Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Leopard · Feb 28, 2004, 04:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Impenetint,
Thats the point, if marraige were a true contract, then it would be up to the participants within the contract to define the terms. In ALL contracts, the only 'restrictions' are that the parties involved are consenting adults. It is only in the 'marriage' cointract that the state steps in to force a group from participating.

To ban 'gays' from marraige (as a contract) is akin to banning Women from buying a house, or short people from working, or blacks from playing professional sports ... (all of these interactions are contracts between two parties)

I have no problem with gay people forming contracts between themselves - it harms me or my own contracts in no way. The problem I do have is that this particular contract also is recognized by the state as conferring special priveledges which others (singles) do NOT have - that is my problem. Why should my taxes be taken from me and spent in a manner that endorses or supports perhaps a lifestyle that I don't necessarily believe in? Why is the government in the business of endorsing ANY particular lifestyle?

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

then have the government make sure that blacks get admitted into the KKK<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

you misunderstand - if the government sponsored/paid for/endorsed the KKK, then yes, the KKK would necessarily be open for all folks. But the government has no 'right' to tell people with whom they want to associate or create associations in a private manner.

Look at it this way:
if the government takes money from all of us (taxes) and purchases a building, then all people (citizens/tax payers) have equal access to that building.

if I purchase a building, then I get to determine who has access.

This applies to all private property, including businesses. If I want to throw a party at my house, hire a band, hire a bartender: then I have total control: I can allow/disallow smoking/drinking/sex/whatever behavior on MY property. I can charge others for access to my property (a cover charge). I can deny ANYONE access to my property (if I don't want parents to bring children, then they can't; if I don't want gays, then they are not allowed; if I don't want hispanics, then so be it). NOTE: this does not infringe on anyones 'rights' - they all still retain the same rights as myself in regards to their own property. Since it is MY property, I make the rules (except that I cannot over-rule the force/fraud rights of other humans (ie: if I allow someone onto my property, I cannot whip out my gun and rob them - I can tell them to leave or pay money but not threaten violence except when associated with their remaining on my property after my requesting them to leave). Its really very simple. If you pay for it, or a part of it - then you have ownership rights. Public structures are paid for by all and are extremely hard to manage in any sort of efficient way. Private structures with very few owners are much more efficient.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 28, 2004, 04:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the government can't deny drunk gay 5 year olds their cigarettes, guns or spouses...

felons? no, the government can't deny them either... give em back their guns... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So you're saying gay people are felons? Riiiight..

Drunk, gay, smoking, married, gun-shooting 5 year olds? LOL!!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh.

Leopard · Feb 28, 2004, 05:01 pm

tman,
to whom are you referring to in your last post? I didn't say such a thing

michael

lcswoosh · Feb 29, 2004, 12:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)?

There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

that is the definition ever since the concept of marriage was invented...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Pure ignorance.

Marriage has only been strictly heterosexual for less than 2000 years, and only became strictly heterosexual because of Christianity (and the dark ages came with it too :)). Learn history before you make false statements.

And that link you gave isn't helping your case. You have yet to explain that broadening the definition is going to destroy marriage. So, marriage will be slightly different. That doesn't mean it will be destroyed, by any means. That link wasn't even relevant to that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

really? tell me of all the documented gay marriages in achient egypt and china... there are none...

and I am no christian so I don't give a flip about that... and how many thousands of years before the christians did the jews practice gay marriage? which part of the torah tells how moses had a male husband? oh? you mean it doesn't?

you are the one who needs to learn history

if you can't understand the logic of non-contradiction, the ignorance is yours and you need to take a logic 120 class

changing the value of the term logically destroys the value of the term<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Har har. Moron. Look at European Pagan nations. There were clearly gay marriages there. Ever heard of the Goths?

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 12:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Impenetint,
Thats the point, if marraige were a true contract, then it would be up to the participants within the contract to define the terms. In ALL contracts, the only 'restrictions' are that the parties involved are consenting adults. It is only in the 'marriage' cointract that the state steps in to force a group from participating.

To ban 'gays' from marraige (as a contract) is akin to banning Women from buying a house, or short people from working, or blacks from playing professional sports ... (all of these interactions are contracts between two parties)

I have no problem with gay people forming contracts between themselves - it harms me or my own contracts in no way. The problem I do have is that this particular contract also is recognized by the state as conferring special priveledges which others (singles) do NOT have - that is my problem. Why should my taxes be taken from me and spent in a manner that endorses or supports perhaps a lifestyle that I don't necessarily believe in? Why is the government in the business of endorsing ANY particular lifestyle?

