Dutch Law Allows Same-Sex Marriages

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010331/wl/netherlands_gay_marriage_7.html

Saturday March 31 9:32 PM ET

Dutch Law Allows Same-Sex Marriages

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - Four gay couples exchanged rings and vows at City Hall early Sunday, the first of hundreds planning to wed under a new Dutch law allowing same-sex marriages.

The ceremony capped a 15-year campaign to award gay couples equal rights under civil law. It began at midnight, when legislation approved last year took effect.

Standing around a conference table, three male couples and one female couple held hands as Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen officiated.

``And now we have the marriage of two men and two women,'' Cohen said after each agreed to accept his or her partner as a spouse.

A packed meeting hall burst into applause, but the newlyweds stood awkwardly until Cohen told them they could congratulate each other. Then they kissed and embraced.

Cohen gave each partner a ring, then asked them to sign a marriage registry. The two women both wore gowns with long trains. Most of the men were in conservative dark suits, although one couple was outfitted in leather.

``In the Netherlands, we have gained the insight that an institution as important as marriage should be open to everyone,'' he said.

Though several other countries register same-sex couples and some call them marriages, rights groups have hailed the Dutch legislation as groundbreaking. It eliminates all references to gender in laws governing matrimony and adoption, going so far as to amend the dictionary to eliminate references to ``man and woman'' in the definition of marriage.

``We are so ordinary, if you saw us on the street you'd just walk right past us,'' said Anne-Marie Thus, in an interview before she married her partner, Helene Faasen. ``The only thing that's going to take some getting used to is calling her 'my spouse.'''

The two women - who like most of the couples have been together several years - have a 9-month-old son Thus bore after artificial insemination.

A handful of demonstrators protested outside City Hall, calling the unions ``unnatural.'' ``We hope these people will chose to return to the Lord,'' said Cor de Vries, 30.

Gays have enjoyed general acceptance in the Netherlands for years, and public surveys show that more than 75 percent of the population supported the equal rights bill.

In Amsterdam, gay pride is celebrated annually with a carnival and parade, and the city hosted a sporting event for homosexuals called the Gay Games.

The weddings consolidate the Netherlands' position at the forefront of social liberalization. Last year it legalized brothels and decriminalized euthanasia, and marijuana and hashish are sold at regulated establishments.

Although widely tolerated, gays won their first legal rights with the decline of religious political parties and the formation in 1994 of the first wholly secular governing coalition, which passed legislation allowing gays to register as partners.

Dutch religious parties remain opposed, and the Vatican (news - web sites) has called the Dutch move a ``great danger.''

Before the ceremony, Cohen told reporters he believed the Dutch law would be a stimulus for other countries to reassess their views on gay marriages.

Like heterosexual married couples, gay couples under the new laws are able to apply for court approval to adopt children after living together for three years. The law also eliminates legal ambiguities on inheritance, pension rights, taxes and divorce.

Foreigners hoping to get married in the Netherlands will be disappointed. Only Dutch nationals or resident foreigners living with a Dutch partner are eligible for same-sex marriages.

Gay couples also will be barred from adopting children overseas because of potential objections from countries that don't allow gays to marry.

-- (Ch@nging.times), April 01, 2001

Answers

“In Amsterdam, gay pride is celebrated annually with a carnival and parade, and the city hosted a sporting event for homosexuals called the Gay Games.”

In last year's exciting finale, the Packers came from behind to stick it to the Browns.

-- So (cr@t.es), April 01, 2001.


Once again the Dutch prove to be the model of tolerance in a world of intolerance. Makes me mighty, mighty proud of my Dutch heritage.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 01, 2001.

Holland needs its dykes.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), April 01, 2001.

Mr. Deedah sir, would these be the same ‘tolerant’ Dutch that controlled South Africa for all of those decades?

-- So (cr@t.es), April 01, 2001.

So-crates,

No, but they are the same Dutch who imported all of our slaves for us, lol. Point taken.

