| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2003 09:40:06 PM |
| Object: |
marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
.
|
|
| User: "shund" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 06:16:35 AM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#V
ideo
Headlines
Do you believe in alien abduction experiences?
Yes, there's a lot of good, credible people involved. 34%
No, alien abduction is Hollywood movie stuff. 21%
I have never had one and don't care. 25%
I want to have one, but haven't. 20%
http://www.maar.us/poll_results.html#Abduction
Hooray for online polls. And hooray for the American public.
--
:::shund:::
http://www.notatyou.com
My site is mean to people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 06:39:16 AM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of people
regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a marriage be 2
people, the govt is weakening society as a means of control.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 10:23:46 AM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" wrote:
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of people
regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a marriage be 2
people, the govt is weakening society as a means of control.
I disagree. I think the single most important effect of marriage,
from the governments point of view is that it lets an adult choose
their legal next of kin. No one has any control of who their
ancestors or siblings are, and people often have strong disagreements
with their blood relatives about important decisions in their lives.
But the ability to form a contractual kinship with one other person
whom you choose as the single other human who may speak for you in
your absence in many legal and social situations is a very powerful
ability. Limiting this ability to only those who are willing to
choose a next of kin among the opposite sex is totally arbitrary.
Limiting everyone to a single person who holds this relationship is
not.
Think of the legal complications of setting the rules for how an
arbitrarily large group of next of kin might make legal decisions.
There can be only one closest relative, in a legal sense.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 10:37:16 AM |
|
|
On 03 Sep 2003, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:3F5608E7.79E3F953@rica.net:
"Dr. DuFonet" wrote:
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of
people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a
marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of
control.
I disagree. I think the single most important effect of marriage,
from the governments point of view is that it lets an adult choose
their legal next of kin. No one has any control of who their
ancestors or siblings are, and people often have strong disagreements
with their blood relatives about important decisions in their lives.
But the ability to form a contractual kinship with one other person
whom you choose as the single other human who may speak for you in
your absence in many legal and social situations is a very powerful
ability. Limiting this ability to only those who are willing to
choose a next of kin among the opposite sex is totally arbitrary.
Limiting everyone to a single person who holds this relationship is
not.
Think of the legal complications of setting the rules for how an
arbitrarily large group of next of kin might make legal decisions.
There can be only one closest relative, in a legal sense.
This is also known as "power of attorney", IIRC, and it's an institution
separate from marriage. Marriage does not necessarily confer power of
attorney on your partner, neither does it mean your partner cannot have
power of attorney if you choose to confer such power on that person.
That is a separate question from allowing marriages between more than
two people.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 10:44:00 AM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
I disagree. I think the single most important effect of marriage,
from the governments point of view is that it lets an adult choose
their legal next of kin. No one has any control of who their
ancestors or siblings are, and people often have strong disagreements
with their blood relatives about important decisions in their lives.
But the ability to form a contractual kinship with one other person
whom you choose as the single other human who may speak for you in
your absence in many legal and social situations is a very powerful
ability. Limiting this ability to only those who are willing to
choose a next of kin among the opposite sex is totally arbitrary.
Limiting everyone to a single person who holds this relationship is
not.
Think of the legal complications of setting the rules for how an
arbitrarily large group of next of kin might make legal decisions.
There can be only one closest relative, in a legal sense.
This is also known as "power of attorney", IIRC, and it's an institution
separate from marriage. Marriage does not necessarily confer power of
attorney on your partner, neither does it mean your partner cannot have
power of attorney if you choose to confer such power on that person.
That is a separate question from allowing marriages between more than
two people.
Technically, you have a point, but practically, the closest most
people ever get to assigning power of attorney to another person is
marriage. Quite a few legal rights and responsibilities automatically
pass to a spouse the moment they marry.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 11:30:48 AM |
|
|
On 03 Sep 2003, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:3F560DA9.AE85617C@rica.net:
Mekkala wrote:
I disagree. I think the single most important effect of marriage,
from the governments point of view is that it lets an adult choose
their legal next of kin. No one has any control of who their
ancestors or siblings are, and people often have strong
disagreements
with their blood relatives about important decisions in their
lives.
But the ability to form a contractual kinship with one other person
whom you choose as the single other human who may speak for you in
your absence in many legal and social situations is a very powerful
ability. Limiting this ability to only those who are willing to
choose a next of kin among the opposite sex is totally arbitrary.