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

then have the government make sure that blacks get admitted into the KKK<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

you misunderstand - if the government sponsored/paid for/endorsed the KKK, then yes, the KKK would necessarily be open for all folks. But the government has no 'right' to tell people with whom they want to associate or create associations in a private manner.

:rolleyes: the government has no right to tell people with whom they wish to associate or create private associations in a private manner?
according to you, the government has no right to create private associations but that is exactly what a gay marriage is... a private association

Look at it this way:
if the government takes money from all of us (taxes) and purchases a building, then all people (citizens/tax payers) have equal access to that building.

:rolleyes: really? when is the last time you had access to the missle silo? when was the last time you had free access to the military research and development labs? public funds yes?

if I purchase a building, then I get to determine who has access.

:rolleyes: you do? you determine who gets access to the pentagon?

This applies to all private property, including businesses. If I want to throw a party at my house, hire a band, hire a bartender: then I have total control: I can allow/disallow smoking/drinking/sex/whatever behavior on MY property. I can charge others for access to my property (a cover charge). I can deny ANYONE access to my property (if I don't want parents to bring children, then they can't; if I don't want gays, then they are not allowed; if I don't want hispanics, then so be it). NOTE: this does not infringe on anyones 'rights' - they all still retain the same rights as myself in regards to their own property. Since it is MY property, I make the rules (except that I cannot over-rule the force/fraud rights of other humans (ie: if I allow someone onto my property, I cannot whip out my gun and rob them - I can tell them to leave or pay money but not threaten violence except when associated with their remaining on my property after my requesting them to leave). Its really very simple. If you pay for it, or a part of it - then you have ownership rights. Public structures are paid for by all and are extremely hard to manage in any sort of efficient way. Private structures with very few owners are much more efficient.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

lcswoosh · Feb 29, 2004, 12:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
Yup, 20% is a VAST MAJORITY.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

20%? you wish...

try 65%

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html

even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush

"Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment."

or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml

half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit. A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 12:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the government can't deny drunk gay 5 year olds their cigarettes, guns or spouses...

felons? no, the government can't deny them either... give em back their guns... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So you're saying gay people are felons? Riiiight..

Drunk, gay, smoking, married, gun-shooting 5 year olds? LOL!!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

YOU said "The very fact that it's government means they can't deny it to anyone."

no, you said the government cannot deny rights to felons... give the felons guns, the government cannot interfere with their right

Drunk, gay, smoking, married, gun-shooting 5 year olds are people who your government can't deny...

laugh it up, that is exactly where your argument leads...

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 12:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
Yup, 20% is a VAST MAJORITY.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

20%? you wish...

try 65%

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html

even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush

"Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment."

or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml

half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit.

:rolleyes: no, that is a direct quote from the cbs poll

A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

:rolleyes: thanks for the ad hominems AGAIN... you really have to do better than throw petty insults... the vast majority of polls? show me 3 from "reputable" news sources... and no, the proposal for civil unions are fine, and civil unions are not threatened by the proposed ammendment...

Leopard · Feb 29, 2004, 12:53 am

Impenitent
the things you point out in my post are EXACTLY the problems with 'public' property and government... we lose our ownership rights even though we pay for these things... so you agree that private property is better and more desirable than public, yes? when the 'public' owns something then the 'right of control' of the property is reserved for those in power - if privately owned, then the 'power' is actually in the hands of the people...

re: other posts you make
why do you keep insisting on 'gay gun toting 5yr olds' - no one advocates anything of the sort - hasn't it been clear since the beginning that we are talking about ADULTS here and their actions/freedoms? Please stop making strawmen, its a waste of our time...

How about this, maybe we can have a logical discussion here by taking point by point...

What do you think the problems are regarding private property where the owner has full ownership rights (no one including government can tell him what can be done on or with his property EXCEPT in cases of children (obvious, but you seem to need this clarified) and any basic rights (force/fraud) violations.?

Why should the government define what a marraige is, who can get married and what benefits are to be conferred upon married couples?

michael

lcswoosh · Feb 29, 2004, 12:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

20%? you wish...

try 65%

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html

even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush

"Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment."

or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml

half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit.

:rolleyes: no, that is a direct quote from the cbs poll

A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

:rolleyes: thanks for the ad hominems AGAIN... you really have to do better than throw petty insults... the vast majority of polls? show me 3 from "reputable" news sources... and no, the proposal for civil unions are fine, and civil unions are not threatened by the proposed ammendment...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I can't help but insult you when you're a complete moron.