However my point is valid too. Soft drugs are tolerated in Holland, and Dutch youths use drugs at a far lower rate than US youths. Prostitution is legal, and the AIDS rate among Dutch hookers is very low compared to streetwalkers here. The Dutch tend to take the sensible approach to consensual "crimes" and it seems to work well for them. I predict that the same sex marriage laws will prove to be beneficial too.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 01, 2001.



Men who giggle nervously about gays and make jokes like "The packers came from behind to stick it to the Browns" are generally uncertain about their sexuality. Secure men don't have to make jokes about other men's genitals.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 01, 2001.

Ah my dear Ms. Alice, at my age I can assure you that my personal sexuality is very certain. I don’t giggle nervously about anything but I do enjoy a healthy sense of humor. You appear to be overly uptight over a small joke so I’ll stack that up as your own personal problem. Perhaps your wonder bra is cinched up a little too far.

-- So (cr@t.es), April 01, 2001.

It's clear that you aren't so certain about your sexuality, whatever your age is. Even someone as enamored with gay people as Tarzan wouldn't have made a joke like that. At any rate, it's never too late to come out of the closet and admit you have more in commone with Socrates than just your name. Good luck and keep reaching for that rainbow!

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 01, 2001.

“Even someone as enamored with gay people as Tarzan wouldn't have made a joke like that.”

HUH?????

We can only imagine how confused poor Jay Leno must be.

-- So (cr@t.es), April 01, 2001.


I take exception at being described as "enamored" of the gay community. I think gay men and women are capable of being just as good or just as bad as anyone else and I think they should be treated equally. How this makes me enamored, I'll never know.

I also take exception at your assertation that all men who are uncomfortable when anyone mentions gay politics or whatever are themselves uncomfortable with their sexuality. Certainly they are uncomfortable with the sexuality of others, but attempting to humiliate them does nothing but reinforce this discomfort.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 01, 2001.



Here in Cleveland every year the Gay Pride Parade is on. It is a fundraiser for Aids awareness.

You dont have to agree with the lifestyle, but you can still accept gay people as human beings.

Bashing doesnt help. Interesting letter in Dear Abby today regarding the subject of a gay male who's parents have now disowned him at age 35. SAD.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 01, 2001.


Alice you're always around to point a finger and judge everyone. How helpful of you.

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 01, 2001.

Gee Cin, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 01, 2001.

only in YOUR warped mind, tarzan

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 01, 2001.

Anyone who agrees with you that women who die of illegal abortions deserve what they get is judgemental and sick.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Tarzan,

Anyone who finds pleasure in escorting unborn children to their deaths has the worst sort of judgement and is truly sick.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Just like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, you shed copious tears for potential human beings, yet shrug off the death of actual human beings, including children, as "collateral damage". I consider your derision to be the highest praise.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.

Tarzan,

LOL.

Dodge and duck. Duck and dodge.

What's the matter, Tarzan? Are you ashamed to admit to the forum about the pleasure you get from escorting unborn babies to their deaths?

Are you ashamed to admit it to yourself?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

I wouldn't describe it as "pleasure", Dennis. It's not pleasureable to get screamed at, shoved, spit on and threatened. It's not pleasureable to have your tires slashed or red paint thrown on you. But it is satisfying to know that I have done my part to help several women exercise their right to choose. And I do admit that I feel flattered when women thank me for protecting them from pious hypocrites like you and Cin who think they deserve to die for exercising that choice.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.

Tarzan,

My mistake. It's not "pleasure" that your sick mind derives from escorting unborn babies to their grisly deaths, it's "satisfaction".

Satisfaction or pleasure, it is revolting nonetheless.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

I also get a great deal of personal satisfaction knowing that someone like you, who considers McVeigh a patriot, finds me revolting. As I said earlier, I consider your derision to be the highest praise.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.

Tarzan,

LOL.

Faced with the ugly truth that you get "satisfaction" from escorting unborn babies to slaughter, the best that you can do is to try and change the subject at hand.

