Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6991
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:05:50 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>"Larry St. Regis" wrote:
>
>>
>> Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>> allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>> "progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>> eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>>
>> The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>> get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>> before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>> partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>> married". Hmmph.
>
>So much for equal treatment!
So now instead of being "registered partners" they'll get married.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
>"Larry St. Regis" wrote:
>
>>
>> Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>> allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>> "progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>> eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>>
>> The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>> get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>> before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>> partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>> married". Hmmph.
>
>So much for equal treatment!
So now instead of being "registered partners" they'll get married.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6992
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>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?
Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
a sibling marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>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?
Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
a sibling marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6993
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>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?
Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
a sibling marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>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?
Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
a sibling marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6994
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>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?
Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
a sibling marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>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?
Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
a sibling marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6995
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>> >
>> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>>
>> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
>Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
>baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
>"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
>bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
>hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
>So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
>lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
>The other person could not be another lesbian.
So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
Therefore the couple can have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>> >
>> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>>
>> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
>Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
>baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
>"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
>bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
>hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
>So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
>lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
>The other person could not be another lesbian.
So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
Therefore the couple can have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6996
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>> >
>> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>>
>> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
>Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
>baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
>"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
>bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
>hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
>So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
>lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
>The other person could not be another lesbian.
So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
Therefore the couple can have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>> >
>> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>>
>> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
>Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
>baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
>"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
>bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
>hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
>So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
>lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
>The other person could not be another lesbian.
So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
Therefore the couple can have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6997
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:18:53 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>> >
>> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>>
>> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
>Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
>baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
>"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
>bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
>hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
>So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
>lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
>The other person could not be another lesbian.
So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
Therefore the couple can have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"C. E. White" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
>> >
>> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>>
>> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
>Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
>baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
>"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
>bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
>hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
>So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
>lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
>The other person could not be another lesbian.
So you're playing a semantics game. It is possible for a lesbian
couple to have a child while married without any adultery involved.
Therefore the couple can have children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#6998
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
x-no-archive: yes
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
children are impossible?
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
children are impossible?
#6999
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
x-no-archive: yes
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
children are impossible?
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
children are impossible?
#7000
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
x-no-archive: yes
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
children are impossible?
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
children are impossible?