Go to a Newsweek poll, I'm not going to bother to try to correct your ignorance and bigotry.

And yes, it does. It outlaws giving the "legal incidents to unmarried peoples or groups", which would CLEARLY outlaw civil unions.

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 01:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Impenitent
the things you point out in my post are EXACTLY the problems with 'public' property and government... we lose our ownership rights even though we pay for these things... so you agree that private property is better and more desirable than public, yes? when the 'public' owns something then the 'right of control' of the property is reserved for those in power - if privately owned, then the 'power' is actually in the hands of the people...

*** yes, private property is more desirable than public... according to locke, government exists to insure private property rights

re: other posts you make
why do you keep insisting on 'gay gun toting 5yr olds' - no one advocates anything of the sort - hasn't it been clear since the beginning that we are talking about ADULTS here and their actions/freedoms? Please stop making strawmen, its a waste of our time...

*** it is not a straw man, the claim was ANYONE... "The very fact that it's government means they can't deny it to anyone"

How about this, maybe we can have a logical discussion here by taking point by point...

What do you think the problems are regarding private property where the owner has full ownership rights (no one including government can tell him what can be done on or with his property EXCEPT in cases of children (obvious, but you seem to need this clarified) and any basic rights (force/fraud) violations.?

*** the problem is that government doesn't recognize "full property rights"... your back yard has been classified as a wetland so the green peace wackos are having you evicted... but that's only one example

Why should the government define what a marraige is, who can get married and what benefits are to be conferred upon married couples?

*** because the government enforces the law and the legislature writes the law...

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 01:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

20%? you wish...

try 65%

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html

even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush

"Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment."

or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml

half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit.

:rolleyes: no, that is a direct quote from the cbs poll

A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

:rolleyes: thanks for the ad hominems AGAIN... you really have to do better than throw petty insults... the vast majority of polls? show me 3 from "reputable" news sources... and no, the proposal for civil unions are fine, and civil unions are not threatened by the proposed ammendment...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I can't help but insult you when you're a complete moron.

:rolleyes: more insults?

Go to a Newsweek poll, I'm not going to bother to try to correct your ignorance and bigotry.

:rolleyes: because YOU CAN'T... it is neither ignorance nor bigotry, but nice insults again...

And yes, it does. It outlaws giving the "legal incidents to unmarried peoples or groups", which would CLEARLY outlaw civil unions.

:rolleyes: and you have seen the final proposed ammendment? where did you see this?

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Leopard · Feb 29, 2004, 01:15 am

Impenitent
wait a second here - from the sound of your post/response to me then we are of the same mind - what eactly are we 'arguing' about here? I must've misread you or you me....

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 01:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Impenitent
wait a second here - from the sound of your post/response to me then we are of the same mind - what eactly are we 'arguing' about here? I must've misread you or you me....<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

according to you, the government has no right to create private associations but that is exactly what a gay marriage is... a private association...

the government will sanction whatever the people will it to sanction... right now, gay marriage will not be sanctioned by the people...

Leopard · Feb 29, 2004, 02:02 am

correct - but it must be across the board: The government has no place in any private contract or association EXCEPT to enforce the agreed terms of the contract and determine contract violations. Only consenting adults may enter into contracts with one another...

so, my position is that government should get out of defining marriage altogether and leave it up to the individuals. The government should treat all citizens equally, regardless of whatever social contracts they have entered into (no special priviledges to married folks period (hetero, gay, whatever), no priviledges to businesses and corporation, no exemptions to any organization including churches, non-profit, etc)s

But, since the current debate totally ignores this possibility then the only 'fair' treatment would be to allow alloww contracts the same priviledges: this means gay people get to become married as well with all the crap that goes along with it. Treating gay vs hetereo marriages differently amounts to governmental bias/social engineering/rights abuses.

If the 'religious right' want me on their side, then they should start advocating no governmental interference in church matters/social matters: any church or organization is free to define the terms of the contracts they endorse ('bless'?) but all contracts treated the same by government as social contracts. If the Catholic Church deems its marraige contract immune from divorce then fine - excommunicate those who violate the contract. Contracts for co-habitation would then necessarily need to have clearly defined positions regarding children upon nullification of the contract as well as reprecussions for other 'contract violations' such as adultery etc... The 'relig Right' would have marragie defined EXACTLY as they desire, the gay communioty could contract exactly as they desired - but in the eyes of government - all citizens get the same priviledges, pay the same taxes, are treated the same in the eyes of the law. This would mean also that gay people could not get a catholic marraige - but so what? They can have the 'Gay Catholic Church' and proceed to marry within its definitions...

are we in synch so far?