Limiting everyone to a single person who holds this relationship is
not.
Think of the legal complications of setting the rules for how an
arbitrarily large group of next of kin might make legal decisions.
There can be only one closest relative, in a legal sense.
This is also known as "power of attorney", IIRC, and it's an
institution
separate from marriage. Marriage does not necessarily confer power
of
attorney on your partner, neither does it mean your partner cannot
have
power of attorney if you choose to confer such power on that person.
That is a separate question from allowing marriages between more than
two people.
Technically, you have a point, but practically, the closest most
people ever get to assigning power of attorney to another person is
marriage. Quite a few legal rights and responsibilities automatically
pass to a spouse the moment they marry.
Just because some people might use marriage for that purpose does not
mean that marriage should be restricted to two people for that purpose.
Make people aware of their ability to confer power of attorney, and make
marriage a separate institution. In any case, marriage should not be
considered an implicit power of attorney. You're basically arguing that
we shouldn't allow marriages of more than two people because people
*might* use marriage in place of power of attorney, and it could cause
problems if they've married more than one person.
It should be assumed that the members of a poly-marriage would
understand that their chosen form of marriage does not restrict power of
attorney to a single person, and that if they would like to do so, they
can confer that power on a single person of their choice.
In any case, it doesn't matter either way, and here's why. Any legal
decisions should be up to the marriage as a whole, much as it is in a
traditional marriage where both members are still living. In the event
that there is only one surviving member of the marriage, that person has
power of attorney for all non-surviving members. In the event that
there are multiple surviving members, all property, legal agreements,
obligations, etc., that originally applied to a given non-surviving
member, apply to the surviving members as a whole. We do this in
traditional marriage, where the husband and wife as a unit own property,
have debts, sign contracts, make legal decisions regarding children and
property and obligations and business, etc., so why could multiple
surviving members of a poly-marriage not do the same?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 08:59:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:39:16 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of
people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a
marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of control.
Actually, the law should be abolished.
"Marriage" is really none of the government's business. And the idea that
it needs "protection" or "support" is absurd. It's been around thousands
of years without any help...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 08:44:59 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.03.13.59.29.273891@eac.org...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:39:16 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of
people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a
marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of
control.
Actually, the law should be abolished.
The reason I did not advocate that legal marriage be abolished, is that the
State has public health reasons to demand blood tests of sexual partners who
enter matrimony, for the protection of each. If the same service were
rendered to everyone, it could help prevent disease. If I wanted to go
outside of marriage for sexual and psychological gratification,
reproduction, etc., I could simply take an additonal partner into the
marriage and the law could require that we be blood-tested .
"Marriage" is really none of the government's business. And the idea that
it needs "protection" or "support" is absurd. It's been around thousands
of years without any help...
--
:"Everythin's better with DoFunny on it."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 10:11:30 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:59:29 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> ejaculated:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:39:16 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of
people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a
marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of control.
Actually, the law should be abolished.
"Marriage" is really none of the government's business. And the idea that
it needs "protection" or "support" is absurd. It's been around thousands
of years without any help...
I have to disagree. Marriage is the government's protection because a
number of benefits relating to inheritance, health insurance, and
power of attorney are related. It is because of this that the
government should be as open as possible in defining marriage lest it
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
--
Diesels do it by squeezing real hard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 02:17:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:11:30 +0000, Beowulf wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:59:29 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:39:16 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of
people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a
marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of
control.
Actually, the law should be abolished.
"Marriage" is really none of the government's business. And the idea that
it needs "protection" or "support" is absurd. It's been around thousands
of years without any help...
I have to disagree. Marriage is the government's protection because a
number of benefits relating to inheritance, health insurance, and power of
attorney are related. It is because of this that the government should be
as open as possible in defining marriage lest it discriminate on the basis
of sexual orientation.
I don't see any reason we can't handle that with ordinary contracts and
typical civil law. People should really be able to organize their families
however they want.
(Usual disclaimer of "consenting adults" and "no I don't mean marrying
pigs or chickens" etc.)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 02:52:17 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:11:30 +0000, Beowulf wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:59:29 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:39:16 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number of
people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in a
marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of
control.
Actually, the law should be abolished.
"Marriage" is really none of the government's business. And the idea that
it needs "protection" or "support" is absurd. It's been around thousands
of years without any help...
