Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 9, 2003

• #2,601

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:34:34 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:28:22 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:58:55 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:18:53 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You can pay for elective care if you want it, it's just that the
>>>>>necessities are all covered by the gov't. If there is too much of a
>>>>>need for a specific procedure then setting it up on a fee basis simply
>>>>>means that the wealthy will be able to get ahead of those who can't
>>>>>afford to pay for the procedure.
>>>>
>>>>But that's not "equal access to health care".
>>>>That's access for all.
>>>>Two very different things.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. It's equal access to that which is essential to your
>>>health. Anything else that you want you can pony up for on your own.
>>
>>You're redefining.
>
>As I understand it if it's not essential to your health then it's not
>government covered. One could argue that going to a naturopath is
>health care, but I don't think the government covers that.

Equal access means that all have the same access to healthcare.
Healthcare for all means that everyone has access to healthcare.
You're describing the latter.
It's not equal access that is essential, but access.
Equal access is what a non-competitive governmental health system
provides.
Access for all can be provided by a supplemental governmental system,
which still allows universal (for everyone) access, but not *equal*
access (meaning that one can, if able, get faster service, or services
not possible under the governmental system).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 9, 2003

• #2,602

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:34:33 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:41:39 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>>>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>>
>>>>So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
>>>
>>>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
>>
>>That's not the same as the right existing.
>
>Without a means of protecting those rights they are meaningless.

Hogwash; if they are meaningless without the means to protect them,
then why do so many insist that they have them?
>
>>Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
>>life.
>
>Without law (backed by a government) anyone can be killed for no
>reason. There is no inherent right to life.

More hogwash.
You are actually trying to tell us that, without government, no rights
exist.
You are confusing governmental protection of rights with the rights
themselves.
>
>>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>>
>>The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>
>No, but it significantly reduces it.

If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>
>>>>More particularly, the American government?
>>>>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
>>>
>>>The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
>>>of speech, that sort of thing.
>>
>>Ah, then you didn't respond to what I wrote; you responded to
>>something else.
>>I wrote:
>>"This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
>>community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
>>guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
>>government, such as, for example, the right to life."
>>
>>As you see, I spoecifically said the right to life was guaranteed, not
>>granted. And you specifically responded to that:
>>"And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from
>>the original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer
>>exist."
>
>No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
>historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
>the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
>to life" is simply meaningless words.

Very wrong.
It may be that it's a fairly recent idea that the lives of the
subjects of a government don't belong to the leader, but that does not
mean that there was never a right to live. Instead, it means that
right wasn't recognized.
Following your logic, Saddam Hussein was within his rights to kill any
of his subjects he saw fit to kill.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 9, 2003

• #2,603

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:53:03 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:58:15 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:44:55 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>
>>>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
>>
>>Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
>>doesn't exist.
>
>But that's not considered a "God given" right, such as the right to
>life.

How do you define "right to life"? Without a government willing to
back it up, life is pretty cheap.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 9, 2003

• #2,604

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:31:37 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Equal access means that all have the same access to healthcare.
>Healthcare for all means that everyone has access to healthcare.
>You're describing the latter.
>It's not equal access that is essential, but access.
>Equal access is what a non-competitive governmental health system
>provides.
>Access for all can be provided by a supplemental governmental system,
>which still allows universal (for everyone) access, but not *equal*
>access (meaning that one can, if able, get faster service, or services
>not possible under the governmental system).

Then as I understand it, Canada has equal access for essential health
care needs, with health care for all beyond the essentials.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 9, 2003

• #2,605

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:34:33 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:41:39 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
>>>
>>>That's not the same as the right existing.
>>
>>Without a means of protecting those rights they are meaningless.
>
>Hogwash; if they are meaningless without the means to protect them,
>then why do so many insist that they have them?

Because they want to live.

>>>Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
>>>life.
>>
>>Without law (backed by a government) anyone can be killed for no
>>reason. There is no inherent right to life.
>
>More hogwash.
>You are actually trying to tell us that, without government, no rights
>exist.
>You are confusing governmental protection of rights with the rights
>themselves.

What rights do you have in an anarchy? Does a right mean anything if
no one can back up that right?

