Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

"C. E. White" <[email protected]> sez:
<snip>
>It is not a marriage. <snip>

Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
church was no longer one in the same as the government.

Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
medieval ...

VLJ
--

And you cross posted this bull **** all over the place because???

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's


Bob Shuman wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
<bull**** snipped>

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:45:46 -0500, "C. E. White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
>that make it a dog?

Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
have a tail.

>The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
>in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
>a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
>way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
>doesn't make it right.

How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
the laws fall apart?

Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
issues at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:02:06 -0500, "C. E. White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there are
>> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>> >and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>> >redefining the word.
>>
>> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
>It is not a marriage.

It's a commitment between two people to live together and care for
each other. Sounds like a marriage to me. Hell, hopefully they'll be
better at it than hetero couples, isn't the divorce rate around 50%
now?

>I am not opposed to people of the same sex entering into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional marriage.

How does calling their relationship marriage change your marriage?

>If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same sex couple feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining an
>establishment that has long been in place.

Just become something is traditionally limited doesn't make that
limitation sensible.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

Brent,

If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)

Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.

Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
happened if ....

Bob

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%Irzb.409200$Tr4.1171555@attbi_s03...
> The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
> there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
> Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
> his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
> as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
> they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
> what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
> industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
> course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
>
> It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, vlj wrote:

> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies.

This is very well documented by historic texts.

> It was then co-opted by the church(es).

This, too, is very well documented by historic texts.

> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
> medieval ...

Well, at the very least, it begs the very interesting question of what
basis the likes of C.E. White have for defending the definition set
approximately 180 years ago on the grounds it's "Traditional",
simultaneously disregarding the many additional historical centuries of
considerably less savory "tradition" in the matter of marriage.

DS

it's "septic decay" (non-aerated) that occurs without Oxygen... producing
Methane!

different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition

aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat

non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile


"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
>
> IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
that
> wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
animals
> was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
like to
> have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
>
> 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! =-----

In article <[email protected]>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,
>
> If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
> AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
> in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
> technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
> think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
> looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
> standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
> time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
> other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
> pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)

Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.

What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.

> Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
> two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
> and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
> vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
> and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
> allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
> the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
> due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
> multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.

That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.

> Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
> interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
> happened if ....

My point still stands.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "OrygunGuy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
the
> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
and
> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
climate
> >change.
> >
> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
the
> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
more
> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
> >
> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
as
> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
> >
> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
> >
> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
be
> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
dioxide
> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
forces
> >which are beyond our control.
>
> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.

No, we don't.

It doesn't matter that
> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
cause
> of your fever today.


Still using the same feeble arguments I see.

>
> >
> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
> >
> >
> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
> >
> >
> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
> >we wheel by feel
> >79 chev 3/4 bb
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> > "z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > > "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> > > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
past.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No we don't!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> >> > concentration
> >> > > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> >does
> >> > not prove
> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> >> > anything. The
> >> > > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> >Looking
> >> > at one
> >> > > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> >As a
> >> > > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
research
> >> > don't even
> >> > > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> >few
> >> > years.
> >> > > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> >trying to
> >> > infere
> >> > > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
> >The
> >> > errors
> >> > > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> >they
> >> > are
> >> > > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
> >then
> >> > groomed the
> >> > > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment
is
> >> > treated as a
> >> > > > loon.
> >> > >
> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
"decided
> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
some
> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
the
> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> >> > > operation?
> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
establishment
> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> >> >
> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
is
> >a
> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
> >great a
> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> >(think
> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> >behind
> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> >>
> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
> >
> >

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53...
> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for
example.
>
> Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
> (LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
> area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
> a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
> people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
> I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
> treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
> where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
> to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
> that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
> week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
> you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
> work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
> foot in your mouth once again Parker.

Easy for him, he has a small brain but a big mouth.

>
>
>
>
>

Lloyd Parker wrote:


>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.


NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
"modification" is asinine.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
on
> >> health
> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >
> >> >How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> >> >insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> >Japan,
> >> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> >everybody?
> >
> >They don't. If you're Canadian and the Doctor discovers a cancerous tumor
> >that needs immediate treatment, they have to come to the USA to get it,
in
> >Canada, with a set health budget, you wait six months to a year for
> >treatment, until the government can "afford" to pay for your "free"
> >treatment. If you happen to die first great, less money they have to
spend.
> >You really are stupid aren't you?
>
> You must be, if you think we believe these lies.

