Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>confiscation.
>>
>
>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.

That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
And that's hardly the case.

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>canadian health care problems
>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>friends promise.
>>
>
>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>
>Try this:
>
>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???
You've GOT to be kidding.

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>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.
>
>Read, for example,
>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html

Um, Lloyd...
Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>>
>>>
>>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>efficiency, such
>>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>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_.

I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:45:58 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>>
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>and
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>>
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>engines get from emissions standards.

Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?

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

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:

> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
> >confiscation.
> >
>
> 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...

You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
constitution allows them to. Going beyond that is stealing regardless
of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
"taxes".

I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
Guess I was wrong.

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! =-----

Brent P wrote:

> 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

Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today

Bill Funk wrote:


>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>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???
> You've GOT to be kidding.
>

You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.

On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
>genders
>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>
>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>>Ed

The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>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 doesn't.

Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.

In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/

Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.

Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."

In my opinion, of course.

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

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.

To the same degree that that's true, nor did liberals pass pedophilia
laws. Nor will they (the supposed owners of all human rights issues)
actively participate in freeing women from the oppression they live
under in Islamic countries.

> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?

Because that government is of, for, and by the people? Like I say, why
aren't you re-defining "murder" as "whitewashing a fence"? Words have
meaning (unless you're a liberal).

> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to pay
> for any expense of raising the child.

Well, maybe just one, but only if she consents to sterilization - she
doesn't have to consent, but in that case then neither do I then have to
pay for her idiocy. It is her freedom to do so, but it is not her right
to make me pay for it.

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! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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.

Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
Canada's healthcare system sucks.

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 Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:01:46 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.

A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.
>
>>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?

It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.
>
>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.

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

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
> less
> >> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
> healthier.
> >
> >I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
> >disagree with you.
> >
>
> Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
> Look at the numbers.
>

So much for liberals being the source of all compassion. They're
*PEOPLE* Lloyd - not numbers. Their ****ing kids died due to a system
that could not deal with situations that required more than
one-size-fits-all treatment. We lose some too in spite of heroic
measures, but these were due to an incompetent socialistic system.

OK - lets look at the numbers: Find me comparative statistics on the
survival rates of kids between the ages of ten and twenty years old who
had Ewings Sarcoma/PNET and were treated in (1) the U.S., and (2)
Canada. Then lets talk about numbers. Oh - and include in those
statistics the time to diagnosis from the moment the kid became
symptomatic.

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 Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> Canada's healthcare system sucks.

I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.

DS

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Funk wrote:

> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
> other people.

Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...

DS

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
> objective source.

Man, we couldn't make this stuff up.

Wow, Lloyd - you make even the stuff that conservatives know is an
exageration of the what a sterotypical liberal is seem true. If I were
a reasonable liberal, I would be telling you to shut the heck up because
you're making us reasonable ones look foolish.

There was a time not too many years ago when it was almost believable
that your kind were the bastions of human rights issues the world over,
and yet now you hate a decent man so much that you would let your hatred
of him cause you to be apologists and useful idiots for a man who
routinely did such things as have the eyes of a 3 month old baby gouged
out while interrogating the baby's father, put people in tree shredders,
kill and mutilate innocent people and send the body parts home to the
family to be left in front of the house, etc. Your ilk has lost the
claim to being the great supporters of human rights and decency for many
years to come. Your presidential contenders have so confused themselves
about what they pretended to believe is right and wrong that they now
don't know which way to point their peckers.

You elevate above the authority of the U.S. government in our own
country the authority of an organization (the U.N.) that signed
under-the-table agreements with international gay rights organizations
to endorse and support NAMBLA (an organization that promotes and
aggressively fights to legalize pedophilia the world over), only to be
stopped by the U.S. Congress' officially adopting a resolution to stop
paying its dues until its endorsement and support of such organizations
ceased.

And we're supposed to look to you to tell us what's right when it comes
to ethics, morality, and constituionality and set aside what we know to
be right and just and moral. I will take my imperfect principles above
your totally bankrupt sense of right and wrong *ANY* day.

I could go on, but I've said quite enough I think.

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! =-----

Are you two sure that it's not you guys that's letting all that high test
gas escape.. Is this Jeep talk????????

"Robert A. Matern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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! =-----
>
>

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> I don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended
> 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.
> If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
> how can I trust the laws the words describe?

OH! I understand your objection now.

