Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6831
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > is too.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > remember?
>
>
> So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> against those others.
Are you sure?
DS
> > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > is too.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > remember?
>
>
> So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> against those others.
Are you sure?
DS
#6832
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > is too.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > remember?
>
>
> So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> against those others.
Are you sure?
DS
> > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > is too.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > remember?
>
>
> So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> against those others.
Are you sure?
DS
#6833
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > the Religious Reich types.
>
> Very Lloyd-like.
*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
> > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
> Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> activities.
People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.
Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
--- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
"activity"...are you?
DS
> > the Religious Reich types.
>
> Very Lloyd-like.
*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
> > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
> Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> activities.
People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.
Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
--- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
"activity"...are you?
DS
#6834
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > the Religious Reich types.
>
> Very Lloyd-like.
*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
> > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
> Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> activities.
People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.
Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
--- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
"activity"...are you?
DS
> > the Religious Reich types.
>
> Very Lloyd-like.
*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
> > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
> Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> activities.
People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.
Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
--- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
"activity"...are you?
DS
#6835
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > the Religious Reich types.
>
> Very Lloyd-like.
*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
> > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
> Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> activities.
People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.
Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
--- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
"activity"...are you?
DS
> > the Religious Reich types.
>
> Very Lloyd-like.
*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.
> > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
> Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> activities.
People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.
Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
--- is an expression of love while all homosexual --- is simply an
"activity"...are you?
DS
#6836
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> ridiculous according to
....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.
DS
> But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> ridiculous according to
....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.
DS
#6837
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> ridiculous according to
....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.
DS
> But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> ridiculous according to
....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.
DS
#6838
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> ridiculous according to
....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.
DS
> But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> ridiculous according to
....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.
DS
#6839
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry
>> their dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples
> They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
If you want to start regulating marriage based on the specific sexual acts
engaged in, you have a *large* job ahead of you, and your work will by no
means be confined to homosexuals.
DS
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry
>> their dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples
> They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
If you want to start regulating marriage based on the specific sexual acts
engaged in, you have a *large* job ahead of you, and your work will by no
means be confined to homosexuals.
DS
#6840
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry
>> their dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples
> They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
If you want to start regulating marriage based on the specific sexual acts
engaged in, you have a *large* job ahead of you, and your work will by no
means be confined to homosexuals.
DS
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry
>> their dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples
> They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
If you want to start regulating marriage based on the specific sexual acts
engaged in, you have a *large* job ahead of you, and your work will by no
means be confined to homosexuals.
DS