither gay and already married, I feel that my input is almost
>>> completely irrelevant.  I don't understand why it's the business of
>>> anyone who isn't gay and planning on getting married.

On the one hand, I agree with you.  On the other, though, the attempts
(some successful) to write discrimination against a whole class of people
into state and national constitutions should, I think, worry you at least a
little bit.  If the social conservatives succeed here, whom will they
target next?

>> It concerns you because if the state is interested in providing legal
>> marriage licenses, it's to subside marriage.  That is, it will rob you
>> of your (tax) money to give it to married people.  
>
> That's a good argument for getting the state uninvolved altogether.

Don't know about that.  I see marriage, fundamentally, as a contract
between two people.  I think the state needs to be involved, if only to
provide a resolution mechanism if one or both parties don't abide by the
terms of the contract.  Beyond that, I'm open to new ideas.

However, I think the idea of marriage as an abstraction (in the PL sense,
even!) is still valuable.  If we reduced it to its utter minimum, a
contract between two people that conveyed no rights and privileges beyond
those explicitly specified in the contract, then people could still enjoy
hospital visitation rights, custody of children in case of the death of one
partner, and so on, as long as they wrote it into these contracts.

This would have the effect of making the contracts much harder to draw up;
they'd almost certainly require the services of a lawyer to draw up and
execute.  It would certainly save everyone a great deal of time, money, and
effort to have a standard contract that covers all of these things
automatically.

(This, incidentally, is why I don't buy the argument that gay couples can
have the same rights as straight couples, so long as they sign explicit
powers of attorney, etc.  Why should we have to spend lots of time and
money to get those, when straight couples get them for significantly less
cost and effort?)

Richard
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <1xnie08r.fsf@comcast.net>
·····@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

> Joe Marshall <·············@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
>>
>>> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>>>> Being neither gay and already married, I feel that my input is almost
>>>> completely irrelevant.  I don't understand why it's the business of
>>>> anyone who isn't gay and planning on getting married.
>
> On the one hand, I agree with you.  On the other, though, the attempts
> (some successful) to write discrimination against a whole class of people
> into state and national constitutions should, I think, worry you at least a
> little bit.  If the social conservatives succeed here, whom will they
> target next?

I meant it as in `What business does *anyone* have telling other
people how to live?' rather than `Why should I get involved if I'm not
gay?'  I have the same opinion about abortion:  people who can't get
pregnant have no business telling others what they should do.

>>> It concerns you because if the state is interested in providing legal
>>> marriage licenses, it's to subside marriage.  That is, it will rob you
>>> of your (tax) money to give it to married people.  
>>
>> That's a good argument for getting the state uninvolved altogether.
>
> Don't know about that.  I see marriage, fundamentally, as a contract
> between two people.  I think the state needs to be involved, if only to
> provide a resolution mechanism if one or both parties don't abide by the
> terms of the contract.  Beyond that, I'm open to new ideas.

I don't.  I didn't get married because of the monetary benefits, or
because I wanted to procreate.  It just seemed like the right thing to
do.  People (or at least a large subset of them) tend to form
pair-bonds and I think marriage is a social expression of that.

-- 
~jrm
From: David Feuer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and  transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <406264bb@news101.his.com>
Joe Marshall wrote:

> I don't.  I didn't get married because of the monetary benefits, or
> because I wanted to procreate.  It just seemed like the right thing to
> do.  People (or at least a large subset of them) tend to form
> pair-bonds and I think marriage is a social expression of that.

Aye.  Of course, monetary benefits are not the only (or even primary) 
benefits of marriage, though at certain junctures (such as the death of 
one partner) those can be very important indeed.

1.  If one partner dies, the other gets the children
2.  If one partner has health insurance through their job, the 
other--and the other's children--can (generally? always?) be covered 
under it.
3.  If the couple splits, there is an orderly process for dividing 
assets and dealing with the children.
4.  If one partner is a citizen, the other can become one.

David "et cetera, et cetera" Feuer
who is very queer himself, but thinks this conversation is happening in 
the wrong places.  Followups set.
From: André Thieme
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3qgk8$9fi$1@ulric.tng.de>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:

> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> 
>>Being neither gay and already married, I feel that my input is almost
>>completely irrelevant.  I don't understand why it's the business of
>>anyone who isn't gay and planning on getting married.
> 
> 
> It concerns you because if the state is interested in providing legal
> marriage licenses, it's to subside marriage.  That is, it will rob you
> of your (tax) money to give it to married people.  Granted, if you're
> married, you get back THIS part of your robbed money (less processing
> fees), but as a principle, it's bad. Even if you break even or if you
> are on the receiving end of the pipe.

