Re: Robbing the Cradle was Indian cuisine and NT

[Guest guest]

--- ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: >

> I don't think the " King " ever became head of the

> " Church " and I'm sure the

> Pope would have had a fit over that one :-)

Ever heard of the Church of England? Well , the head

of the Royal family heads that church! Right now of

course, that's . The church of england was

created by Henry 8th so he could divorce one of his

wives (catherine of aragon I believe, but don't quote

me!) Since then, the king or queen has always been

head of that church.

Jo

________________________________________________________________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://uk.messenger./

[Guest guest]

>> Those Romans had a rather rigid society. The more I read about them

>> the gladder I am I'm not one.

>

>Haha, oh get this then. Once they adopted Christianity and started enforcing

>morality they got even stricter-- in the fourth century girls who ran off

>with their boyfriends were burned alive and if anyone assisted they had molten

>lead poured down their throat. Fun, huh?!

Yecchh. What I don't get, in Ori's take on history, is associating

the " Warrior " with freedom. In his take on history (which I'm just

getting to) the " warriors " were not even close to his free romantic

ideal -- they were rigid folks who lived by a strict set of rules (by

his own description). It reminds me of the difference between

the romantic warriors in the Lord of the Rings (the company of the Ring)

who really DO meet his description of the romantic warrior, living

by their wits etc, and the Orcs (more like the Roman army, only

muddier).

>> >undermined by some forged ine letters, infiltration of the intellectual

>> class

>> >into the Church, etc.

>>

>> Hmmm. THAT sounds controversial ...

>

>Sounds it, but it isn't really. Not among scholars anyway, Christian or not.

>If you read the " pastorals, " i.e. letters to and Titus it's just

>rather hard to believe they were written by the same person that wrote all the

>other ine letters. If you get a good scholarly Bible, like the Oxford

>Annotated, it'll say it in the intro even.

NOT controversial? What I've been hearing on the news

for the last couple of years is a lot of controversy over

gays (the latest being the gay bishop) and the people who

are on defending the " not-pro-gay " stance are all quoting

those ine letters. Ditto with the folks who advocate

men controlling their households more. I guess they

don't talk to the scholars much ...

>Yeah, I'd overlooked the English Church. State marriages were around way

>before that though in Christian societies.

That makes sense. Actually in most societies, historically, church and

state weren't all that separate -- the Egyptian pharoah was god, as was

the Japanese Emperor and the Chinese Emperor and who knows how

many other kings. I'm not sure about tribal societies -- marriages

seem to be part of the " culture " which rules everything, but there

isn't a " church " or " state " per se, really (I guess the tribal elders

vs. the shaman?). But marriage historically has been a lot about

PROPERTY and the distribution thereof (dowrys, land ownership)

which is a state/legal issue.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/1/03 1:46:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

>

> Yecchh. What I don't get, in Ori's take on history, is associating

> the " Warrior " with freedom. In his take on history (which I'm just

> getting to) the " warriors " were not even close to his free romantic

> ideal -- they were rigid folks who lived by a strict set of rules (by

> his own description). It reminds me of the difference between

> the romantic warriors in the Lord of the Rings (the company of the Ring)

> who really DO meet his description of the romantic warrior, living

> by their wits etc, and the Orcs (more like the Roman army, only

> muddier).

Yes, I'd rather be with the company of the ring than an orc :-)

> NOT controversial? What I've been hearing on the news

> for the last couple of years is a lot of controversy over

> gays (the latest being the gay bishop) and the people who

> are on defending the " not-pro-gay " stance are all quoting

> those ine letters. Ditto with the folks who advocate

> men controlling their households more. I guess they

> don't talk to the scholars much ...