Dodge and duck. Duck and dodge.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Duck and dodge? You're kidding right? Here I stand, proudly telling you why I volunteer as a clinic escort, and you say I'm ducking and dodging? Do you really think anyone is that stupid?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.

No Sympathy for the Children

Your HERO, J/Dennis.

-- (don't@look.now), April 02, 2001.


Tarzan,

The question, of course, is whether or not you believe that anyone is stupid enough not to see that you are trying to deflect everything away from yourself by trying to change the topic to Timothy McVeigh.

I know that you gave us that, "But it is satisfying to know that I have done my part to help several women exercise their right to choose" claptrap. What I want to know is how your sick mind really feels knowing that you are helping unborn babies be slaughtered. Does it excite you? Is it the closest that you can come to killing unborn babies yourself? What is it about the killing of unborn babies that satisfies you so much, Tarzan?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Hey anonymous coward. The topic of this thread is Tarzan's support for the murder of innocent babies not my support of the execution of jack-booted thugs.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Now I just wonder who that could be, posting as me?

LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

The question, of course, is whether or not you believe that anyone is stupid enough not to see that you are trying to deflect everything away from yourself by trying to change the topic to Timothy McVeigh.

Actually, I'm not trying to deflect anything away or change the topic to Timothy McVeigh, though I would like to know at exactly what point someone goes from being a baby to collateral damage. The fact of the matter is, you can scream and cry about my escorting babies to their slaughter all you want. It won't change the fact that I see it as defending innocent women against bullies and terrorist wanna-bes who would force them into motherhood against their will. And when it comes to protecting women against bullies, I feel pretty damn good.

What I want to know is how your sick mind really feels knowing that you are helping unborn babies be slaughtered. Does it excite you? Is it the closest that you can come to killing unborn babies yourself? What is it about the killing of unborn babies that satisfies you so much, Tarzan?

Oh Dennis. Looks like your reading comprehension skills went right out the window when that throbbing vein in your head burst. In deference to your disability, here it is again:

The fact of the matter is, you can scream and cry about my escorting babies to their slaughter all you want. It won't change the fact that I see it as defending innocent women against bullies and terrorist wanna-bes who would force them into motherhood against their will. And when it comes to protecting women against bullies, I feel pretty damn good.

You know what, Dennis? I did clinic escort work last weekend. I walked ten women into a clinic in metro Atlanta on Saturday. Of those women, four were at the clinic for a check-up but they needed to be escorted past the bullies and crazies anyway. One woman said to me, "All I'm here for is a pap smear and I have to be afraid for my safety," Another woman was there with her husband, and walked in three months pregnant and left three months pregnant. They called her a murdering whore too.

So how do I feel protecting women from bullies and terrorist wanna- bes? I feel terrific. I will do it again next weekend, and the weekend after, and every single weekend after that until a woman can exercise control over her body without fear of reprisal. I will not be intimidated into forgetting these women. And you know what, Dennis? If you turn me into "collateral damage", one more person will pop up in my place. Your whining and your crying, your threats and your lies will not turn the clock back thirty years.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Well, the vocabulary is certainly convincing, and the opportunity for Dennis to claim I'm spoofing him is too tempting. My vote goes for you spoofing yourself.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.

Tarzan,

Bravo. Bravo!

Did you get that speech out of the back of a Planned Parenthood pamphlet? Depending on whether or not you actually believe what you have just posted, you either deserve an academy award, or the psychiatric ward.

It really doesn't matter how you rationalize it. It is what it is: the killing of the unborn. The killing of the innocent.

Oh, and by the way, since I know that you have had trouble understanding the term, collateral damage, in the past [For the record, "collateral damage" is a military term used exclusively for buildings, public works, etc. In other words, items that will cost money (collateral) to repair.], I will help you out with the meaning, again. If you wound up dead because of your clinic escorting, you wouldn't be collateral damage, you would be the intended target.