So if money is more important than having a nice life on this planet for
as long it lasts, the society should care about that as few people as
possible mary. With your argument each mariage results in some new
robbers (perhaps you find other words which are connected with a negativ
rating) - the best consequence is then probably to remove all benefits
from marriage?


Andr�
--
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87ptb3bc52.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Why not just promote childbirth directly and have an incentive for
> raising children?

Why not just leave people their money and let them do what they want?


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
From: Thant Tessman
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3q6ct$nn8$1@terabinaries.xmission.com>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> 
>>Why not just promote childbirth directly and have an incentive for
>>raising children?
> 
> 
> Why not just leave people their money and let them do what they want?

We can't have that! There would be *anarchy*!

-thant
From: Anton van Straaten
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <SdJ7c.3548$HP.1234@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
> relationship if they want to.  Now the financial and legal benefits
> of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
> the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do.  Now
> gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
> economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
> benefit's?

This argument makes no sense.  First, gay people can and do adopt, and this
would presumably be easier for gay couples if they were legally recognized.
Second, there's no legal requirement for married couples to have children,
so childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same marital benefits
as childless straight couples.

Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds.  It boils down
to your acceptance of principles.  If you fundamentally don't believe in the
concept of same-sex marriage, and perhaps believe that some book written
thousands of years ago prohibits this (alongside its exhortations to kill
all the women and children in the villages of your enemies[*]), then no
amount of rational argument is going to help, and whatever happens will have
to be decided as the result of a political war.

Anton

[*] http://mindprod.com/biblestudy.html references, among many others,
Ezekiel 9:6, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
and women".
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <863c80a2d0.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
"Anton van Straaten" <·····@appsolutions.com> writes:

> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
>> relationship if they want to.  Now the financial and legal benefits
>> of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
>> the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do.  Now
>> gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
>> economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
>> benefit's?
>
> This argument makes no sense.  First, gay people can and do adopt, and this
> would presumably be easier for gay couples if they were legally recognized.
> Second, there's no legal requirement for married couples to have children,
> so childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same marital benefits
> as childless straight couples.

I used the word produce, ie make.  And as a class gay( male or female)
sex does not produce children.  And as a class straight couples who
have sex do, or at least *can*, produce children.

Also the legal assumption for marriage is that there is one person
earning money to support two adults(husband and wife) and some children.
The legal protections granted the adult that stayed home was granted
to them because their job was to raise the kids and this benefits 
society.  

Also please keep in mind that when I say society I am not talking about
goverment.

>
> Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds.  It boils down
> to your acceptance of principles.  If you fundamentally don't believe in the
> concept of same-sex marriage, and perhaps believe that some book written
> thousands of years ago prohibits this (alongside its exhortations to kill

I never brought religion in to this.  My argument was purely secular,
you want something from society so what does society get from you to
balance it.


marc


> all the women and children in the villages of your enemies[*]), then no
> amount of rational argument is going to help, and whatever happens will have
> to be decided as the result of a political war.
>
> Anton
>
> [*] http://mindprod.com/biblestudy.html references, among many others,
> Ezekiel 9:6, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
> and women".
From: André Thieme
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c3qh2g$9s2$1@ulric.tng.de>
Marc Spitzer wrote:

> I used the word produce, ie make.  And as a class gay( male or female)
> sex does not produce children.  And as a class straight couples who
> have sex do, or at least *can*, produce children.

Your idea:
"Only couples who can produce children should be allowed to marry"

Marc, the problem in your argumentation is, that you forgot that your
argument is only an opinion and not an objective truth.
You think this is right. Other people think this is not a factor.
They have different opinions of how the laws should be. Objectively
noone is right.
It all depends on your personal rating system.
The question is: what group of people is allowed to make the descision
for all other people in the country and what is their rating system?

Ask 10 people about their opinions and you will get 11 answers...
or something like that.

As a programmer I am a bit amazed about your arguments. This comes
because I thought that programmers are so influenced by their job and
hobby (programming) that it even influences their all day behaviour. I
thought that logical reasoning is implemented into the behaviour.
But it can't be, cause your argumentation is logically not correct,
as others already pointed out.


Andr�
--
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <87oeqo5617.fsf@cubx.internal>
>>>>> "AvS" == Anton van Straaten <·····@appsolutions.com> writes:
    AvS> ...  Second, there's no legal
    AvS> requirement for married couples to have children, so
    AvS> childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same
    AvS> marital benefits as childless straight couples.

Maybe one ought to question whether those benefits should be there at all.
What are those benefits?  The ability to get a tax break when the spouse 
is not working?  The ability to get insurance through work for the 
non-working spouse?  Inheritance?  Having a say in health matters (as in 
pulling the plug)?  Husband-wife privilege in court?  

I often wonder if the law is making it very advantageous to be married in 
some cases and thus making the right to marry attractive.  With divorce 
rate around 50% (for first marriages, as far as I can tell) maybe people 
should be discouraged from marrying?  Maybe those benefits (outside of child 
rearing stuff) should be available to someone of the person's choosing 
regardless of sex and marriage?  

Gay love and everything is fine and dandy, but I can't help thinking
all the money and benefits that I missed out on by being a single
person who just happened to be responsible about marriage.  Missed out on 
them means I funded them in some manner.  Why is that injustice not getting 
fixed instead of making yet another kind of -- possibly temporary -- union 
more attractive?

    AvS> Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds. [...]

Indeed.  I suspect there's some monetary  benefit that people are seeking 
the existence of which itself should be questioned in the first place.

cheers,

BM
From: Yoyoma_2
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <MTm7c.873136$ts4.313861@pd7tw3no>
Don Groves wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <·····@dls.net> wrote:
> 
>> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>>
>>
>> Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
>> discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)
> 
> 
> How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
> a violation of those same laws?

Its constitutionally based, meaning you cannot have a law that 
superseeds the statements in the constutitions, whatever they may be. 
Thats the first article of pretty much any constitution.

If someone would appeal the supreme court would rule in favor of the 
constitution.

And that law could probably be judged as antequated though.  The US 
constitution isn't a "modern" constitution.  IT has a lot of stuff in it 
that shouldn't be there nowa days. Or sentences that should be re-made, 
or dropped.  Like the ammendments granting prohabition and then 
repealing it.

But that's just my cannuck view of US law :)
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <ymivfkwsep8.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
Don Groves <dgroves_AT_ccwebster_DOT_net> writes:

> 
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <·····@dls.net> wrote:
> 
> > Wim Vanhoof wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
> >
> > Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
> > discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)
> 
> How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
> a violation of those same laws?

US courts have recently ruled that the US age discrimination laws only
prohibit discrimination against older workers.  They do nothing to
protect younger workers.

The case dealt with pension rights where younger workers were being
given less desireable treatment than older workers.  They sued under the
age discrimination statute and lost, since they were not in the age
group that was protected by those laws.


-- 
Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Don Groves
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <opr5ae72ui2i99y2@news.web-ster.com>
On 22 Mar 2004 14:24:19 -0800, Thomas A. Russ <···@sevak.isi.edu> wrote:

>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <·····@dls.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>> >
>> >> Candidates should not be older than 35 years
>> >
>> > Hmm.  In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
>> > discrimination laws.  (But IANAL)
>>
>> How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
>> a violation of those same laws?
>
> US courts have recently ruled that the US age discrimination laws only
> prohibit discrimination against older workers.  They do nothing to
> protect younger workers.
>
> The case dealt with pension rights where younger workers were being
> given less desireable treatment than older workers.  They sued under the
> age discrimination statute and lost, since they were not in the age
> group that was protected by those laws.

Ah, thanks!

-- 
dg
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <DHWdnZtxzYv45P3d3czS-g@speakeasy.net>
Thomas A. Russ <···@sevak.isi.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| US courts have recently ruled that the US age discrimination laws only
| prohibit discrimination against older workers.  They do nothing to
| protect younger workers.
+---------------

And they do nothing to protect older workers if they coincidentally
happen to make more than younger workers. A recent (well, a year or
two ago) federal court decision ruled that a company *can* lay off
employees based on the salary they're making, as in, "O.k., people,
everybody in this division with a position lower than Director who
is making over $90K/year is outta here!" And if it just so happens
that the vast majority of the targeted group making over that trigger
amount are "older" workers? Well, tough. It's legal.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607
From: Tayssir John Gabbour
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <866764be.0403050844.253b4fda@posting.google.com>
"Wim Vanhoof" <······@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<·················@news.fundp.ac.be>...
> I would like to announce that the department of computer
> science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
> post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
> of
> 
>    (logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.
> 
> Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
> computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
> years at a university outside Belgium.