All you have to do is check out the facts Lloyd, but you won't, because that
requires thought, something you are incapable of.

>
> >
> >

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
>
> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>

Or "society" can decide dismantle or reduce taxation. You just don't
want to see that happen.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
on
> >> health
> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >
> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
> >>
> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
> >profit.
> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
> >>
> >>
> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >> >out of business.
> >>
> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and
make
> >> huge profits on them.
> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
> >exorbitant
> >> profits.
> >>
> >>
> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
> >>
> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
> >research.
> >>
> >>
> >> >so who
> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
> >useful
> >> drugs
> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
having
> >the
> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
socialism
> >you'd
> >> end
> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >national
> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >
> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
> >TRILLIONS
> >> of
> >> >dollars.
> >>
> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
> >>
> >>
> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
get
> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
> >>
> >> Totally false.
> >
> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
doesn't
> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>
> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:

Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/
Co
> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Trouble is
> >> >where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada
> >system
> >> here?
> >> >
> >> Why are Canadian retirees moving back to Canada? Why are American
seniors
> >> going their for their medicine?
> >
> >
> >Big difference between buying medicine and receiving medical treatment,
but
> >you knew that, you just enjoy lying.
> >
> >

In article <[email protected]>, Steve wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>
>>
>> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
>
> NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
> replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
> available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
> "modification" is asinine.

Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.

That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
trailer queens

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
get
> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
> >>
> >> Totally false.
> >
> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form of
> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice that
> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare was
> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
>
> If you're rich.

With your system he would be dead, with ours he has a good chance of
survival. Why do you seek to stifle advancement Lloyd?

>
> >
> >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:

> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>
> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> relationship.

I have no problem with two people who love each other affirming their
relationship. I also have no problem with laws being changed to accord
these people the same rights and benefits that are accorded to people
married under the traditional definition. I just don't agree that it is
correct to call this a marriage - at least in the traditional sense.
English words frequently have multiple meaning and certainly the word
marriage in the general sense can be used to describe a union between
all sorts of things (as in "He was married to his life style.").
However, when we are discussing the legal definition of a marriage, I
don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended it
to cover same sex unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.

> You have yet to explain why the sex of the two partners is at all relevant
> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
how can I trust the laws the words describe?


> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?" I just wants legal
terms to have a consistent understandable meaning. I don't like the idea
of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting the meaning of words.

> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>
> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> union between members of the same race."

I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.

> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>
> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on. Traditional
man/woman marriage could be a sub-set. I suppose you could pass laws
explicitly redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to
include same sex union, but this seems needlessly provocative. Of course
maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change the legal
definition of marriage to include same sex unions.

I really don't know what else I can say on the subject. I just prefer
that words have a consistent legal interpretation. I have no desire to
discriminate again people of the same sex who love each other, I just
don't agree that we can just decide to redefine the legal meaning of
marriage to include same sex unions because it is the expedient way to
implement a desirable policy change.

Ed

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "David J. Allen" 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
> >expensive.
> >> >Most
> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
room
> >> >spend
> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
> >live
> >> >in
> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
> >just
> >> >out of
> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
> >"free."
> >> >If you
> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
> >However
> >> >if you
> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
try
> >to
> >> >screw
> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
> >> >administrators,
> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
the
> >> >poor).
> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
> >is,
> >> >we have
> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
see
> >> >only two
> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
on
> >> >"private"
> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
> >> >suggests
> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
bills.
> >If
> >> >you
> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
be
> >> >generously
> >> >> granted based on need).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
US.
> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
I
> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
> >the
> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
> >problem
> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
> >cost
> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
and
> >more
> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
> >who
> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
> >poor
> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
on
> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
> >> >
> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
medical
> >care
> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
As
> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
for
> >and
> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
complex
> >and
> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
> >> >
> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
an
> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
supply
> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
won't
> >be
> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
> >will
> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
no
> >> >competitors.
> >>
> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> >health
> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >>
> >
> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
expense.
> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
year
> >for treatment.
> >
> >
>
> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
does
> not happen.


Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>
> Read, for example,
> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html
>
> or
>
>
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/
Co
> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>

Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>
>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>
>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."

Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
loving the idea.

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
> >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> >to pay for later.
>
> I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
> her body rather strange.
> We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
> use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
> argument right there.

Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice what
to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
answer to this Lloyd?


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