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 02:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
correct - but it must be across the board: The government has no place in any private contract or association EXCEPT to enforce the agreed terms of the contract and determine contract violations. Only consenting adults may enter into contracts with one another...

so, my position is that government should get out of defining marriage altogether and leave it up to the individuals.

*** yes, but marriage is a pre-existing institution of society... if the government was in the business of staying out of people's business, then maybe, but of course, government of the people, by the people, and for the people staying out of people's business is an oxymoron...

The government should treat all citizens equally, regardless of whatever social contracts they have entered into (no special priviledges to married folks period (hetero, gay, whatever), no priviledges to businesses and corporation, no exemptions to any organization including churches, non-profit, etc)s

*** true, but it doesn't... and that's any organization, particularly the aclu, peta, naacp and so on...

But, since the current debate totally ignores this possibility then the only 'fair' treatment would be to allow alloww contracts the same priviledges: this means gay people get to become married as well with all the crap that goes along with it.

*** no, this is the difference... they can have civil unions and call them civil unions... marriage is defined differently

Treating gay vs hetereo marriages differently amounts to governmental bias/social engineering/rights abuses.

*** anything the government does amounts to governmental bias/social engineering/rights abuses.

If the 'religious right' want me on their side, then they should start advocating no governmental interference in church matters/social matters: any church or organization is free to define the terms of the contracts they endorse ('bless'?) but all contracts treated the same by government as social contracts. If the Catholic Church deems its marraige contract immune from divorce then fine - excommunicate those who violate the contract. Contracts for co-habitation would then necessarily need to have clearly defined positions regarding children upon nullification of the contract as well as reprecussions for other 'contract violations' such as adultery etc...

*** I don't care about the religious right or the religious left...

The 'relig Right' would have marragie defined EXACTLY as they desire, the gay communioty could contract exactly as they desired

*** exactly, and it is called a civil union

- but in the eyes of government - all citizens get the same priviledges, pay the same taxes, are treated the same in the eyes of the law. This would mean also that gay people could not get a catholic marraige - but so what? They can have the 'Gay Catholic Church' and proceed to marry within its definitions...

***yeah, but the current government doesn't work that way

are we in synch so far?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

lcswoosh · Feb 29, 2004, 03:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: more insults? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>Not an insult. Just a fact.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
:rolleyes: because YOU CAN'T... it is neither ignorance nor bigotry, but nice insults again...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Yes. Yes it is ignorance.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
:rolleyes: and you have seen the final proposed ammendment? where did you see this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Not the final proposed amendment, because it could still change, but yes, I've read the Marilyn Musgrave version, which is what Bush endorsed, and it clearly outlaws civil unions. Just go to www.senate.gov and search for marriage.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sandy · Feb 29, 2004, 07:22 am

I have to admit that only Leopold has the right idea. Contracts are enforced depending on how and why they are written. What Bush wantds to do is to make a marriage contract a federal issue which is ridiculous! Let it be a state authority.

The problem with our leaders in the last 15 years is that they want 100% control over all our social/private contracts. Bush will save the Institution of Marriage, Bush will save the ignorant illiterate children from any chance at a good education and Bush will save the whole friggen world at the cost of Americans.

Go back to the years of the Inquisition and you will see this same crap of the government trying to legislate all the sins of their countrymen. Come on gentlemen, become the heads of your household and fix your own marriages and kids and let Bush learn to speak properly, and let the house and senate continue to learn how to screw us all.

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 10:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: more insults? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>Not an insult. Just a fact.

:rolleyes: not a fact at all, all you have is name calling

Yes. Yes it is ignorance.

:rolleyes: no, it is not ignorance, you have not presented polls that are different than one I posted because they don't exist...

Not the final proposed amendment, because it could still change, but yes, I've read the Marilyn Musgrave version, which is what Bush endorsed, and it clearly outlaws civil unions. Just go to www.senate.gov and search for marriage.

*** where did bush explicitly endorse the musgrave version?
no, the musgrave version will not pass because it doesn't have the civil unions language... even you admit you don't know "the final proposed amendment, because it could still change" so your setting it up as a strawman doesn't work...

