PING: William Graham!

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation, wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this
cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal
differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil
partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:6Vbkd.124829$hj.115415@fed1read07...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation, wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this
cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal
differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all
mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil
partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

I believe the only item from a religious ceremony recognized civilly is the
signed wedding license or certificate.










---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.791 / Virus Database: 535 - Release Date: 11/8/04

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:6Vbkd.124829$hj.115415@fed1read07...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation, wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this
cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal
differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all
mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil
partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

I believe the only item from a religious ceremony recognized civilly is the
signed wedding license or certificate.










---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.791 / Virus Database: 535 - Release Date: 11/8/04

In article IEYjd.245343$a85.101061@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Then your "definition" of capitalism is quite novel. Capitalism
concerns a private free-market economy. Whether or not guns are
banned
has no bearing on that, except that it would be only one commodity
which
would no longer be sold under a free-market economy, among millions of
commodities which would continue to be sold.

Yes. - I was talking about attitudes, not items.......The difference
between
the Socialist idea that the individual is less important than the group,
versus the Capitalist idea that the individual is more important than
the
group.

Well, I guess the usage of the terms is a little more appropriate in
that sense.

The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the
good of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is
what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall
we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him and
distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot,
and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your money. -
The
constitution is what protects you (and me) from that.

Exactly.

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making &
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

Criminals will soon realize that there is little risk of death by entering
and robbing homes, because everyone in those homes has been stripped of the
only defense criminals fear.

Sheesh, there's that 2nd strawman again. I wasn't talking about
everyone being stripped of their defense. I was talking about further
restrictions, not an outright ban on all weapons for the entire
populace. You didn't see, in the part you completely snipped past the
point where you responded here, that I had additionally said this?

**********

In addition, I continue to challenge your assertion that these people
"almost to a man" (your exact words; I didn't make them up) advocate
***COMPLETE*** removal of ***ALL*** firearms from the ***ENTIRE***
populace. I cannot recall hearing, hearing about, or reading about,
anyone but perhaps a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of those people saying
any such thing. Instead, what I have heard from them tremendously more
often is merely that there should be greater ***RESTRICTIONS*** on
various ***CIRCUMSTANCES*** under which people can purchase firearms, &
greater restrictions on which exact ***TYPES*** of firearms can & cannot
be sold to the general public.

**********

Increased restrictions, such as not allowing convicted felons to carry
guns, & restrictions on what types of guns can be sold. That is what I
was talking about. I was also specifically *disputing* the idea that
most of these people are advocating a complete removal of all firearms
from the law-abiding populace.

Once again, Mark, please address what I actually wrote. I didn't say a
thing about leaving all law-abiding households entirely defenseless.
Why did you address an argument I never made?
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article IEYjd.245343$a85.101061@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Then your "definition" of capitalism is quite novel. Capitalism
concerns a private free-market economy. Whether or not guns are
banned
has no bearing on that, except that it would be only one commodity
which
would no longer be sold under a free-market economy, among millions of
commodities which would continue to be sold.

Yes. - I was talking about attitudes, not items.......The difference
between
the Socialist idea that the individual is less important than the group,
versus the Capitalist idea that the individual is more important than
the
group.

Well, I guess the usage of the terms is a little more appropriate in
that sense.

The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the
good of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is
what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall
we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him and
distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot,
and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your money. -
The
constitution is what protects you (and me) from that.

Exactly.

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making &
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

Criminals will soon realize that there is little risk of death by entering
and robbing homes, because everyone in those homes has been stripped of the
only defense criminals fear.

Sheesh, there's that 2nd strawman again. I wasn't talking about
everyone being stripped of their defense. I was talking about further
restrictions, not an outright ban on all weapons for the entire
populace. You didn't see, in the part you completely snipped past the
point where you responded here, that I had additionally said this?

