Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

The folks who argued against it 50 years ago claimed that was exactly what
it did. They used the selfsame language you're using now against same-sex
marriage.

When mixed-race marriage is being discussed, it's a marriage issue.

DS

 

Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should siblings be
prevented from marriage? What if they want to get all of these legal marriage
benifits? Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or it is not. And it if
is not, than there are others besides gays that deserve its benefits. Because if
banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning marriage of consenting
adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly is too.

 

Clear and present public health reasons.

Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
remember?

DS

 

Daniel, Greg, Lloyd.

*Please* remove rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys from your discussions. We
really are not interested.
I'm asking this in the nicest possible way.

David.

 

Of course they would, and Lloyd & his leftist pals would still be singing
their praises. Naturally, Lloyd would have preferred the commies to still
rule Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe, indeed he'd have danced in the
streets when Soviet tanks rolled across West Germany and on into France.
With the demise of all democracies Lloyd's true "worker's paradise" would be
at hand...and if anyone dared to speak up his comie pals would either kill
them on the spot or send them off to the Gulags with the rest of the
reactionaries.

 

But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.

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

 

Very Lloyd-like.

Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
activities.

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

 

You dodged the question, Lloyd, I mean, Dan. His examples are more
realistic than (not ridicuouls like) my man-dog and man-tree examples.
So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
against those others.

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

 

It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.

I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.

Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.

 

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.

So go ahead and spout you faggot views, intelligent people know
better.

 

It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?

 

They are no more ridiculous than ass fucking another man.

 

Lloyd's never had to turn a profit in his life, nor has his employer,
and he looks down on people who have to sully their hands doing so.
It's called "elitism"..

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

 

The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.

Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.

 

Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.

 

Are you sure?

DS

 

*shrug* That's neither here nor there. It's convenient shorthand for those
who wish to codify their religious beliefs so as to enforce them upon
those whose beliefs differ. That's all.

People who are six-foot-four usually duck when passing through low
doorways or staircases with low-drop headers. People who have blue eyes
usually put on sunglasses before people with brown eyes. Those are
behaviors (or "activities") springing from their being 6'4" or blue-eyed,
respectively.

Surely you're not *really* so crass as to believe that all heterosexual
sex is an expression of love while all homosexual sex is simply an
"activity"...are you?

DS

 

....you and your ilk. Best get used to the idea; it will happen. Maybe not
tomorrow and maybe not by 2006, but it will happen within my lifetime and
probably within yours, as well.

DS

 

If you want to start regulating marriage based on the specific sexual acts
engaged in, you have a *large* job ahead of you, and your work will by no
means be confined to homosexuals.

DS