Hmm... I haven't paid any attention to this controversy, but as far as I can

remember, doesn't make any reference to homosexuality except a rather

vague passing reference to " men committing shameless acts with other men " or

something like that, which would be wholly irrelevant from the issue. They must

be quoting the " Let a bishop be the husband of one wife " injunction, which is

in the pastorals. They are certainly regarded as Scripture by pretty much all

Christian churches, but as you said, they don't talk to the scholars much. In

fact, the pastorals were heavily disputed during the initial formation of the

biblical canon as well in the fourth century.

As to the man being the head of the wife, that is authentic ine doctrine

that marriage typifies the relationship between Christ and the Church, where

Christ is the head and the Church is the body, being the bride of Christ.

However, the doctrine that occurs in the pastorals, that, after discoursing on

the

evils of women, " nevertheless women shall be saved through childbearing " is

an obvious twist of ine thought that is in direct contradiction to 's

injunction to chastity, 's praise of women deacons and others who serviced

the church unmarried, etc, 's companionship with St. Thekla, who joined

him after hearing him speak on chastity, etc, etc, etc.

> >Yeah, I'd overlooked the English Church. State marriages were around way

> >before that though in Christian societies.

>

> That makes sense. Actually in most societies, historically, church and

> state weren't all that separate -- the Egyptian pharoah was god, as was

> the Japanese Emperor and the Chinese Emperor and who knows how

> many other kings. I'm not sure about tribal societies -- marriages

> seem to be part of the " culture " which rules everything, but there

> isn't a " church " or " state " per se, really (I guess the tribal elders

> vs. the shaman?). But marriage historically has been a lot about

> PROPERTY and the distribution thereof (dowrys, land ownership)

> which is a state/legal issue.

Religions and states both developed around the same stage of development of

human societies, and served primarily the same function, keeping of order and

collection/redistribution of goods, etc, so it makes sense that they would be

sort of blurred.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Hmm... I haven't paid any attention to this controversy, but as far as I can

>remember, doesn't make any reference to homosexuality except a rather

>vague passing reference to " men committing shameless acts with other men " or

>something like that, which would be wholly irrelevant from the issue. They

must

>be quoting the " Let a bishop be the husband of one wife " injunction, which is

>in the pastorals. They are certainly regarded as Scripture by pretty much all

>Christian churches, but as you said, they don't talk to the scholars much. In

>fact, the pastorals were heavily disputed during the initial formation of the

>biblical canon as well in the fourth century.

Hmm ... it is in Romans 1, so I don't know what category

you put that in:

===================================================

And likewise also the men,

leaving the natural use of the woman,

burned in their lust one toward another;

men with men working that which is unseemly,

and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

.....

Who knowing the judgment of God,

that they which commit such

things are worthy of death,

not only do the same,

but have pleasure in them that do them.

====================================================

Anyway, like I said, it's been on several talk-show call-in kind

of programs, so it's a controversy. It would be relevant

to the issue because obviously you would not want someone

committing things " worthy of death " to be your bishop.

It is one of only two references to homosexuality, I think --

the other is in the Old Testament, where bacon is also not

allowed, or meat mixed with milk.

But the recent Supreme Court decision not to strike

down anti-sodomy laws was also met with the above quote.

Don't shoot me: I'm sure there are folks here on both sides:

like I said, it is controversial! Even more so, than, perhaps the

role of UV in skin cancer!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/2/03 4:19:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Hmm ... it is in Romans 1, so I don't know what category

> you put that in:

That's in the main body of ine work which is basically undisputed. The

" pastorals " are the letters to and Titus, which are disputed (by the

vast majority of scholars).

> ===================================================

> And likewise also the men,

> leaving the natural use of the woman,

> burned in their lust one toward another;

> men with men working that which is unseemly,

> and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

> ....

> Who knowing the judgment of God,

> that they which commit such

> things are worthy of death,

> not only do the same,

> but have pleasure in them that do them.

> ====================================================

>

> Anyway, like I said, it's been on several talk-show call-in kind

> of programs, so it's a controversy. It would be relevant

> to the issue because obviously you would not want someone

> committing things " worthy of death " to be your bishop.