>>>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>>>
>>>The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>>
>>No, but it significantly reduces it.
>
>If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>Therefore they don't exist, according to you.

Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
Maher about freedom of speech.

>>No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
>>historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
>>the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
>>to life" is simply meaningless words.
>
>Very wrong.
>It may be that it's a fairly recent idea that the lives of the
>subjects of a government don't belong to the leader, but that does not
>mean that there was never a right to live. Instead, it means that
>right wasn't recognized.

Which means the right is meaningless.

>Following your logic, Saddam Hussein was within his rights to kill any
>of his subjects he saw fit to kill.

According to his own rules he was. Doesn't make it defensible or
good, but he recognized no rights beyond his own.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

M

Matthew Russotto

Guest

• Dec 9, 2003

• #2,606

In article <[email protected]>,
z <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
>most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
>things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
>patients who obviously really need them.

You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.
--
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.

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 9, 2003

• #2,607

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>
> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
> Maher about freedom of speech.

Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
possible).

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! =-----

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,608

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:36:50 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:31:37 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Equal access means that all have the same access to healthcare.
>>Healthcare for all means that everyone has access to healthcare.
>>You're describing the latter.
>>It's not equal access that is essential, but access.
>>Equal access is what a non-competitive governmental health system
>>provides.
>>Access for all can be provided by a supplemental governmental system,
>>which still allows universal (for everyone) access, but not *equal*
>>access (meaning that one can, if able, get faster service, or services
>>not possible under the governmental system).
>
>Then as I understand it, Canada has equal access for essential health
>care needs, with health care for all beyond the essentials.

That seems to be what others are saying, too.
Thanks.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,609

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:06:30 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:34:33 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:41:39 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
>>>>
>>>>That's not the same as the right existing.
>>>
>>>Without a means of protecting those rights they are meaningless.
>>
>>Hogwash; if they are meaningless without the means to protect them,
>>then why do so many insist that they have them?
>
>Because they want to live.
>
>>>>Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
>>>>life.
>>>
>>>Without law (backed by a government) anyone can be killed for no
>>>reason. There is no inherent right to life.
>>
>>More hogwash.
>>You are actually trying to tell us that, without government, no rights
>>exist.
>>You are confusing governmental protection of rights with the rights
>>themselves.
>
>What rights do you have in an anarchy? Does a right mean anything if
>no one can back up that right?

You are, again, confusing being able to *exercise* a right, with the
right existing.

>
>>>>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>>>>
>>>>The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>>>
>>>No, but it significantly reduces it.
>>
>>If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>>Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>
>Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
>speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
>Maher about freedom of speech.

You're beginning to catch on.
>
>>>No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
>>>historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
>>>the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
>>>to life" is simply meaningless words.
>>
>>Very wrong.
>>It may be that it's a fairly recent idea that the lives of the
>>subjects of a government don't belong to the leader, but that does not
>>mean that there was never a right to live. Instead, it means that
>>right wasn't recognized.
>
>Which means the right is meaningless.

No, it means it can't be exercised.
>
>>Following your logic, Saddam Hussein was within his rights to kill any
>>of his subjects he saw fit to kill.
>
>According to his own rules he was. Doesn't make it defensible or
>good, but he recognized no rights beyond his own.

Note the word "recognized".
The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,610

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:36:50 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:53:03 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:58:15 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:44:55 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>>><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>>
>>>>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
>>>
>>>Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
>>>doesn't exist.
>>
>>But that's not considered a "God given" right, such as the right to
>>life.
>
>How do you define "right to life"? Without a government willing to
>back it up, life is pretty cheap.

If you really don't understand what "right to life" means, there's a
definite lack in your education.
Again, you are still confusing the existance of a right with being
able to exercize that right.


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,611

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:12:10 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Note the word "recognized".
>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.

If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,612

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:42 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>>
>> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
>> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
>> Maher about freedom of speech.
>
>Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
>was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
>If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
>possible).

I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
Banned from radio stations?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

G

George

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,613

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:42 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
> >> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
> >> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
> >> Maher about freedom of speech.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
> >was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
> >If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
> >possible).
>
> I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
> Banned from radio stations?

