Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> 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.

Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
married, why discriminate against them?

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> 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.

Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
married, why discriminate against them?

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> 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.

Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
married, why discriminate against them?

 

In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>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.

And you'd likely get the same in the US. Both system can handle the
more common stuff.

For the less usual stuff -- apparently the wait for hip arthroscopy is
at least 3 years. Both Canada's detractors and supporters point to
the much larger number of MRIs in the US, which means a longer wait
for diagnosis in Canada as well.




--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>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.

And you'd likely get the same in the US. Both system can handle the
more common stuff.

For the less usual stuff -- apparently the wait for hip arthroscopy is
at least 3 years. Both Canada's detractors and supporters point to
the much larger number of MRIs in the US, which means a longer wait
for diagnosis in Canada as well.




--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>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.

And you'd likely get the same in the US. Both system can handle the
more common stuff.

For the less usual stuff -- apparently the wait for hip arthroscopy is
at least 3 years. Both Canada's detractors and supporters point to
the much larger number of MRIs in the US, which means a longer wait
for diagnosis in Canada as well.




--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

Can't you three or four guys that are continuing this thread find some
common group to post to, rather than all of this crossposting?

Try alt.argumentative.idiots.wont.give.up

 

Can't you three or four guys that are continuing this thread find some
common group to post to, rather than all of this crossposting?

Try alt.argumentative.idiots.wont.give.up

 

Can't you three or four guys that are continuing this thread find some
common group to post to, rather than all of this crossposting?

Try alt.argumentative.idiots.wont.give.up

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Heaven forbid people should read the 9th amendment.

Reading it is not enough. You need to understand it - which apparently is not so
easy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

Regards,

Ed White