But, it isn't 'social pressures' that should be driving the government in this situation, but the interests of the government in promoting a stable and prosperous society. Government is supposed to be keeping order and promoting welfare, not trying to make each special interest group happy. Benefits and privileges like marriage cost the state money, so they want to get the best bang for their buck.

Religious marriage and state marriage are really separate issues, with very different reasons behind them.

Absolutely agree here. First, your final point is well taken (and a huge basis behind OWS) that corporations already control our supposed democracy by controlling what happens in the government. The last thing we need is for them to start pushing public policy around, which may not even be the position held by the majority making up the corporation, nor any kind of majority of society in general.

What does this have to do with, "... people try[ing] to control how others feel and who they love ..."? Marriage is a privilege, not a right. The state gives this privilege to suit its interests, not to make people happy. The interest of the state, in this case, is to promote a healthy and stable society; which means a healthy next generation. The best case to achieve this goal is to promote a stable male/female couple who will likely a) have children (no other combination can), and b) hopefully raise this child to be a good part of society. Hence, marriage being between a male and female. (Note: there is NOTHING religious about the above at all. Other arguments could be made if we want to go down that road, such as religious marriage in church, temple, etc. I'm strictly talking about secular marriage here.)

No one is prohibiting anything. If people of the same sex want to form a committed relationship, no one is stopping that. In many places, they can even get packages of benefits/'rights' which give them solutions to such issues as estate planning, hospital visitation, and partner benefits at the work place.

Also, the argument is not that a single male or female, or male/male, or female/female couple can't raise a child with good results. And, certainly some of these arrangements are much better than bad male/female couples. The argument is that since the male/female couple is the best (numerous studies indicate this), this should be what the state promotes. We don't want to promote sub-optimal or make it equal to in how it is viewed, as this encourages the sub-optimal (and not just that people will then take advantage of the opportunity, but also in how society views it).
(Again, note: we're not talking about value of the people or relationship, or morals, etc. here... simply how it is viewed as a benefit to the state to achieve their goals, which is why they would give such a privilege in the first place. The state doesn't really care about - or at least probably can't afford to - give such a benefits package just to make Adam and Steve feel good about their relationship.)

Note that the post I replied to said, "... punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things... ".

Those are still fairly short trips and either mountain or more urban. I'd like to hear from someone who drove from, say, Minneapolis to San Antonio, or Toledo to Tucson, etc. (ie: across a couple tanks at least and with mostly true highway conditions). The record for a TDI Jetta (unofficial?) is almost 59 MPG, driving across the US and staying within 5 mph of the posted speed limits (ie: not driving really slow, etc.). So, I'm guessing that upper 40s, lower 50s shouldn't be all that hard to get on more 'normal' trips. We who live in mountainous areas are making the mileages sound low. :) Our 'highway' involved going between Vancouver B.C. and Kelowna, Osoyoos, etc. (mountain and wine country of Canada, so like 90% mountains... and a good amount of it was on little back-roads through the mountains. Fun, but not necessarily conducive to fuel economy.)

Given they said, "...punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things..." it's simply B.S. or they are mistaken in some manner (ie: bad trip computer, they don't know how to calc mileage, etc.).

Well, if you accelerate quickly at the stoplights, but there aren't too many of them and you drive like you have an egg-shell on the accelerator the rest of the time, then your average could still be fairly high. But, I agree with the others, you're not going to defy basic physics here. Modern engine or not, when you accelerate, the engine uses more fuel. Period! Yes, modern engines don't dump as much EXTRA fuel in when you tromp the throttle as older engines used to. But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter how you drive.

Also, note what the original post I responded to said, "... punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things...". Sorry, but it doesn't matter how modern the engine is, that isn't going to get one anywhere near the top of the range possible for a particular vehicle. Given that the number cited was near the top (or beyond?) for the type of vehicle, I simply called B.S.! Physics people. It's kind of like the hundreds mpg carburetors the govt. confiscated. It's called urban legend taking in the uneducated or gullible. Or, as I also noted, maybe they were simply trusting a really bad trip computer.

I guess it depends on how much is enough. If I remember correctly, you're around 11 sec 0-60 mph and our 2010 is just a tad over 8 sec. Either is fairly drivable, for sure (much more than that, and I start to get nervous on free-way entrances and such, especially where we live (they tend to be quite short). If performance isn't misused, I consider it a safety feature. It just comes down to where you draw the line at that point.

