Gay Marriage

[Kibbo]

You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

we have a number of US constitutional amendments that make racial discrimination illegal, thus giving the courts the right to intervene. The same can?t be said for laws regarding moral conduct.

You can... LMK, you can if you want... but, maybe others don't. Maybe they've no interest in their neighbor's life style it is their own they seek to live.

they whyinterfere with your neighbor that?s having sex with his animals, sister, or wants to marry two women, it's all based on the same logic.

You will see that what people call love is a short term emotional bandage they place on their hidden wounds that temporarily gives them a high.

this is why no true love can exist without faith and humble submission to God being at the center of that relationship.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

oh, ok.

/salute

t'll next troll everyone.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Well, true, but people learn elsewhere other than school. Do I think creationism is a possiblility? Sure I do. Anybody that knows scientific thinking understands that theories are theories until disproven. I have a theory that we're all an experiment in an alien kid's petrie (sp) dish. Is that theory just as valid as "creationism"? Sure it is. Can't be proven OR disproven. I'd let my kids believe what they want to believe. Science class should teach about "creationism" only as a theory, nothing more. Can't pretend that that theory doesn't exist, that wouldn't be scientifically correct either.

Well, if creationism is possibly true, then evolution isn't fact...it's merely a theory, so has no place in Science courses either. Now we're getting somewhere!

That's not what I said. Read my statement again. Creationism should be mentioned as a possible theory, just like every other possible theory about the beginning of time, space, man, etc. You know what? There are other religions besides Christianity!! I know, hard to believe. LOL. But all joking aside, I'm a big proponent of presenting all sorts of different theories, whether it's Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Darwinism, etc, etc. But, my biggest question is, why can't Darwinism be part of Creationism? Is it not possible that Adam and Eve was just a metaphor to represent the social, physical, psychological, emotional development in man represented by Darwinism? I don't understand why God couldn't have created Darwinism and that Christians just have to believe in that one staunch, unsubstantiated theory. But alas, hence I'm no longer a religious person, I ask too many questions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

if all should enjoy it why do we limit it to 2 people? Why not allow all people access to the right of saying ?this person should be on my medical to? and ?we should be able to adopt??

Why draw lines around gays?

Because they are bigots. They want to limit people from the "right" to marry by limiting it to 2 people, or 2 people who aren't immediate family. How dare they trample the "rights" of these people only seeking the happiness and love the rest of us have.

:roll:

CkG

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

I never said they shouldn't have. Race is not a choice - you can't change or choose that - it's not a lifestyle. As LMK stated -there are also Amendments that deal with racism. Now try to follow along here instead of trying to throw that racial turd into every discussion - it doesn't apply here. There is nothing that prevents a homosexual man from marrying a woman. The LAW even allows him to do it * gasp* :roll: So the only one "preventing" that homosexual man from getting "married" is himself. He could choose to marry a woman, but probably prefers a man. Well, the law doesn't allow for that choice if he wants the "marriage" to be recognized by the gov't.

Now I'm not sure why you are such a bigot but I'm sure you'll find some BS psychobabble to spew or just trot out your usual "mirror" tripe. You and others are guilty of what you claim others are based on your logic. Now again, why is it limited to TWO PEOPLE? Thought so...:roll:

Next...

CkG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

if all should enjoy it why do we limit it to 2 people? Why not allow all people access to the right of saying ?this person should be on my medical to? and ?we should be able to adopt??

Why draw lines around gays?

Because they are bigots. They want to limit people from the "right" to marry by limiting it to 2 people, or 2 people who aren't immediate family. How dare they trample the "rights" of these people only seeking the happiness and love the rest of us have.

:roll:

CkG

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

I never said they shouldn't have. Race is not a choice - you can't change or choose that - it's not a lifestyle. As LMK stated -there are also Amendments that deal with racism. Now try to follow along here instead of trying to throw that racial turd into every discussion - it doesn't apply here. There is nothing that prevents a homosexual man from marrying a woman. The LAW even allows him to do it * gasp* :roll: So the only one "preventing" that homosexual man from getting "married" is himself. He could choose to marry a woman, but probably prefers a man. Well, the law doesn't allow for that choice if he wants the "marriage" to be recognized by the gov't.