That's pretty funny and a rather pathetic argument (not that I'm making an

argument for gay Episcopalian bishops and really don't have any investment in

the matter), since the two quotes are from different paragraphs, and the second

one actually follows a different laundry list of sins: " They were filled with

all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy murder,

strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God,

insolent,

haughty, boatful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish,

faithless, heartless, ruthless. " I wonder if the gay bishop ever disobeyed his

parents?

> It is one of only two references to homosexuality, I think --

> the other is in the Old Testament, where bacon is also not

> allowed, or meat mixed with milk.

>

> But the recent Supreme Court decision not to strike

> down anti-sodomy laws was also met with the above quote.

> Don't shoot me: I'm sure there are folks here on both sides:

> like I said, it is controversial! Even more so, than, perhaps the

> role of UV in skin cancer!

You're kidding. I didn't know they decided not to strike them down. And the

quote from Romans actually figured into their decision??? I find it baffling

that the same SC that did not allow the ten commandments monument would base

other decisions on Christian Scripture.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/2/03 12:12:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> No one espoused your view (that the

> ine letters are, in some circles, suspect).

To clear any confusion, I don't think the Romans letter is suspect; nor, to

my knowledge, do any scholars. It's actually considered to be written between

54 and 58 AD, which would make it one of the surest specimens of authentic eye

witness-age Christian writings.

>

> And yeah, the OTHER side raised the same arguments

> you did -- what about people who disobey their parents?

> And should we stone women who commit adultery?

> Outlaw meat cooked in milk? (I wonder if coconut milk

> counts?).

I hope these arugments were based on caricatures of the anti-gay-bishop

folks' arguments, as anyone who would interpret 's writing in Romans to mean

that these people should be put to death is simply an idiot (that is, if they're

a Christian and have the background/familiarity in Christian theology etc to

interpret them). The latter two are particularly poor arguments, since both

OT rules are explicitly overturned in the NT (not Nourishing Traditions :-) )

Basically what is interesting to me is that we

> are facing the same questions in this country that the

> Middle East is: secular vs. religious society, and if

> religious, exactly HOW religious? And which brand

> of religious?

True... though the religious folks are certainly losing the battle at least

in terms of government, despite however many witches they get away with burning

in the midwest, etc.

So did the SC vote to overturn the sodomy laws then? I've always found it

rather baffling that the gov't in this country could get away with outlawing

sexual acts between private consenting adults.

> And how does this relate to food, you may

> ask? Well probably in that people who decide

> to drink raw milk and not go to Mc's

> are deciding not to support the " Status Quo "

> and defying the current " food culture " , so

> you have the same liberal vs. conservative

> factors at play (whether a person considers

> themself liberal or conservative in a political

> sense is beside the point -- if you " do NT " at

> this point in time, you are a " food liberal " , I

> think, making your own food decisions ...).

There's some truth in that. There's a wide variety of political thought on

this list, but if I've noticed any common thread it's that hardly *anyone* has

" normal " political views!

Chris

[Guest guest]

>You're kidding. I didn't know they decided not to strike them down. And the

>quote from Romans actually figured into their decision??? I find it baffling

>that the same SC that did not allow the ten commandments monument would base

>other decisions on Christian Scripture.

>

>Chris

They actually voted, and there was only one dissenting vote,

Scalia, who didn't quote Romans but basically deplored

the morality of society etc. No, I agree the Supremes would

not quote Scripture ... but a lot of incensed people and

radio guests did. No one espoused your view (that the

ine letters are, in some circles, suspect).

And yeah, the OTHER side raised the same arguments

you did -- what about people who disobey their parents?

And should we stone women who commit adultery?

Outlaw meat cooked in milk? (I wonder if coconut milk

counts?). Basically what is interesting to me is that we

are facing the same questions in this country that the

Middle East is: secular vs. religious society, and if

religious, exactly HOW religious? And which brand

of religious?

