<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pittsburgh Domestic Registry a Good Idea</title>
	<atom:link href="http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922</link>
	<description>A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tom Smith</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922#comment-78623</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/?p=2922#comment-78623</guid>
		<description>"You also make the tacit arguments that 'Gay == Hitler;' which does not thrill me."

?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[&#034;You also make the tacit arguments that &#039;Gay == Hitler;&#039; which does not thrill me.&#034;<br />
<br />
?]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gbm3</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922#comment-77000</link>
		<dc:creator>gbm3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/?p=2922#comment-77000</guid>
		<description>John, I'm also confused about your comment since I didn't really say anything in this post: I quoted a First Things daily "on the square" thing above. What are you talking about (what quote of mine)? I'm also concerned (or something) since you used a Hitler analogy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[John, I&#039;m also confused about your comment since I didn&#039;t really say anything in this post: I quoted a First Things daily &#034;on the square&#034; thing above. What are you talking about (what quote of mine)? I&#039;m also concerned (or something) since you used a Hitler analogy.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gbm3</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922#comment-76528</link>
		<dc:creator>gbm3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/?p=2922#comment-76528</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Also, gbm3, you are utterly incoherent. You say that the only way to prevent the government from having the authority to control our lives as it sees fit is to ensure that it controls our lives in the manner that you see fit.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Before I respond, could you elaborate on this comment. To what (quotes of mine) are you specifically referring?

&lt;blockquote&gt;You also make the tacit arguments that "Gay == Hitler;" which does not thrill me.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Where do you see this argument?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>Also, gbm3, you are utterly incoherent. You say that the only way to prevent the government from having the authority to control our lives as it sees fit is to ensure that it controls our lives in the manner that you see fit.</blockquote><br />
Before I respond, could you elaborate on this comment. To what (quotes of mine) are you specifically referring?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>You also make the tacit arguments that &#034;Gay == Hitler;&#034; which does not thrill me.</blockquote><br />
Where do you see this argument?]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922#comment-76477</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:47:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/?p=2922#comment-76477</guid>
		<description>This would seem to be a contraction of government powers. You are stripping it of the ability to regulate marriages and instead giving it a different watered down version of that authority. 

Also, gbm3, you are utterly incoherent. You say that the only way to prevent the government from having the authority to control our lives as it sees fit is to ensure that it controls our lives in the manner that you see fit.

You also make the tacit arguments that "Gay == Hitler;" which does not thrill me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[This would seem to be a contraction of government powers. You are stripping it of the ability to regulate marriages and instead giving it a different watered down version of that authority. <br />
<br />
Also, gbm3, you are utterly incoherent. You say that the only way to prevent the government from having the authority to control our lives as it sees fit is to ensure that it controls our lives in the manner that you see fit.<br />
<br />
You also make the tacit arguments that &#034;Gay == Hitler;&#034; which does not thrill me.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gbm3</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922#comment-76184</link>
		<dc:creator>gbm3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/?p=2922#comment-76184</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;In fact, I'd hesitate to call it an expansion at all because it relates to contract law, whcih [sic] should be the primary concern of the State.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Yes, but what contracts should be made? I'm working on a post that gets into this. Many of the ideas I'll probably talk about are from here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1088 .
&lt;blockquote&gt;In other words, in the old system, the state presumed the existence of a substantive, natural reality that required legal adumbration: the union of a man and a woman, and the children resulting from their sexual relations. Now the Canadian government sees that it must intervene and redefine marriage and parenthood in order to give fixed legal standing to otherwise fluid and uncertain social relations. When the gay friend donates his sperm to the surrogate mother hired by a lesbian couple, the resulting “family” is a purely legal construct, one that requires the power of state to enforce contracts and attach children to adoptive parents.
The result is the opposite of the libertarian dream of freedom. As Farrow observes, with gay marriage we are giving over the family to the state to define according to the needs of the moment. The upshot, he worries, will be a dangerous increase in the power of the state to define our lives in other realms once thought sacrosanct. “Remove religiously motivated restrictions on marriage,” he writes, “and it is much easier to remove religiously motivated restrictions on human behavior in general, and on the state’s power to order human society as it sees fit.” The libertarian dream turns into the totalitarian nightmare. Who can or cannot be a spouse? That’s for the state to decide. To whom do children belong? It’s up to the state to assign parents as its social workers and judges think best.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>In fact, I&#039;d hesitate to call it an expansion at all because it relates to contract law, whcih [sic] should be the primary concern of the State.</blockquote><br />
Yes, but what contracts should be made? I&#039;m working on a post that gets into this. Many of the ideas I&#039;ll probably talk about are from here: <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1088" rel="nofollow">http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1088</a> .<br />
<blockquote>In other words, in the old system, the state presumed the existence of a substantive, natural reality that required legal adumbration: the union of a man and a woman, and the children resulting from their sexual relations. Now the Canadian government sees that it must intervene and redefine marriage and parenthood in order to give fixed legal standing to otherwise fluid and uncertain social relations. When the gay friend donates his sperm to the surrogate mother hired by a lesbian couple, the resulting “family” is a purely legal construct, one that requires the power of state to enforce contracts and attach children to adoptive parents.<br />
The result is the opposite of the libertarian dream of freedom. As Farrow observes, with gay marriage we are giving over the family to the state to define according to the needs of the moment. The upshot, he worries, will be a dangerous increase in the power of the state to define our lives in other realms once thought sacrosanct. “Remove religiously motivated restrictions on marriage,” he writes, “and it is much easier to remove religiously motivated restrictions on human behavior in general, and on the state’s power to order human society as it sees fit.” The libertarian dream turns into the totalitarian nightmare. Who can or cannot be a spouse? That’s for the state to decide. To whom do children belong? It’s up to the state to assign parents as its social workers and judges think best.</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Funky Dung</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922#comment-75599</link>
		<dc:creator>Funky Dung</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/?p=2922#comment-75599</guid>
		<description>It seems pretty mild as government expansions go. In fact, I'd hesitate to call it an expansion at all because it relates to contract law, whcih should be the primary concern of the State.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[It seems pretty mild as government expansions go. In fact, I&#039;d hesitate to call it an expansion at all because it relates to contract law, whcih should be the primary concern of the State.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Rauterkus</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2922#comment-75598</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Rauterkus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:07:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/?p=2922#comment-75598</guid>
		<description>Right! 

Also, what about a mom and a child, just as two who are siblings. Seen it. Happens. But, I guess they have 'rights' anyway. "next of kin"

But generally, in the Bruce Kraus world, questions that begin with "why" and "how" are wasted breath. He is generally clueless as to the logic and deep-thought elements that drive principles. 

His best course of action is to say as little as possible. If he only did more an talked less, he might save face. 

I have other reservations too. Frankly, I don't like the expansion of government.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Right! <br />
<br />
Also, what about a mom and a child, just as two who are siblings. Seen it. Happens. But, I guess they have &#039;rights&#039; anyway. &#034;next of kin&#034;<br />
<br />
But generally, in the Bruce Kraus world, questions that begin with &#034;why&#034; and &#034;how&#034; are wasted breath. He is generally clueless as to the logic and deep-thought elements that drive principles. <br />
<br />
His best course of action is to say as little as possible. If he only did more an talked less, he might save face. <br />
<br />
I have other reservations too. Frankly, I don&#039;t like the expansion of government.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