Now I'm not sure why you are such a bigot but I'm sure you'll find some BS psychobabble to spew or just trot out your usual "mirror" tripe. You and others are guilty of what you claim others are based on your logic. Now again, why is it limited to TWO PEOPLE? Thought so...:roll:

Next...

CkG

Nobody has ever answered this question....

Why do people fear gays wanting to get married? And don't throw in that Christian babble either.

 

[Moonbeam]

A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. All your questions have been answered over and over again. But because the answers butt up against your bigotry you remain blind to their effect.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

we have a number of US constitutional amendments that make racial discrimination illegal, thus giving the courts the right to intervene. The same can?t be said for laws regarding moral conduct.

We are talking about two identical issues, racial and sexual discrimination. They are either both profoundly moral issues or from the bigots prospective neither moral issues.

You can... LMK, you can if you want... but, maybe others don't. Maybe they've no interest in their neighbor's life style it is their own they seek to live.

they whyinterfere with your neighbor that?s having sex with his animals, sister, or wants to marry two women, it's all based on the same logic.

Sex with animals is non consensual and animal cruelty. Sex with family members is usually older male using a younger sibling or daughter for sexual purposes and is usually based on a power relationship abuse. There are also problems with genetic birth defects manifesting in family inbreeding for which society picks up the tab.

You will see that what people call love is a short term emotional bandage they place on their hidden wounds that temporarily gives them a high.

this is why no true love can exist without faith and humble submission to God being at the center of that relationship.

"This is one valid metaphor for a deep psychological truth but there are many others. You are rather arrogant, I think, to assume that only Christians can form truly loving relationships. But you aren't just a humble religious person in my opinion. You are also a bigot and believe in one of the many, only religions."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

As they say you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much. So naturally it's gonna take some time.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. All your questions have been answered over and over again. But because the answers butt up against your bigotry you remain blind to their effect.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

we have a number of US constitutional amendments that make racial discrimination illegal, thus giving the courts the right to intervene. The same can?t be said for laws regarding moral conduct.

We are talking about two identical issues, racial and sexual discrimination. They are either both profoundly moral issues or from the bigots prospective neither moral issues.

You can... LMK, you can if you want... but, maybe others don't. Maybe they've no interest in their neighbor's life style it is their own they seek to live.

they whyinterfere with your neighbor that?s having sex with his animals, sister, or wants to marry two women, it's all based on the same logic.

Sex with animals is non consensual and animal cruelty. Sex with family members is usually older male using a younger sibling or daughter for sexual purposes and is usually based on a power relationship abuse. There are also problems with genetic birth defects manifesting in family inbreeding for which society picks up the tab.

You will see that what people call love is a short term emotional bandage they place on their hidden wounds that temporarily gives them a high.

this is why no true love can exist without faith and humble submission to God being at the center of that relationship.

"This is one valid metaphor for a deep psychological truth but there are many others. You are rather arrogant, I think, to assume that only Christians can form truly loving relationships. But you aren't just a humble religious person in my opinion. You are also a bigot and believe in one of the many, only religions."

So I'm the bigot now? That's rich.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

As they say you can tell a burned out hippy, but you can't tell him much. So naturally it's gonna take some time.

Fixed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

As they say you can tell a burned out hippy, but you can't tell him much. So naturally it's gonna take some time.

Fixed.

LOL, yesterdays Hippies are todays successful Corprorate Exec's

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL, yesterdays Hippies are todays successful Corprorate Exec's

Ah, so since they all want equivalency, they would be the CEOs who make no more than the guys in the mail room, right? Yeah, plenty of those. :roll: Give me a break, RD.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, It's always funny to hear you fundies trot out the mention of Hippies. Them people musta really got up your anally retentive butts. I guess all the loving and free sex and animal joy was just to much to bare thinking about sitting in Bible studies next to Martha in the little pink dress. Ah well it's just life, like water over the damn. And to think it was 2000 years ago the previous Hippies came. Tune in turn on and drop out, eh Jesus?

