"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> writes:

why don't you set up a web page for us all to make predictions as to
the exact date coward bobby will next respond to adam, or raise his
name in an unrelated post.

Good idea...how about using chiefinstigator.us.tt/registry.html? That way, I
can total them before we head up north, and update it when we get back.

(Me, I'm looking forward to next week, when Bobby's going to go
even more spastic.)

he has no clue, does he?

He seems to have been inamicably divorced from the majority of them, indeed.

"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

As usual. Guess I really got to him that time. One might think that he
would have learned not to make dumb-***** claims by now.

I'm more interested in seeing how long it takes for him to "forget" his
proclamation. (Me, I'm looking forward to next week, when Bobby's going to
go even more spastic.)

Wait until yours and mine meet (families, I mean).

That'll be a New Madrid-sized event for certain of the IQ-deprived hanging
around this section of Usenet, indeed. ;-)

osprey wrote:

matureopinions wrote:

osprey wrote:

matureopinions wrote:

I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet? Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?

Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.

If that's the case I apologise for mistakenly including you on my list.
I was thinking mainly of your opposition to gay marriage on religious
grounds.

Yes, on a personal level I do not approve of gay marriage. However, I
understand our constitution and if the USSC agrees that it's
constitutional to allow gay marriage, I respect our constitution enough
to not allow my own personal religious viewpoints intefere.
Personally, I think that allowing civil unions is a good compramise.

That is basically what we have over here, in England. The
civil unions confer the same legal rights as marriage but are
not called marriage and this is still a source of angst amongst
some homosexuals although I have no idea what percentage
actually care about what is essentially a symbolic difference.

I recognize that I can not expect everyone else to feel the same
way as I do on political issues and I can accept this as an
acceptable compromise. There are zillions of more important
issues in politics after all;

symbolic significance. However I do strongly disagree with
what the symbolism represents; the idea that homosexual
relationships are in some way inferior, less wholesome than
heterosexual ones.

orientation as I am to his taste in music.

But I am just one person, and I am not selfish enough to think that my
own religious view points should dictate.

That is an admirable position, which suggests a healthy degree of
humility.

I can see that strictly speaking this is not the same

as imposing legal restrictions on other people's behaviour on the
basis of your religious beliefs but in principle it's not much
different.
I am also curious to learn your position on abortion. I take it you
disapprove of it? Do you think it should be illegal? Are your reasons
secular or religious?

Do I think it should be illegal? No not for the first term at least.
After the first term, I think we all agree that the fetus has developed
far along and we have crossed a "point of no return" stage. Unless a
mothers life is in danger, then I think after the first term we should
not allow for abortion.

Again this is an acceptable compromise although personally I
don't believe a foetus requires moral consideration until it has
attained sufficient mental function and I don't believe the mother
has an obligation to carry it in her even after that.

I try hard to keep my religous view points seperate on this issue.

That is fair enough. Obviously the nature of God, the afterlife and
such like (assuming such things exist) have relevance to issues
of morality and it is irrational to think otherwise.

While I personally think that abortion is wrong, I understand that a
woman has a right to choose and the choice of abortion is legal. We
should respect that. I think there are many other issues that need to
be discussed as well, such as: Why we allow women a choice to get out
of the obligation of being a parent while we don't allow men a choice.

There are two plausible arguments that spring to mind. One is that
we allow woman the choice to get out of the obligation of pregnancy
and childbirth and the opt-out of being a parent is a side effect. The
other way we could approach it is to reverse the emphasis. "Why don't
we allow men a choice while we allow woman to have it. Of course
forced abortion is out of the question but an opt out from fatherhood
in the legal sense would be possible although there may be social
disadvantages to this as well. At the end of the day we have to deal
with the fact that nature is sexist and make the best of it.

If we were to make abortion illegal, I think many women would resort to
extreme measures and I wouldn't want to see that.

The issue of abortion is a public issue, which is why I voice my
opinion on it.

As you are fully entitled to do. Freedom of speech is most
important.

While I personally think abortion is wrong, I would not
allow my own personal view points to try to block a woman from having
that choice. It is after all, her choice and not mine nor anyone
elses.

Good.

I do believe strongly that it is very possible for us to keep our
religious view points separate from legal issues.

This depends whether the function of law is just to maintain
social order or whether it extends to preventing perceived
wrongs. Personally I prefer the latter.

Even Jesus Christ
told us, to obey the laws of the land.

Oh, and for the record just because I have religious view points, that
is to say I do believe in God...doesn't mean I don't question my own
religious viewpoints.

Good for you. I don't oppose religion although I do oppose blind
faith and dogmatism and some of the theories of morality that
are built on religion.

I do, and often times I see conflict.