Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 6:49 AM
43 online now:
(43 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 316 of 519 (472794)
06-24-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by NOT JULIUS
06-24-2008 4:49 PM


Re: Civil Marriage is About Property
But, americans are also subject to natural laws, eh? The point is: human laws are invalid if they go against natural law.

What you got here is called a silly idea — If man were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Men have no regard for imaginary laws of nature. Gravity, thermodynamics, something else that doesn't come to mind right now… fine. Laws of Nature restricting us to act as expected by people who imagine that they know what's good for us … nope. Enjoy your laws of nature but I'm flying.

I respectfully disagree. I think there were cases of marriage annullments (divorce) that were granted because the female vagina is too small or that it caused discomforts to the couples.

My wife divorced me because I'm a big, fat, booger eating slob. So I'm going to declare marriage to be about nose gold. Dude, the varied reasons that people dissolve the marriage contract is not the reason for the contract.

That thing about the too small vagina… who are you kidding, Mr. Studly?

Edited by lyx2no, : Typos


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by NOT JULIUS, posted 06-24-2008 4:49 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by NOT JULIUS, posted 06-26-2008 3:01 PM lyx2no has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 317 of 519 (472795)
06-24-2008 6:18 PM


marriage
Marriage preceded the state. The state chose to recognize marriage as a legal contract for a variety of reasons, few or none of which are applicable in a wider sense to homosexual unions. Moreover, marriage is defined as a heterosexual union.

Some of the reasons the State's interest is or was in recognizing marriage are:

children and heirs
protection of women/Moms
property rights and dispensation

Another valid reason for the State to recognize marriage is that marriage is the initial contract which serves as the primary basis for the formation of the family. Not saying there are not families without marriage, but marriage has been the standard and has helped to establish certain principles for the formation of the family such as the ones mentioned above.

It's important to realize that marriage and the family precedes the State. A big problem in this debate is that marriage is being redefined in order to view it as an individual right rather than a familial contract which the State honors. Marriage is not a right for individuals but something the State recognizes as the basis for the formation of families, child-rearing, etc,.....The idea that homosexuals deserve this "right", imo, stems partly from their desires to have their unions legally and socially sanctioned.

That may be an emotional need but it misses the point on what marriage is and what the State's interest is. The State should not be in the business of making an ethical decision contrary to the majority's wishes to promote homosexuality as normative. The State had valid reasons for recognizing marriage and may have valid reasons for recognizing homosexual civil unions since some injustices such as a partner not being able to make health decisions or visiting rights in hospitals, etc,....

But there is no compelling reason for the State to accept homosexual unions as marriage and give them equal status under the law. There are several reasons for this:

1. Despite many children in homosexual union households, it's not like homosexual sex naturally produces children which need legal status conferred by marriage. With DNA, the fear of bastard children (not meant in a derogatory sense but literal sense) without soceity being able to know the identity of the father is lessened, but it's still a real point.

2. The State's interest is in promoting marriage between a man and a woman for children. That's one reason the State recognizes marriage. It is true that some homosexual unions are probably better than heterosexual marriages for some children. People are different and there are always exceptions to the rule. But the idea is that women have babies. Haven't figured out to get around that, and it's better for children to have Dad around. Sorry if this sounds hateful to lesbian couples or whomever, and I am quite sure many do a bang-up job as parents, but the State cannot afford to micromanage families and we have a long history of promoting Mom and Dad, not 2 Daddys or 2 Mommies, and the arguments we should change this standard don't measure up. The interest of the family and the children, statistically overall or just what we think intuitively and has worked, trumps the emotional needs of homosexuals to feel accepted and beloved by soceity.

Could say more but the above 2 points are probably sufficient.


Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by lyx2no, posted 06-24-2008 7:21 PM randman has responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 318 of 519 (472805)
06-24-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by randman
06-24-2008 6:18 PM


Re: marriage
Children and heirs… in regard to property.
Protection of women/Moms… in regard to property.
Property rights and dispensation… in regard to property.

Hey, I'm detecting a pattern here.