Now the Spartans were rather extreme in this ...

they would not go into battle if the entrails

fortold disaster nor would they postpone

religious days for *anything*. Athens was rather

the opposite ... free and easy (for that time period).

So Sparta and Athens had the same Right/Left

Conservative/Liberal Religious/Science schism

that is affecting the rest of the world right now,

which makes it really interesting.

And how does this relate to food, you may

ask? Well probably in that people who decide

to drink raw milk and not go to Mc's

are deciding not to support the " Status Quo "

and defying the current " food culture " , so

you have the same liberal vs. conservative

factors at play (whether a person considers

themself liberal or conservative in a political

sense is beside the point -- if you " do NT " at

this point in time, you are a " food liberal " , I

think, making your own food decisions ...).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

,

As you already pointed out, these terms as used " in common American parlance "

are totally emasculated and for the sake of discussion among folks who know

better I don't see the point in using them. You are certainly liberal in

economic issues, and seem to be liberal in general, though hardly " leftist, "

which

you might cringe at. It would be particularly a good idea to dump the terms

as used commonly because they've been redefined to equate with

liberal=democrat/left and conservative=republican/right, despite the fact that

both parties

contain a wide variety of liberal and conservative philosophies mish mashed

together.

Also, conservatives are NOT people who support " traditional " values, but

indeed ARE people who support the status quo, as defined by political theorists.

In a time where values have changed and new ones have replaced old ones,

someone who supports " traditional " values is a " reactionary " , someone who

supports

the status quo is " conservative, " and someone who supports continued progress

in the same direction is " liberal " or perhaps more appropriately " progressive "

(since the values could be shifting in a non-liberal direction).

These words and definitions are of course biased. If you look at a political

theory or history or whatever textbook and see a chart of the political

spectrum, it is obvious that the Left had a hand in writing it, since liberal

views

are equated with progress; however, it's probably the best definitions that

can be devloped, aside from adding the second axis like the libertarians do,

and is relatively unbiased, with tyrannical forms of thought occupying each

extreme.

And the self-styled conservatives them selves do NOT support " traditional "

moral values either, but rather support the recently overturned status quo.

Traditional American morals, for example have NOT been against premarital sex,

like todays moral conservatives, but in fact have clearly accepted premarital

sex as totally and completely normal, and in the early 19th century, men and

women were basically expected to sleep together before they got married to test

each other out. The difference with then and now is that they had a sense of

social responsibility, and couples who got pregnant were expected to get

married. In 1776, something like 50 or 75% of American brides were pregnant on

their wedding day, as evidenced by the records of women who had babies less than

9

months after their wedding. I wish I could remember the number for sure, but

I know it was above 50%. Traditional American values have NOT been against

abortion, but it was common and completely accepted in the 19th century to use

herbs to " cleanse obstruction of menses " -- it was never really talked about as

killing babies, but there's little doubt they knew what they were doing.

Since Republicans and Democrats seem to share a penchant for destroying civil

liberties, I would guess that we would find Libertarians to be most on our

side in terms of liberalizing raw milk laws etc, and the Greens might follow

closely behind because of their support for family farms. If you recall, it was

REAGAN who made the executive order banning raw milk transport across state

lines.

To continue briefly in the line of Repbulican/Democrat (which I would prefer

to dissociate from " liberal/conservative " ), WAPF's political agenda gets more

support from Democrats than Republicans, and it is primarily Republicans who

are obstacles to its acceptance, with exceptions.

I would say we are " liberal " in the sense that we are for liberalization of

pasteurization laws, etc, we are for decentralization of economy and

agriculture (getting big government *and* big business out of our food), and we

are

" conservative " in the sense that we are trying to preserve traditions that have

dominated human societies for most of their development.

But I think what Heidi was getting at was that we " think outside the box "

which I think is fair to call a liberal phenomenon (again, dispensing with the

modern emasculated definitions)

Chris

In a message dated 9/2/03 2:07:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bberg@...

writes:

> First, a clarifying note: " Liberal " and " conservative " have been

> terribly abused and had their meanings distorted beyond recognition to

> serve various political agendae. I'm attempting to use the meanings

> which they have in common American parlance.