I have to disagree. Marriage is the government's protection because a
number of benefits relating to inheritance, health insurance, and power of
attorney are related. It is because of this that the government should be
as open as possible in defining marriage lest it discriminate on the basis
of sexual orientation.
I don't see any reason we can't handle that with ordinary contracts and
typical civil law.
Gay couples have been trying that for decades. It doesn't work. A single marriage
license, available in Washington State for $54 (and elsewhere at a similarly low, low
price) guarantees some 800 federal and 3000 state rights, responsibilities, protections
and privileges. Most of these are NOT available through ordinary contracts, and those
few that are typically cost several thousands of dollars in attorney fees to *perhaps*
cover. As for "typical civil law", the only laws providing any of these rights,
responsibilities, protections and privileges are the civil laws relating to marriage.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 03:44:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:52:17 -0700, Gregory Gadow wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:11:30 +0000, Beowulf wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:59:29 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> ejaculated:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:39:16 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and
specifying that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number
of people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in
a marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of
control.
Actually, the law should be abolished.
"Marriage" is really none of the government's business. And the idea
that it needs "protection" or "support" is absurd. It's been around
thousands of years without any help...
I have to disagree. Marriage is the government's protection because a
number of benefits relating to inheritance, health insurance, and
power of attorney are related. It is because of this that the
government should be as open as possible in defining marriage lest it
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
I don't see any reason we can't handle that with ordinary contracts and
typical civil law.
Gay couples have been trying that for decades. It doesn't work. A single
marriage license, available in Washington State for $54 (and elsewhere at
a similarly low, low price) guarantees some 800 federal and 3000 state
rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges. Most of these are
NOT available through ordinary contracts, and those few that are typically
cost several thousands of dollars in attorney fees to *perhaps* cover. As
for "typical civil law", the only laws providing any of these rights,
responsibilities, protections and privileges are the civil laws relating
to marriage. --
No, no, I mean that should be the *only thing that exists. And that the
"privileges" should follow without prejudice.
Many of the "privileges" should probably be abolished. Such as our weird
thing about giving out tax breaks because some couples' genitals worked.
I'm sorry but I don't see why we shuffle money around to subsidize their
kids.
Listen, I'm talking about a major reform that this country isn't going to
do anyway. There are too many people with vested interest in perpetuating
the current system.
I think "gay marriage" is a compromise position. Long as "marriage" is
going to have state sanctions, they don't have any business discriminating.
But it still bugs me in that *any form of state control of "marriage" and
how family is organized is serious social engineering. I resent it. The
governments don't have any business telling *anybody who their family is
and is not.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 04:09:36 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:52:17 -0700, Gregory Gadow wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:11:30 +0000, Beowulf wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:59:29 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> ejaculated:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:39:16 +0000, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and
specifying that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
The law should be changed to allow civil unions between any number
of people regardless of sex. By insisting that the maximum number in
a marriage be 2 people, the govt is weakening society as a means of
control.
Actually, the law should be abolished.
"Marriage" is really none of the government's business. And the idea
that it needs "protection" or "support" is absurd. It's been around
thousands of years without any help...
I have to disagree. Marriage is the government's protection because a
number of benefits relating to inheritance, health insurance, and
power of attorney are related. It is because of this that the
government should be as open as possible in defining marriage lest it
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
I don't see any reason we can't handle that with ordinary contracts and
typical civil law.
Gay couples have been trying that for decades. It doesn't work. A single
marriage license, available in Washington State for $54 (and elsewhere at
a similarly low, low price) guarantees some 800 federal and 3000 state
rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges. Most of these are
NOT available through ordinary contracts, and those few that are typically
cost several thousands of dollars in attorney fees to *perhaps* cover. As
for "typical civil law", the only laws providing any of these rights,
responsibilities, protections and privileges are the civil laws relating
to marriage. --
No, no, I mean that should be the *only thing that exists. And that the
"privileges" should follow without prejudice.
Many of the "privileges" should probably be abolished. Such as our weird
thing about giving out tax breaks because some couples' genitals worked.
I'm sorry but I don't see why we shuffle money around to subsidize their
kids.
You misunderstand the concept of "dependant." While children are the most common kind, a
dependant -- someone who has no other means of support except for you -- can also be an
elderly parent or a fully disabled sibling. Dependants increase the household's "cost of
living" factor, with a resulting decrease in "discretionary income" and, therefore, a
decrease in the total amount of tax. That is how a progressive income tax works.