Another valid reason for the State to recognize marriage is that marriage is the initial contract which serves as the primary basis for the formation of the family. Not saying there are not families without marriage, but marriage has been the standard and has helped to establish certain principles for the formation of the family such as the ones mentioned above.

Let me see … in what regard does civil marriage concern itself with the family? Humm… Oh yeah! Property.

How many kids does the government suggest we have? They don't suggest anything.

How many times a day does the government suggest we kiss our spouses every day? They don't suggest anything.

How many vacations does the government suggest we should take the kiddiwinks on over the years? They don't suggest anything.

If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property.

… the ones mentioned above.

Oh, you mean, like, property?

Marriage preceded the state.

Yeah, that's why it's one of them there fundamental rights that must be afforded every citizen equally per the fourteenth Amendment.

Marriage is not a right for individuals but something the State recognizes as the basis for the formation of families, child-rearing, etc,.....The idea that homosexuals deserve this "right", imo, stems partly [wholey] from their desires to have their unions legally and socially sanctioned.

Two parts… two comments: Are you just making stuff up now? & You don't say?

Moreover, marriage is defined as a heterosexual union.

Nope, 'fraid not. The government eliminated gender differentiation in civil marriage. There are no gender specific duties to define the parties. That's probably because government's soul, compelling interest to interfere in civil marriage is property resolution upon contract dissolution.

But there is no compelling reason for the State to accept homosexual unions as marriage and give them equal status under the law.

The U.S. Constitution isn't compelling?

Could say more but the above 2 points are probably sufficient.

Sufficient for what: To make it apparent that you've payed no heed to any of the preceding six hundred posts? You've not added one new bit or argued any old bit.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by randman, posted 06-24-2008 6:18 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by randman, posted 06-24-2008 8:45 PM lyx2no has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 319 of 519 (472817)
06-24-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by lyx2no
06-24-2008 7:21 PM


Re: marriage
If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property.

It's more than property unless you think forcing the parents and specifically the Dad to support his child is mere property. Of course, the proper of role of government is to enforce rules on property, but the idea here is not so much property but the welfare of the child and mother.

The government eliminated gender differentiation in civil marriage.

Which government? Maybe in California but not in most of the country.

The U.S. Constitution isn't compelling?

The US Constitution says absolutely nothing on gay marriage and does not grant any marital rights to homosexual unions. To pretend otherwise is, imo, either ignorant or disingenious. Marriage was solely heterosexual and so the right to marry, which everyone is still entitled to, is entirely the right to heterosexual unions and nothing else from a Constitutional perspective.

But regardless, from a Constitutional perspective, it's the states that govern this, not the feds. The reason some have called for Congress to act is that we are going to and now have a situation where some marriages are accepted in some states and not others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by lyx2no, posted 06-24-2008 7:21 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by lyx2no, posted 06-24-2008 10:02 PM randman has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 320 of 519 (472822)
06-24-2008 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by randman
06-24-2008 8:45 PM


It's Still Property
It's more than property unless you think forcing the parents and specifically the Dad to support his child is mere property.

When the government forces a parent to support the child, what form does it take: Physical elevation, moral support, or, oh yeah! property? The quality of welfare enforced by the government is base on what: Self-esteem, joy, oh yeah! property?

If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property?

Which government? Maybe in California but not in most of the country.

Fine, then show me a law that has a gender roll differential within marriage. Something along the lines of, "The dude snatches up a moose and the chippie deep fries it."

The US Constitution says absolutely nothing on gay marriage and does not grant any marital rights to homosexual unions. To pretend otherwise is, imo, either ignorant or disingenious.

Excuse me, Rrhain, is that second hand smoke you've been blowing out of your… Damn, randman, read the thread.

quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Damn, randman, read the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment affords equal protection of the law to all citizens. The argument that the Constitution doesn't mention Gay marriage is a classic red herring. It also doesn't mention straight marriage.

How many times are y'all going to repeat this argument when it's obviously flawed? Oh yeah! You wouldn't know how many times because you haven't read the thread.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by randman, posted 06-24-2008 8:45 PM randman has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 519 (472942)
06-26-2008 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AndyGodLove
06-11-2008 11:16 AM


Sodom, Gomorra and now California
AndyGodLove writes:

I think gay marriage is a farce, it is disgusting, it is everything that is the beginning of the end of the human race.