**********

In addition, I continue to challenge your assertion that these people
"almost to a man" (your exact words; I didn't make them up) advocate
***COMPLETE*** removal of ***ALL*** firearms from the ***ENTIRE***
populace. I cannot recall hearing, hearing about, or reading about,
anyone but perhaps a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of those people saying
any such thing. Instead, what I have heard from them tremendously more
often is merely that there should be greater ***RESTRICTIONS*** on
various ***CIRCUMSTANCES*** under which people can purchase firearms, &
greater restrictions on which exact ***TYPES*** of firearms can & cannot
be sold to the general public.

**********

Increased restrictions, such as not allowing convicted felons to carry
guns, & restrictions on what types of guns can be sold. That is what I
was talking about. I was also specifically *disputing* the idea that
most of these people are advocating a complete removal of all firearms
from the law-abiding populace.

Once again, Mark, please address what I actually wrote. I didn't say a
thing about leaving all law-abiding households entirely defenseless.
Why did you address an argument I never made?
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:IEYjd.245343$a85.101061@fed1read04...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Then your "definition" of capitalism is quite novel. Capitalism
concerns a private free-market economy. Whether or not guns are
banned
has no bearing on that, except that it would be only one commodity
which
would no longer be sold under a free-market economy, among millions
of
commodities which would continue to be sold.

Yes. - I was talking about attitudes, not items.......The difference
between
the Socialist idea that the individual is less important than the
group,
versus the Capitalist idea that the individual is more important than
the
group.

Well, I guess the usage of the terms is a little more appropriate in
that sense.

The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the
good of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is
what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall
we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him and
distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot,
and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your money. -
The
constitution is what protects you (and me) from that.

Exactly.

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making &
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

Criminals will soon realize that there is little risk of death by entering
and robbing homes, because everyone in those homes has been stripped of
the
only defense criminals fear.


Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our society,
and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got several of these
100 million safely socked away myself. I take care to never buy one under my
own name. I buy them from individuals who advertise them in the paper, or
who sell them at garage sales or flea markets, and I never pay with anything
but cash, so they are completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and so
will all of my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor of
greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible legal
purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to acknowledge
this.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article N8Xjd.383377$D%.380568@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making &
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

As I said, in portions of my article which you snipped entirely (why, I
don't know), such things as holdups of banks & convenience stores,
murders committed by robbers during their robberies, & all sorts of
other violent crimes, would quite obviously be more difficult to commit,
& would thus occur less frequently, if the criminals did not have
***FIREARMS*** in their possession at the time.

Why you keep going on & on & on about this nonsense of "accidents" I am
at a total loss to fathom. Oh yes, I fully realize that ***SOME*** of
the gun control advocates may give that as their "primary" reason for
their beliefs, but it isn't the majority of them.

In addition, I continue to challenge your assertion that these people
"almost to a man" (your exact words; I didn't make them up) advocate
***COMPLETE*** removal of ***ALL*** firearms from the ***ENTIRE***
populace. I cannot recall hearing, hearing about, or reading about,
anyone but perhaps a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of those people saying
any such thing. Instead, what I have heard from them tremendously more
often is merely that there should be greater ***RESTRICTIONS*** on
various ***CIRCUMSTANCES*** under which people can purchase firearms, &
greater restrictions on which exact ***TYPES*** of firearms can & cannot
be sold to the general public.

Hardly anyone, except a tiny number of kooks, actually is seriously
suggesting that no American citizen should ever, ever, ever be allowed
to own any type of firearm there is.

You'll finally, at last, for the first time ever (at least in direct
reply to me) be addressing this, in one of your next replies to me,
correct William?

Sure.....The NRA has lots of statistics that show that crimes are frequently
prevented by the private, free ownership of firearms. IOW, in a society
where lots of people have and carry them, the mugging and housebreaking rate
drops drastically. This makes common sense. If you were a mugger, where
would rather ply your trade, in a city like New York where guns are banned
entirely, or in a city like Burlington, Vermont, where there are no
restrictions against concealed carry at all?

I basically agree with all that. But you are not even coming close to
addressing what I actually said.