>

> I would argue that we're " food conservatives, " given the strong emphasis

> on traditional foods and the opposition to leftist foods like the hippy

> bean and all its unholy byproducts. Also, vegetarianism is a fairly new

> (nontraditional) phenomenon, adopted primarily by those on the political

> left. Similarly, the drive for stronger governmental regulation of

> foods, particularly those high in saturated fat, has come from the left.

> As far as most people are concerned, it's an issue that was closed

> decades ago, but I suspect that, despite the semantic irony, we would

> find more support for liberalizing pasteurization laws on the right than

> on the left, unless we framed it in anti-corporate, pro-environment

> terms.

>

> Note that a " conservative " is not necessarily one who supports the

> status quo. Rather, it's one who embraces traditional values, even if

> they've already been abandoned by the left and center.

>

>

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> And how does this relate to food, you may

> ask? Well probably in that people who decide

> to drink raw milk and not go to Mc's

> are deciding not to support the " Status Quo "

> and defying the current " food culture " , so

> you have the same liberal vs. conservative

> factors at play (whether a person considers

> themself liberal or conservative in a political

> sense is beside the point -- if you " do NT " at

> this point in time, you are a " food liberal " , I

> think, making your own food decisions ...).

First, a clarifying note: " Liberal " and " conservative " have been

terribly abused and had their meanings distorted beyond recognition to

serve various political agendae. I'm attempting to use the meanings

which they have in common American parlance.

I would argue that we're " food conservatives, " given the strong emphasis

on traditional foods and the opposition to leftist foods like the hippy

bean and all its unholy byproducts. Also, vegetarianism is a fairly new

(nontraditional) phenomenon, adopted primarily by those on the political

left. Similarly, the drive for stronger governmental regulation of

foods, particularly those high in saturated fat, has come from the left.

As far as most people are concerned, it's an issue that was closed

decades ago, but I suspect that, despite the semantic irony, we would

find more support for liberalizing pasteurization laws on the right than

on the left, unless we framed it in anti-corporate, pro-environment

terms.

Note that a " conservative " is not necessarily one who supports the

status quo. Rather, it's one who embraces traditional values, even if

they've already been abandoned by the left and center.

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:41:17 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> >Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are

children,

> >there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance

> >and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for

> >other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence

> >or devotion to offspring.

>

> Here here! Marriage was traditionally a tribal or church thing, I'm not sure

> when the government got involved (probably when the king became

> head of the church? THAT wasn't a great idea either!).

>

Sounds like you are referring to the King of England. Unfortunately the

state got involved long long before then. But it wasn't always that way.

The Christian Church - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - for the sake

of peace, has generally gone along with the state regulations regarding

marriage.

I think its a bad idea personally, as my instinct would be to tell the

state that this is none of their business, for the same reasons they

wouldn't allow the state to dictate how they ought to worship.

Especially within Orthodox circles, where weddings are routinely a part

of the Sunday worship service.

But on the other hand, Orthodox do not look at marriage as a contract,

but rather as a covenant of which they are only recognizing, not

creating.

And even in the Catholic Church, the sacrament is *not* confected by the

Priest, but rather by the couple.

So while keeping up appearances, they in practice ignore the state. It

is very obvious when it comes to divorce. A civil dissolution, in and of

itself, carries no weight in many ecclesiastical circles, and as such

does not guarantee the right to remarriage *within* the Church.

On the other hand, the Church does recognize " civil " unions, because in

their eyes, it really wasn't " civil " in the first place, since God

stands as a witness, inside or outside the Church, and marriage, like

private property, predates the state.

> But we DO need another declaration to make the legalities easier.

