Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

See - even Lon gets it. 8^)

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

 

Most of us don't care if you are gay or straight, we just don't want
homosexuality forced on our children. Most gays don't, but too many
do.

I support equal treatment for everybody, but gays are asking for more
equal treatment, which I am against.

 

You apparently do, however. Witness what you wrote just a couple days ago:

--
From: DTJ ()
Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-12-06 07:27:15 PST

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.

---

Too many do...what, exactly? What is this "force" they exert on your
children, exactly?

In what way? What special rights do you perceive gays asking for?

DS

 

That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Without a government, how do you protect your right to life? If might
makes right, you can lose your life very easily.

The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
of speech, that sort of thing.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

I've been reading Dan's stuff and he seems to know a lot more about
the topic than I do. If there's a discrepancy between what we say,
I'd believe him.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Not necessarily. It's equal access to that which is essential to your
health. Anything else that you want you can pony up for on your own.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Roughly 12/8/03 18:08, Brandon Sommerville's monkeys randomly typed:

But possible nontheless.

 

Possibly.....

 

You may.

 

Why probably not?

 

For Lloyd thats allowed because it's a leftist democrat's crony.
Just like Terry McAuliffe making millions off of Global Crossing just before
they went bankrupt. A bigger bankruptcy than Enron to boot. Then there's
also the book deal for which Hillary got an $8 million advance. Just like
Newt Gingrich except 3X the amount and Newt had to give his back because
there would be a conflict of interest since he was a Republican
Representative. Can we say double standard?
Of course Lloyd will now call me a right wing nazi racist idiot that needs
to learn some science.

 

No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
institution. A reflection of the people's values.

The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
love, we find it and happiness.

The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
living it.

Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
revolves around it's religious roots.

 

No. My answer was a little fecetious. It would have been better had they
solved their problems quite frankly.

That's one side of the blade. The other is making it too easy to give up.

When someone makes a mistake marrying the wrong person, it is a good thing
to be able to get out of it and have a second chance. I'm not arguing
against that.

I think it's true. Selfishness never was happiness.

 

It's roots are religious. A covenant between God, husband and wife. God's
way for us to bring children into the world.

 

Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.

 

Of course they do! Did I say they didn't?

Nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

No. Abandoning the traditional definition of marriage would be bad medicine
for society.

Hmmm. I disagree. Modesty is common courtesy.

 

I think people pretent they don't notice!

 

Point taken, but it's still difficult to redefine or expand marriage to
accomodate gays and expect that will be the end of it. The integrity of the
institution as it's current defined and valued will be lost.

I think each generation does that to the chagrin of the previous one.

 

And therefore what????

Tune in to MTV or VH1 - that will alleviate your fears that Americans
are too hung up on anything. We can get nasty with the best of them.
Again - not sure where you're going with this.

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