Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsvrp5idlfb350@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> > <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
> long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> > >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> > >long? How could he have been sure?
> >
> > That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> > that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> > have been performed.
>
> And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
> for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> receiving the free care you boast of.
Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.
>
> >
> > >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
> that
> > >is important.
> >
> > Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> > mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>
> Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
> taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
> options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
> true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
> is not enough money in the budget.
Yes, in the US, if you have unlimited funds or a gun, you can always
get whatever medical treatment you want, whether or not the health
plan will pay.
>
> >
> > >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >
> > Then why are you running it down?
>
> Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
> it.
>
> >
> > >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> > >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> Canadians.
> >
> > It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> > effectively no care at all.
>
> Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
Everyone has care available in Canada, if they need it.
>
> > Definition of "Lottery":
> > Millions of stupid people contributing
> > to make one stupid person look smart.
> "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> > <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
> long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> > >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> > >long? How could he have been sure?
> >
> > That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> > that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> > have been performed.
>
> And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
> for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> receiving the free care you boast of.
Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.
>
> >
> > >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
> that
> > >is important.
> >
> > Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> > mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>
> Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
> taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
> options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
> true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
> is not enough money in the budget.
Yes, in the US, if you have unlimited funds or a gun, you can always
get whatever medical treatment you want, whether or not the health
plan will pay.
>
> >
> > >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >
> > Then why are you running it down?
>
> Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
> it.
>
> >
> > >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> > >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> Canadians.
> >
> > It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> > effectively no care at all.
>
> Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
Everyone has care available in Canada, if they need it.
>
> > 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 can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsvrp5idlfb350@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> > <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
> long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> > >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> > >long? How could he have been sure?
> >
> > That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> > that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> > have been performed.
>
> And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
> for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> receiving the free care you boast of.
Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.
>
> >
> > >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
> that
> > >is important.
> >
> > Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> > mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>
> Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
> taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
> options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
> true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
> is not enough money in the budget.
Yes, in the US, if you have unlimited funds or a gun, you can always
get whatever medical treatment you want, whether or not the health
plan will pay.
>
> >
> > >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >
> > Then why are you running it down?
>
> Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
> it.
>
> >
> > >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> > >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> Canadians.
> >
> > It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> > effectively no care at all.
>
> Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
Everyone has care available in Canada, if they need it.
>
> > Definition of "Lottery":
> > Millions of stupid people contributing
> > to make one stupid person look smart.
> "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> > <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
> long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> > >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> > >long? How could he have been sure?
> >
> > That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> > that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> > have been performed.
>
> And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
> for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> receiving the free care you boast of.
Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.
>
> >
> > >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
> that
> > >is important.
> >
> > Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> > mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>
> Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
> taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
> options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
> true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
> is not enough money in the budget.
Yes, in the US, if you have unlimited funds or a gun, you can always
get whatever medical treatment you want, whether or not the health
plan will pay.
>
> >
> > >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >
> > Then why are you running it down?
>
> Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
> it.
>
> >
> > >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> > >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> Canadians.
> >
> > It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> > effectively no care at all.
>
> Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
Everyone has care available in Canada, if they need it.
>
> > 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 can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsvrp5idlfb350@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> > <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
> long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> > >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> > >long? How could he have been sure?
> >
> > That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> > that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> > have been performed.
>
> And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
> for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> receiving the free care you boast of.
Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.
>
> >
> > >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
> that
> > >is important.
> >
> > Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> > mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>
> Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
> taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
> options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
> true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
> is not enough money in the budget.
Yes, in the US, if you have unlimited funds or a gun, you can always
get whatever medical treatment you want, whether or not the health
plan will pay.
>
> >
> > >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >
> > Then why are you running it down?
>
> Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
> it.
>
> >
> > >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> > >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> Canadians.
> >
> > It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> > effectively no care at all.
>
> Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
Everyone has care available in Canada, if they need it.
>
> > Definition of "Lottery":
> > Millions of stupid people contributing
> > to make one stupid person look smart.
> "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> > <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
> long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> > >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> > >long? How could he have been sure?
> >
> > That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> > that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> > have been performed.
>
> And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
> for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> receiving the free care you boast of.
Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.
>
> >
> > >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
> that
> > >is important.
> >
> > Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> > mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
>
> Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
> taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
> options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
> true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
> is not enough money in the budget.
Yes, in the US, if you have unlimited funds or a gun, you can always
get whatever medical treatment you want, whether or not the health
plan will pay.
>
> >
> > >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >
> > Then why are you running it down?
>
> Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
> it.
>
> >
> > >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> > >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> Canadians.
> >
> > It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> > effectively no care at all.
>
> Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
Everyone has care available in Canada, if they need it.
>
> > 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 safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "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.
>
>
> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
have
> children? Or simply don't want children?
>
> 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.
>
> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
reduce
> disease transmission, etc.
>
Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
what you're arguing for.
> >
> >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,
>
> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
equal.
>
Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference. In doing
so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
especially those with a single wage earner and dependents. Marriage
wouldn't be something that the government would have an interest in
protecting otherwise. That's the point.
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >> 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 safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "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.
>
>
> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
have
> children? Or simply don't want children?
>
> 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.
>
> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
reduce
> disease transmission, etc.
>
Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
what you're arguing for.
> >
> >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,
>
> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
equal.
>
Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference. In doing
so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
especially those with a single wage earner and dependents. Marriage
wouldn't be something that the government would have an interest in
protecting otherwise. That's the point.
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >> 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 safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "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.
>
>
> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
have
> children? Or simply don't want children?
>
> 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.
>
> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
reduce
> disease transmission, etc.
>
Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
what you're arguing for.
> >
> >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,
>
> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
equal.
>
Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference. In doing
so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
especially those with a single wage earner and dependents. Marriage
wouldn't be something that the government would have an interest in
protecting otherwise. That's the point.
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >> 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 studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a church; the
> government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but "civil unions" for all
> recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the same benefits to all of them.
Sure, I can live with that.
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a church; the
> government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but "civil unions" for all
> recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the same benefits to all of them.
Sure, I can live with that.
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a church; the
> government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but "civil unions" for all
> recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the same benefits to all of them.
Sure, I can live with that.
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
> have children?
>
> Further, gays can adopt children.
Lesbian couples can even have children. I still don' think this makes a same ---
union a marriage in the traditional legal sense.
Ed