well many argue just that, mag. my point was that if
group marriage is okayed (and it might be), it gets
harder to be sure no kids are hurt and harder to know
there is no coerion and no violence. then you also get
into too close of reletives being in the group. do we
really need to go there?  

--- Tamar Raine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Why does the govt need to be involved in who we
> chose to be with? As long as they are all consenting
> adults, and there is no coerican, no viloence, and
> no kids involved, why should the govt have a say?
> Marriage is a relationship mostly involving two
> people. If other people want to have more than one
> man, or more than one woman it seems to me that it's
> none of our business, if we try to regulate how many
> is too many, we slide down that slippery slope.
> Unless it's a situation like these darn sex
> cults....  i do not buy the straight only idea. at
> the san francisco zoo, i saw a penguin couple who
> are both male. That's right, these two male penguins
> are happier with each other, and together keep their
> igloo just like a male and female couple do.  
>  
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.zazzle.com/TamarMag*
> Tamar Mag Raine
> [log in to unmask]
> www.cafepress.com/tamarmag
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: ken barber <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:41:00 AM
> Subject: Re: actually linda is right
> 
>   can we ask the question of the government's right
> to
> restrict consenting adults from group marriage?
> after
> listening to that radio show i can see that some
> people see nothing wrong with it as long as children
> are not involved and do not think it is the
> government's bussiness. 
>   not my opinion, but and opinion help by at least
> some people. 
>   this question gets to the heart of the point i was
> making. 
> 
> --- ksalkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > Well I do see your point - but you can say that
> > every action generates
> > unexpected consequences, big or small.  We can't
> > predict what will happen
> > for sure; we can only predict from our
> observations.
> > 
> > But honestly, I don't see anything wrong with
> > same-sex marriages or civil
> > unions.  They aren't hurting anyone.  
> > 
> > 
> > Kat
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cerebral Palsy List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > ken barber
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:04 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: actually linda is right
> > 
> > i said nothing about you being liberal, i stated
> > that
> > unintended consequences happens with a lot of
> > legislation and that one had to look at what can
> > happen. i do not see that aS LIBERAL NOR
> > CONCERVATIVE.
> > i see it as causious. and again jumping before
> > looking
> > may end one up going off a cliff. i don't think i
> > tared anything.  
> > 
> > --- "Michael H. Collis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm not debating you.  I just asked two
> questions,
> > > and you seem to tar everything that comes in
> > > conflict with your ideas as liberal and
> therefore
> > > unamerican...  Please answer my questions.
> > > 
> > > ---- Original message ----
> > > >Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:35:04 -0700
> > > >From: ken barber <[log in to unmask]>  
> > > >Subject: Re: actually linda is right  
> > > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > >  i really don't want to debate gay rights
> again,
> > > but,
> > > >you leap without looking at what all the
> > > consequences
> > > >are and you do so at your own periel. there are
> > > always
> > > >consequences to every thing that is legislated
> > and
> > > >many times they are un-intended. 
> > > > 
> > > >--- "Michael H. Collis" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Okay. Ken, how about this?  If a male
> > > transgendered
> > > >> himself into a female,  then got married to a
> > > male,
> > > >> would that be okay?  that's what happened to
> an
> > > >> online jewish friend.  he met the person he
> > ended
> > > up
> > > >> marrying while the person was still male, A
> > year
> > > >> later the transgender process was complete
> and
> > > they
> > > >> got married.  Then there are the
> > hermaphrodites. 
> > > >> Granted, they make up a very small percentage
> > of
> > > the
> > > >> population, but they have both genders.  what
> > are
> > > we
> > > >> to do with those people?    
> > > >> 
> > > >> ---- Original message ----
> > > >> >Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:12:52 -0700
> > > >> >From: ken barber <[log in to unmask]>  
> > > >> >Subject: Re: actually linda is right  
> > > >> >To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >> >
> > > >> >you would not remove the guard rails that
> are
> > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> >cliff edges at the grand canyon because of
> > what
> > > is
> > > >> >likely to happen. 
> > > >> >
> > > >> >you don't ignore the slippery slope that is
> > > there
> > > >> >because it is prudent to look at what is
> > likely
> > > to
> > > >> >happen. 
> > > >> >
> > > >> >nothing to do with morals; everything to do
> > with
> > > >> good
> > > >> >common sense. 
> > > >> >
> > > >> >--- Trisha Cummings <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi Ken,
> > > >> >> 
> > > >> >>  You know the one thing I learned while I
> > was
> > > >> >> teaching in that
> > > >> >> Christian private school - is those people
> > are
> > > >> very
> > > >> >> sincere in their
> > > >> >> beliefs - and no I never mentioned I am
> > Pagan
> > > nor
> > > >> >> argued with one thing
> > > >> >> said. As I said I learned they honestly
> and
> > > >> >> sincerely believe what they
> > > >> >> believe. And so it is everyone - so why
> > would
> > > >> anyone
> > > >> >> think they would
> > > >> >> bring you around to their way of thinking
> -
> > we
> > > >> can
> > > >> >> never change anyone's
> > > >> >> mind - they have see beyond the horizon of
> > > their
> > > >> >> boundaries - a
> > > >> >> uncomfortable play to be. 
> > > >> >> 
> > > >> >> I have no problem with gay marriages - if
> > > >> polygamy
> > > >> >> were a voluntary
> > > >> >> state - not a brainwasher slave state - I
> > > could
> > > >> >> perhaps see it but for
> > > >> >> the most part since we have no positive
> role
> > > >> models
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy