In article <3FCF5A19.FD71112B@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
>> discrimination?
>
>Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
>discrimination?

No, but when you prevent an entire class from getting married so they CAN have
those rights, that is.


>For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
>and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
>marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a
woman.
>Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
>redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to
a
>different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.
>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FCF5A19.FD71112B@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
>> discrimination?
>
>Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
>discrimination?

No, but when you prevent an entire class from getting married so they CAN have
those rights, that is.


>For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
>and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
>marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a
woman.
>Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
>redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to
a
>different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.
>
>Ed
>

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
> > so important to same --- couples?
>
> All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
> heterosexual couples.

Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?

> > insulting millions of people who deeply believe that a marriage is a man
> > / woman union?
>
> There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
> because same---- unions make you feel bad.

I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
million of people are against redefining marriage to include same ---
unions. There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
apparently could care less about their reasons.

> I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
> should hold legal sway over equal rights.

I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
name calling to try and get your way.

If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same --- unions
equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.

Ed

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
> > so important to same --- couples?
>
> All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
> heterosexual couples.

Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?

> > insulting millions of people who deeply believe that a marriage is a man
> > / woman union?
>
> There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
> because same---- unions make you feel bad.

I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
million of people are against redefining marriage to include same ---
unions. There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
apparently could care less about their reasons.

> I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
> should hold legal sway over equal rights.

I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
name calling to try and get your way.

If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same --- unions
equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.

Ed

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
> > so important to same --- couples?
>
> All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
> heterosexual couples.

Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?

> > insulting millions of people who deeply believe that a marriage is a man
> > / woman union?
>
> There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
> because same---- unions make you feel bad.

I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
million of people are against redefining marriage to include same ---
unions. There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
apparently could care less about their reasons.

> I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
> should hold legal sway over equal rights.

I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
name calling to try and get your way.

If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same --- unions
equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.

Ed

 

Del Rawlins wrote:

> The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone equally.

I can agree with this idea!

Ed

 

Del Rawlins wrote:

> The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone equally.

I can agree with this idea!

Ed

 

Del Rawlins wrote:

> The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone equally.

I can agree with this idea!

Ed

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
>
> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States and
> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians basicaly
> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling her
> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met her
> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four days
> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>
> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> individuals.
>
> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>
> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.

As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone patients are
tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of their misery..... Yes
Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many new
innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at all.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
>
> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States and
> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians basicaly
> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling her
> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met her
> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four days
> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>
> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> individuals.
>
> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>
> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.

As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone patients are
tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of their misery..... Yes
Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many new
innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at all.