But your big brain already knew that, right? LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

I walked ten women into a clinic in metro Atlanta on Saturday. Of those women, four were at the clinic for a check-up but they needed to be escorted past the bullies and crazies anyway. One woman said to me, "All I'm here for is a pap smear and I have to be afraid for my safety," Another woman was there with her husband, and walked in three months pregnant and left three months pregnant. They called her a murdering whore too.

Tarzan's point (apparently) "I only helped kill FIVE babies this weekend, not 10, so I'm a good guy"

German soldier's point "Hey we could have killed 12 million Jews, but we only killed 6 million, we were Good Guys"

P.S. Godwin's law my butt. I prefer Bard's law: A rose by any other name shall smell as sweet.

-- I don't know (WhyI@bother.commie), April 02, 2001.


Oh Dennis, you make me blush.

Call it what you will. Those of us who are committed to protecting the rights of women aren't the least concerned with the opinions of you or your ilk.

BTW- I really liked the way you had to lie about correcting me on the use of the term "collateral damage", even using the definition I used to show you how the children of OKC weren't collateral damage. It's a sad argument that has to hide behind lies.

But you knew that already, didn't you Dennis?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Those of us who are committed to protecting the rights of women aren't the least concerned with the opinions of you or your ilk.

Yep, also can be read as

Those of us who are committed to protecting The Third Reich aren't the least concerned with the opinions of you or your ilk.

-- a (tarzan@keeper.compost), April 02, 2001.


Tarzan,

LOL!

You think that you are soooooo smart, but you really are just an ignorant cluck.

That definition was, indeed, your definition. I used it to point out your ignorance and your arrogance. In other words, I was making fun of you.

The hilarious thing is that you are too ignorant and too arrogant to even understand. LOL!

If you haven't figured it out yet, your definition is wrong. The term collateral damage is defined as: "unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities".

But your big brain already knew that, right? LOL!

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Who do "transgenders" marry?---transgenders of the opposite gender or gay people of the same gender?

I am thinking of starting a dating service.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 02, 2001.


Oh Dennis. Poor, obsessed Dennis. You got caught in a gross lie, then you started spinning sock puppets out of thin air. That didn't work, so once again, you attempt to play the semantics game and pretend that you were making a joke. A joke so sophisticated, apparently, that even YOU didn't know you were making it!

Here's a clue, Dennis: when you take someone else's words and claim them as your own, you are lying. When you claim to have said things you did not (as you did when you claimed to have corrected me on the use of the term collateral damage) you are lying. Lies do nothing for your position. In fact, lies hurt your position. You would be much better off by admitting that you fucked up and attempted to steal my words than by pretending you were making a joke.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Lars-

I guess they chuck the whole thing and marry whoever they please, regardless of plumbing.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Tarzan,

As I said earlier, you are both arrogant and ignorant. Both of these traits are amply displayed in your most recent assinine postings. I pointed out, by using your own definition, no less, that you didn't understand the term before, and you obviously still don't understand it now.

I am having difficulty figuring out whether you are really so arrogant as to believe that I would use your own piss-poor, incorrect definition of collateral damage as my own, or whether you fully understand that you are wrong, and you are concocting some elaborate attempt to hide this fact.

You see, contrary to what you believe, by the correct definition, the children in OKC were collateral damage; as harsh as that term is, since they were unintended targets, they were collateral damage. If someone were to put a bullet through your head as you were escorting babies to their deaths, you would not be collateral damage, you would be the intended target.

As your big brain obviously can't figure out even yet, collateral damage is all about unintended vs. intended, not, "items that will cost money (collateral) to repair". LOL.

I should not be surprised, however. Your rambling on about me "lying" is certainly consistent with someone who gets his kicks helping kill unborn babies.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

I am having difficulty figuring out whether you are really so arrogant as to believe that I would use your own piss-poor, incorrect definition of collateral damage as my own, or whether you fully understand that you are wrong, and you are concocting some elaborate attempt to hide this fact.