This is a test from God, and look what happened - we got AIDS.

......And look what happened to California the weekend of the notorious gay marriage honeymoons.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Forgot to check spelling.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AndyGodLove, posted 06-11-2008 11:16 AM AndyGodLove has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2008 5:43 AM Buzsaw has responded

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 322 of 519 (472945)
06-26-2008 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 11:17 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:
What is separate about the law if it gets out of the marriage business?

But you don't really want that. Oh, you say you do, but talk is cheap. You never seem to make this argument except when the question of equal marriage comes up. You don't talk about your own relationships as "civil unions." Instead, you're whole hog into the civil contract of "marriage."

So as soon as you start believing your own hype, then we'll start believing you.

quote:
There is nothing separate at all if both gays and striaghts are allowed to have the civil unions they desire.

But that isn't your argument (there's that not believing your own hype thing, again.) You want "marriage" for straights and "civil unions" for gays. That violates the Constitution or have you forgotten the lessons from Plessy v. Ferguson? There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By making a distinction, you necessarily declare that there is a difference between the two and if there is a difference, then they can legally be treated differently.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 11:17 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 323 of 519 (472946)
06-26-2008 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 11:25 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:
Please stop it!

Awww....sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat...you didn't think you were gonna bed me, did you? No, I'm the one with the car battery to cure you of your heterosexuality. I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask anymore.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 11:25 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 324 of 519 (472947)
06-26-2008 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 12:17 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
But why does it need to be a "marriage"?

Because that's what the current contract is. Since "separate but equal" doesn't exist and is unconstitutional, the only solution is to have "marriage."

See, this is why I keep on saying that you don't believe your own argument. This isn't about granting equal rights. This is about creating a separate, and thus necessarily unequal, contract.

Not one state that has a "civil union" has it be the equal to marriage.

Not one.

Why does it have to be "marriage"? Because no other contract is the same. If you truly believe in equality, if you truly believed your own hype, then you wouldn't hesitate to call it "marriage" because that's what the contract is actually called.

Since you don't, it's clear you're simply blowing smoke.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 12:17 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 325 of 519 (472948)
06-26-2008 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 12:57 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
Not yet. Not until it is so well understood that it can be "corrected" if one should make that choice. I'm afraid I still suspect that if Chuck and Larry should raise little Bobbie into manhood, then little Bobbie would be more likely to turn out gay. And I have to ask if this is a good thing for little Bobbie. I don't believe there are enough scientific data on this matter to know what really happens to little Bobbie.

I'm very sorry about your penis, Hoot Mon, that you have to fantasize about the great conspiracy to turn the world gay. And just because you think the gay men are out for your ass doesn't mean they really are.

"Black people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Not yet. Not until it is so well understood that it can be 'corrected' if one should make that choice. I'm afraid I still suspect that if Jane and John Black should raise little Bobbie into adulthood, then little Bobbie would be more likely to turn out black. And I have to ask if that is a good thing for little Bobbie. I don't believe there are enough scientific data on this matter to know what really happens to little Bobbie."

If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

What caused yours, Hoot Mon? I'm still waiting for an answer. Did you accidentally see your father naked and you then developed a neurotic hatred of the male body?

quote:
Interracial marriage is one thing society eventually got used to, but I'm not yet ready to invite Chuck and Larry over to dinner.

So because you can't handle it, that's a legitimate reason to deny rights?

Remember, more people were against interracial marriage at the time Loving v. Virginia was decided than are currently against same-sex marriage.

Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

And how many times do I have to directly ask you that question before you give an answer?

quote:
However, I'm not yet ready to invite Tom and his three wives over to dinner, or Clarence and his sheep over to dinner, either.

Please explain how being gay directly leads to polygamy and bestiality while being straight does not. Considering that up until just now, there was no such thing as gay marriage, how was it that polygamy and bestiality even existed in the first place? It would seem that mixed-sex marriage is the cause of polygamy and bestiality since there has only been mixed-sex marriage. All the polygamists you've ever heard of were all straight, f'rinstance.

quote:
That must make me even a bigger bigot.

