"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.

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>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 doesn't.
>
>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>governments.

So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
other laws need to be changed.

As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
to me, don't you think?

>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.

That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
what it is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>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 doesn't.
>
>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>governments.

So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
other laws need to be changed.

As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
to me, don't you think?

>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.

That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
what it is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>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 doesn't.
>
>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>governments.

So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
other laws need to be changed.

As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
to me, don't you think?

>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.

That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
what it is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:26:16 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
>> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
>> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
>> other people.
>
>Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
>post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
>"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
>legal incest"...
>
>DS

Yeah, I know.
And I've used that argument, myself, especially in gun control
discussions (which is NOT an invitation to start such a discussion
here!).
But that's a case where an agenda is painfully obvious. In this
discussion, I don't see an agenda to expand into such areas.
There may be one, but I don't see it.

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

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:26:16 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
>> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
>> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
>> other people.
>
>Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
>post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
>"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
>legal incest"...
>
>DS

Yeah, I know.
And I've used that argument, myself, especially in gun control
discussions (which is NOT an invitation to start such a discussion
here!).
But that's a case where an agenda is painfully obvious. In this
discussion, I don't see an agenda to expand into such areas.
There may be one, but I don't see it.

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

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:26:16 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
>> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
>> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
>> other people.
>
>Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
>post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
>"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
>legal incest"...
>
>DS

Yeah, I know.
And I've used that argument, myself, especially in gun control
discussions (which is NOT an invitation to start such a discussion
here!).
But that's a case where an agenda is painfully obvious. In this
discussion, I don't see an agenda to expand into such areas.
There may be one, but I don't see it.

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

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> 3> It is not a marriage.
>
> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> 2> couples."
>
> > 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.
>
> 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").
>
> 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...?
>
> > 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."
>
> > 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.

Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.

If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing definition
stands.

Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted on
the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
consitution, what good is it?

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> 3> It is not a marriage.
>
> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> 2> couples."
>
> > 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.
>
> 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").
>
> 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...?
>
> > 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."
>
> > 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.

Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.

If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing definition
stands.

Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted on
the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
consitution, what good is it?

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> 3> It is not a marriage.
>
> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> 2> couples."
>
> > 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.
>
> 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").
>
> 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...?
>
> > 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."
>
> > 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.

Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.

If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing definition
stands.

Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted on
the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
consitution, what good is it?