Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >
> > Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
> > King agree with the analogy.
> >
>
> I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
> Would he?
David, David, David - you should know by now that eqaulity and respect for black
people is only for *liberal* black people. You must remember that.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with
"x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <KEWzb.30$R9.0@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>> >news:FQrzb.40111$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?
>
>That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
>serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
>productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
>at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
>detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>doesn't require marriage.
How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
>To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
left-handed...
> to normalize homosexuality in our
>society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
>government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
>nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
>less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.
>
>> --
>> Brandon Sommerville
>> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.terane ws.com...
>> 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?
>
>That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
>serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
>productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
>at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
>detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>doesn't require marriage.
How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
>To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
left-handed...
> to normalize homosexuality in our
>society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
>government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
>nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
>less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.
>
>> --
>> Brandon Sommerville
>> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <KEWzb.30$R9.0@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.terane ws.com...
>> 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?
>
>That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
>serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
>productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
>at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
>detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>doesn't require marriage.
How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
>To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
left-handed...
> to normalize homosexuality in our
>society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
>government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
>nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
>less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.
>
>> --
>> Brandon Sommerville
>> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.terane ws.com...
>> 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?
>
>That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
>serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
>productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
>at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
>detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>doesn't require marriage.
How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
>To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
left-handed...
> to normalize homosexuality in our
>society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
>government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
>nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
>less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.
>
>> --
>> Brandon Sommerville
>> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <KEWzb.30$R9.0@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.terane ws.com...
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>> >news:FQrzb.40111$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?
>
>That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
>serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
>productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
>at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
>detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>doesn't require marriage.
How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
>To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
left-handed...
> to normalize homosexuality in our
>society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
>government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
>nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
>less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.
>
>> --
>> Brandon Sommerville
>> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.terane ws.com...
>> 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?
>
>That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
>serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
>productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
>at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
>detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>doesn't require marriage.
How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from one
between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
>To me, it seems part of a gay agenda
Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the Jewish
agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize being
left-handed...
> to normalize homosexuality in our
>society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
>government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
>nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
>less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.
>
>> --
>> Brandon Sommerville
>> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>>
>> Definition of "Lottery":
>> Millions of stupid people contributing
>> to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <IoXzb.34$R9.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>> > The issue is not discrimination.
>>
>> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
>> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>>
>
>There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
>be protected, people insured, etc.
Right to inherit, right to have insurance coverage, right to make decisions
when partner is dying, income tax deductions, ...
>The point of these benefits in marriage
>is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
>dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
>Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
So why shouldn't a gay couple have protection if the breadwinner dies? Or are
you advocating taking the protection away if the husband and wife in a
straight marriage both work?
>
>
>> > Though it's useful for those who support
>> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
>rights
>> > for blacks.
>>
>> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
>> King agree with the analogy.
>>
>
>I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
>Would he?
No.
>
>
>> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
>> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
>> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
>> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
>> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
>> > your way.
>>
>
>It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
It's a deception to pretend some civil rights don't matter.
>
>> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
>> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
>> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>> > The issue is not discrimination.
>>
>> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
>> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>>
>
>There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
>be protected, people insured, etc.
Right to inherit, right to have insurance coverage, right to make decisions
when partner is dying, income tax deductions, ...
>The point of these benefits in marriage
>is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
>dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
>Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
So why shouldn't a gay couple have protection if the breadwinner dies? Or are
you advocating taking the protection away if the husband and wife in a
straight marriage both work?
>
>
>> > Though it's useful for those who support
>> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
>rights
>> > for blacks.
>>
>> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
>> King agree with the analogy.
>>
>
>I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
>Would he?
No.
>
>
>> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
>> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
>> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
>> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
>> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
>> > your way.
>>
>
>It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
It's a deception to pretend some civil rights don't matter.
>
>> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
>> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
>> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <IoXzb.34$R9.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>> > The issue is not discrimination.
>>
>> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
>> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>>
>
>There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
>be protected, people insured, etc.
Right to inherit, right to have insurance coverage, right to make decisions
when partner is dying, income tax deductions, ...