I sing the body electric.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
That's not what I said. Read my statement again. Creationism should be mentioned as a possible theory, just like every other possible theory about the beginning of time, space, man, etc.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a myth that makes no falsifiable statements. The term theory has a definite meaning in science as opposed to its everyday usage, where theory is often taken to mean something more akin to a guess. If you want to teach creationism in a religions class, that's great, but it has no place in a science class.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cad, when you have your gay affair please get back to me with that life-style crap. You are nothing but a bigot and a coward. You can instantly prove your case by having gay sex but you just won't do it. What a hypocrite. Homosexuality is choice for everybody but you. He he! Of course you have to believe that because it's all that keeps you from seeing your own evil. If race and sex were both immutable facts of life you would have to become conscious of the evil you do to those who, like you, only want to marry somebody they love. You place your bigotry above the happiness and equality of others.

And Cad, you can marry as many women as you like. You just can't marry them all at the same time. See the law is perfectly fair.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
That's not what I said. Read my statement again. Creationism should be mentioned as a possible theory, just like every other possible theory about the beginning of time, space, man, etc.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a myth that makes no falsifiable statements. The term theory has a definite meaning in science as opposed to its everyday usage, where theory is often taken to mean something more akin to a guess. If you want to teach creationism in a religions class, that's great, but it has no place in a science class.

You are correct, technically, but I'm a bit more tolerant than the average Joe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. All your questions have been answered over and over again. But because the answers butt up against your bigotry you remain blind to their effect.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

we have a number of US constitutional amendments that make racial discrimination illegal, thus giving the courts the right to intervene. The same can?t be said for laws regarding moral conduct.

We are talking about two identical issues, racial and sexual discrimination. They are either both profoundly moral issues or from the bigots prospective neither moral issues.

You can... LMK, you can if you want... but, maybe others don't. Maybe they've no interest in their neighbor's life style it is their own they seek to live.

they whyinterfere with your neighbor that?s having sex with his animals, sister, or wants to marry two women, it's all based on the same logic.

Sex with animals is non consensual and animal cruelty. Sex with family members is usually older male using a younger sibling or daughter for sexual purposes and is usually based on a power relationship abuse. There are also problems with genetic birth defects manifesting in family inbreeding for which society picks up the tab.

You will see that what people call love is a short term emotional bandage they place on their hidden wounds that temporarily gives them a high.

this is why no true love can exist without faith and humble submission to God being at the center of that relationship.

"This is one valid metaphor for a deep psychological truth but there are many others. You are rather arrogant, I think, to assume that only Christians can form truly loving relationships. But you aren't just a humble religious person in my opinion. You are also a bigot and believe in one of the many, only religions."

So I'm the bigot now? That's rich.

What are you talking about?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. All your questions have been answered over and over again. But because the answers butt up against your bigotry you remain blind to their effect.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

we have a number of US constitutional amendments that make racial discrimination illegal, thus giving the courts the right to intervene. The same can?t be said for laws regarding moral conduct.

We are talking about two identical issues, racial and sexual discrimination. They are either both profoundly moral issues or from the bigots prospective neither moral issues.

You can... LMK, you can if you want... but, maybe others don't. Maybe they've no interest in their neighbor's life style it is their own they seek to live.

they whyinterfere with your neighbor that?s having sex with his animals, sister, or wants to marry two women, it's all based on the same logic.

Sex with animals is non consensual and animal cruelty. Sex with family members is usually older male using a younger sibling or daughter for sexual purposes and is usually based on a power relationship abuse. There are also problems with genetic birth defects manifesting in family inbreeding for which society picks up the tab.

You will see that what people call love is a short term emotional bandage they place on their hidden wounds that temporarily gives them a high.

this is why no true love can exist without faith and humble submission to God being at the center of that relationship.

"This is one valid metaphor for a deep psychological truth but there are many others. You are rather arrogant, I think, to assume that only Christians can form truly loving relationships. But you aren't just a humble religious person in my opinion. You are also a bigot and believe in one of the many, only religions."

So I'm the bigot now? That's rich.

What are you talking about?

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about me.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
That's not what I said. Read my statement again. Creationism should be mentioned as a possible theory, just like every other possible theory about the beginning of time, space, man, etc.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a myth that makes no falsifiable statements. The term theory has a definite meaning in science as opposed to its everyday usage, where theory is often taken to mean something more akin to a guess. If you want to teach creationism in a religions class, that's great, but it has no place in a science class.

