Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
AHoudini wrote:
> Right wing faith based beliefs are being spead around the internet by rats
> that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
> where politics isn't the topic.
That's pretty far out there. Nobody was discussing Rush Limbaugh. Naturally
though you like to be able to say who should not be allowed to post on politics,
in the next sentence after you do so yourself.
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> >>>>
> >>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
> not
> >>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
> >>>
> >>>Depends on how you look at it.
> >>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
> >>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
> >>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
> >>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
> >>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
> >>>ignore what they believe in.
> >>
> >>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
> seem
> >>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
> get
> >>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
> >
> >You're completely missing what I'm saying.
> >Probably on purpose.
> >
> >Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
> >religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
> >further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
> >lives.
> >I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
> >But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
> >*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
> >Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
> >Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
> >>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
> >>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
> >>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
> >>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
> >>>experience?
> >>>
> >>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
> >>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
> >>>recognized.
> >>>
> >
> >--
> >Bill Funk
> >replace "g" with "a"
#7112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Right wing faith based beliefs are being spead around the internet by rats
that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
where politics isn't the topic.
Bill Funk wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>>
>>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
not
>>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>>
>>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>>ignore what they believe in.
>>
>>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
seem
>>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
get
>>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>You're completely missing what I'm saying.
>Probably on purpose.
>
>Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
>religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
>further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
>lives.
>I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
>But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
>*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
>Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
>Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>>
>>>
>>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>>experience?
>>>
>>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>>recognized.
>>>
>
>--
>Bill Funk
>replace "g" with "a"
that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
where politics isn't the topic.
Bill Funk wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>>
>>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
not
>>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>>
>>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>>ignore what they believe in.
>>
>>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
seem
>>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
get
>>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>You're completely missing what I'm saying.
>Probably on purpose.
>
>Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
>religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
>further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
>lives.
>I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
>But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
>*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
>Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
>Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>>
>>>
>>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>>experience?
>>>
>>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>>recognized.
>>>
>
>--
>Bill Funk
>replace "g" with "a"
#7113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Right wing faith based beliefs are being spead around the internet by rats
that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
where politics isn't the topic.
Bill Funk wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>>
>>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
not
>>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>>
>>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>>ignore what they believe in.
>>
>>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
seem
>>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
get
>>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>You're completely missing what I'm saying.
>Probably on purpose.
>
>Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
>religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
>further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
>lives.
>I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
>But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
>*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
>Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
>Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>>
>>>
>>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>>experience?
>>>
>>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>>recognized.
>>>
>
>--
>Bill Funk
>replace "g" with "a"
that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
where politics isn't the topic.
Bill Funk wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>>
>>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
not
>>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>>
>>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>>ignore what they believe in.
>>
>>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
seem
>>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
get
>>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>You're completely missing what I'm saying.
>Probably on purpose.
>
>Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
>religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
>further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
>lives.
>I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
>But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
>*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
>Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
>Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>>
>>>
>>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>>experience?
>>>
>>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>>recognized.
>>>
>
>--
>Bill Funk
>replace "g" with "a"
#7114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Right wing faith based beliefs are being spead around the internet by rats
that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
where politics isn't the topic.
Bill Funk wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>>
>>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
not
>>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>>
>>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>>ignore what they believe in.
>>
>>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
seem
>>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
get
>>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>You're completely missing what I'm saying.
>Probably on purpose.
>
>Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
>religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
>further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
>lives.
>I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
>But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
>*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
>Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
>Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>>
>>>
>>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>>experience?
>>>
>>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>>recognized.
>>>
>
>--
>Bill Funk
>replace "g" with "a"
that follow Rush Limbaugh. They souldn't be allowed to clutter up groups
where politics isn't the topic.
Bill Funk wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>>
>>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should
not
>>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>>
>>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>>ignore what they believe in.
>>
>>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You
seem
>>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power
get
>>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>You're completely missing what I'm saying.
>Probably on purpose.
>
>Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
>religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
>further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
>lives.
>I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
>But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
>*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
>Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
>Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>>
>>>
>>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>>experience?
>>>
>>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>>recognized.
>>>
>
>--
>Bill Funk
>replace "g" with "a"
#7115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:24:50 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>>
>> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
>> incest.
>>
>> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
>> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
>> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!
>
>Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>>
>> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
>> incest.
>>
>> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
>> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
>> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!
>
>Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#7116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:24:50 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>>
>> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
>> incest.
>>
>> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
>> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
>> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!
>
>Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>>
>> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
>> incest.
>>
>> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
>> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
>> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!
>
>Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#7117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:24:50 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>>
>> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
>> incest.
>>
>> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
>> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
>> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!
>
>Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:53:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>> >news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.terane ws.com...
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> >> gay marriage?
>> >
>> >Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
>>
>> The question was directed at Greg who brought up the red herring of
>> incest.
>>
>> As far as you're concerned I know you're worried about devaluing
>> something that has a 50% success rate these days. If I were you I'd
>> be complaining about hetero couples devaluing it!
>
>Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#7118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
>> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>>
>> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
>> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
>> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
>It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
>Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>What if they just want those
>rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
Then let them lobby for it.
>> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> gay marriage?
>
>The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>reasons already mentioned here.
None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
>> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>>
>> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
>> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
>> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
>It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
>Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>What if they just want those
>rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
Then let them lobby for it.
>> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> gay marriage?
>
>The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>reasons already mentioned here.
None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#7119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
>> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>>
>> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
>> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
>> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
>It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
>Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>What if they just want those
>rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
Then let them lobby for it.
>> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> gay marriage?
>
>The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>reasons already mentioned here.
None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
>> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>>
>> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
>> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
>> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
>It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
>Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>What if they just want those
>rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
Then let them lobby for it.
>> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> gay marriage?
>
>The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>reasons already mentioned here.
None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#7120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
>> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>>
>> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
>> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
>> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
>It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
>Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>What if they just want those
>rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
Then let them lobby for it.
>> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> gay marriage?
>
>The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>reasons already mentioned here.
None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
>> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>>
>> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
>> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
>> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
>It's far simpler to discriminate, in other words. Why can't Jeff marry his brother Jerry?
>Besides who says that the siblings would need be incestous?
That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?
>What if they just want those
>rights that the gay lobby claims are available only by marriage?
Then let them lobby for it.
>> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
>> gay marriage?
>
>The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays need to get "married"
>to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't seem to be good
>enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when convenient, among other
>reasons already mentioned here.
None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.