Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6891
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice.
>
> Oh, indubitably. For all recorded history, some people have been
> *choosing* to get ostracized (at best) and violently killed (at worst) by
> their families and society at large. Fer sher, fer sher.
>
> > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
>
> ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
with.
Look - obviously we'll never agree. We both choose what we want to
believe, and we live with the consequences of our choices. When it
comes down to it, you'll vote for and support people and causes that you
believe in, same for me, and on each one, one of us will probably not be
very happy with the outcome and claim that the other's beliefs and
actions are adversely affecting the other's life, nation, rights,
children, grandchildren, etc. In the whole scheme of things, this is
all very temporary. I believe in long term. Again: choices and
consequences. Let's talk again in a few thousand years.
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! =-----
#6892
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > neither do I accept that homosexuality is more than a choice.
>
> Oh, indubitably. For all recorded history, some people have been
> *choosing* to get ostracized (at best) and violently killed (at worst) by
> their families and society at large. Fer sher, fer sher.
>
> > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
>
> ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
with.
Look - obviously we'll never agree. We both choose what we want to
believe, and we live with the consequences of our choices. When it
comes down to it, you'll vote for and support people and causes that you
believe in, same for me, and on each one, one of us will probably not be
very happy with the outcome and claim that the other's beliefs and
actions are adversely affecting the other's life, nation, rights,
children, grandchildren, etc. In the whole scheme of things, this is
all very temporary. I believe in long term. Again: choices and
consequences. Let's talk again in a few thousand years.
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! =-----
#6893
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>
> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> gays from marrying?
Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>
> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> gays from marrying?
Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
#6894
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>
> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> gays from marrying?
Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>
> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> gays from marrying?
Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
#6895
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>
> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> gays from marrying?
Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>
> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> gays from marrying?
Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
#6896
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> 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?
In what jurisdiction? Do you acknowledge that Jeff can marry his brother Jerry?
#6897
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> 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?
In what jurisdiction? Do you acknowledge that Jeff can marry his brother Jerry?
#6898
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> 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?
In what jurisdiction? Do you acknowledge that Jeff can marry his brother Jerry?
#6899
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
Asked and answered.
DS
> If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
Asked and answered.
DS
#6900
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
Asked and answered.
DS
> If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
Asked and answered.
DS