I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
are.  I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
justification... perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.

Not to mention the sub-month application deadline.  Is there something
your department does accomplish correctly?
From: Mario S. Mommer
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <fzllmfnsjd.fsf@germany.igpm.rwth-aachen.de>
···········@yahoo.com (Tayssir John Gabbour) writes:
> "Wim Vanhoof" <······@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<·················@news.fundp.ac.be>...
> > I would like to announce that the department of computer
> > science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
> > post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
> > of
> > 
> >    (logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.
> > 
> > Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
> > computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
> > years at a university outside Belgium.
> 
> I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
> are.  I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
> justification... perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.

In germany at least I have seen many job offerings with the above kind
of age limit. And always without justification.
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2ael4$b58$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de>
Mario S. Mommer wrote:

> ···········@yahoo.com (Tayssir John Gabbour) writes:
> 
>>"Wim Vanhoof" <······@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<·················@news.fundp.ac.be>...
>>
>>>I would like to announce that the department of computer
>>>science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
>>>post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
>>>of
>>>
>>>   (logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.
>>>
>>>Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
>>>computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
>>>years at a university outside Belgium.
>>
>>I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
>>are.  I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
>>justification... perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.
> 
> In germany at least I have seen many job offerings with the above kind
> of age limit. And always without justification.

There are several grant programs across Europe that are targeted at 
specific audiences. This might just be an example of such a grant 
targeted at post-docs / "young researchers". Such programs are balanced 
by others that are targeted at other audiences, so such an age 
restriction could actually be a sign for a non-discriminatory broader 
program. Of course, this is speculation. I would recommend to contact 
those responsible if one is interested in the actual details.

Pascal

-- 
1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
June 13 - Oslo, Norway - co-located with ECOOP 2004
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/
From: Kees van Reeuwijk
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <1ga6tgj.vt62895w4d22N%reeuwijk@few.vu.nl>
Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
> > computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
> > years at a university outside Belgium.
> 
> I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
> are.  I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
> justification... perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.

I don't like such restricitions either (especially since I'm a postdoc
older than 35), but they sound like they are externally imposed. My
guess is some funding agency is trying to draw `young blood' from abroad
to Stimulate Belgian Science and Make Belgium Competitive in a HiTech
World.
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2ag1o$4nh$1@reader2.panix.com>
Kees van Reeuwijk wrote:

> Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
>>>computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
>>>years at a university outside Belgium.
>>
>>I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
>>are.  I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
>>justification... perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.
> 
> 
> I don't like such restricitions either (especially since I'm a postdoc
> older than 35), but they sound like they are externally imposed. My
> guess is some funding agency is trying to draw `young blood' from abroad
> to Stimulate Belgian Science and Make Belgium Competitive in a HiTech
> World.

In the US, at least, there are implicit age limits (usually expressed as 
time after dissertation) for lower-level academic jobs that were 
originally designed to protect people from exploitation. Without those 
rules, it was not uncommon for departments to keep people on as 
post-docs or assistant professors for 10-20 years.

paul
From: Tayssir John Gabbour
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <866764be.0403051551.5b01a064@posting.google.com>
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> wrote in message news:<············@reader2.panix.com>...
> Kees van Reeuwijk wrote:
> > I don't like such restricitions either (especially since I'm a postdoc
> > older than 35), but they sound like they are externally imposed. My
> > guess is some funding agency is trying to draw `young blood' from abroad
> > to Stimulate Belgian Science and Make Belgium Competitive in a HiTech
> > World.
> 
> In the US, at least, there are implicit age limits (usually expressed as 
> time after dissertation) for lower-level academic jobs that were 
> originally designed to protect people from exploitation. Without those 
> rules, it was not uncommon for departments to keep people on as 
> post-docs or assistant professors for 10-20 years.