Translation: I hate it when people catch me lying, so I'm going to have to cover my lie with an even bigger lie. Yes, that's it, go for broke! And I'll bury my lies in a pile of ad hominems. Maybe people will focus on the insults rather than on me.

You see, contrary to what you believe, by the correct definition, the children in OKC were collateral damage; as harsh as that term is, since they were unintended targets, they were collateral damage.

Did they teach you that in the militia, Dennis?

BTW- you're wrong on another point: your patriot, McVeigh, deliberately chose the OKC Federal Building knowing full well there was a day care center there. In fact, the placement of his vehicle was almost directly in front of it. Even if he didn't see the children and cribs inside, he couldn't possibly have missed the drawings and fingerpaintings taped to the window.

Of course, all this lying and bullshitting you're doing doesn't really cover the fact that at some point in your twisted world view people go from being babies worthy of protection to collateral damage, unfortunate bystanders who are the equivalent of public works.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Ok maybe enamored wasn't the right word to use Tarzan. I still think you have an unusual interest in gay rights even if you don't I don't think you need to be telling me how to talk to people.

Tarzan sometimes I think your a flaming asshole but then you go and say something noble like you did to J/Dennis about abortion. I am so glad that there are people like you around. If it weren't for people like you women would still be second class citizens. I hope that if I ever need to have an abortion I will have some brave person like you to help me out. I hope you don't mind my saying this but I think you should stop arguing definitions with this guy. He doesn't even know the meaning of the word casualty for God's sake. This argument is going nowhere fast and is intended to take up your energy and nothing more. Besides its boring.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 02, 2001.


Tarzan,

LOL.

You are one deceitful son of a gun.

Since you say that I am lying, and that I was trying to steal your definition (LOL), rather than using it to make you look like an idiot, why don't you answer a couple of questions to strengthen your position?

First, if I were using your definition (LOL), why, right after having bracketed your words to seperate them from mine, would I then say this: "If you wound up dead because of your clinic escorting, you wouldn't be collateral damage, you would be the intended target".

Your definition of collateral damage only pertains to inanimate objects like buildings and roads, does it not? If I were so enamored with your definition, then why would I say that "you would be the intended target"? Wouldn't I have said something along the lines of, "because you are a person, not a building"?

Secondly, I have already stated that the definition of collateral damage is: "unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities". Do you still stand by your definition of collateral damage?

Here is your chance to bury me in this argument. Surely you won't resort to dodging the questions and trying to change the topic yet again, will you?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Alice,

Ah yes, "If it weren't for people like you women would still be second class citizens".

My little NOW devotee, didn't you support William Jefferson Clinton through all of his Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, etc. episodes? If there were more people like you, women would be second class citizens again.

Oh, and since you fancy yourself so smart, please enlighten us on the definitions of the words casualty, and collateral damage. For extra credit, see if you can figure out how they are different.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Simple. You bracketed my words in order to present them as a seperate definition rather than a direct and unattributed quoatation. Since the term "collateral damage" is a military term meaning physical damage, a murder victim can't be collateral damage. You were trying to say that I was using your faulty definition of collateral damage without irony, which is why you claimed to be correcting me when the correct definition was the only one offered.

What I can't figure out is why on earth you would claim to have the correct definition of collateral damage when you admitted you had the wrong definition the last time this came up.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Well lookie here Mr. Ape, you have found some common ground with Alice. She is willing to overlook what a ‘flaming asshole’ you are if only you will escort her to the local coat hanger shop. What a gal!

Myself, I learned long ago to refrain from debating issues relating to abortion and religion….two subjects best kept to one’s private thoughts.

BTW, how did we go from same sex marriages to abortion issues?

-- So (cr@t.es), April 02, 2001.