You are correct, technically, but I'm a bit more tolerant than the average Joe.

As a scientist, perhaps I'm less tolerant of non-science taught in science classes than you are. US science classes are already bad enough; we don't need to make them worse. On the other hand, public schools would be improved by a good comparative religions class (ironically, long ago when I went to public school, the only school in my county that taught comparative religions was the private Catholic high school.)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interacial marriage. How dare they. no?

we have a number of US constitutional amendments that make racial discrimination illegal, thus giving the courts the right to intervene. The same can?t be said for laws regarding moral conduct.
The Constitution, among other things, protects certain rights. The 14th Amendment has been used to protect very many rights a minority group might seek. It has also, however, not been interpeted to guarantee every right saught. IF it is legal and especially if it is a protected Constitutional right one would think it to be moral, as well.

You can... LMK, you can if you want... but, maybe others don't. Maybe they've no interest in their neighbor's life style it is their own they seek to live.

they whyinterfere with your neighbor that?s having sex with his animals, sister, or wants to marry two women, it's all based on the same logic.
If it is legal to do then it is legal to do. If it is legal then one presumes it is not only just legal but moral. And, the converse would be true.

You will see that what people call love is a short term emotional bandage they place on their hidden wounds that temporarily gives them a high.

this is why no true love can exist without faith and humble submission to God being at the center of that relationship.
God didn't write the Constitution... We did.. all of us not just the believers of God. This is not heaven. This continues to be earth where the center is said to be molten rock not God.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

oh, ok.

/salute

t'll next troll everyone.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

As they say you can tell a burned out hippy, but you can't tell him much. So naturally it's gonna take some time.

Fixed.

I'd not argue with that statement as amended.. but, the definition of the label and to whom attached remains unclear.
Do you group Bigots and Burned Out Hippies together as being myopic and arrogant?
The proof of that would be in the pudding, I think.

I'd opine that no one group or sect or religion can create and implement its parameters for what it believes may be moral or right based solely on their belief without consensus from the rest and even then it may not do so in contravention to the Rights Guaranteed in the Constitution in a Nation that provides for the diversity of its population. Folks must accept the legal and thereby moral realities of a population that varies from person to person or belief to belief. To attempt to do otherwise seeks to deny others what is also their right to enjoy. The law seeks to compromise amonst all these diverse groups and peoples and to provide for each the maximum freedom and the ability to pursue new freedoms as times change. We are all part of society... even the Hippy and the Bigot.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawyerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and privileges ALL Americans should enjoy.

if all should enjoy it why do we limit it to 2 people? Why not allow all people access to the right of saying ?this person should be on my medical to? and ?we should be able to adopt??

Why draw lines around gays?

Because they are bigots. They want to limit people from the "right" to marry by limiting it to 2 people, or 2 people who aren't immediate family. How dare they trample the "rights" of these people only seeking the happiness and love the rest of us have.

:roll:

CkG

You still haven't explained to me, Caddy, my dear, why the courts should never have interfered with the states outlawing interracial marriage. How dare they. no?

I never said they shouldn't have. Race is not a choice - you can't change or choose that - it's not a lifestyle. As LMK stated -there are also Amendments that deal with racism. Now try to follow along here instead of trying to throw that racial turd into every discussion - it doesn't apply here. There is nothing that prevents a homosexual man from marrying a woman. The LAW even allows him to do it * gasp* :roll: So the only one "preventing" that homosexual man from getting "married" is himself. He could choose to marry a woman, but probably prefers a man. Well, the law doesn't allow for that choice if he wants the "marriage" to be recognized by the gov't.

Now I'm not sure why you are such a bigot but I'm sure you'll find some BS psychobabble to spew or just trot out your usual "mirror" tripe. You and others are guilty of what you claim others are based on your logic. Now again, why is it limited to TWO PEOPLE? Thought so...:roll:

Next...

CkG

Nobody has ever answered this question....

Why do people fear gays wanting to get married? And don't throw in that Christian babble either.