> Roommates (non-sexual roommates) have a real problem ... one of

> them goes to the hospital, and the other can't carry on their

> finances without a lot of legal paperwork. There should be an easy

> legal declaration that people can make that says " We are a family

> unit " (or whatever you want to call it) -- that means " we trust each

> other to handle our finances, be our heirs, or whatever, without

> additional paperwork " . Or make the paperwork easier. I ran into

> this when I was in a roommate (not gay, for what it is worth)

> situation. I wanted to bring my best friend to family gatherings

> etc. and get her medical insurance etc. but she " didn't count "

> because she was " just a friend " so I had to go by myself while

> everyone else brought their live-ins or spouses.

Following the logic of Kinsley's article, I'm not sure a legal

declaration would be needed. If the state were no longer defining what

constitutes a legitimate union, then I think you would find some

companies who would be more than willing to offer benefits for unions

where people aren't married if they saw such as being in their best

interest. And no doubt some would.

Why I'm Not A Conservative

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:31:38 +0100 (BST)

Joanne Pollack <jopollack2001@...> wrote:

> --- ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: >

> > I don't think the " King " ever became head of the

> > " Church " and I'm sure the

> > Pope would have had a fit over that one :-)

>

> Ever heard of the Church of England? Well , the head

> of the Royal family heads that church! Right now of

> course, that's . The church of england was

> created by Henry 8th so he could divorce one of his

> wives (catherine of aragon I believe, but don't quote

> me!) Since then, the king or queen has always been

> head of that church.

>

> Jo

Tis true. But other than approving the Archbishop of Canterbury (and

that only a formality) the King/Queen has no real power these days

regarding the Anglican church.

Why I'm Not A Conservative

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html

[Guest guest]

--- slethnobotanist@... wrote: >

>> Tis true. But other than approving the Archbishop

of

> Canterbury (and

> that only a formality) the King/Queen has no real

> power these days

> regarding the Anglican church.

>

But she is still head of the church, and also head of

state, linking Gvt and church. And while she does not

have decision making power, she still plays a very

active roll as head of state. As I am not in the

slightest bit interested in religion, I do not know

the extent of her role in the church.

Jo

________________________________________________________________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://uk.messenger./

[Guest guest]

>I hope these arugments were based on caricatures of the anti-gay-bishop

>folks' arguments, as anyone who would interpret 's writing in Romans to

mean

>that these people should be put to death is simply an idiot (that is, if

they're

>a Christian and have the background/familiarity in Christian theology etc to

>interpret them). The latter two are particularly poor arguments, since both

>OT rules are explicitly overturned in the NT (not Nourishing Traditions :-) )

Some of the arguments (on both sides) seem to be caricatures of themselves,

but that's not what I was trying to bring up. I was impressed that you

didn't think it was " controversial " and actually had a reasoned point

of view.

>Basically what is interesting to me is that we

>> are facing the same questions in this country that the

>> Middle East is: secular vs. religious society, and if

>> religious, exactly HOW religious? And which brand

>> of religious?

>

>True... though the religious folks are certainly losing the battle at least

>in terms of government, despite however many witches they get away with burning

>in the midwest, etc.

>

>So did the SC vote to overturn the sodomy laws then? I've always found it

>rather baffling that the gov't in this country could get away with outlawing

>sexual acts between private consenting adults.

I never thought much about " government " before starting a family,

but now I find it totally confusing. Esp. when I try to do such outrageous

acts as " smuggling " kefir grains on a domestic flight or dealing with the

food pyramid in school classrooms.

Yeah, the SC did it. Baffled me ... but maybe I believe the hype too, that

this group is very " conservative " -- maybe they actually have thier own

ideas in their rather intelligent heads.

>There's some truth in that. There's a wide variety of political thought on

>this list, but if I've noticed any common thread it's that hardly *anyone* has

> " normal " political views!