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mathieu · Feb 29, 2004, 10:27 am

Yeah, and often, the inquisitor and their entourage were the sinners between all the sinners

Feb 28, 2004, 04:08 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) Impenetint, Thats the point, if marraige were a true contract, then it would be up to the participants within the contract to define the terms. In ALL contracts, the only 'restrictions' are that the parties involved are consenting adults. It is only in the 'marriage' cointract that the state steps in to force a group from participating. To ban 'gays' from marraige (as a contract) is akin to banning Women from buying a house, or short people from working, or blacks from playing professional sports ... (all of these interactions are contracts between two parties) I have no problem with gay people forming contracts between themselves - it harms me or my own contracts in no way. The problem I do have is that this particular contract also is recognized by the state as conferring special priveledges which others (singles) do NOT have - that is my problem. Why should my taxes be taken from me and spent in a manner that endorses or supports perhaps a lifestyle that I don't necessarily believe in? Why is the government in the business of endorsing ANY particular lifestyle? michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> then have the government make sure that blacks get admitted into the KKK<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> you misunderstand - if the government sponsored/paid for/endorsed the KKK, then yes, the KKK would necessarily be open for all folks. But the government has no 'right' to tell people with whom they want to associate or create associations in a private manner. Look at it this way: if the government takes money from all of us (taxes) and purchases a building, then all people (citizens/tax payers) have equal access to that building. if I purchase a building, then I get to determine who has access. This applies to all private property, including businesses. If I want to throw a party at my house, hire a band, hire a bartender: then I have total control: I can allow/disallow smoking/drinking/sex/whatever behavior on MY property. I can charge others for access to my property (a cover charge). I can deny ANYONE access to my property (if I don't want parents to bring children, then they can't; if I don't want gays, then they are not allowed; if I don't want hispanics, then so be it). NOTE: this does not infringe on anyones 'rights' - they all still retain the same rights as myself in regards to their own property. Since it is MY property, I make the rules (except that I cannot over-rule the force/fraud rights of other humans (ie: if I allow someone onto my property, I cannot whip out my gun and rob them - I can tell them to leave or pay money but not threaten violence except when associated with their remaining on my property after my requesting them to leave). Its really very simple. If you pay for it, or a part of it - then you have ownership rights. Public structures are paid for by all and are extremely hard to manage in any sort of efficient way. Private structures with very few owners are much more efficient. Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 28, 2004, 04:56 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by the government can't deny drunk gay 5 year olds their cigarettes, guns or spouses... felons? no, the government can't deny them either... give em back their guns... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you're saying gay people are felons? Riiiight.. Drunk, gay, smoking, married, gun-shooting 5 year olds? LOL!!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh.

Feb 28, 2004, 05:01 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	tman, to whom are you referring to in your last post? I didn't say such a thing michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 29, 2004, 12:32 am	#64 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)? There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> that is the definition ever since the concept of marriage was invented...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Pure ignorance. Marriage has only been strictly heterosexual for less than 2000 years, and only became strictly heterosexual because of Christianity (and the dark ages came with it too :)). Learn history before you make false statements. And that link you gave isn't helping your case. You have yet to explain that broadening the definition is going to destroy marriage. So, marriage will be slightly different. That doesn't mean it will be destroyed, by any means. That link wasn't even relevant to that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> really? tell me of all the documented gay marriages in achient egypt and china... there are none... and I am no christian so I don't give a flip about that... and how many thousands of years before the christians did the jews practice gay marriage? which part of the torah tells how moses had a male husband? oh? you mean it doesn't? you are the one who needs to learn history if you can't understand the logic of non-contradiction, the ignorance is yours and you need to take a logic 120 class changing the value of the term logically destroys the value of the term<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Har har. Moron. Look at European Pagan nations. There were clearly gay marriages there. Ever heard of the Goths?

