Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6341
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041659590.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
children)
> > serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
providing
> > a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> > society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> > couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
serves
> > no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
marriage
> > for childless couples.
>
> Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
> heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
>
Hmm. Can't decide. Such a tough choice.
> > I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> > can't have without marriage.
>
> Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
> filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
>
Most of those benefits can be had without marriage. Some are boondoggles
since they were designed for traditional family situations where there was a
single breadwinner and there was a recognition of the need to protect the
family AS DEPENDENTS if the breadwinner died. It's less like that these
days with dual incomes, but the benefits remain because no one dares remove
them.
> > To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
>
> Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
> "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
>
Of that, I have no doubt.
> > When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
>
> Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
> have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
> without any assistance from gays.
>
Agreed.
> > This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
> That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
>
Defend that position instead of punting.
> DS
>
#6342
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041659590.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
children)
> > serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
providing
> > a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> > society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> > couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
serves
> > no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
marriage
> > for childless couples.
>
> Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
> heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
>
Hmm. Can't decide. Such a tough choice.
> > I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> > can't have without marriage.
>
> Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
> filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
>
Most of those benefits can be had without marriage. Some are boondoggles
since they were designed for traditional family situations where there was a
single breadwinner and there was a recognition of the need to protect the
family AS DEPENDENTS if the breadwinner died. It's less like that these
days with dual incomes, but the benefits remain because no one dares remove
them.
> > To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
>
> Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
> "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
>
Of that, I have no doubt.
> > When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
>
> Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
> have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
> without any assistance from gays.
>
Agreed.
> > This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
> That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
>
Defend that position instead of punting.
> DS
>
#6343
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041659590.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
children)
> > serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
providing
> > a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> > society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> > couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
serves
> > no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
marriage
> > for childless couples.
>
> Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
> heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
>
Hmm. Can't decide. Such a tough choice.
> > I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> > can't have without marriage.
>
> Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
> filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
>
Most of those benefits can be had without marriage. Some are boondoggles
since they were designed for traditional family situations where there was a
single breadwinner and there was a recognition of the need to protect the
family AS DEPENDENTS if the breadwinner died. It's less like that these
days with dual incomes, but the benefits remain because no one dares remove
them.
> > To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
>
> Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
> "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
>
Of that, I have no doubt.
> > When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
>
> Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
> have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
> without any assistance from gays.
>
Agreed.
> > This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
> That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
>
Defend that position instead of punting.
> DS
>
#6344
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > The issue is not discrimination.
>
> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>
There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
be protected, people insured, etc. The point of these benefits in marriage
is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
> > Though it's useful for those who support
> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
rights
> > for blacks.
>
> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
> King agree with the analogy.
>
I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
Would he?
> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> > your way.
>
It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>
> DS
>
#6345
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > The issue is not discrimination.
>
> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>
There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
be protected, people insured, etc. The point of these benefits in marriage
is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
> > Though it's useful for those who support
> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
rights
> > for blacks.
>
> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
> King agree with the analogy.
>
I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
Would he?
> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> > your way.
>
It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>
> DS
>
#6346
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > The issue is not discrimination.
>
> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>
There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
be protected, people insured, etc. The point of these benefits in marriage
is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
> > Though it's useful for those who support
> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
rights
> > for blacks.
>
> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
> King agree with the analogy.
>
I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
Would he?
> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> > your way.
>
It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>
> DS
>
#6347
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:c7kvsv8rbeg2juog2uscv3rmadnf0r71uf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:06:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >> The issue is not discrimination.
> >
> >That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is
systematically
> >denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious
discrimination.
>
> Damn right!
> I want the right to use womens' restrooms!
How about public nudity! Why are we forced to clothe? Uh, maybe that
wouldn't be such a good idea. There's a lot of ugly people out there,
Parker excluded of course.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#6348
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:c7kvsv8rbeg2juog2uscv3rmadnf0r71uf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:06:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >> The issue is not discrimination.
> >
> >That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is
systematically
> >denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious
discrimination.
>
> Damn right!
> I want the right to use womens' restrooms!
How about public nudity! Why are we forced to clothe? Uh, maybe that
wouldn't be such a good idea. There's a lot of ugly people out there,
Parker excluded of course.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#6349
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:c7kvsv8rbeg2juog2uscv3rmadnf0r71uf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:06:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >> The issue is not discrimination.
> >
> >That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is
systematically
> >denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious
discrimination.
>
> Damn right!
> I want the right to use womens' restrooms!
How about public nudity! Why are we forced to clothe? Uh, maybe that
wouldn't be such a good idea. There's a lot of ugly people out there,
Parker excluded of course.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#6350
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
I'd be happy to take your ng off my posts unless someone in your ng is a
contributor and objects. BTW, those abuse addresses won't deal with OT
threads. Maybe spam, threats, etc.
You're still better off filtering the subject line of threads you don't want
to see rather than hoping everyone takes your group off.
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07...
> Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
> http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
> day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way
OT
> thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It
is
> time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
> Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people
who
> keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
> according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich
abuse@rogers
> (you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
> fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
> having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I
have
> no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
> argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
> from but I appreciate your interest and support.
> Nick
>
>
>
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:4sadnUhpIuanKVKiRTvUrg@texas.net...
> > Nick N wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > > news:tdudnVlyI7iWC1KiRTvUqA@texas.net...
> > >
> > >>C. E. White wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Del Rawlins wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> > >>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone
> equally.
> > >
> > >
> > > or just keep crossposting.
> > > Please everyone. Stop.
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
> > posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to"
> line.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
contributor and objects. BTW, those abuse addresses won't deal with OT
threads. Maybe spam, threats, etc.
You're still better off filtering the subject line of threads you don't want
to see rather than hoping everyone takes your group off.
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07...
> Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
> http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
> day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way
OT
> thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It
is
> time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
> Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people
who
> keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
> according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich
abuse@rogers
> (you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
> fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
> having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I
have
> no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
> argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
> from but I appreciate your interest and support.
> Nick
>
>
>
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:4sadnUhpIuanKVKiRTvUrg@texas.net...
> > Nick N wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > > news:tdudnVlyI7iWC1KiRTvUqA@texas.net...
> > >
> > >>C. E. White wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Del Rawlins wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> > >>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone
> equally.
> > >
> > >
> > > or just keep crossposting.
> > > Please everyone. Stop.
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
> > posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to"
> line.
> >
> >
> >
>
>