> > > It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government
contracts.
> >
> >
> > Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
> >
>
> Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbiest for Boeing. Remember that dirty rotten
> lease deal?


For Lloyd thats allowed because it's a leftist democrat's crony.
Just like Terry McAuliffe making millions off of Global Crossing just before
they went bankrupt. A bigger bankruptcy than Enron to boot. Then there's
also the book deal for which Hillary got an $8 million advance. Just like
Newt Gingrich except 3X the amount and Newt had to give his back because
there would be a conflict of interest since he was a Republican
Representative. Can we say double standard?
Of course Lloyd will now call me a right wing **** racist idiot that needs
to learn some science. :-)

>
> > 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! =-----
>
>

 

> > > It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government
contracts.
> >
> >
> > Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
> >
>
> Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbiest for Boeing. Remember that dirty rotten
> lease deal?


For Lloyd thats allowed because it's a leftist democrat's crony.
Just like Terry McAuliffe making millions off of Global Crossing just before
they went bankrupt. A bigger bankruptcy than Enron to boot. Then there's
also the book deal for which Hillary got an $8 million advance. Just like
Newt Gingrich except 3X the amount and Newt had to give his back because
there would be a conflict of interest since he was a Republican
Representative. Can we say double standard?
Of course Lloyd will now call me a right wing **** racist idiot that needs
to learn some science. :-)

>
> > 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! =-----
>
>

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:d9643331fee036286efdf50b7022eb65@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have
against
> >> >> gay marriage?
> >> >
> >> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays
need to get "married"
> >> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't
seem to be good
> >> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when
convenient, among other
> >> >reasons already mentioned here.
> >>
> >> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> >> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> >> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> >> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> >> recognized in the same fashion?
> >
> >Negative, nor is that what I said.
>
> I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
> presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
> married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.

No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
institution. A reflection of the people's values.

The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
love, we find it and happiness.

The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
living it.

Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
revolves around it's religious roots.


> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> 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:d9643331fee036286efdf50b7022eb65@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have
against
> >> >> gay marriage?
> >> >
> >> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays
need to get "married"
> >> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't
seem to be good
> >> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when
convenient, among other
> >> >reasons already mentioned here.
> >>
> >> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> >> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> >> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> >> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> >> recognized in the same fashion?
> >
> >Negative, nor is that what I said.
>
> I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
> presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
> married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.

No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
institution. A reflection of the people's values.

The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
love, we find it and happiness.

The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
living it.

Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
revolves around it's religious roots.


> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> 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:d9643331fee036286efdf50b7022eb65@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have
against
> >> >> gay marriage?
> >> >
> >> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays
need to get "married"
> >> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't
seem to be good
> >> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when
convenient, among other
> >> >reasons already mentioned here.
> >>
> >> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> >> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> >> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> >> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> >> recognized in the same fashion?
> >
> >Negative, nor is that what I said.
>
> I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
> presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
> married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.

No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
institution. A reflection of the people's values.

The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
love, we find it and happiness.

The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
living it.

Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
revolves around it's religious roots.


> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:24:02 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
>an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
>pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
>traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
>possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
>aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
>because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
>institution. A reflection of the people's values.

And gays marrying will have no more effect on that than seniors
marrying.

>The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
>between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
>each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
>love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
>or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
>marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
>love, we find it and happiness.
>
>The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
>there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
>infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
>gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
>Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
>living it.

I don't know about that. I've never been religious at all, nor are
any of my friends, yet we all seem to take our marriages very
seriously. People as a whole are a lot more selfish, but I don't
believe that it is religion that makes people less selfish. I've
known too many Sunday Christians for that to be true.

>Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
>recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
>out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
>marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
>it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
>it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
>values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Does having a gay couple living next door to you lessen the community?

>Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
>revolves around it's religious roots.

If this argument were to hold water it should have been made as soon
as people started getting married outside of churches.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:24:02 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
>an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
>pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
>traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
>possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
>aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
>because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
>institution. A reflection of the people's values.

And gays marrying will have no more effect on that than seniors
marrying.

>The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
>between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
>each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
>love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
>or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
>marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
>love, we find it and happiness.
>
>The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
>there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
>infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
>gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
>Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
>living it.

I don't know about that. I've never been religious at all, nor are
any of my friends, yet we all seem to take our marriages very
seriously. People as a whole are a lot more selfish, but I don't
believe that it is religion that makes people less selfish. I've
known too many Sunday Christians for that to be true.

>Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
>recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
>out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
>marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
>it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
>it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
>values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Does having a gay couple living next door to you lessen the community?

>Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
>revolves around it's religious roots.

If this argument were to hold water it should have been made as soon
as people started getting married outside of churches.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:24:02 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
>an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
>pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
>traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
>possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
>aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
>because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
>institution. A reflection of the people's values.

And gays marrying will have no more effect on that than seniors
marrying.

>The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
>between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
>each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
>love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
>or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
>marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
>love, we find it and happiness.
>
>The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
>there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
>infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
>gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
>Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
>living it.

I don't know about that. I've never been religious at all, nor are
any of my friends, yet we all seem to take our marriages very
seriously. People as a whole are a lot more selfish, but I don't
believe that it is religion that makes people less selfish. I've
known too many Sunday Christians for that to be true.

>Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
>recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
>out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
>marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
>it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
>it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
>values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Does having a gay couple living next door to you lessen the community?

>Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
>revolves around it's religious roots.

If this argument were to hold water it should have been made as soon
as people started getting married outside of churches.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On 8 Dec 2003 10:38:01 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:

>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<a792tv8mi10hnb81t8m95rec59p2bbl2ef@4ax.com>. ..
>> On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>> >> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>> >> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>> >> license.
>> >> A true utopia.
>> >
>> >Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>> >those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
>>
>> "whatever those may be..."?
>> You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
>
>Well golly, I just can't seem to find anything by that name in the CPT
>book. I suggest you try to send a letter to your healthcare insurer
>asking if they reimburse for a 'Partial Birth Abortion' and see what
>kind of answer you get.

And I will suggest that if you use something as an example, you should
know what it is.
http://www.google.com/search?q=parti...utf-8&oe=utf-8
340,000 entries.
It's not rocket science to find this stuff.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On 8 Dec 2003 10:38:01 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:

>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<a792tv8mi10hnb81t8m95rec59p2bbl2ef@4ax.com>. ..
>> On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>> >> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>> >> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>> >> license.
>> >> A true utopia.
>> >
>> >Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>> >those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
>>
>> "whatever those may be..."?
>> You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
>
>Well golly, I just can't seem to find anything by that name in the CPT
>book. I suggest you try to send a letter to your healthcare insurer
>asking if they reimburse for a 'Partial Birth Abortion' and see what
>kind of answer you get.

And I will suggest that if you use something as an example, you should
know what it is.
http://www.google.com/search?q=parti...utf-8&oe=utf-8
340,000 entries.
It's not rocket science to find this stuff.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"