Listen, I'm talking about a major reform that this country isn't going to
do anyway. There are too many people with vested interest in perpetuating
the current system.
More importantly, it would require fundamentally rethinking the structure of society and
the laws which govern and support that society. AND get it done in such a way as to cause
minimal disruption. It just ain't going to happen.
I think "gay marriage" is a compromise position. Long as "marriage" is
going to have state sanctions, they don't have any business discriminating.
I agree with you.
But it still bugs me in that *any form of state control of "marriage" and
how family is organized is serious social engineering. I resent it. The
governments don't have any business telling *anybody who their family is
and is not.
Except that getting away from marriage entirely would require changing some pretty
fundamental changes in society, law and tradition. Like it or not, marriage is part of the
legacy system that current engineers -- social or not -- are forced to deal with. Switching
from Windows to Linux is not possible when it would require entirely rewriting hundreds of
essential subsystems from scratch.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 05:39:18 PM |
|
|
But it still bugs me in that *any form of state control of "marriage" and
how family is organized is serious social engineering. I resent it. The
governments don't have any business telling *anybody who their family is
and is not.
Except that getting away from marriage entirely would require changing some
pretty
fundamental changes in society, law and tradition.
Well we dealt with some pretty fundamental changes in society, law and
tradition to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote and hold property
and to uphold equality under the law. Why should we stop? Why should we shun
away from the task merely because it is difficult?
The last major redefinition of marriage in this country did not happen in
1787...it happened in 1967 when the Supreme Court upheld that the government
did not have the power to prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
Redefining it again isn't that radical a concept. Freedom is a process. it will
not happen all at once. It goes a step at a time...and, in time, we as a nation
will realize that government regulation of marriage is as an affront to freedom
as taxation without representation was.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
10 Sep 2003 04:24:06 PM |
|
|
On 03 Sep 2003 22:39:18 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
But it still bugs me in that *any form of state control of "marriage" and
how family is organized is serious social engineering. I resent it. The
governments don't have any business telling *anybody who their family is
and is not.
Except that getting away from marriage entirely would require changing some
pretty
fundamental changes in society, law and tradition.
Well we dealt with some pretty fundamental changes in society, law and
tradition to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote and hold property
and to uphold equality under the law. Why should we stop? Why should we shun
away from the task merely because it is difficult?
The last major redefinition of marriage in this country did not happen in
1787...it happened in 1967 when the Supreme Court upheld that the government
did not have the power to prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
Redefining it again isn't that radical a concept. Freedom is a process. it will
not happen all at once. It goes a step at a time...and, in time, we as a nation
will realize that government regulation of marriage is as an affront to freedom
as taxation without representation was.
Marriage is a legal contract, therefore it is regulated.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
15 Sep 2003 08:34:08 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:tppulvgrp56q91kecok0k3q6ao4feh595h@4ax.com...
On 03 Sep 2003 22:39:18 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
But it still bugs me in that *any form of state control of "marriage"
and
how family is organized is serious social engineering. I resent it.
The
governments don't have any business telling *anybody who their family
is
and is not.
Except that getting away from marriage entirely would require changing
some
pretty
fundamental changes in society, law and tradition.
Well we dealt with some pretty fundamental changes in society, law and
tradition to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote and hold
property
and to uphold equality under the law. Why should we stop? Why should we
shun
away from the task merely because it is difficult?
The last major redefinition of marriage in this country did not happen in
1787...it happened in 1967 when the Supreme Court upheld that the
government
did not have the power to prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
Redefining it again isn't that radical a concept. Freedom is a process.
it will
not happen all at once. It goes a step at a time...and, in time, we as a
nation
will realize that government regulation of marriage is as an affront to
freedom
as taxation without representation was.
Marriage is a legal contract, therefore it is regulated.
No, marrige is regulated, therefore it is a legal contract.
--
:"Everythin's better with DoFunny on it."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
10 Sep 2003 04:54:18 PM |
|
|
The last major redefinition of marriage in this country did not happen in
1787...it happened in 1967 when the Supreme Court upheld that the government
did not have the power to prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
Redefining it again isn't that radical a concept. Freedom is a process. it
will
not happen all at once. It goes a step at a time...and, in time, we as a
nation
will realize that government regulation of marriage is as an affront to
freedom
as taxation without representation was.
Marriage is a legal contract, therefore it is regulated.
