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)
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:56:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.
Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.
Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?
--
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 can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:56:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.
Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.
Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?
--
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 can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:56:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.
Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.
Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?
--
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 safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>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.
You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>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.
So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>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.
You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>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.
So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
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 safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>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.
You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>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.
So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>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.
You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>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.
So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
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 safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>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.
You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>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.
So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>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.
You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>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.
So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
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 aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> 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 in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
DS
> 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 in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> 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 in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
DS
> 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 in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
DS