Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7021
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
#7022
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
#7023
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
#7024
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>
#7025
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> 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" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> 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.
#7026
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> 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" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> 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.
#7027
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> 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" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranew s.com...
> 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.
#7028
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----
#7029
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----
#7030
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Why is this ---- in the car groups?
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----