Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
with.

Look - obviously we'll never agree. We both choose what we want to
believe, and we live with the consequences of our choices. When it
comes down to it, you'll vote for and support people and causes that you
believe in, same for me, and on each one, one of us will probably not be
very happy with the outcome and claim that the other's beliefs and
actions are adversely affecting the other's life, nation, rights,
children, grandchildren, etc. In the whole scheme of things, this is
all very temporary. I believe in long term. Again: choices and
consequences. Let's talk again in a few thousand years.

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

 

Only if the siblings are opposite sex & producing children is involved. Clearly
producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for sibling
marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?

 

In what jurisdiction? Do you acknowledge that Jeff can marry his brother Jerry?

 

Asked and answered.

DS

 

What is the health reason involved in Jeff marrying brother Jerry? Or, as his
been pointed already, that producing children needn't be involved in the
course of marriage, what would the public health reasons be without children?

I just don't see how you can have one and not the other.

 

Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
hence the reference to the penis (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).

So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
The other person could not be another lesbian.

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

 

What sodomy laws have been enacted since Republicans have held majorities in
Congress? Or have been in the Whitehouse? Or in the last few decades? Yeah,
sure there's some old laws that may be on the books, but it's still illegal to
take baths on Sundays in some states (Kentucky for one, IIRC) too.

 

I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.

DS

 

Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.

 

Because that would be a lie. That's like asking "Why not just
acknowledge that mixing two parts spam with three parts bread crumbs
will produce water. You could acknowledge it, but it doesn't make it
true.

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

 

Why is it a slippery slope argument?

 

"Most folks." Like Lloyd, perhaps?

The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the type
of activity they each engage in, unless you know of other differences
unrelated to sexuality.

 

If you don't know the definition of a slippery-slope argument, go look it
up. I am not your debate coach.

DS

 

Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.

The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?

DS

 

No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
- before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).

I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
meaningless, legally).

I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
"insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).

And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
honest!"

Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
won't do that - honest!"

I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
not happening.

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

 

And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority when my
higher authority says I can't. So again, it boils down to we believe
what we believe, and we act on those beliefs (at the voting booth), and
may the best man win. Even if he doesn't win, it will all be sorted out
in the end by my higher authority - sorry - I didn't write the rules.
Don't like them? Compain to my higher authority.

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

 

snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...

What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D

 

snip of meaningless liberal drivel...

Surely you are not really so crass as to try to pass off mental
disorders such as homosexuality as being a genetic issue ... are you?

 

Sorry danny boy, but very few people in the fields you mention feel as
you say they do, contrary to what the media and liberal liars like you
would have us believe.

 

Not really. Slippery slope arguments are not in and of themselves
invalid. The ridiculous dog and tree examples aside, the removal of
distinction between children and adults is a possible reality which does
put you on that slippery slope for legal pedophilia, marrying children,
etc. Oh - I know -t he left alwasy claims they are going to stop at the
last step that they are presently pushing for (whichever one it is at
teh time). First legalize sodomy, then legalize gay marriage, then
remove distinction between chuldren and adults...

Slippery slope - yes.

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