Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Sometimes they try three or four times! If something fails on a
regular basis, then there's a significant problem with the seriousness
with which society takes it. My feeling on it is that it's the
instant gratification concept that most people live with these days.
Everyone wants to be happy right now, all the time. Marriage requires
constant effort and is never emotional bliss all the time. Society as
a whole doesn't value it enough to work at it. Not everyone, and I
count myself as someone who believes in working at it, but a very
significant number.

That was an extreme implementation of some crazy ideology not
represented anywhere in any kind of nature.

Politicians will use any means necessary to get a vote.

You're right. There's supposed to be caring and concern behind it,
ideally love. None of which precludes gays.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

I never suggested anything like that. All I am disputing is the value
that society apparently puts on marriage.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

That's kind of the point of marriage, isn't it?

Then let them lobby for it.

None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
recognized in the same fashion?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Hey, your village called, they want their idiot back...
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
etc....all that stuff. Our values.

That's not true. The premise of our constitution is that there are certain
rights that are inalienable. They don't come from any community. They just
are and can never be taken away. There are other's that do derive from the
will of the people, but the "inalienable" ones the state can never take away
regardless of any agreement.

Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown to
be wrong.

I think we agree. It's the unfortunate nature of politics.

??? badly entrenched? If you mean politically polarized, then I think that
has to do with the Democrats hold on power having slipped in recent years.
They're going to the trenches to get it back.

I don't believe the existence of a married gay couple "does" anything to
society. It works the other way around. Our values reflect in our laws.
The way we regard marriage as a whole has a very significant effect on
society and the social order we place on society via the law. If we were to
regard marriage independent of the traditional view (man, woman, children)
then that is an indication of our values and would likewise be manifested in
all our laws. It would be a quantum shift in the traditions of what people
have believed makes society good.

People generally value modesty. The younger generations and dirty old men
have some difficulty understanding it (nothing new), but it is nonetheless
an important social value. It's reflected in public nudity laws and apply
to both genders... but not the same way. If we had a gender normal society,
the law couldn't discriminate between men and women wrt nudity. That
matters to most people. If that changes, we'll have topless women at the
park and beaches and maybe even public sex. How about that guys!

That's not what the equal rights amendment was. What you descibe sounds
like Affirmative Action.

 

How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?

 

Negative, nor is that what I said.

 

To me it's not a matter of "feeling threatened" by some gay people down the
street being married or not. The social order we maintain in our society is
based on our values. There are those whose values approach moral anarchy
(anything goes). I'd prefer those people were in the minority and weren't
the ones to define our social order.

Since many of our values eminate over many generations far in the past, it's
hard to understand the real meaning of institutions such as marriage. I
think we take for granted the good effects traditional values has on
society. I'm sure Lloyd will now bring up slavery and gay bashing a la that
Shepard boy that was murdered a few years back as my brand of values.
Typical of him to look only for opportunities to spout off the same old
(must be memorized by now) lines. Of course, it's false anyway. My
progenitors from the south were Lincoln Republicans (which would have gotten
me killed 150 years ago) so don't even let that jaw drop open Lloyd.

 

There are times that I might just think so. I have friends inwhich the
father left and now the mom is involved with a guy that is really a jerk
(she doesn't see it... she's so worried about being alone) and her kids all
hate this guy. It looks like she's going to marry him any way. Makes me
think there ought to be a law.

There was a time, pre- no fault divorce, that getting a divorce wasn't easy.
There had to be justification. Our value shifts going away from traditional
values has made that a quaint thing of the past. Again, my point of view is
based on the principles of marriage and family being good and the right
thing for society. The trend is toward what's good and fair for the
individual based on a civil rights approach. That will never be constrained
to just gay marriage.

 

Every time I see "equal access to health care", it seems to include a
non-competitive system, where ALL health care MUST be delivered within
the system. There is never any room for care delivered without going
through the government-controlled system.

I don't like such a system, as it stifles elective procedures
needlessly.

 

I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

It wouldn't. The point is that marriage is no longer held to be a
truly sacred institution by society any more. If it was, there
wouldn't be so much failure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

I'd really love to see how you can make it so that, when the number of
divorces is about 1/2 the number of marriages, the divorce rate is
only 10%.

 

In part, yes.
It also means self-defense. Which, of course, doesn't involve marriage
at all.
Is children within marriage the sole reason for marriage? Obviously
not, otherwise there would be a rule that any couple that gets married
must have children.
Marriage is a complex concept, and children, while a major part of
marriage, do not define a marriage.

 

This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
government, such as, for example, the right to life.

What is pecularly a concept of democratic forms of government is that
the community itself, and not the government, can grant rights.
The government can only codify them.

 

Speaking of Texas, "The" CBC is running a report tonight on hospitals in
Texas turning people away and choosing the "least expensive" option
rather than the "most therapeutic", all because of lack of money!!

Hmmmmm. Big difference eh?

Dan

 

And gays don't have those values?

Semantics. It was agreed at the formation of the community that those
rights wouldn't be able to be revoked by the community, that doesn't
mean that they don't derive from the community.

Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?

The problem with politics is that no matter who you vote for a
politician always gets in.

By entrenched I mean the prevailing attitudes between the left and the
right. That being that any idea coming from the other side is wrong
due to where it came from, not the nature of the idea.

So accepting gays makes society bad?

*Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
Puritans.

Hell, what's wrong with topless women?!

In all seriousness though, women being topless cause so much stir
because it's banned. Try going to a topless beach in Europe or
Australia. No one cares! In most of North America it's just that
it's forbidden, thus people get excited when they see it. There's
such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting.

Then I'm not sure what the Equal Rights Amendment is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Would it have been better had the father been forced to stay?

How do you prove emotional abuse?

Having seen enough couples where one of the members was abusive, I'm
glad that people are no longer forced to stay together if they don't
want to.

It's interesting that you suggest that marriage not be about what you
can get for yourself. How many times have you heard women say that
they will only marry a guy who makes at least X amount of money? Or
guys who marry a woman based on how she looks?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

The problem with this assumption is that you appear to be assuming
that gays fall into the moral anarchy group. There are a lot more
straight moral anarchists than gay, many of whom just want the same
things from a relationship that you and I do (minus kids for most, of
course).

True enough, but holding on to something just because that's the way
it's always been done is never a good thing. *Everything* should be
re-evaluated on a fairly regularly basis.

Lloyd's a hypocritical idiot, I'd kill file him if it wasn't so funny
to read his stuff.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

You can pay for elective care if you want it, it's just that the
necessities are all covered by the gov't. If there is too much of a
need for a specific procedure then setting it up on a fee basis simply
means that the wealthy will be able to get ahead of those who can't
afford to pay for the procedure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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