So, what are the new words for "Speeding"? There'd be one from 1987 and
one from 1995. Prior to 1987, "Speeding" meant going faster than 55 mph.
Between 1987 and 1995, there'd have to be some new word, since the
national speed limit was raised to 65 mph, so obviously the old word --
"speeding" -- wouldn't apply. And then in '95, the national speed limit
was abolished, so whatever word was used to mean "exceeding 65 mph"
between 1987 and 1995 would have been rendered useless, so you'd need
another new word. You can't just change the law so the word means
something else, after all, right?

And what about "obscenity"?! Heck, under your philosophy that word
would've been rendered obsolete and required replacement practically every
week since 1620!

Let's see, some other examples? Sure, how about "DOT legal headlamp
system"? Prior to 1957, it meant two 7" round sealed beam units under
NHTSA, indivisible, with tungsten and glass for all, to the exclusion of
all others. From '57 to '73 it meant two 7" round sealed beam units *or*
four 5.75" round ones, to the exclusion of all others. From '73-'75 it
meant two 7" rounds, *or* four 5.75" rounds, *or* two 200mm x 142mm
rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From '75-'83 it meant two 7"
rounds *or* four 5.75" rounds *or* two 200mm x 142mm rectangulars *or*
four 165mm x 100mm rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From
'83-'86 it meant...you get the point.

In each of these examples, and many others besides, the scope and
definition of what is covered by a legal term have changed, expanded
and/or contracted simply by dint of a change, deletion or reinterpretation
of an existing law and/or the introduction of a new one.

Humanity is considerably more adaptible than you give us credit for, as it
seems, for in every such case we've managed to get along just fine.
Nobody's been confused about what "speeding" means, nobody's been confused
about what is or isn't a "DOT legal headlamp". So, the assertion that
Bad Things<tm> will happen if gays are allowed to get Married<tm> because
it will render the term legally confusing, contains no merit upon which to
stand.

The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that this objection to the
application of the word "marriage" to same-sex unions is a false front for
something else. What else? Well, it could be a dislike of homosexuals, a
plain case of snobbery, religious fervor, "I got mine, Jack, so ****
you"...or a combination of the above.

> What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?"

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a
woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man
and a woman."

> I just wants legal terms to have a consistent understandable meaning.

Then you're sorta ****ed, see above. Legal terms' meanings shift and drift
all day, every day. Can't keep up? That makes one of you. The rest of us
are doing just fine.

> I don't like the idea of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting
> the meaning of words.

You'd prefer pointing and grunting? Or perhaps some mathematics-based
system, or a legal system based on musical notes or tints and hues?

> > 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.

....exactly as the Defense of Marriage act has been passed prohibiting such
unions, yes. That's one very strong parallel.

> The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.

That is exactly what anti-miscegenation laws did.

> The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
> them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on.

Bzzt. The "right way" is for all married Americans to have the same
responsibilities and rights, period. Not for one specific group to have
whatever table scraps lawmakers "agree on" throwing them.

> 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.

The majority frequently feels provoked, put upon, abused or otherwise
wronged when their exclusive privileges are extended to others not like
them. A nominally democratic and free society is a provocative place.

> Of course maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change
> the legal definition of marriage to include same sex unions.

<eyeroll> Yeah, that's it. They're doing it *expressly because they know
it ****es you off*. They're fighting expensive legal battles *just to get
your goat*.

> I have no desire to discriminate again people of the same sex who love
> each other

This claim, in light of your other assertions in this and other posts, is
not believable. It's apparent you *do* wish to engage in exactly this sort
of discrimination -- you just won't admit it, apparently. Don't feel
lonely, Ed, this has been going on for a very long time. Those who argued
vehemently in favor of keeping anti-miscegenation laws considered
themselves enlightened and unprejudiced. After all, they didn't seek to
*enslave* blacks, as their horrid, ignorant, cruel and hateful forebears
had done. No. They just sought to maintain God's natural law by
prohibiting the mixing of the races, that's all. Just as folks like you
swear you're not predjudiced or hateful. Not like your horrid, ignorant,
cruel and hateful forebears who rounded up gays and threw them in
institutions, "treated" them with electroshock, or simply stoned them to
death. No. You just seek to maintain God's natural law, etc. etc. etc.

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
> opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples."
>
> DS

Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same-sex
relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
a certain relationship between opposite-sex couples".

In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".

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! =-----