Why does it need to be, Comrade? What compelling reason does the State have to
deny freedom to certain individuals regarding marriage? Why does government
need this power? What benefit does America get by denying some of its citizens
freedom without due process of law?
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
10 Sep 2003 11:43:15 PM |
|
|
On 10 Sep 2003 21:54:18 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
The last major redefinition of marriage in this country did not happen in
1787...it happened in 1967 when the Supreme Court upheld that the government
did not have the power to prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
Redefining it again isn't that radical a concept. Freedom is a process. it
will
not happen all at once. It goes a step at a time...and, in time, we as a
nation
will realize that government regulation of marriage is as an affront to
freedom
as taxation without representation was.
Marriage is a legal contract, therefore it is regulated.
Why does it need to be, Comrade? What compelling reason does the State have to
deny freedom to certain individuals regarding marriage? Why does government
need this power? What benefit does America get by denying some of its citizens
freedom without due process of law?
Two different questions. The government regulates contracts,
otherwise all we would have would be individual agreements
unenforceable by nobody but the individuals involved. The government
does not automatically act properly, that is one reason we have courts
and legislative bodies.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
10 Sep 2003 11:51:21 PM |
|
|
Why does it need to be, Comrade? What compelling reason does the State have
to
deny freedom to certain individuals regarding marriage? Why does government
need this power? What benefit does America get by denying some of its
citizens
freedom without due process of law?
Two different questions. The government regulates contracts,
otherwise all we would have would be individual agreements
unenforceable by nobody but the individuals involved. The government
does not automatically act properly, that is one reason we have courts
and legislative bodies.
Alright, let me put this in a different way. How does one's sex, or even
sexuality, become the test of whether a person's conduct is a criminal offense?
The US Supreme Court already ruled that the race of an individual cannot be a
concern on whether an act is illegal or not. Why is it then that a person's sex
is, at least in this particular regard?
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
11 Sep 2003 05:56:07 AM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20030911005121.19404.00000591@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Why does it need to be, Comrade? What compelling reason does the State have
to
deny freedom to certain individuals regarding marriage? Why does government
need this power? What benefit does America get by denying some of its
citizens
freedom without due process of law?
Two different questions. The government regulates contracts,
otherwise all we would have would be individual agreements
unenforceable by nobody but the individuals involved. The government
does not automatically act properly, that is one reason we have courts
and legislative bodies.
Alright, let me put this in a different way. How does one's sex, or even
sexuality, become the test of whether a person's conduct is a criminal offense?
I don't think it should. Why would you think I was in favor of such a
thing?
The US Supreme Court already ruled that the race of an individual cannot be a
concern on whether an act is illegal or not. Why is it then that a person's sex
is, at least in this particular regard?
It shouldn't be. I think the law should be changed. I thought all of
that was implied in my answer above. Contracts are a legitmate area
for legal control, but that does not mean that every law concerning
contracts is legitimate. Once again, that is why we have courts and
legislatures; so that we can change practices that we believe are
wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
12 Sep 2003 09:22:27 AM |
|
|
Alright, let me put this in a different way. How does one's sex, or even
sexuality, become the test of whether a person's conduct is a criminal
offense?
I don't think it should. Why would you think I was in favor of such a
thing?
Because that is the very crux about government regulation of marriage, which
you do support. Government regulation and control makes criminal behaviour
dependent on factors other than the conduct of the people in question and that
principle has already been ruled unconstitutional in the US by the Loving
decision.
The law in Denmark where you live may be different. I do not know what it is
and have absolutely no experience or study to make an informed opinion. I can't
imagine that it's much different because the legal traditions of both our
countries come from the same source...the lawspeakers of the Germanic tribes
that occupied Jutland 2000 years ago. That is where our concept of civil
marriage came from, primarily to give a basis for inheritance law. I would like
to think that we have progressed since then.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
12 Sep 2003 01:35:20 PM |
|
|
On 12 Sep 2003 14:22:27 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Alright, let me put this in a different way. How does one's sex, or even
sexuality, become the test of whether a person's conduct is a criminal
offense?
I don't think it should. Why would you think I was in favor of such a
thing?
Because that is the very crux about government regulation of marriage, which
you do support. Government regulation and control makes criminal behaviour
dependent on factors other than the conduct of the people in question and that
principle has already been ruled unconstitutional in the US by the Loving
decision.
I support that there should be such a thing as contracts. Contracts
are meaningless without regulation. I do not support the present law
concerning marriage and want it to change. All of the legal
advantages of marriage would not exist if it was not a contract in
law.
