On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.

So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
prevented from marrying?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:21:36 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.

Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
childless couple add to society?

>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.

What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
than a gay couple does.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:21:36 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.

Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
childless couple add to society?

>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.

What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
than a gay couple does.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:21:36 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.

Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
childless couple add to society?

>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.

What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
than a gay couple does.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:027ccc8327688e937bc1d3dddb7c8994@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> >news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
>> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
>>
>> Have you ever been to Canada?
>
>Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
>Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.

It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:027ccc8327688e937bc1d3dddb7c8994@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> >news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
>> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
>>
>> Have you ever been to Canada?
>
>Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
>Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.

It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:027ccc8327688e937bc1d3dddb7c8994@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> >news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
>> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
>>
>> Have you ever been to Canada?
>
>Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
>Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.

It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>confiscation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>>
>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>And that's hardly the case.
>>
>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>our elected government decides that.

And you obviously think that makes them OK.
You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
in a democratic republic.
Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?

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

 

On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>confiscation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>>
>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>And that's hardly the case.
>>
>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>our elected government decides that.

And you obviously think that makes them OK.
You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
in a democratic republic.
Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?

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

 

On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>confiscation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>>
>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>And that's hardly the case.
>>
>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>our elected government decides that.

And you obviously think that makes them OK.
You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
in a democratic republic.
Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?

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