Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?

Further, gays can adopt children.

 

Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."

 

And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?

 

It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.

 

Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.

I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.

Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.

And if they decided this about, say, Jews?

 

Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?

 

Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?

 

Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.

They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.

Yeah, sure. That's funny.

 

When Europe pays less for health care per capita, that would reduce employer
expenses.

 

Common sense, the fact that consumer columns and consumer shows always cite
them...

I guess you buy into "whatever a business says, shut up and take it"?

 

"Provide for the general welfare and the common defence" -- now I'd argue
giving billions of dollars to companies that Cheney used to work for don't
fall into either of these, but having a healthy populace sure would.

 

So you'd prefer, what, a monarchy? A theocracy to impose your religious
beliefs on others?

 

Most states don't recognize that anymore.

 

How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance? He
wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.

 

Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.

 

Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.

 

If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?

Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?

 

If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.

 

Ya know Daniel - you're pretty good in your technical areas, but when
you're on the opposite side of someone in a political discussion, you
become very much like Lloyd, i.e., you can't argue the points or
excercise logic and you throw in diversions.

The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
"marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
others do the same. You want to exclude the "opposite sex" part of the
definition. Someone else might want to exlude the "human beings" or the
"mutual consent" part of the difinition. No doubt we could find some
nature worshippers who would want to be allowed to marry a tree. The
problem with all of those cases is that they degrade and make
meaningless the concept of marriage for several reasons. All of them
would be very destructive - and I don't expect you to agree with that.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")