Feb 29, 2004, 12:32 am	#65 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) Impenetint, Thats the point, if marraige were a true contract, then it would be up to the participants within the contract to define the terms. In ALL contracts, the only 'restrictions' are that the parties involved are consenting adults. It is only in the 'marriage' cointract that the state steps in to force a group from participating. To ban 'gays' from marraige (as a contract) is akin to banning Women from buying a house, or short people from working, or blacks from playing professional sports ... (all of these interactions are contracts between two parties) I have no problem with gay people forming contracts between themselves - it harms me or my own contracts in no way. The problem I do have is that this particular contract also is recognized by the state as conferring special priveledges which others (singles) do NOT have - that is my problem. Why should my taxes be taken from me and spent in a manner that endorses or supports perhaps a lifestyle that I don't necessarily believe in? Why is the government in the business of endorsing ANY particular lifestyle? michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> then have the government make sure that blacks get admitted into the KKK<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> you misunderstand - if the government sponsored/paid for/endorsed the KKK, then yes, the KKK would necessarily be open for all folks. But the government has no 'right' to tell people with whom they want to associate or create associations in a private manner. :rolleyes: the government has no right to tell people with whom they wish to associate or create private associations in a private manner? according to you, the government has no right to create private associations but that is exactly what a gay marriage is... a private association Look at it this way: if the government takes money from all of us (taxes) and purchases a building, then all people (citizens/tax payers) have equal access to that building. :rolleyes: really? when is the last time you had access to the missle silo? when was the last time you had free access to the military research and development labs? public funds yes? if I purchase a building, then I get to determine who has access. :rolleyes: you do? you determine who gets access to the pentagon? This applies to all private property, including businesses. If I want to throw a party at my house, hire a band, hire a bartender: then I have total control: I can allow/disallow smoking/drinking/sex/whatever behavior on MY property. I can charge others for access to my property (a cover charge). I can deny ANYONE access to my property (if I don't want parents to bring children, then they can't; if I don't want gays, then they are not allowed; if I don't want hispanics, then so be it). NOTE: this does not infringe on anyones 'rights' - they all still retain the same rights as myself in regards to their own property. Since it is MY property, I make the rules (except that I cannot over-rule the force/fraud rights of other humans (ie: if I allow someone onto my property, I cannot whip out my gun and rob them - I can tell them to leave or pay money but not threaten violence except when associated with their remaining on my property after my requesting them to leave). Its really very simple. If you pay for it, or a part of it - then you have ownership rights. Public structures are paid for by all and are extremely hard to manage in any sort of efficient way. Private structures with very few owners are much more efficient.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 12:36 am	#66 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) Yup, 20% is a VAST MAJORITY.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 20%? you wish... try 65% http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush "Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment." or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit. A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.

Feb 29, 2004, 12:38 am	#67 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by the government can't deny drunk gay 5 year olds their cigarettes, guns or spouses... felons? no, the government can't deny them either... give em back their guns... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you're saying gay people are felons? Riiiight.. Drunk, gay, smoking, married, gun-shooting 5 year olds? LOL!!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> YOU said "The very fact that it's government means they can't deny it to anyone." no, you said the government cannot deny rights to felons... give the felons guns, the government cannot interfere with their right Drunk, gay, smoking, married, gun-shooting 5 year olds are people who your government can't deny... laugh it up, that is exactly where your argument leads... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 12:43 am	#68 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) Yup, 20% is a VAST MAJORITY.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 20%? you wish... try 65% http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush "Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment." or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit. :rolleyes: no, that is a direct quote from the cbs poll A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> :rolleyes: thanks for the ad hominems AGAIN... you really have to do better than throw petty insults... the vast majority of polls? show me 3 from "reputable" news sources... and no, the proposal for civil unions are fine, and civil unions are not threatened by the proposed ammendment... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 12:53 am	#69 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Impenitent the things you point out in my post are EXACTLY the problems with 'public' property and government... we lose our ownership rights even though we pay for these things... so you agree that private property is better and more desirable than public, yes? when the 'public' owns something then the 'right of control' of the property is reserved for those in power - if privately owned, then the 'power' is actually in the hands of the people... re: other posts you make why do you keep insisting on 'gay gun toting 5yr olds' - no one advocates anything of the sort - hasn't it been clear since the beginning that we are talking about ADULTS here and their actions/freedoms? Please stop making strawmen, its a waste of our time... How about this, maybe we can have a logical discussion here by taking point by point... What do you think the problems are regarding private property where the owner has full ownership rights (no one including government can tell him what can be done on or with his property EXCEPT in cases of children (obvious, but you seem to need this clarified) and any basic rights (force/fraud) violations.? Why should the government define what a marraige is, who can get married and what benefits are to be conferred upon married couples? michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 29, 2004, 12:54 am	#70 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 20%? you wish... try 65% http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush "Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment." or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit. :rolleyes: no, that is a direct quote from the cbs poll A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by :rolleyes: thanks for the ad hominems AGAIN... you really have to do better than throw petty insults... the vast majority of polls? show me 3 from "reputable" news sources... and no, the proposal for civil unions are fine, and civil unions are not threatened by the proposed ammendment...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I can't help but insult you when you're a complete moron. Go to a Newsweek poll, I'm not going to bother to try to correct your ignorance and bigotry. And yes, it does. It outlaws giving the "legal incidents to unmarried peoples or groups", which would CLEARLY outlaw civil unions.