Socrates-

I noticed that too. This reminds me of something that happened a couple of years ago. We had a particularly vile protestor, a woman who routinely spit on and threatened patients. She must have called me a murdering bastard a thousand times. One day, while filling in for a sick friend who also volunteered as an escort at a clinic across town, I escorted this very same woman and her daughter, who was about fourteen or fifteen years old, into the clinic. The woman clearly recognized me, and looked angry and disgusted at the situation she found herself in. She didn't say a word until we got to the door, when she turned to me, gestured toward her daughter said, "She's not a slut. She was raped," Her daughter said, "Mo- THER," in that huffy way only teeny-boppers have. I just smiled and said, "It makes no difference to me,"

Politics makes strange bedfellows, but who am I to judge?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Tarzan,

Your interpretation of what I was doing is wrong. I bracketed your words to set them apart from my words. I do not embrace your definition at all, let alone enough to try and steal it. I was trying to point out that your definition is wrong, which it is.

The last time that this came up, I did not admit that I had the wrong definition. After you said, "For the record, 'collateral damage' is a military term used exclusively for buildings, public works, etc. In other words, items that will cost money (collateral) to repair".

I then said, "I thought that during Desert Storm, General Schwartzkopf referred to Iraqi civilians as 'collateral damage'. Collateral as in: accompanying or existing in a subordinate, corroborative, or indirect relationship. In other words, anything or anyone that was not the intended target. I could, however, be mistaken".

I did not admit to being wrong. In my effort to keep that thread going in the way that I wanted it to go, I gave my understanding of the definition of collateral damage, admitted that I may have been mistaken, and acknowledged that, right or wrong, its use was insensitive.

This current thread has given me a chance to prove that you are wrong about your definition of collateral damage. Your belief that I was trying to somehow steal your incorrect definition as my own has slowed my progress considerably, but nonetheless, I will prevail.

Now, if you would kindly answer yes or no as to whether or not you still stand by your definition of collateral damage. The same definition that you used when you said, "For the record, 'collateral damage' is a military term used exclusively for buildings, public works, etc. In other words, items that will cost money (collateral) to repair".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Dennis-

You haven't proven a thing. All you've done is supplied an alternate explanation for how you ended up stealing my words without attribution. Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that just a few short weeks ago, you were uncertain as to the meaning of the term "collateral damage".

Of course, even if your new and improved definition of the term "collateral damage" were correct, it would STILL be misapplied. Being a military term, it is not properly used to describe the children McVeigh killed since A) the OKC bombing was not an act of war and B) clearly the children were part of the intended target.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Casualties are the victims of war. Collateral damage is the damage that's done to property.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 02, 2001.

Old man,

I see that the backpedaling has begun. I expected no different from you.

I haven't proven a thing, yet. Your assertion that I have stolen your words is not only unproven, but it is also laughable. As I said before, I can't tell whether it is extremely unfounded arrogance, or an elaborate ruse.

I know that it is second nature for you to dodge and to duck any direct question, but maybe for a change you could simply answer in a straightforward way. Do you still stand by your words, "For the record, 'collateral damage' is a military term used exclusively for buildings, public works, etc. In other words, items that will cost money (collateral) to repair"?

Or are you now ashamed of this "definition", and will no longer claim it as your own?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Alice,

Nice try, but you are wrong. Stay tuned for the correct answer.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 02, 2001.

Yes, yes Dennis. Backpedaling. As long as you accuse someone of backpedaling, you don't have to make any arguments at all. The term "backpedaling" covers a multitude of sin.

I don't have to answer any of your questions because you're backpedaling!

Ohhhh... that's a good point. What do I do now? I know! I'll call backpedaling and it will all go away. BACKPEDALING! BACKPEDALING!

You keep asking me if my definition of collateral damage has changed. No, it hasn't. But even if your definition of the term turns out to be correct, you still have the fact that it isn't correctly applied in this case. As I mentioned above, collateral damage is a military term, and is not properly used to describe the children McVeigh killed since A) the OKC bombing was not an act of war and B) clearly the children were part of the intended target.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 02, 2001.


Dear Tarzan,

I just want to step into in this to thank you for taking the stand you are. I really appreciate the support and understanding you show to women.

