Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6871
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>> >
>> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
>> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
>> >--- unions is not discrimination.
>> >
>> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
>> discrimination?
>
>Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>> >
>> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
>> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
>> >--- unions is not discrimination.
>> >
>> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
>> discrimination?
>
>Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6872
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>> the topic.
>
>But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
>ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
>marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
>doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
>as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
status as a human?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>> the topic.
>
>But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
>ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
>marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
>doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
>as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
status as a human?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6873
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>> the topic.
>
>But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
>ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
>marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
>doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
>as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
status as a human?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>> the topic.
>
>But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
>ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
>marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
>doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
>as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
status as a human?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6874
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>> the topic.
>
>But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
>ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
>marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
>doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
>as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
status as a human?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>> the topic.
>
>But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
>ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
>marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
>doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
>as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
status as a human?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6875
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
> Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
> the Religious Reich types.
>
> 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...?
Strawman. The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
defined by the activities the individual engages in.
#6876
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
> Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
> the Religious Reich types.
>
> 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...?
Strawman. The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
defined by the activities the individual engages in.
#6877
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
> Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
> the Religious Reich types.
>
> 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...?
Strawman. The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
defined by the activities the individual engages in.
#6878
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
>
> > But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog
>
> Whoops, that wasn't part of the question. We were discussing consenting
> adults.
>
> Try again?
>
> DS
My previous posts that you responded to were about those other things.
The issue I was discussing was the changing of the definiton of marriage
to satisfy everyone's desires - since you didn't indicate otherwise, I
assumed that you were continuing along those lines. You claim
discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could claim that
you would want to discriminate against them because you would exlude
non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those humans that
wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
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! =-----
#6879
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
>
> > But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog
>
> Whoops, that wasn't part of the question. We were discussing consenting
> adults.
>
> Try again?
>
> DS
My previous posts that you responded to were about those other things.
The issue I was discussing was the changing of the definiton of marriage
to satisfy everyone's desires - since you didn't indicate otherwise, I
assumed that you were continuing along those lines. You claim
discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could claim that
you would want to discriminate against them because you would exlude
non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those humans that
wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
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! =-----
#6880
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
>
> > But if you're for those other things too (i.e., I can marry my dog
>
> Whoops, that wasn't part of the question. We were discussing consenting
> adults.
>
> Try again?
>
> DS
My previous posts that you responded to were about those other things.
The issue I was discussing was the changing of the definiton of marriage
to satisfy everyone's desires - since you didn't indicate otherwise, I
assumed that you were continuing along those lines. You claim
discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could claim that
you would want to discriminate against them because you would exlude
non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those humans that
wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
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! =-----