The law in Denmark where you live may be different. I do not know what it is
and have absolutely no experience or study to make an informed opinion. I can't
imagine that it's much different because the legal traditions of both our
countries come from the same source...the lawspeakers of the Germanic tribes
that occupied Jutland 2000 years ago. That is where our concept of civil
marriage came from, primarily to give a basis for inheritance law.
Mostly Roman law I would think, and inheritance law is only one of the
many issues involved.
I would like
to think that we have progressed since then.
I would like to know why you cut all the rest of my post, in which I
made it clear that I was against the present limitation in the law
concerning marriage. I made it quite clear that I was in favor of
legalizing homosexual marriage, yet you continue to imply above that I
am against it. By the way we are on the way to legally approved
homosexual marriage here. We have what is called "registered
partnership", which is, to all intents and purposes equal to civil
marriage and supported by the great majority; and, in my opinion, we
will eventually have fully recognized homosexual marriages and drop
the silly name difference. You, on the other hand, would like to
solve the problem by denying everyone the very significant legal
advantages of marriage.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
12 Sep 2003 03:23:45 PM |
|
|
Because that is the very crux about government regulation of marriage, which
you do support. Government regulation and control makes criminal behaviour
dependent on factors other than the conduct of the people in question and
that
principle has already been ruled unconstitutional in the US by the Loving
decision.
I support that there should be such a thing as contracts. Contracts
are meaningless without regulation. I do not support the present law
concerning marriage and want it to change. All of the legal
advantages of marriage would not exist if it was not a contract in
law.
Very well then. Why stop at same-sex marriages? Why not open the doors to EVERY
sort of consensual arrangement, limited only by the wishes of the parties
involved?
The law in Denmark where you live may be different. I do not know what it is
and have absolutely no experience or study to make an informed opinion. I
can't
imagine that it's much different because the legal traditions of both our
countries come from the same source...the lawspeakers of the Germanic tribes
that occupied Jutland 2000 years ago. That is where our concept of civil
marriage came from, primarily to give a basis for inheritance law.
Mostly Roman law I would think, and inheritance law is only one of the
many issues involved.
Certainly not true in countries where the law had English Common Law as its
base. It was the English which got rid of Roman law and drove it into the Welsh
mountains with the rest of the surviving Romano-British in the 5th and 6th
centuries. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes didn't have any contact with Roman law
until they were killing the British. This was reinforced by the Danish invasion
and occupation of half the island in the 9th Century.
I would like
to think that we have progressed since then.
I would like to know why you cut all the rest of my post, in which I
made it clear that I was against the present limitation in the law
concerning marriage. I made it quite clear that I was in favor of
legalizing homosexual marriage, yet you continue to imply above that I
am against it.
I am under the impression that you are still constrained by the illogical need
for government to be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a consensual
arrangement by the individual parties involved. The State does not and should
not have any compelling interest in it unless the arrangement is
non-consensual. Every single legal necessity that marriage offers can be gained
through other law. Power of Attnorey can be given at need. Community property
can be specified. Care and provisioning for the children can be indicated.
Inheritance can be arranged with the consent of the involved parties. It is
often legalized marriage which complicates inheritance law, not simplifies
it...particularly when a large estate is involved.
We would be much better off restoring marriage as a committment between the
individuals involved, not a contract between a couple and their government. It
is the State's involvement which has had the most damage on the covenant of
marriage and the family. I'm not saying that it needs to be done overnight or
hastily. It doesn't. But it DOES need to be done.
By the way we are on the way to legally approved
homosexual marriage here. We have what is called "registered
partnership", which is, to all intents and purposes equal to civil
marriage and supported by the great majority; and, in my opinion, we
will eventually have fully recognized homosexual marriages and drop
the silly name difference. You, on the other hand, would like to
solve the problem by denying everyone the very significant legal
advantages of marriage.
On the contrary. I'm trying to put all sorts of marriage on equal footing,
derived by the mutual consent of the involved parties. You're fighting for the
recognition of same-sex marriages. That is a laudable goal. I'm fighting for
ALL types of consensual marriage.
Recognition of same-sex marriages is a step in the right direction...but it
means that there is still a long way to go before all persons can be free of
government intrusion into their private lives.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
13 Sep 2003 03:44:14 AM |
|
|
On 12 Sep 2003 20:23:45 GMT, forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Because that is the very crux about government regulation of marriage, which
you do support. Government regulation and control makes criminal behaviour
dependent on factors other than the conduct of the people in question and
that
principle has already been ruled unconstitutional in the US by the Loving
decision.
