Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> 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
> >> >sex unions is not discrimination.
> >> >
> >> 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 sex.
>
> Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?

In what jurisdiction? Do you acknowledge that Jeff can marry his brother Jerry?

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> The issue I was discussing was the changing of the definiton of marriage
> to satisfy everyone's desires

Slippery-slope arguments have never held much persuasive or logical
weight.

> You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.

And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
any reality.

DS

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.
>
> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?

Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
hence the reference to the penis (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).

So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
The other person could not be another lesbian.

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.

What is the health reason involved in Jeff marrying brother Jerry? Or, as his
been pointed already, that producing children needn't be involved in the
course of marriage, what would the public health reasons be without children?

>
>
> > 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?

No.

> 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?

I just don't see how you can have one and not the other.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
> defined by the activities the individual engages in.

By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.

DS

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> >> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> >> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> >> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> >> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
> side
> >> >of
> >> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
> >> >with
> >> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
> >> >then
> >> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
> >> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
> left,
> >> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
> >> >>
> >> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
> redefinition
> >> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
> >> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
> >> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
> >>
> >> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
> >> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
> >> >> >corporations".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and Nazis.
> >> >Want
> >> >> to call names? OK.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
> >> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
> over
> >> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
> nasty
> >> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
> and
> >> >Nazi. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
> >> >limited government.
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
> genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of sex to
> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >
> Sodomy laws?

What sodomy laws have been enacted since Republicans have held majorities in
Congress? Or have been in the Whitehouse? Or in the last few decades? Yeah,
sure there's some old laws that may be on the books, but it's still illegal to
take baths on Sundays in some states (Kentucky for one, IIRC) too.

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> 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
> >> >sex unions is not discrimination.
> >> >
> >> 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 sex.
>
> Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?

Because that would be a lie. That's like asking "Why not just
acknowledge that mixing two parts spam with three parts bread crumbs
will produce water. You could acknowledge it, but it doesn't make it
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! =-----

Bill Funk wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > The issue I was discussing was the changing of the definiton of marriage
> > to satisfy everyone's desires
>
> Slippery-slope arguments have never held much persuasive or logical
> weight.
>
> > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
>
> And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> any reality.

Why is it a slippery slope argument?

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
> > defined by the activities the individual engages in.
>
> By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
> psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.

"Most folks." Like Lloyd, perhaps?

The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the type
of activity they each engage in, unless you know of other differences
unrelated to sexuality.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> 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?

Asked and answered.

DS

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> >
> > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
>
> Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> with.

I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.

DS

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> 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! =-----

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> > >
> > > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
> >
> > Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> > with.
>
> I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
> attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.

And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority when my
higher authority says I can't. So again, it boils down to we believe
what we believe, and we act on those beliefs (at the voting booth), and
may the best man win. Even if he doesn't win, it will all be sorted out
in the end by my higher authority - sorry - I didn't write the rules.
Don't like them? Compain to my higher authority.

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, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> > > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.

> > And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> > any reality.

> Why is it a slippery slope argument?

If you don't know the definition of a slippery-slope argument, go look it
up. I am not your debate coach.

DS

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

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:53:27 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...

>Bill Putney

What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>

> > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
>
> And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> any reality.

Not really. Slippery slope arguments are not in and of themselves
invalid. The ridiculous dog and tree examples aside, the removal of
distinction between children and adults is a possible reality which does
put you on that slippery slope for legal pedophilia, marrying children,
etc. Oh - I know -t he left alwasy claims they are going to stop at the
last step that they are presently pushing for (whichever one it is at
teh time). First legalize sodomy, then legalize gay marriage, then
remove distinction between chuldren and adults...

Slippery slope - yes.

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, 6 Dec 2003 12:22:03 -0500, Daniel J Stern <[email protected]>
wrote:

snip of meaningless liberal drivel...

>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?

Surely you are not really so crass as to try to pass off mental
disorders such as homosexuality as being a genetic issue ... are you?

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:01:54 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> The difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual individual is
>> defined by the activities the individual engages in.
>
>By you, perhaps. Not by them, nor by most folks with credentials in
>psychology, physiology, behavioural science and other related fields.

Sorry danny boy, but very few people in the fields you mention feel as
you say they do, contrary to what the media and liberal liars like you
would have us believe.