Your point is well taken though, that we certainly could have bought an older model of something to bring our cost down. I wanted a 2008 Jetta TDI or newer though, so that didn't work out with the financing. Older than that, I'd probably have just gone for another early to mid-'00s Civic (what our TDI replaced).

"Around here about half of the people have at least one Subaru because they help keep you from getting dead."

Yea, I can understand that. If I lived in the mountains (well, I live REALL close... so better, if I traveled through the mountains a lot) I'd probably get and AWD as well, if for nothing else, than to avoid always having to chain-up. Some good winter tires are probably more likely to keep one from 'getting dead' than the AWD (other than getting stuck if you are in a really remote area).

I've always kind of joked that 4WD / AWD, especially with trucks, just helps you get into trouble all that much more quickly, as braking isn't much different. At least with a FWD or RWD, bad drivers often can't get going very well in the first place in bad conditions. ;)

One thing I've noted in reading some of the comments so far, is that a lot of folks seem to be depending on the trip computer in the cars for their numbers. They are notoriously inaccurate (like 5-10 mpg high often, from what I've seen). If you really want to measure your fuel economy, start a log (there are some great apps for smart phones) and fill up completely at the same station and pump as often as possible. Record the fuel amount you fill up with, and the distances on the odometer. Then do the math. Over enough time, you'll get a pretty good, more accurate number for your average fuel economy. Then take into account the type of driving you do (city/highway) and how you drive (do you drive for economy or sport, etc.) and you can then start to compare to others who calculate the same way. Get enough of those stats and you start to see real-world mileage for a particular car model.

The only way your GTI gets 31 mpg is if the stoplight in question is at the top of the mountain and you coast the rest of the way down. Sheesh! You're not going by what you see while cruising on the highway up on the trip computer, right? (BTW, 'trip computers' are notoriously bad from what I've seen. If you go to forums for a particular car and look at what the trip computer folks are reporting, vs. the people who really measure, you can often see a 5-10 mpg difference, with the trip computer almost always reading high.) GTI's typically run in the 16-22 mpg range, depending on how driven and type of driving from what I've seen.

You're correct however, about the TDIs. Our Jetta TDI has averaged 34.58 mpg over about the last 1.5 years in mostly city driving (measured by filling the tank at the same station and pump most of the time, and recording the amount of fuel and distance traveled each time... not quite as accurate as some methods, but much better than the trip computer.... and over that long of time, it starts to become pretty accurate.) We've never really taken a true highway trip. The closest we came is a trip through the mountains where we got 41 mpg for a tank. I know the TDIs are capable of much better in true highway situations.

Yea... they are freaking expensive up here for sure. We paid ~$30k for our 2010 Jetta TDI, and it certainly wasn't loaded (Tiptronic and winter package, otherwise base model). The good news is that we got zero interest for 5.5 years and they seem to hold their value reasonably well.

We'd certainly have considered a used one (we tend to go used), except 2008 were the first year of the new Jetta's where we get some performance as well, and used ones under higher interest payments would actually cost more than the new one.

Yea, not only safety improvements, but also more power on most cars today. Back when I was just out of college, I bought my first sports car, which had like 140hp. The typical family car at the time was between like 80-120 hp. Now, most cars have more than my sports car did back then. Also, some day go back and look at the mileage for cars in the 70s and early 80s, especially the smaller imports.

If we hadn't loaded up on so much safety stuff, and added so much power to our cars, we'd get considerably better mileage. I'm not saying I'd make those tradeoffs... just pointing it out. Personally, I think we'll eventually see bio-fuels and electric cars take over that are going to have even more safety and performance, and then we won't have to worry so much about the economy aspect. (This assumes we generate the electricity in clean ways, have clean battery technology, create bio-fuels from microbes, etc. which I don't think are all that far away if we get at it.)

Subaru, in general, had pretty dismal mileage though.... so that makes that improvement easier IMO. I really wanted to get a Subaru (love the Impreza), but it didn't fit the fuel economy needs of the family. I might be able to look at them again now if I were in the market. We ended up getting a VW Jetta TDI, which other than AWD, IMO is kind of a best of all worlds. It has great mileage and good performance in it's class.