Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5761
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>redefining the word.
>
>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
It doesn't.
Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/
Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.
Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."
In my opinion, of course.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>redefining the word.
>
>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
It doesn't.
Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/
Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.
Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."
In my opinion, of course.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5762
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
To the same degree that that's true, nor did liberals pass pedophilia
laws. Nor will they (the supposed owners of all human rights issues)
actively participate in freeing women from the oppression they live
under in Islamic countries.
> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
Because that government is of, for, and by the people? Like I say, why
aren't you re-defining "murder" as "whitewashing a fence"? Words have
meaning (unless you're a liberal).
> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to pay
> for any expense of raising the child.
Well, maybe just one, but only if she consents to sterilization - she
doesn't have to consent, but in that case then neither do I then have to
pay for her idiocy. It is her freedom to do so, but it is not her right
to make me pay for it.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5763
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
To the same degree that that's true, nor did liberals pass pedophilia
laws. Nor will they (the supposed owners of all human rights issues)
actively participate in freeing women from the oppression they live
under in Islamic countries.
> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
Because that government is of, for, and by the people? Like I say, why
aren't you re-defining "murder" as "whitewashing a fence"? Words have
meaning (unless you're a liberal).
> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to pay
> for any expense of raising the child.
Well, maybe just one, but only if she consents to sterilization - she
doesn't have to consent, but in that case then neither do I then have to
pay for her idiocy. It is her freedom to do so, but it is not her right
to make me pay for it.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5764
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
To the same degree that that's true, nor did liberals pass pedophilia
laws. Nor will they (the supposed owners of all human rights issues)
actively participate in freeing women from the oppression they live
under in Islamic countries.
> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
Because that government is of, for, and by the people? Like I say, why
aren't you re-defining "murder" as "whitewashing a fence"? Words have
meaning (unless you're a liberal).
> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to pay
> for any expense of raising the child.
Well, maybe just one, but only if she consents to sterilization - she
doesn't have to consent, but in that case then neither do I then have to
pay for her idiocy. It is her freedom to do so, but it is not her right
to make me pay for it.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5765
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:01:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>>that make it a dog?
>
>Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
>have a tail.
A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.
A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
>>in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
>>a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
>the laws fall apart?
It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
>the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
>issues at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>>that make it a dog?
>
>Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
>have a tail.
A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.
A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
>>in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
>>a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
>the laws fall apart?
It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
>the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
>issues at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5766
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:01:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>>that make it a dog?
>
>Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
>have a tail.
A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.
A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
>>in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
>>a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
>the laws fall apart?
It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
>the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
>issues at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>>that make it a dog?
>
>Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
>have a tail.
A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.
A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
>>in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
>>a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
>the laws fall apart?
It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
>the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
>issues at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5767
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:01:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>>that make it a dog?
>
>Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
>have a tail.
A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.
A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
>>in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
>>a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
>the laws fall apart?
It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
>the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
>issues at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>>that make it a dog?
>
>Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
>have a tail.
A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.
A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
>>in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
>>a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
>>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
>the laws fall apart?
It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
>the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
>issues at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5768
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
> >>
> >> Totally false.
> >
> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
>
> If you're rich.
Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
Canada's healthcare system sucks.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5769
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
> >>
> >> Totally false.
> >
> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
>
> If you're rich.
Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
Canada's healthcare system sucks.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5770
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
> >>
> >> Totally false.
> >
> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
>
> If you're rich.
Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
Canada's healthcare system sucks.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----