Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3fce1e95.263879672@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> >>>>health
> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >>insurance
> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
> >>>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
> >>>
> >>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
> >>>canadian health care problems
> >>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
> >>>friends promise.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
> >>
> >>Try this:
> >>
> >>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
> Co
> >>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
> >
> >
> >So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
> >of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
> >opinion of you.
>
> If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
> then, yes, they're propaganda.

Only if you can actually disprove them with actual facts, which you certainly have
shown that you will not do.

> Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
> situation from a consumer's point of view.

You've never been bothered with citing left wing web sites, such as Sierra Club.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
> >
> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
> ---
> >unions is not discrimination.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> discrimination?

Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
> >
> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
> ---
> >unions is not discrimination.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> discrimination?

Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
> >
> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
> ---
> >unions is not discrimination.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> discrimination?

Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <oBqzb.32141$vb1.20125@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> ,
> "Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> >> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
> >religion
> >> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
> >with its
> >> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
> >divorced
> >> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> >> > >
> >> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
> >discrimination. Marriage
> >> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
> >there are
> >> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
> >beneficial
> >> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
> >law, or
> >> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
> >process by
> >> > >redefining the word.
> >> >
> >> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> >> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
> >into a
> >> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
> >marriage. If
> >> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
> >feel they
> >> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
> >laws to
> >> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
> >redefining an
> >> establishment that has long been in place.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
> >allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
> >"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
> >eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
> >
> >The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
> >get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
> >before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
> >partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
> >married". Hmmph.
> >
>
> The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
> partners cannot.

Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <oBqzb.32141$vb1.20125@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> ,
> "Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> >> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
> >religion
> >> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
> >with its
> >> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
> >divorced
> >> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> >> > >
> >> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
> >discrimination. Marriage
> >> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
> >there are
> >> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
> >beneficial
> >> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
> >law, or
> >> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
> >process by
> >> > >redefining the word.
> >> >
> >> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> >> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
> >into a
> >> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
> >marriage. If
> >> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
> >feel they
> >> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
> >laws to
> >> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
> >redefining an
> >> establishment that has long been in place.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
> >allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
> >"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
> >eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
> >
> >The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
> >get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
> >before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
> >partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
> >married". Hmmph.
> >
>
> The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
> partners cannot.

Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <oBqzb.32141$vb1.20125@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> ,
> "Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> >> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
> >religion
> >> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
> >with its
> >> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
> >divorced
> >> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> >> > >
> >> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
> >discrimination. Marriage
> >> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
> >there are
> >> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
> >beneficial
> >> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
> >law, or
> >> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
> >process by
> >> > >redefining the word.
> >> >
> >> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> >> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
> >into a
> >> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
> >marriage. If
> >> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
> >feel they
> >> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
> >laws to
> >> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
> >redefining an
> >> establishment that has long been in place.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
> >allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
> >"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
> >eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
> >
> >The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
> >get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
> >before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
> >partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
> >married". Hmmph.
> >
>
> The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
> partners cannot.

Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.

 

"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > "C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> > > Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> > Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> I don't dispute that, but even in marriages sometimes the children
> aren't necessarily of the expected parentage.
>
> Ed

What does that have to do with the fact that your orignal statement is
simply not true?

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! =-----

 

"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > "C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> > > Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> > Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> I don't dispute that, but even in marriages sometimes the children
> aren't necessarily of the expected parentage.
>
> Ed

What does that have to do with the fact that your orignal statement is
simply not true?

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! =-----

 

"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > "C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> > > Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> > Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> I don't dispute that, but even in marriages sometimes the children
> aren't necessarily of the expected parentage.
>
> Ed

What does that have to do with the fact that your orignal statement is
simply not true?

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! =-----