Anti abortion fanatics seem to have a fixation on violence against the living at the altar of the nonliving or unborn. It doesn't seem to matter to the fanatic which sex they attack as long as they can be as violent and extreme as possible. Sometimes they go so far as to actually murder living people, in the name of the unborn or potential living being. This senseless verbal and physical violence is what chiefly distinguishes the anti abortion fanatic.

I have a theory about those who enjoy engaging in violence against people who support a woman¡¯s right to choose. I believe these anti abortion fanatics were treated poorly by their own mothers or fathers -- in effect, rejected as children. Such fanatics would never admit that their own parents treated them poorly, but in fact they feel psychically ¡°aborted,¡± and thus they subconsciously identify with the fetus as the rejected (and actually born) child they once were.

In any case, I just wanted to let you know that as a woman, I really appreciate how you are stepping up to the plate to defend the rights of women, who are, after all, human beings. As human beings we are entitled to live our lives as we see morally fit and not be subjected to the radical religious or fundamental fanaticism of people who would condemn and injure those who are already born, those who are living. Such injury and violence against those who are already born and living on this earth is an affront to human decency itself.

Thanks for being noble and standing up for what is right, Tarzan. It really encourages me to remember that men like you care about this issue too.

-- Another Grateful Woman (who@applauds.tarzan), April 02, 2001.


Old man,

What's the matter, Tarzan old boy? You get the sensation that you are about to be proven wrong, and you start sputtering like a doddering old fool. Before I even have the proof in the thread, you are already working on your contingency plan, trying to make me look wrong to cover up the glaringly obvious case of you being wrong. Italics, bold type, all capital letters, and even exclamation points won't help old boy.

I will even address your weak attempt at trying to paint me as the one in the wrong, which, by the way, is a very juvenile maneuver. When one reaches your stage in life, one should just take their lumps like a man instead of trying to point fingers at others.

Your point A) fails in two regards. 1)In McVeigh's mind, OKC was an act of war, and more importantly, 2)while the term, collateral damage started out as a military term, it has become part of the non military vernacular.Link#1

Your point B) fails because, while you hold dearly to your opinion being correct, the fact of the matter is that McVeigh himself has described the children as not being the intended victims, and thus, "collateral damage". Your opinion is, of course, worthless when compared to the actual words of the perpetrator of this act. Surely even you are not so deluded as to think that you know McVeighs thoughts better than he himself does. Or are you?

Now, on to the actual definition of the term collateral damage , as opposed to some words that you just happened to pull out of your rear because your arrogance continually misleads you into believing that you are smarter than you really are. The definition that I gave earlier for collateral damage can be found here:Link#2 in the USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide.

The next time that you are going to spout off to try and impress us all with your big brain, maybe you would do better to keep your mouth shut.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 03, 2001.

What's the matter, Tarzan old boy? You get the sensation that you are about to be proven wrong, and you start sputtering like a doddering old fool.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I think you've got a lot invested in being right when it comes to the semantics because your argument is otherwise lacking. I have no problem being proven wrong on this point, but I think you've completely shot yourself in the foot on this one, Dennis. Here's how:

Your point A) fails in two regards. 1)In McVeigh's mind, OKC was an act of war, and more importantly, 2)while the term, collateral damage started out as a military term, it has become part of the non military vernacular.

The definition you provided from the Air Force states: Broadly defined, collateral damage is unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities.

First of all, contrary to your patriot's opinion of himself, McVeigh does not constitute a military force. Secondly, since he knew the day care center was in the building and targeted the building anyway, the building itself, from the IRS offices to the physical plant to the day care center do not constitue unintentional damage.

On another note, I think it's strange that this entire time, both you, myself, and your hero McVeigh have been discussing the military use of the term "collateral damage", yet now you try to shore up your argument with the vernacular use of the term.

Your point B) fails because, while you hold dearly to your opinion being correct, the fact of the matter is that McVeigh himself has described the children as not being the intended victims, and thus, "collateral damage".

