Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

x-no-archive: yes

As opposed to you "abusing groups" with your cross posts?

 

x-no-archive: yes

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

They may be, but that's not what you said.

 

Are you sure?
Since the definition of marriage is so closely tied to religion, those
who adhere to the religious beliefs are rankled by the idea of gay
marriage because 'it's against God's law'.
That's not a definition of Gay marriage.

 

That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that perspective
at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
detract from it. Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
doesn't require marriage.

To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
society. By redefining marriage, it's original purpose gets changed. Where
government has historically been generous in it's efforts to protect and
nurture marriage and family, that will inevitably change as marriage becomes
less about children and more about civil rights. A big mistake in my view.

 

Hmm. Can't decide. Such a tough choice.

Most of those benefits can be had without marriage. Some are boondoggles
since they were designed for traditional family situations where there was a
single breadwinner and there was a recognition of the need to protect the
family AS DEPENDENTS if the breadwinner died. It's less like that these
days with dual incomes, but the benefits remain because no one dares remove
them.

Of that, I have no doubt.

Defend that position instead of punting.

 

There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
be protected, people insured, etc. The point of these benefits in marriage
is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.

I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
Would he?


It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.

 

How about public nudity! Why are we forced to clothe? Uh, maybe that
wouldn't be such a good idea. There's a lot of ugly people out there,
Parker excluded of course.

 

I'd be happy to take your ng off my posts unless someone in your ng is a
contributor and objects. BTW, those abuse addresses won't deal with OT
threads. Maybe spam, threats, etc.

You're still better off filtering the subject line of threads you don't want
to see rather than hoping everyone takes your group off.

 

No argument there!

I would agree if the economies of scale didn't make that prohibitively
expensive. I'd love to have solar on my roof and be that much more
independent from the local (and expensive) power company. But it would cost
$40k to put a system on my roof and the major components would need
replacement by the time the load was paid off.

 

It's a general, macro principle, so one doesn't choke on the exceptions.
But since you asked, childless couples don't add to society in that manner.
When they die, that's it. That's not to say they don't contribute to
society, of course they can and do. But that's not the issue here.

Well, I think you're right in the sense that gays shouldn't have to walk
down the street in fear of being attacked by gay bashers or have to go into
a gay section in a restaurant and such. But I think it's a mistake to
equate the rights and responsibilities of marriage to civil rights, which is
what this effort is all about. It would change what marriage is and means
in general in our society. From an insitution to protect and nurture our
future generations to a benefits bonanza. Heck, the benefits of marriage
aren't even "rights" for straights. It's a choice we make as a society for
the benefit of society to treat marriage as we do. I don't suppose there's
anything in the constitution that says people have rights to the benefits of
marriage.

 

Yes. It's called the scientific literature.

OK, there is discussion about that, granted, but not about the 2 main points:

1. Warming is occurring.
2. Human activities are causing it.

 

Yeah, what else to expect of the mind-set that thinks Fox News is "fair and
balanced"?

 

How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a church; the
government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but "civil unions" for all
recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the same benefits to all of them.

 

Urban legend (or coming from you, outright lie).

 

Gee, anecdotal evidence is so, well, silly.

 

Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.

 

So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?

It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay

Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.

And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.

 

Are you claiming veterans get poorer healthcare? LOL!