You know nothing. -- <font size = "4">The Drunks Bar </font size "4">

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:56:22 07/01/03 Tue
Author: ST
Subject: You know nothing.
In reply to: NKLS Cody 's message, "News for Scott" on 11:19:58 07/01/03 Tue

Perhaps you're drafting some perfunctory article about the subject at hand as I post this brief response, but that's not exactly, as you claimed, having written how wrong sodomy laws are in the past.

Does this qualify?

Be honest, you haven't written ANY governor about gay discrimination!

I sent the following e-mail to the then-Majority Leader to the Indiana House.

You may know about the California case involving a woman named Diane Whipple who was murdered by avowed white supremacists Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller. I have been following this case as it has progressed.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/01/dog.mauling/

http://www.courttv.com/trials/dogmaul/

Her partner, Sharon Smith, tried to sue Noel and Knoller under California's Wrongful Death statute, but there was controversy over whether or not someone's homosexual partner should have the legal right to sue under the law. I looked up Indiana's Wrongful Death statute, and it appears that the ability to recover damages is limited to the following:

"The remainder of the damages, if any, shall, subject to the provisions of this article, inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow or widower, as the case may be, and to the dependent children, if any, or dependent next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as the personal property of the deceased. "

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar23/ch1.html

It appears that Indiana law would not allow Smith to sue either. Is my interpretation correct in this matter?

If this is the case, I believe that the law should be modified. When someone who is very close to someone else is killed through either malice or negligence, they suffer injury in the same way that the persons described in the Indiana Code do. While I have strong moral objections to homosexuality, I also believe justice demands that those who harm someone through the negligent or malicious killing of another must pay restitution to the living injured party, for "Loss of the adult person's love and companionship" as Indiana Code states.

Thank you for your time,
Scott Tibbs

You see, to actually be on "my side" is to oppose such discriminatory laws wherever and whenever they might be enacted. Therefore, your "gay activist" credentials are as clearly in doubt as your indication that I, somehow, discredited myself.

So, unless I agree with you on each and every aspect of homosexual rights, I cannot be on "your side"? Golly Gee Goodness Cody, you're really interested in finding common ground! LOL.

Either you back your religion and embrace sodomy laws, or you aren't being a good little X-tian boy!

I hardly think (small "L") libertarianism conflicts with Christianity. Plenty of Christian conservatives oppose the Texas law.

This is fairly obvious: You are trying to make someone believe that you have found the correct balance in dealing with the homosexual community as a Christian that pretends not to impose their values upon others, however, that tactic isn't working to well when one is informed of your past behavior on this and so many other boards.

In other words, you have a grudge against me, and therefore even when we are in agreement you will still flame me. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, Cody, I knew you would attack me for this, which is part of the reason I posted this to begin with. I'm letting you discredit yourself as a petty, vindictive troll. You have never been interested in finding common ground, only in partisanship and your petty grudges.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Correct! I know nothing b/c I know you -- NKLS Cody, 19:58:27 07/01/03 Tue
- You still know nothing. -- ST, 20:16:46 07/01/03 Tue