Also, a point I make frequently, is that it wouldn't make any difference
to me whether a mugger was armed or not. Any 20 year old could kill me with
one blow, since I am an overweight, arthritic 69 year old man. So, I need a
firearm to deter muggers regardless of whether they are likely to have one
or not. this point is seldom addressed by even the NRA, who blithely assumes
the anti gunners are right when they say, remove guns from the society and
the crime rate would drop. It wouldn't drop. All it would do is shift the
victims from the society as a whole, to all the senior citizens and other
people who are infirm, crippled, and blind....IOW, who are now protected by
the possibility that they are carrying. (except blind, of course) The fact
is, I need my gun, whether the criminals are armed or not. It is a tool that
makes me equal to a 20 year old mugger. I have spent many hours practicing
my marksmanship, and I'll bet that I can outshoot any 20 year old you've
got. Certainly anyone who makes his living robbing old folks......

That's all fine.

Not a word of that addressed what I actually said.

What I actually said was that I was specifically disputing your apparent
claim that the primary reason most gun control advocates recommend what
they do is to prevent accidents with firearms. While some of them use
that as their primary reason, I'm sure, the majority give the reason of
there being so many crimes committed with guns today. I also disputed
your apparent claim that most gun control advocates recommend anything
close to a complete & total ban of all types of firearms which exist
from the entire populace. Only if they were doing that, & the
government passed laws to that effect, would such as you be left
defenseless. But they aren't advocating that. That's what I'm still
waiting for you to address.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

"Mike" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:6Vbkd.124829$hj.115415@fed1read07...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation,
wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this
cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal
differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives
who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all
mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil
partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

I believe the only item from a religious ceremony recognized civilly is
the
signed wedding license or certificate.



But the certificate results from the ceremony. Indeed, the same certificate
would result from a civil ceremony. The license is only "permission" to
marry.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:zdekd.124977$hj.72555@fed1read07...
"Mike" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:6Vbkd.124829$hj.115415@fed1read07...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation,
wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why
this
cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal
differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives
who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the
legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all
mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil
partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the
same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

I believe the only item from a religious ceremony recognized civilly is
the
signed wedding license or certificate.



But the certificate results from the ceremony. Indeed, . The license is
only "permission" to marry.

Very true the same certificate would be issued by the Justus Of The Peace
when he marries a couple. A license is not really needed to be considered
married, as in a common law marriage.








---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.791 / Virus Database: 535 - Release Date: 11/8/04

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article bTZjd.590207$8_6.134215@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:IEYjd.245343$a85.101061@fed1read04...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Then your "definition" of capitalism is quite novel. Capitalism
concerns a private free-market economy. Whether or not guns are
banned
has no bearing on that, except that it would be only one commodity
which
would no longer be sold under a free-market economy, among
millions
of
commodities which would continue to be sold.

Yes. - I was talking about attitudes, not items.......The difference
between
the Socialist idea that the individual is less important than the
group,
versus the Capitalist idea that the individual is more important
than
the
group.

Well, I guess the usage of the terms is a little more appropriate in
that sense.

The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the
good of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is
what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall
we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him and
distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot,
and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your
money. -
The
constitution is what protects you (and me) from that.

Exactly.

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making
&
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates
recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so
many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

Criminals will soon realize that there is little risk of death by
entering
and robbing homes, because everyone in those homes has been stripped of
the
only defense criminals fear.


Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our
society,
and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got several of
these
100 million safely socked away myself. I take care to never buy one under
my
own name. I buy them from individuals who advertise them in the paper, or
who sell them at garage sales or flea markets, and I never pay with
anything
but cash, so they are completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and
so
will all of my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

There won't be any such people, because no one but a few kooks is
seriously advocating the removal of "all" firearms from the entire
populace. The majority of gun control advocates are merely in favor of
greater restrictions, not an outright total ban from all possible legal
purchase by private citizens. Still waiting for y'all to acknowledge
this.

Perhaps the majority does what you say, but my experience with other
nations, such as the UK, suggests that the state is quite capable of banning
all firearms from its citizenry. This has been done before, and will be done
again in the future. I doubt if it will be done here in the near future,
however I will continue to vote Republican just to extent that time as long
as possible.......(Actually, this is reason 12, or 15 why I vote
Republican....)