"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>
> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> relationship.

I have no problem with two people who love each other affirming their
relationship. I also have no problem with laws being changed to accord
these people the same rights and benefits that are accorded to people
married under the traditional definition. I just don't agree that it is
correct to call this a marriage - at least in the traditional sense.
English words frequently have multiple meaning and certainly the word
marriage in the general sense can be used to describe a union between
all sorts of things (as in "He was married to his life style.").
However, when we are discussing the legal definition of a marriage, I
don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended it
to cover same --- unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.

> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
how can I trust the laws the words describe?


> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?" I just wants legal
terms to have a consistent understandable meaning. I don't like the idea
of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting the meaning of words.

> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>
> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> union between members of the same race."

I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.

> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>
> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on. Traditional
man/woman marriage could be a sub-set. I suppose you could pass laws
explicitly redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to
include same --- union, but this seems needlessly provocative. Of course
maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change the legal
definition of marriage to include same --- unions.

I really don't know what else I can say on the subject. I just prefer
that words have a consistent legal interpretation. I have no desire to
discriminate again people of the same --- who love each other, I just
don't agree that we can just decide to redefine the legal meaning of
marriage to include same --- unions because it is the expedient way to
implement a desirable policy change.

Ed

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>
> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> relationship.

I have no problem with two people who love each other affirming their
relationship. I also have no problem with laws being changed to accord
these people the same rights and benefits that are accorded to people
married under the traditional definition. I just don't agree that it is
correct to call this a marriage - at least in the traditional sense.
English words frequently have multiple meaning and certainly the word
marriage in the general sense can be used to describe a union between
all sorts of things (as in "He was married to his life style.").
However, when we are discussing the legal definition of a marriage, I
don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended it
to cover same --- unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.

> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
how can I trust the laws the words describe?


> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?" I just wants legal
terms to have a consistent understandable meaning. I don't like the idea
of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting the meaning of words.

> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>
> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> union between members of the same race."

I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.

> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>
> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on. Traditional
man/woman marriage could be a sub-set. I suppose you could pass laws
explicitly redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to
include same --- union, but this seems needlessly provocative. Of course
maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change the legal
definition of marriage to include same --- unions.

I really don't know what else I can say on the subject. I just prefer
that words have a consistent legal interpretation. I have no desire to
discriminate again people of the same --- who love each other, I just
don't agree that we can just decide to redefine the legal meaning of
marriage to include same --- unions because it is the expedient way to
implement a desirable policy change.

Ed

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
> >"free"
> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
> >outstripped
> >> >the
> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
> >people
> >> >with
> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
go
> >wait
> >> >in
> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
> >> >>
> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
> >expensive.
> >> >Most
> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
room
> >> >spend
> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
> >live
> >> >in
> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
> >just
> >> >out of
> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
> >"free."
> >> >If you
> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
> >However
> >> >if you
> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
try
> >to
> >> >screw
> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
> >> >administrators,
> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
the
> >> >poor).
> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
> >is,
> >> >we have
> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
see
> >> >only two
> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
on
> >> >"private"
> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
> >> >suggests
> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
bills.
> >If
> >> >you
> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
be
> >> >generously
> >> >> granted based on need).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
US.
> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
I
> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
> >the
> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
> >problem
> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
> >cost
> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
and
> >more
> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
> >who
> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
> >poor
> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
on
> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
> >> >
> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
medical
> >care
> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
As
> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
for
> >and
> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
complex
> >and
> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
> >> >
> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
an
> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
supply
> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
won't
> >be
> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
> >will
> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
no
> >> >competitors.
> >>
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> >health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >>
> >
> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
expense.
> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
year
> >for treatment.
> >
> >
>
> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
does
> not happen.


Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>
> Read, for example,
> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
> or
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>

Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
> >"free"
> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
> >outstripped
> >> >the
> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
> >people
> >> >with
> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
go
> >wait
> >> >in
> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
> >> >>
> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
> >expensive.
> >> >Most
> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
room
> >> >spend
> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
> >live
> >> >in
> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
> >just
> >> >out of
> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
> >"free."
> >> >If you
> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
> >However
> >> >if you
> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
try
> >to
> >> >screw
> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
> >> >administrators,
> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
the
> >> >poor).
> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
> >is,
> >> >we have
> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
see
> >> >only two
> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
on
> >> >"private"
> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
> >> >suggests
> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
bills.
> >If
> >> >you
> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
be
> >> >generously
> >> >> granted based on need).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
US.
> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
I
> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
> >the
> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
> >problem
> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
> >cost
> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
and
> >more
> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
> >who
> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
> >poor
> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
on
> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
> >> >
> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
medical
> >care
> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
As
> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
for
> >and
> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
complex
> >and
> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
> >> >
> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
an
> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
supply
> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
won't
> >be
> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
> >will
> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
no
> >> >competitors.
> >>
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> >health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >>
> >
> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
expense.
> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
year
> >for treatment.
> >
> >
>
> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
does
> not happen.


Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>
> Read, for example,
> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
> or
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>

Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
> >"free"
> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
> >outstripped
> >> >the
> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
> >people
> >> >with
> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
go
> >wait
> >> >in
> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
> >> >>
> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
> >expensive.
> >> >Most
> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
room
> >> >spend
> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
> >live
> >> >in
> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
> >just
> >> >out of
> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
> >"free."
> >> >If you
> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
> >However
> >> >if you
> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
try
> >to
> >> >screw
> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
> >> >administrators,
> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
the
> >> >poor).
> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
> >is,
> >> >we have
> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
see
> >> >only two
> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
on
> >> >"private"
> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
> >> >suggests
> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
bills.
> >If
> >> >you
> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
be
> >> >generously
> >> >> granted based on need).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
US.
> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
I
> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
> >the
> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
> >problem
> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
> >cost
> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
and
> >more
> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
> >who
> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
> >poor
> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
on
> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
> >> >
> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
medical
> >care
> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
As
> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
for
> >and
> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
complex
> >and
> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
> >> >
> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
an
> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
supply
> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
won't
> >be
> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
> >will
> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
no
> >> >competitors.
> >>
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> >health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >>
> >
> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
expense.
> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
year
> >for treatment.
> >
> >
>
> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
does
> not happen.


Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>
> Read, for example,
> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
> or
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>

Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>
>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>
>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."

Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
loving the idea.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>
>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>
>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."

Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
loving the idea.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>
>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>
>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."

Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
loving the idea.

 

"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:b0vrsvgbd88sbli7tt39qaiffmo7eogp5j@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
> >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> >to pay for later.
>
> I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
> her body rather strange.
> We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
> use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
> argument right there.

Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice what
to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
answer to this Lloyd?


>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

 

"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:b0vrsvgbd88sbli7tt39qaiffmo7eogp5j@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
> >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> >to pay for later.
>
> I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
> her body rather strange.
> We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
> use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
> argument right there.

Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice what
to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
answer to this Lloyd?


>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"