I support that there should be such a thing as contracts. Contracts
are meaningless without regulation. I do not support the present law
concerning marriage and want it to change. All of the legal
advantages of marriage would not exist if it was not a contract in
law.
Very well then. Why stop at same-sex marriages? Why not open the doors to EVERY
sort of consensual arrangement, limited only by the wishes of the parties
involved?
All of those would be separate issues. Anybody seriously interested
in any of those things is free to push for those changes.
The law in Denmark where you live may be different. I do not know what it is
and have absolutely no experience or study to make an informed opinion. I
can't
imagine that it's much different because the legal traditions of both our
countries come from the same source...the lawspeakers of the Germanic tribes
that occupied Jutland 2000 years ago. That is where our concept of civil
marriage came from, primarily to give a basis for inheritance law.
Mostly Roman law I would think, and inheritance law is only one of the
many issues involved.
Certainly not true in countries where the law had English Common Law as its
base. It was the English which got rid of Roman law and drove it into the Welsh
mountains with the rest of the surviving Romano-British in the 5th and 6th
centuries. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes didn't have any contact with Roman law
until they were killing the British. This was reinforced by the Danish invasion
and occupation of half the island in the 9th Century.
History is not that simple, and you seem to have forgotten the
Normans. It does not, however, have anything to do with the issue at
hand.
I would like
to think that we have progressed since then.
I would like to know why you cut all the rest of my post, in which I
made it clear that I was against the present limitation in the law
concerning marriage. I made it quite clear that I was in favor of
legalizing homosexual marriage, yet you continue to imply above that I
am against it.
I am under the impression that you are still constrained by the illogical need
for government to be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a consensual
arrangement by the individual parties involved. The State does not and should
not have any compelling interest in it unless the arrangement is
non-consensual.
Legal contracts are consensual. According to your logic the
government has no compelling interest in the regulation of contracts.
Every single legal necessity that marriage offers can be gained
through other law. Power of Attnorey can be given at need. Community property
can be specified. Care and provisioning for the children can be indicated.
Inheritance can be arranged with the consent of the involved parties. It is
often legalized marriage which complicates inheritance law, not simplifies
it...particularly when a large estate is involved.
That would be such a wonderfully simple solution. Instead of marriage
people could go to lawyers and pay for the writing up of an unlimited
number of contracts. Oh, wait a minute, you also say that the
government has no compelling interest to be involved in consensual
agreements; so those contracts should be unenforceable according to
your logic.
We would be much better off restoring marriage as a committment between the
individuals involved, not a contract between a couple and their government.
That is not what it is now. It is a contract between the two people
involved. That contract, like all other contracts is a legal
document. I do not see the logic in destroying one contract (legally
regulated) and replacing it with potentially thousands of other
contracts (legally regulated).
It
is the State's involvement which has had the most damage on the covenant of
marriage and the family. I'm not saying that it needs to be done overnight or
hastily. It doesn't. But it DOES need to be done.
So far you have not explained why or how. If marriage is going to be
replaced by numerous agreements between the partners, that would mean
that all of those agreements would be subject to regulation; or they
would not be enforceable at all and, therefore, useless. Instead of
one agreement, which you don't think the government should regulate,
you will have thousands; which will have to be regulated if they are
to have meaning, but cannot be according to your logic.
By the way we are on the way to legally approved
homosexual marriage here. We have what is called "registered
partnership", which is, to all intents and purposes equal to civil
marriage and supported by the great majority; and, in my opinion, we
will eventually have fully recognized homosexual marriages and drop
the silly name difference. You, on the other hand, would like to
solve the problem by denying everyone the very significant legal
advantages of marriage.
On the contrary. I'm trying to put all sorts of marriage on equal footing,
derived by the mutual consent of the involved parties. You're fighting for the
recognition of same-sex marriages. That is a laudable goal. I'm fighting for
ALL types of consensual marriage.
Yes, you want to remove legal protection from everybody. If you were
consistent, your solution to school segregation would have been to do
away with schools.
Recognition of same-sex marriages is a step in the right direction...but it
means that there is still a long way to go before all persons can be free of
government intrusion into their private lives.