They weren't punished at all. Their former fans have the exact same
rights - and they exercised them!

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

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,614

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:45:02 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:42 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
>>> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
>>> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
>>> Maher about freedom of speech.
>>
>>Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
>>was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
>>If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
>>possible).
>
>I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
>Banned from radio stations?

They discovered that what you say has consequences.
The first amendment does not mean that what you say won't **** people
off; it says that the government isn't allowed to muzzle you if you
do.
Last I heard, radio stations have the right to determine their own
playlists, and individuals have the right to buy the CDs they want to
buy. Nothing that even remotely violates the first amendment there.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 10, 2003

• #2,615

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:45:03 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:12:10 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Note the word "recognized".
>>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
>
>If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?

It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
those granted by governments.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,616

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:42 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:37:29 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
> >> >Therefore they don't exist, according to you.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
> >> speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
> >> Maher about freedom of speech.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
> >was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
> >If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
> >possible).
>
> I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
> Banned from radio stations?

Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!

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! =-----

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,617

"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> z <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >No. That's because I have an American health insurance plan. Like
> >most, it penalizes doctors who send too many patients for expensive
> >things like MRIs so they ration them, to coin a phrase, to the
> >patients who obviously really need them.
>
> You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
> other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
> suck.

Managed care has it's shortcomings, but one has to remember that the more
you understand how it works the more likely you are to get what you need.
My experience has been that they resist referrals to specialists and
expensive tests. But you can get the referrals you need by pusing back.
It's true they incentivize doctors for minimizing referrals, and if you just
rollover and whine, well.... that's what you get. If you understand how the
system works, which is not easy, and push for what you think you need you
can get it most likely. I don't really care for it, but on the positve
side, it does lower costs.

> --
> 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.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,618

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

I think it will.... eventually.


> >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.
>

I don't think one needs to be "religious" to be good person or have a good
marriage, but the roots of virtue are religious.

> >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?

No.. Never said that.

> >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.

The decisive element isn't a church. Marriage has religious roots and it
benefits society precisely because of it. Not because participants are
necessarily religious.

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

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,619

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:05:24 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:32:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
> >> >> doesn't it?
> >> >
> >> >Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
> >> >etc....all that stuff. Our values.
> >>
> >> And gays don't have those values?
> >
> >Of course they do! Did I say they didn't?
>
> If marriage is about those values and you don't want gays to get
> married, I thought maybe you thought gay marriage would remove those
> values from the definition of marriage.

For me, it's not about gays per se. It's important to understand what
marriage is and means to society in general, in the macro sense. It's
meaningfulness isn't necessarily evident on an individual level. Redefining
it for gays or whoever, who's agenda in doing so isn't anything other than
to normalize the institution for a variety of lifestyles, none of which are
consistent with the the legacy of marriage or it's meaningfulness, is bad
medicine.

The nature of marriage and it's effect on society over generations, I
believe, is very significant. What would our society be like in a few
generations of marriage normalized for different lifestyles? Hard to say.
I can see government becoming a stumbling block for traditional family and
marriage by adding/removing rights/responsibilities based on the needs and
demands of "the married"; traditionalists would become isolated to that
extent.

I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended consequenses.
Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It doesn't make sense for
same sex other than a statement or "cause".

>
> >> >> Patriot Act, anyone?
> >> >
> >> >Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been
shown to
> >> >be wrong.
> >>
> >> Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?
> >>
> >Nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
>
> True enough, but it's an excellent example of rights being trampled.
> >>
> >> So accepting gays makes society bad?
> >>
> >No. Abandoning the traditional definition of marriage would be bad
medicine
> >for society.
>
> Society is evolving. 20 years ago you couldn't be openly gay, now
> it's a lot less of a big deal in most circles and doesn't matter at
> all in many.
>
> >> >> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
> >> >
> >> >People generally value modesty.
> >>
> >> *Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
> >> Puritans.
> >
> >Hmmm. I disagree. Modesty is common courtesy.
>
> Depends on where you are and what the circumstances are. At work?
> Certainly. At the beach? Shouldn't be an issue. If it's a really
> hot day at the park? Well, why not?
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,620

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.

The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
lie to this statement.

DS