>The point of these benefits in marriage
>is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
>dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
>Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
So why shouldn't a gay couple have protection if the breadwinner dies? Or are
you advocating taking the protection away if the husband and wife in a
straight marriage both work?
>
>
>> > Though it's useful for those who support
>> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
>rights
>> > for blacks.
>>
>> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
>> King agree with the analogy.
>>
>
>I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
>Would he?
No.
>
>
>> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
>> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
>> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
>> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
>> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
>> > your way.
>>
>
>It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
It's a deception to pretend some civil rights don't matter.
>
>> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
>> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
>> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>> > The issue is not discrimination.
>>
>> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
>> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>>
>
>There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
>be protected, people insured, etc.
Right to inherit, right to have insurance coverage, right to make decisions
when partner is dying, income tax deductions, ...
>The point of these benefits in marriage
>is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
>dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
>Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
So why shouldn't a gay couple have protection if the breadwinner dies? Or are
you advocating taking the protection away if the husband and wife in a
straight marriage both work?
>
>
>> > Though it's useful for those who support
>> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
>rights
>> > for blacks.
>>
>> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
>> King agree with the analogy.
>>
>
>I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
>Would he?
No.
>
>
>> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
>> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
>> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
>> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
>> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
>> > your way.
>>
>
>It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
It's a deception to pretend some civil rights don't matter.
>
>> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
>> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
>> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <IoXzb.34$R9.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>> > The issue is not discrimination.
>>
>> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
>> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>>
>
>There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
>be protected, people insured, etc.
Right to inherit, right to have insurance coverage, right to make decisions
when partner is dying, income tax deductions, ...
>The point of these benefits in marriage
>is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
>dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
>Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
So why shouldn't a gay couple have protection if the breadwinner dies? Or are
you advocating taking the protection away if the husband and wife in a
straight marriage both work?
>
>
>> > Though it's useful for those who support
>> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
>rights
>> > for blacks.
>>
>> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
>> King agree with the analogy.
>>
>
>I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
>Would he?
No.
>
>
>> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
>> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
>> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
>> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
>> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
>> > your way.
>>
>
>It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
It's a deception to pretend some civil rights don't matter.
>
>> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
>> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
>> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>> > The issue is not discrimination.
>>
>> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
>> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
>>
>
>There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
>be protected, people insured, etc.
Right to inherit, right to have insurance coverage, right to make decisions
when partner is dying, income tax deductions, ...
>The point of these benefits in marriage
>is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
>dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
>Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
So why shouldn't a gay couple have protection if the breadwinner dies? Or are
you advocating taking the protection away if the husband and wife in a
straight marriage both work?
>
>
>> > Though it's useful for those who support
>> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
>rights
>> > for blacks.
>>
>> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
>> King agree with the analogy.
>>
>
>I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
>Would he?
No.
>
>
>> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
>> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
>> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
>> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
>> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
>> > your way.
>>
>
>It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
It's a deception to pretend some civil rights don't matter.
>
>> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
>> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
>> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FD065B7.FB71A08@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
>> non-homophobe.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
>you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
>become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
>excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
>
>The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
>"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
>others do the same.
Because there are many rights and privileges tied to the word "marriage."
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
>> non-homophobe.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
>you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
>become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
>excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
>
>The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
>"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
>others do the same.
Because there are many rights and privileges tied to the word "marriage."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FD065B7.FB71A08@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
>> non-homophobe.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
>you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
>become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
>excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
>
>The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
>"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
>others do the same.
Because there are many rights and privileges tied to the word "marriage."
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
>> non-homophobe.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
>you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
>become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
>excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
>
>The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
>"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
>others do the same.
Because there are many rights and privileges tied to the word "marriage."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FD065B7.FB71A08@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
>> non-homophobe.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
>you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
>become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
>excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
>
>The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
>"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
>others do the same.
Because there are many rights and privileges tied to the word "marriage."
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
>> non-homophobe.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
>you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
>become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
>excercise logic and you throw in diversions.
>
>The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
>"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
>others do the same.
Because there are many rights and privileges tied to the word "marriage."