Except, for some unexplained reason, you think that other consensual
agreements (the ones that will replace marriage) can be enforced
legally. Perhaps you should rethink your solution a little.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
12 Sep 2003 03:56:08 PM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) said:
.....
Very well then. Why stop at same-sex marriages? Why not open the doors to EVERY
sort of consensual arrangement, limited only by the wishes of the parties
involved?
....
Even with that as the intent, it will come down to a debate about the
meaning of the word "consensual" and who can act consensually. E.g,
does it require a written, witnessed agreement made prior to, and
specifying, to what level of detail, the limits of the "wishes" of the
parties involved? Can a 10-year old, or a cognitively impaired senior,
make such agreements? Who decides?
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 06:43:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 22:39:18 +0000, Lord Calvert wrote:
But it still bugs me in that *any form of state control of "marriage"
and how family is organized is serious social engineering. I resent it.
The governments don't have any business telling *anybody who their
family is and is not.
Except that getting away from marriage entirely would require changing
some pretty
fundamental changes in society, law and tradition.
Well we dealt with some pretty fundamental changes in society, law and
tradition to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote and hold
property and to uphold equality under the law. Why should we stop? Why
should we shun away from the task merely because it is difficult?
The last major redefinition of marriage in this country did not happen in
1787...it happened in 1967 when the Supreme Court upheld that the
government did not have the power to prohibit interracial couples from
marrying. Redefining it again isn't that radical a concept. Freedom is a
process. it will not happen all at once. It goes a step at a time...and,
in time, we as a nation will realize that government regulation of
marriage is as an affront to freedom as taxation without representation
was.
I would say it's more of an affront. The "family" (however it's defined)
is a fundamental social structure. Having your "family" dictated to you is
worse than unfair taxation...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 06:42:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:09:36 -0700, Gregory Gadow wrote:
Except that getting away from marriage entirely would require changing
some pretty fundamental changes in society, law and tradition. Like it or
not, marriage is part of the legacy system that current engineers --
social or not -- are forced to deal with. Switching from Windows to Linux
is not possible when it would require entirely rewriting hundreds of
essential subsystems from scratch.
Uh huh.
I'm an idealist and a radical but I also realize societies just don't turn
on a dime...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
02 Sep 2003 10:04:35 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030902213847.5352F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu:
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&onl
y=y#Video Headlines
In a country that's 80+% xian, this surprises anyone?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 01:19:17 AM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote
In a country that's 80+% xian, this surprises anyone?
That a non-scientific poll should be pushed as conclusive?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: marriage between one man and one woman? POLL |
03 Sep 2003 01:23:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:40:06 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
Are you in favor of a Federal law banning gay marriages and specifying
that wedlock be between a man and a woman?
Yes 79 %
2093 votes
No 21 %
555 votes
Total: 2648 votes
http://hometab.bellsouth.net/s/s.dll?spage=cg/news/channel_news.htm&only=y#Video
Headlines
87% of all online polls are meaningless.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
OT: One man's resistance: 'Why I turned against America'
OT: a one-man megaphone for Christian indignation now a convicted child molester
Chinese chukkas: one man's mission to attract new elite to the sport of kings
The poster calling itself "No One", the indisputable master of redherrings, non sequiturs, ad hominems, and just plain lies, patheticallytries to label as "trolls" those of us who have bested him in rationalargument. (What a little man you are, No
Re: Today's Founder Quote: It's time for Congress to amend the Constitution, defining the Institution of marriage as one man and one woman
Marriage amendment calls for one man, one woman { Colorado Christian 'Compassion and Empathy' strikes again}
parsifa writes: Man, you're one crazy ***** (V) Why don't you get lost? NO ONE WANTS YOU HERE! Isn't that clear enough? For *****'s sake, next to you, J Young and boobandcover are cute pranksters
This is not a vote about ideas. It comes down to the verdict of a divided nation on one man
| AWOL: Tin Man, Lion and ScareCrow Rolled Into One! (re: NeoCon Boy Can Go ***** His Cheney Up his Bush!)
MARRIAGE ONE MAN ONE WOMAN LIE ! !
When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the biblehe was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not like, he wasupset. How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yetonly build a hovel for another?
How one man's gospel tale became a global bestseller
Abortion: One Man's Story
Accept religion is the lesser of two evils. For when man is devoid ofreligion, the atheistic human is far worse than one seeking spiritual guidancethrough man-made religion.
one man's view on abortion
|
|
|