Ah, I see I was likely being hotheaded and ill-informed.  Though on a
large crossposting, there will be people from a number of different
cultures, certainly not all academic, and a small justification should
not take effort.  Ageism is after all common and well-known problem
when software development is taken as a profession; many are forced to
reinvent themselves as management or go into something like law.  But
of course there is that hotheadedness and ill-informedness...
From: Michael Sullivan
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <1ga7zmv.wq1ae71ns8oheN%mes@panix.com>
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> wrote:

> Kees van Reeuwijk wrote:

> > I don't like such restricitions either (especially since I'm a postdoc
> > older than 35), but they sound like they are externally imposed. My
> > guess is some funding agency is trying to draw `young blood' from abroad
> > to Stimulate Belgian Science and Make Belgium Competitive in a HiTech
> > World.
> 
> In the US, at least, there are implicit age limits (usually expressed as
> time after dissertation)

Of course, time after dissertation is more of a career level limit than
an age limit, and it's in that ad as well.  It's not inconceivable that
someone in their 30s or 40s might decide to go back to school and get a
Ph.D.  I'm already 35 and I still feel pretty young.   It's a bit
shocking to see that kind of age limit on a job.


Michael
From: Joan Estes
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <ab19fe13.0403070921.dd3f6da@posting.google.com>
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> wrote in message news:<············@reader2.panix.com>...
 
> In the US, at least, there are implicit age limits (usually expressed as 
> time after dissertation) for lower-level academic jobs that were 
> originally designed to protect people from exploitation. Without those 
> rules, it was not uncommon for departments to keep people on as 
> post-docs or assistant professors for 10-20 years.

Right, now they just keep them on as lecturers.
From: Bart Demoen
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <1078521085.913471@seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be>
Kees van Reeuwijk wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
>>>computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
>>>years at a university outside Belgium.
>>
>>I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
>>are.  I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
>>justification... perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.

Wim certainly is not.


> I don't like such restricitions either (especially since I'm a postdoc
> older than 35), but they sound like they are externally imposed. My
> guess is some funding agency is trying to draw `young blood' from abroad
> to Stimulate Belgian Science and Make Belgium Competitive in a HiTech
> World.

Even if externally imposed, the question remains whether it is legal: some
federal (belgian-flemmish) research funding agency recently lifted the age
barrier completely. Probably not without a reason.

Excluding Belgian PhDs also strikes me as against the European idea that all
within the European 15 or whatever number we will be soon, should be treated equally.
My feeling (as a flemmish Belgian :-) is that this walloon university just doesn't
want any more flemmish people - I am joking: all Belgian universities suffer heavily
from in-breeding. That's probably the reason for this particular requirement.

Cheers

Bart Demoen
From: Peter G. Hancock
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <oq1xo67tiv.fsf@premise.demon.co.uk>
I'm pretty sure this age limit is something to do with academic
funding in the European Union.  It's not specifically a Belgian
thing.  

I'm 53 myself.  Before I can open my front door to pick up my
milk in the morning, I have to equip myself with a large club
to beat off the hordes of prospective employers who are waiting
outside to pounce on me waving job contracts and fountain pens. 

Peter Hancock
From: Artie Gold
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and   transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2b4cl$1r6apb$1@ID-219787.news.uni-berlin.de>
Peter G. Hancock wrote:
> I'm pretty sure this age limit is something to do with academic
> funding in the European Union.  It's not specifically a Belgian
> thing.  
> 
> I'm 53 myself.  Before I can open my front door to pick up my
> milk in the morning, I have to equip myself with a large club
> to beat off the hordes of prospective employers who are waiting
> outside to pounce on me waving job contracts and fountain pens. 
> 
> Peter Hancock
> 
Hmmmm.
Tough neighborhood.

Where was that again?

--ag

-- 
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas

"Yeah. It's an urban legend. But it's a *great* urban legend!"
From: ··········@YahooGroups.Com
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <REM-2004mar07-002@Yahoo.Com>
> From: ·······@spamcop.net (Peter G. Hancock)
> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:39:52 +0000
> I'm 53 myself.  Before I can open my front door to pick up my milk in
> the morning, I have to equip myself with a large club to beat off the
> hordes of prospective employers who are waiting outside to pounce on me
> waving job contracts and fountain pens.