Actually, McVeigh also told his psychiatrist that he knew about the day care center and chose the target anyway because of the ease with which the blast site could be photographed. Moreover, he placed the van directly in front of the day care center, which is why it was utterly destroyed when offices on the other side of the building were comparitively undamaged. If NATO forces chose a target containing civilians and deliberately aimed for the part of that target containing the highest number of civilians, you would not accept this as unintentional or incidental damage. Yet you're eager to let McVeigh off on this count. Curious. Your opinion is, of course, worthless when compared to the actual words of the perpetrator of this act. Surely even you are not so deluded as to think that you know McVeighs thoughts better than he himself does. Or are you?

Actually, we're both discussing the reported words of McVeigh, as told to his biographer and his psychiatrist.

Now, on to the actual definition of the term collateral damage , as opposed to some words that you just happened to pull out of your rear because your arrogance continually misleads you into believing that you are smarter than you really are.

Congratulations Dennis! You finally proved me wrong on a count. I'll bet it feels really good, doesn't it, as often as you've had your face rubbed in the dirt. Good for you!

However, you still have the problem that McVeigh is not a military force, his bombing is an act of terrorism rather than war, and it was a deliberate act with the knowledge and intent of blowing up the day care center as part of the Federal building in OKC. I just hate to ruin your day like this, so tell you what, I'll give you an out. All you have to do is claim that you, and your hero, McVeigh, were using the vernacular definition rather than the military one.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.


Wow! Thanks for the compliment, Another. It's gratifying to feel appreciated.

In my experience, anti-choicers generally fall into two groups. The first group generally pray quietly and walk with their signs. We call them "prayers". They will often offer to adopt the patient's child or help her with expenses. They seem to be genuinely saddened and distressed by abortion but they generally remain polite and non- confrontational. They tend to be very religious (many are Catholic and will pray the rosary together when there aren't any patients around). Many of them have adopted children. They often try to engage the patient in conversation. If a patient wishes to talk with them and is not being harassed by anyone else, I'll wait for her to either change her mind or go into the clinic.

The second group are what would commonly be termed fanatics. We call them "the yellers". They are the ones who will jump onto a patient's car before we can secure it, pounding at the windows and screaming about murder. They are the ones who taunt the patients and threaten the providers, employees, and volunteers. They seem to have given up on talking people out of having an abortion and instead have turned to fear and intimidation. They seem to have a pathological need to be right. Very often, when there are no patients, they will pick fights with the more peaceful protestors or argue among themselves. When they're around, the prayers aren't very successful at engaging the patients in conversation. It's hard to have a frank discussion when someone is calling you a murderous whore.

This isn't scientific of course. Sometimes, you get a few people who've been prayers in the past who get caught up in the excitement when a group of yellers come on the scene, and even the most vehement yeller can be calm and reasonable when there aren't a lot of other yellers around.

I've been a clinic escort for a number of years, and in that time, I've had three women who were dissuaded from having an abortion on the day of their appointment, though one came back a few weeks later. All of these women responded to promises of financial help from the prayers. I've never seen anyone respond to the yellers, in fact, it only seems to strengthen their resolve.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.


For those who think it's justifiable for those who have abortions to be treated such as Tarzan describes......what about those who are there with no intention of getting an abortion? Would you agree that it's ok for such a woman to be escorted into a clinic for an appointment that has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion? What if it were your wife, daughter, mother, sister? I wouldn't mind an escort shielding my loved ones from such abuse. I don't see where the escort or the woman would deserve to get screamed at, shoved, spit on, or threatened. If the escort is willing to take such abuse in the woman's stead, what's wrong with that?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), April 03, 2001.

You know, there are other places to receive prenatal care. Would you really like the person that is checking on your baby's growth to have just come from killing a baby in the next room?

-- If they are in the baby killing business... (why@go.there), April 03, 2001.

Most abortion providers provide a full range of OB/GYN services. For an OB/GYN to only do abortion would be the equivalent of an Ear Nose and Throat guy only treating strep throat.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