Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> Marriage isn't about civil rights.

Society grants certain privileges and rights and responsibilities to
married couples that are not granted to unmarried persons. Because it is
society (not God or an orange tree or a pair of blue jeans) from which
these rights and privileges flow, they are CIVIL rights. That's what
"civil" means.

> Because it changes the nature of marriage.

The nature of marriage has been changed in Western society many times over
the last two thousand years. This is not a new phenomenon.

> the government ... can stop certain marriages based on a
> compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.).

And the current question is whether there is, in fact, a compelling state
interest in barring same-sex marriages.

DS

 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> Mixed race doesn't do a thing to change what marriage is.

The folks who argued against it 50 years ago claimed that was exactly what
it did. They used the selfsame language you're using now against same-sex
marriage.


> > Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually, for
> > they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing mixed-race
> > couples to marry.
>
> Mixed race is a racial issue, not a marriage issue.

When mixed-race marriage is being discussed, it's a marriage issue.

DS

 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> siblings be prevented from marriage?

Clear and present public health reasons.

> Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> is too.

Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
remember?

DS


 
Daniel, Greg, Lloyd.

*Please* remove rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys from your discussions. We
really are not interested.
I'm asking this in the nicest possible way.

David.


"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
>
> DS
>
>


 


"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.
>
> DS

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.

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! =-----
 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
> Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
> the Religious Reich types.

Very Lloyd-like.

> Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
>
> DS

Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
activities.

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! =-----
 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?


You dodged the question, Lloyd, I mean, Dan. His examples are more
realistic than (not ridicuouls like) my man-dog and man-tree examples.
So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
against those others.

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! =-----
 

"Del Rawlins" <del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 05 Dec 2003 08:02 PM, Greg posted the following:
> >
> >
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
> >> equal.
> >
> > When even you are sure you don't have an argument, you resort to
> > calling somebody "Taliban." Cute.
>
> Call it a hunch, but I'd be willing to bet that had it been up to Lloyd,
> the Taliban would still rule Afghanistan.

Of course they would, and Lloyd & his leftist pals would still be singing
their praises. Naturally, Lloyd would have preferred the commies to still
rule Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe, indeed he'd have danced in the
streets when Soviet tanks rolled across West Germany and on into France.
With the demise of all democracies Lloyd's true "worker's paradise" would be
at hand...and if anyone dared to speak up his comie pals would either kill
them on the spot or send them off to the Gulags with the rest of the
reactionaries.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/


 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:25:04 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
>> than have it in six months for free.
>
>Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
>the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
>option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
>early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
>treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
>chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
>at their own expense.

It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.

>I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
>we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
>on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
>rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
>in his life. ;-)

I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>
>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>
>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>ignore what they believe in.
>
>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.

You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.

Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>
>>
>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>experience?
>>
>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>recognized.
>>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:58:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>>>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>>>> other laws need to be changed.
>>>
>>>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>>>married, why discriminate against them?
>>
>>I think that's already covered.
>>Such unions are called 'corporations'. :)
>>
>Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.

It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:02:11 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
>Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
>the Religious Reich types.
>
>Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
>having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.

So go ahead and spout you faggot views, intelligent people know
better.
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<[email protected]> 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.

They are no more ridiculous than ass ****ing another man.
 


Bill Funk wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:58:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> >>>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> >>>> other laws need to be changed.
> >>>
> >>>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> >>>married, why discriminate against them?
> >>
> >>I think that's already covered.
> >>Such unions are called 'corporations'. :)
> >>
> >Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
>
> It's really a shame that you feel that way.
> I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
> corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
> part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
> Am I right?
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

Lloyd's never had to turn a profit in his life, nor has his employer,
and he looks down on people who have to sully their hands doing so.
It's called "elitism"..

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 Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:45:50 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
>in the US constitution, the federal courts must.

The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.

Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>
>
>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>we do now??

Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.


--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > is too.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > remember?
>
>
> So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> against those others.

Are you sure?

DS

 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> > the Religious Reich types.
>
> Very Lloyd-like.

*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.

> > Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> > having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?

> Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
> activities.

People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.

Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
sex is an expression of love while all homosexual sex is simply an
"activity"...are you?

DS


 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> ridiculous according to

....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.

DS

 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:

>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry
>> their dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples

> They are no more ridiculous than ass ****ing another man.

If you want to start regulating marriage based on the specific sexual acts
engaged in, you have a *large* job ahead of you, and your work will by no
means be confined to homosexuals.

DS

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top