I'm not sure what " normal " is any more. What is interesting to me is,

that of the people I talk to daily, very few fit any definition. There are

some that dutifully repeat what the head of their respective group

says, but more just kind of shake their heads.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Following the logic of Kinsley's article, I'm not sure a legal

>declaration would be needed. If the state were no longer defining what

>constitutes a legitimate union, then I think you would find some

>companies who would be more than willing to offer benefits for unions

>where people aren't married if they saw such as being in their best

>interest. And no doubt some would.

>

>

A lot of companies are now offering benefits to " live in " partners

without asking for the relationship. Boeing did not, at the time.

Personally I think people shouldn't have to go through all these

conniptions just to get health care ... my housemate owned the

house, and rented it to 3 women, and we had a good life, but

she could not get health insurance. I had " guaranteed " health

insurance for a spouse, but a " committed other " didn't count.

Now if we had universal access to health care, it wouldn't matter.

I kind of liked the lifestyle ... we paid rent, and all pitched in

on meals, and she took care of the house, kind of like being

married without the hassles.

Actually come to think of it, a lot of this issue would go

away if we get univeral health care!

I agree with you that the union of a guy and gal (or whatever)

isn't really the State's business ... but if there are kids involved,

you need some rules or standards. Ditto for property. The committment

really comes from the people involved, and I liked your bit about

" the church recognizes it " rather than the church creates it. I know

some " live in " couples with kids, and really, in every sense they

ARE connected but they don't recognize it, and they should.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> A lot of companies are now offering benefits to " live in " partners

> without asking for the relationship. Boeing did not, at the time.

> Personally I think people shouldn't have to go through all these

> conniptions just to get health care ... my housemate owned the

> house, and rented it to 3 women, and we had a good life, but

> she could not get health insurance. I had " guaranteed " health

> insurance for a spouse, but a " committed other " didn't count.

> Now if we had universal access to health care, it wouldn't matter.

A few minor corrections: You don't have to go through conniptions to get

health care--you have to go through conniptions to get somebody else to

pay for your health care, which is usually a pretty good deal. Also, we

do have universal access to health care--we just don't have universal

access to taxpayer-funded health care.

Just out of curiosity, why couldn't she get health insurance?

Pre-existing health problems?

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:43:17 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> I agree with you that the union of a guy and gal (or whatever)

> isn't really the State's business ... but if there are kids involved,

> you need some rules or standards. Ditto for property.

I agree with you 100%. One of the misnomers about a " stateless " society

or at least less of the state, is that it would be a lawless society.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The committment

> really comes from the people involved, and I liked your bit about

> " the church recognizes it " rather than the church creates it.

Thanks,

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:11:41 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> Traditional American morals, for example have NOT been against premarital sex,

> like todays moral conservatives, but in fact have clearly accepted premarital

> sex as totally and completely normal, and in the early 19th century, men and

> women were basically expected to sleep together before they got married to

test

> each other out. The difference with then and now is that they had a sense of

> social responsibility, and couples who got pregnant were expected to get

> married. In 1776, something like 50 or 75% of American brides were pregnant

on

> their wedding day, as evidenced by the records of women who had babies less

than 9

> months after their wedding. I wish I could remember the number for sure, but

> I know it was above 50%. Traditional American values have NOT been against

> abortion, but it was common and completely accepted in the 19th century to use

> herbs to " cleanse obstruction of menses " -- it was never really talked about as

> killing babies, but there's little doubt they knew what they were doing.

Are you stating these facts as a result of what you have been taught, or

is this the result of some original and primary research of your own, if

only to examine the accuracy of what you have been taught?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I once did a study on American

revivalism and discovered that babies born within 9 months of marriage

increased, which seemed strange to me given the Great Awakenings in this

country supposedly increased religious fidelity regarding things like

sex, marriage, etc. But it sure sounds like you have been reading a lot

of the same history textbooks/reading lists I had in college, and they

definitely had their problems when put under close scrutiny.

Of course only weirdos like me did an " Uffe " or " Lott " while a college

student. Most other students had better things to do with their lives :-)