I was going to ask you where you live, so maybe I could come over and
hang out there and pick up your milk for you, so I might have a chance
of getting a paying job. But then I noticed your message-ID is in the
UK, across a continent plus an ocean from where I live in California. I
wish job offers were as common here as they are where you are, sigh. I
have more than 20 years experience programming computers (about 15
years LISP, about 7 years all the rest), and there have been no
programming jobs available for a very very long time around here
(except for jobs which require at least three years paid shrink-wrapped
commercial experience using several languages that didn't even exist
when I last had a paying job).
From: chris
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2lbf8$n26$1@reader11.wxs.nl>
Peter G. Hancock wrote:

> I'm 53 myself.  Before I can open my front door to pick up my
> milk in the morning, I have to equip myself with a large club
> to beat off the hordes of prospective employers who are waiting
> outside to pounce on me waving job contracts and fountain pens.

It's even worse in Belgium, where barely one-third of the population aged 
50 and over is actually in full-time employment(!).  People have been known 
to sell their grandparents into slavery.  Thank <deity> I don't have 
grandchildren ...


-- 
Chris Gray      ·····@kiffer.eunet.be
/k/ Embedded Java Solutions
From: Jacek Generowicz
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <tyfad2r7mbd.fsf@pcepsft001.cern.ch>
Bart Demoen <···@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:

> Excluding Belgian PhDs also strikes me as against the European idea 

[...]

Actually, this is very typical of jobs funded by the EU
itself. Usually under some "mobility of researchers" scheme, where the
fundamental principle is that the researcher work outside his own
country ... that's the "mobility" part :-)
From: Yoyoma_2
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <5sX2c.745065$X%5.546257@pd7tw2no>
I would imagine that most countries have protections against employment 
discriminations like the one mentioned.  For example, in the Canadian 
Constitution at least, the constitution act prevents lawmakers to enact 
laws that discriminate against the mentioned groups (including age). 
One could argue that if a law would be passed or a law would not 
explicitly forbid the discrimination by age of an employee, it would be 
unconstitutional.

When you think about it, asking for someone by age is not necessarly 
fair to everyone.  For example in our engineering program there are 
poeple that are well into their 40's.  Poeple that want a second chance 
in life.  And as a global society I think we have to respect that.

US Law even forbids it.  Though this is not expressed through the 
(rather weak although revolutionary) US Bill of Rights.

Reference: http://www.eeoc.gov/types/age.html
"The ADEA generally makes it unlawful to include age preferences, 
limitations, or specifications in job notices or advertisements. A job 
notice or advertisement may specify an age limit only in the rare 
circumstances where age is shown to be a "bona fide occupational 
qualification" (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of 
the business."

Reference: The Canadian charter of human rights states that:
"Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has 
the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without 
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, 
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or 
physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that 
has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged 
individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of 
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental 
or physical disability.(5) "




Jacek Generowicz wrote:
> Bart Demoen <···@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:
> 
> 
>>Excluding Belgian PhDs also strikes me as against the European idea 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Actually, this is very typical of jobs funded by the EU
> itself. Usually under some "mobility of researchers" scheme, where the
> fundamental principle is that the researcher work outside his own
> country ... that's the "mobility" part :-)
From: Matthew Huntbach
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <c2k5f1$85o$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
In comp.lang.prolog Kees van Reeuwijk <········@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
>> > Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
>> > computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
>> > years at a university outside Belgium.
 
>> I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
>> are.  I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
>> justification... perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.
 
> I don't like such restricitions either (especially since I'm a postdoc
> older than 35), but they sound like they are externally imposed. My
> guess is some funding agency is trying to draw `young blood' from abroad
> to Stimulate Belgian Science and Make Belgium Competitive in a HiTech
> World.

Yes, I'm sure that's the case. It used to be extremely common for government
academic research initiatives to have age limits imposed on them. It may
still be not entirely unfair if the idea is to kickstart new careers and
shake up aging faculties. But I think there was also the (rather dubious)
thought behind it that people are at their peak in terms of new research
thinking when they're young, particularly in the more abstract and
mathematical disciplines. The idea that it's unfair to discriminate by age
is a fairly recent one, and while in most countries legislation outlawing
discrimination by sex or trace has been in place for some time, legislation
outlawing discrimination by age may not yet be in place.

Matthew Huntbach
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation
Date: 
Message-ID: <SEX1c.10602$Wo2.5176@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Wim Vanhoof wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I would like to announce that the department of computer
> science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
> post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
> of
> 
>    (logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.
> 
> 
> Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
> computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
> years at a university outside Belgium.

Doesn't it matter if their belly buttons are inny's or outy's?

kenneth


-- 
http://tilton-technology.com

Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film

Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application