Indeed. Why on earth would you bring up polygamy and bestiality in a discussion about sexual orientation? How does being gay lead to such while being straight does not?

Be specific.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 12:57 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 326 of 519 (472949)
06-26-2008 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 1:09 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
But why aren't civil unions enough for legal purposes?

Because the contract is "marriage." A "civil union" is a separate contract and as we can tell by simple inspection, there isn't a single state that offers a "civil union" that is the equal of marriage.

Not one.

Since "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, the only solution is a single contract. Since the contract that exists is "marriage," then that is the contract that everybody gets.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 1:09 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 327 of 519 (472950)
06-26-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 1:19 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
My testicles, working in consort with my hypothalamus and a few other delicate parts, caused my heterosexuality. I'm sure of it. Who are you to say they didn't?

But gay men have those things, too. They are, after all, men. Could you be more specific?

quote:
But I can't speak for gays with testicles; they seem a little queer to me.

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 1:19 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 328 of 519 (472951)
06-26-2008 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 1:53 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
But please tell why it is any less heterophobic nonsense to push "gay marriage" in our faces.

Ah, yes...the "refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry!" argument.

How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? When gay people get married, exactly what happens to straight couples who wish to get married? Only so many people can ever get married and if we let gay people get married, the straight people won't be allowed to?

Be specific. How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?

quote:
For a heterosexual person to believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman does not make him or her a homophobic bigot.

That's precisely what it makes them.

If you want it for yourself but don't want it for others, then you're a bigot.

quote:
Otherwise, all those who oppose polygamy are polyphobic bigots.

What does that have to do with anything? How does same-sex marriage lead to polygamy where mixed-sex marriage does not? All the polygamists we've ever heard of were all straight. It would seem that it is mixed-sex marriage that leads to polygamy.

quote:
And I suppose there are bestiphobic bigots and incestophibic bigots, too.

Huh? What does any of this have to do with sexual orientation? How does being gay leads to bestiality and incest while being straight does not? This country has only had mixed-sex marriage and yet there are no end of those who have sex with animals and those who have sex with their relatives. How on earth did same-sex marriage cause this when there hasn't been same-sex marriage? Are you saying that same-sex marriage is so powerful that it bend space and time and cause people from 200 years ago to do things they wouldn't normally have done?

Why is it that when you think of having sex with someone of the same sex, you immediately start having fantasies of raping your infant sons and their dogs? What is it about thinking of having sex with someone of the opposite sex that stops those fantasies?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 1:53 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 329 of 519 (472952)
06-26-2008 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 2:20 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
I don't ask for anything more than that.

But that isn't true. You keep on saying that only straights should be allowed to get "married"...gay people are only to be allowed "civil union."

The fact that you don't call your own past relationships "civil union" indicates you don't believe your own hype.

As soon as you start showing sincerity in your own argument, then we'll start believing you.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 2:20 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 330 of 519 (472953)
06-26-2008 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Fosdick
06-23-2008 2:35 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
They already have the same rights I have.

Gays don't have the right to get married.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay.
Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.
Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.

And it's telling regarding the custody of children, given that you think gays are somehow a harm to children.

quote:
The law doesn't say that a gay men can't marry any woman of his choice, just like any straight man.

The law doesn't say that a black person can't marry any person of the same race of his choice, just like any white person.

If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:
The law says that any man can marry any woman of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the gay man in that regard.

The law says that any person can marry anybody of the same race of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the black race in that regard.

If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:
But, of course, the gay man says he ought to be able to "marry" any man of his choice. I disagree.

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

You want to deny others what you want for yourself. That's the definition of bigotry.

quote:
That assertion drops in the bin with all the other strange "marriages" people want to have with multiple wives, beasts, siblings, and ghosts.

Huh? What does sexual orientation have to do with this? Why is it when you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately have fantasies of raping your sisters, their dogs, and their ghosts? How does being straight stop these things especially since most people who do that are straight? Is same-sex marriage so powerful that it can bend space and time and make people from 200 years ago do things they wouldn't normally do?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 2:35 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019