Why is this ---- in the car groups?

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > type of activity they each engage in
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
>
> DS
>
>

 

Why is this ---- in the car groups?

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > type of activity they each engage in
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
>
> DS
>
>

 

Why is this ---- in the car groups?

"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to
marry their
> > >> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they
illustrate
> > >>
> > >> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all
germane to
> > >> the topic.
> > >
> > >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> > >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> > >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> > >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We
might
> > >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
> >
> > Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> > status as a human?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----

 

Why is this ---- in the car groups?

"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to
marry their
> > >> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they
illustrate
> > >>
> > >> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all
germane to
> > >> the topic.
> > >
> > >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> > >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> > >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> > >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We
might
> > >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
> >
> > Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> > status as a human?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----

 

Why is this ---- in the car groups?

"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD241C7.DD42E1C3@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > But the same could be said of those who would want the right to
marry their
> > >> > dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they
illustrate
> > >>
> > >> ...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all
germane to
> > >> the topic.
> > >
> > >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> > >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> > >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> > >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We
might
> > >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
> >
> > Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> > status as a human?
>
> No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
> wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
> - before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
> are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
> consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
> also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
> erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
> becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
> UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
> the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
> Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
>
> I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
> accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
> me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
> will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
> therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
> meaningless, legally).
>
> I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
> be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
> prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
> "insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
>
> And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
> step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
> Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
> recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
> and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
> honest!"
>
> Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
> erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
> religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
> won't do that - honest!"
>
> I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
> bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
> not happening.
>
> 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! =-----

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>> >>
>> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
>> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
>> >> gays from marrying?
>> >
>> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
>> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
>> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
>> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>>
>> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
>> a sibling marriage.
>
>Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
>children are impossible?

An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.

Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?

Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
gay marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>> >>
>> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
>> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
>> >> gays from marrying?
>> >
>> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
>> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
>> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
>> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>>
>> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
>> a sibling marriage.
>
>Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
>children are impossible?

An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.

Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?

Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
gay marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the 'discrimination' here.
>> >>
>> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
>> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
>> >> gays from marrying?
>> >
>> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is involved. Clearly
>> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
>> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
>> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>>
>> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
>> a sibling marriage.
>
>Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized siblings where
>children are impossible?

An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.

Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?

Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
gay marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

So you that you can have something to keep you busy.

George wrote:

> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> >
> > > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > > type of activity they each engage in
> >
> > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
> >
> > > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
> >
> > The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
> >
> > DS
> >
> >

 

So you that you can have something to keep you busy.

George wrote:

> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> >
> > > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > > type of activity they each engage in
> >
> > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
> >
> > > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
> >
> > The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
> >
> > DS
> >
> >