Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5641
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> >
> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
> >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
> >redefining the word.
>
> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering into a
commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional marriage. If
there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple feel they
are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws to
extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining an
establishment that has long been in place.
Ed
#5642
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
2> how does it detract from your marriage?
> It is not a marriage.
So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
DS
4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
2> how does it detract from your marriage?
> It is not a marriage.
So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
DS
#5643
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
2> how does it detract from your marriage?
> It is not a marriage.
So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
DS
4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
2> how does it detract from your marriage?
> It is not a marriage.
So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
DS
#5644
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
2> how does it detract from your marriage?
> It is not a marriage.
So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
DS
4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
2> how does it detract from your marriage?
> It is not a marriage.
So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
DS
#5645
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
> Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> of babies born to unwed mothers.
Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
> Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
> They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
DS
> Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
> Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> of babies born to unwed mothers.
Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
> Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
> They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
DS
#5646
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
> Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> of babies born to unwed mothers.
Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
> Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
> They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
DS
> Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
> Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> of babies born to unwed mothers.
Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
> Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
> They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
DS
#5647
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
> Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> of babies born to unwed mothers.
Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
> Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
> They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
DS
> Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
> Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> of babies born to unwed mothers.
Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
> Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
> They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
DS
#5648
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> envelope.
You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new features.
And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for those
features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
called but it is a japan only MA.
> sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> envelope.
You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new features.
And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for those
features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
called but it is a japan only MA.
#5649
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> envelope.
You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new features.
And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for those
features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
called but it is a japan only MA.
> sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> envelope.
You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new features.
And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for those
features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
called but it is a japan only MA.
#5650
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> envelope.
You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new features.
And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for those
features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
called but it is a japan only MA.
> sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> envelope.
You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new features.
And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for those
features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
called but it is a japan only MA.