Feb 29, 2004, 01:04 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) Impenitent the things you point out in my post are EXACTLY the problems with 'public' property and government... we lose our ownership rights even though we pay for these things... so you agree that private property is better and more desirable than public, yes? when the 'public' owns something then the 'right of control' of the property is reserved for those in power - if privately owned, then the 'power' is actually in the hands of the people... * yes, private property is more desirable than public... according to locke, government exists to insure private property rights re: other posts you make why do you keep insisting on 'gay gun toting 5yr olds' - no one advocates anything of the sort - hasn't it been clear since the beginning that we are talking about ADULTS here and their actions/freedoms? Please stop making strawmen, its a waste of our time... * it is not a straw man, the claim was ANYONE... "The very fact that it's government means they can't deny it to anyone" How about this, maybe we can have a logical discussion here by taking point by point... What do you think the problems are regarding private property where the owner has full ownership rights (no one including government can tell him what can be done on or with his property EXCEPT in cases of children (obvious, but you seem to need this clarified) and any basic rights (force/fraud) violations.? * the problem is that government doesn't recognize "full property rights"... your back yard has been classified as a wetland so the green peace wackos are having you evicted... but that's only one example Why should the government define what a marraige is, who can get married and what benefits are to be conferred upon married couples? * because the government enforces the law and the legislature writes the law... michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 01:09 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 20%? you wish... try 65% http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/...iage/index.html even the commie news network shows the vast majority is for bush "Numerous polls show that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they are split over whether to support an amendment." or if you want more polls, here is one from commie broadcasting service http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/...ain589551.shtml half the population don't think homosexual relations of any kind should be legal, let alone the marriage question<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>LOL...65% support? That is complete bullshit. :rolleyes: no, that is a direct quote from the cbs poll A vast majority of polls haven't shown any support over 40%, considering 54% of Americans support atLEAST civil unions..and the amendment would outlaw those as well. Get your head out of your ass.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by :rolleyes: thanks for the ad hominems AGAIN... you really have to do better than throw petty insults... the vast majority of polls? show me 3 from "reputable" news sources... and no, the proposal for civil unions are fine, and civil unions are not threatened by the proposed ammendment...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I can't help but insult you when you're a complete moron. :rolleyes: more insults? Go to a Newsweek poll, I'm not going to bother to try to correct your ignorance and bigotry. :rolleyes: because YOU CAN'T... it is neither ignorance nor bigotry, but nice insults again... And yes, it does. It outlaws giving the "legal incidents to unmarried peoples or groups", which would CLEARLY outlaw civil unions. :rolleyes: and you have seen the final proposed ammendment? where did you see this? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 01:15 am	#73 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Impenitent wait a second here - from the sound of your post/response to me then we are of the same mind - what eactly are we 'arguing' about here? I must've misread you or you me.... Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 29, 2004, 01:45 am	#74 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) Impenitent wait a second here - from the sound of your post/response to me then we are of the same mind - what eactly are we 'arguing' about here? I must've misread you or you me....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> according to you, the government has no right to create private associations but that is exactly what a gay marriage is... a private association... the government will sanction whatever the people will it to sanction... right now, gay marriage will not be sanctioned by the people... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 02:02 am	#75 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	correct - but it must be across the board: The government has no place in any private contract or association EXCEPT to enforce the agreed terms of the contract and determine contract violations. Only consenting adults may enter into contracts with one another... so, my position is that government should get out of defining marriage altogether and leave it up to the individuals. The government should treat all citizens equally, regardless of whatever social contracts they have entered into (no special priviledges to married folks period (hetero, gay, whatever), no priviledges to businesses and corporation, no exemptions to any organization including churches, non-profit, etc)s But, since the current debate totally ignores this possibility then the only 'fair' treatment would be to allow alloww contracts the same priviledges: this means gay people get to become married as well with all the crap that goes along with it. Treating gay vs hetereo marriages differently amounts to governmental bias/social engineering/rights abuses. If the 'religious right' want me on their side, then they should start advocating no governmental interference in church matters/social matters: any church or organization is free to define the terms of the contracts they endorse ('bless'?) but all contracts treated the same by government as social contracts. If the Catholic Church deems its marraige contract immune from divorce then fine - excommunicate those who violate the contract. Contracts for co-habitation would then necessarily need to have clearly defined positions regarding children upon nullification of the contract as well as reprecussions for other 'contract violations' such as adultery etc... The 'relig Right' would have marragie defined EXACTLY as they desire, the gay communioty could contract exactly as they desired - but in the eyes of government - all citizens get the same priviledges, pay the same taxes, are treated the same in the eyes of the law. This would mean also that gay people could not get a catholic marraige - but so what? They can have the 'Gay Catholic Church' and proceed to marry within its definitions... are we in synch so far? Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 29, 2004, 02:22 am	#76 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) correct - but it must be across the board: The government has no place in any private contract or association EXCEPT to enforce the agreed terms of the contract and determine contract violations. Only consenting adults may enter into contracts with one another... so, my position is that government should get out of defining marriage altogether and leave it up to the individuals. * yes, but marriage is a pre-existing institution of society... if the government was in the business of staying out of people's business, then maybe, but of course, government of the people, by the people, and for the people staying out of people's business is an oxymoron... The government should treat all citizens equally, regardless of whatever social contracts they have entered into (no special priviledges to married folks period (hetero, gay, whatever), no priviledges to businesses and corporation, no exemptions to any organization including churches, non-profit, etc)s * true, but it doesn't... and that's any organization, particularly the aclu, peta, naacp and so on... But, since the current debate totally ignores this possibility then the only 'fair' treatment would be to allow alloww contracts the same priviledges: this means gay people get to become married as well with all the crap that goes along with it. * no, this is the difference... they can have civil unions and call them civil unions... marriage is defined differently Treating gay vs hetereo marriages differently amounts to governmental bias/social engineering/rights abuses. * anything the government does amounts to governmental bias/social engineering/rights abuses. If the 'religious right' want me on their side, then they should start advocating no governmental interference in church matters/social matters: any church or organization is free to define the terms of the contracts they endorse ('bless'?) but all contracts treated the same by government as social contracts. If the Catholic Church deems its marraige contract immune from divorce then fine - excommunicate those who violate the contract. Contracts for co-habitation would then necessarily need to have clearly defined positions regarding children upon nullification of the contract as well as reprecussions for other 'contract violations' such as adultery etc... * I don't care about the religious right or the religious left... The 'relig Right' would have marragie defined EXACTLY as they desire, the gay communioty could contract exactly as they desired * exactly, and it is called a civil union - but in the eyes of government - all citizens get the same priviledges, pay the same taxes, are treated the same in the eyes of the law. This would mean also that gay people could not get a catholic marraige - but so what? They can have the 'Gay Catholic Church' and proceed to marry within its definitions... ***yeah, but the current government doesn't work that way are we in synch so far?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 03:39 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: more insults? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Not an insult. Just a fact. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by :rolleyes: because YOU CAN'T... it is neither ignorance nor bigotry, but nice insults again...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Yes. Yes it is ignorance. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by :rolleyes: and you have seen the final proposed ammendment? where did you see this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Not the final proposed amendment, because it could still change, but yes, I've read the Marilyn Musgrave version, which is what Bush endorsed, and it clearly outlaws civil unions. Just go to www.senate.gov and search for marriage. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by `Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Feb 29, 2004, 07:22 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 248	I have to admit that only Leopold has the right idea. Contracts are enforced depending on how and why they are written. What Bush wantds to do is to make a marriage contract a federal issue which is ridiculous! Let it be a state authority. The problem with our leaders in the last 15 years is that they want 100% control over all our social/private contracts. Bush will save the Institution of Marriage, Bush will save the ignorant illiterate children from any chance at a good education and Bush will save the whole friggen world at the cost of Americans. Go back to the years of the Inquisition and you will see this same crap of the government trying to legislate all the sins of their countrymen. Come on gentlemen, become the heads of your household and fix your own marriages and kids and let Bush learn to speak properly, and let the house and senate continue to learn how to screw us all.

Feb 29, 2004, 10:26 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: more insults? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Not an insult. Just a fact. :rolleyes: not a fact at all, all you have is name calling Yes. Yes it is ignorance. :rolleyes: no, it is not ignorance, you have not presented polls that are different than one I posted because they don't exist... Not the final proposed amendment, because it could still change, but yes, I've read the Marilyn Musgrave version, which is what Bush endorsed, and it clearly outlaws civil unions. Just go to www.senate.gov and search for marriage. *** where did bush explicitly endorse the musgrave version? no, the musgrave version will not pass because it doesn't have the civil unions language... even you admit you don't know "the final proposed amendment, because it could still change" so your setting it up as a strawman doesn't work... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 10:27 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Yeah, and often, the inquisitor and their entourage were the sinners between all the sinners