No fear.
Now, why do people not want a guy and two woman to be married? and don't give me Feminist babble.
Now, why do people not want a guy and an animal to be married? and don't give me Animal rights babble.
Now, why do we as a society not want XYZ and YZQ to be married? and don't give me moral or functional arguments.

i've gone over a number of good reasons not to encourage homosexual sex, way back on the first page.

Fact is this is a moral issue, be it for those that think it's immoral for the stat to sponsor immoral behavior,

or for those that think it's immoral not to grant a mirage license to gays, because it's immoral to judge any personal behavior as immoral.

we have a number of US constitutional amendments that make racial discrimination illegal, thus giving the courts the right to intervene. The same can?t be said for laws regarding moral conduct.

We are talking about two identical issues, racial and sexual discrimination. They are either both profoundly moral issues or from the bigots prospective neither moral issues.

actually Moonie, we're not talking sexual discrimination at all.
We're talking not extending the requirements of a license to encompass a social-approval of particular personal sexual behavior.

they why interfere with your neighbor that?s having sex with his animals, sister, or wants to marry two women, it's all based on the same logic.

Sex with animals is non consensual and animal cruelty. Sex with family members is usually older male using a younger sibling or daughter for sexual purposes and is usually based on a power relationship abuse. There are also problems with genetic birth defects manifesting in family inbreeding for which society picks up the tab.

That second one about consenting age related adults sounds like my argument against approving homosexual sex.

but I?ll grat it to you, but even then, according to you, we have no right to tell 2 consenting age adults who are related but infertile from marrying, and we've got no right to tell a man not to have more than one wife. right?

This is one valid metaphor for a deep psychological truth but there are many others. You are rather arrogant, I think, to assume that only Christians can form truly loving relationships. But you aren't just a humble religious person in my opinion. You are also a bigot and believe in one of the many, only religions

What works works, can't deny the functionality of faith, even if you can point to how it's often misused.

So I'm the bigot now? That's rich

all people of faith are, didn't you get the memo? well, that does explain why i don't care much for colored folk.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You guys still on this?

Go home, the movie's over.

As they say you can tell a burned out hippy, but you can't tell him much. So naturally it's gonna take some time.

Fixed.

LOL, yesterdays Hippies are today?s successful Corporate Exec's

sounds good, want to star a business Moonie? I?ve got this great idea for computer cases...

Hero, i think he was pointing out personal hypocrisy.

Cad, when you have your gay affair please get back to me with that life-style crap.

how what anyone does in particular affects what is best for society is beyond me. But if you're willing to bend over Moonie, I?ll take your bate.

You place your bigotry above the happiness and equality of others.

didn't we just go over what love is? what stimulates you, from leather and whips, to anal penetration, has everything to do with what you choose in life.

IF it is legal and especially if it is a protected Constitutional right one would think it to be moral, as well.

you have a right to get drunk, but to be an alcoholic is immoral.

If it is legal to do then it is legal to do. If it is legal then one presumes it is not only just legal but moral. And, the converse would be true.

Law and morality, law and ethics, often diverge; this is why we argue over law from our various ethical and moral points of view.

God didn't write the Constitution... We did.. all of us not just the believers of God. This is not heaven. This continues to be earth where the center is said to be molten rock not God.

oh, don't misunderstand me. My argument in that case had nothing to do with gay marriage. If it did I?d have to be against athirst and agnostic marriage, which I?m not. I was just responding to 'deep thoughts' by Moonie Stardust.

Do you group Bigots and Burned Out Hippies together as being myopic and arrogant?

can't group anyone anyway.
and yes.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's all well and good LR, but I still think that if we can deny a woman from marrying more than one guy at a time then we ought to be able to deny fundie bigots from marrying too. They only reproduce and brainwash more bigots. They are evil according to the revelation I had on my LSD trip and the government shouldn't institutionalize that sort of evil with it's imprimatur in the form of a marriage license. It's just a utilitarian argument to save our culture from deviants since most marriages in the world are not Christian.

EDIT: PM full and no time to clear, bye and later. Hold down the fort.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL, yesterdays Hippies are todays successful Corprorate Exec's

Ah, so since they all want equivalency, they would be the CEOs who make no more than the guys in the mail room, right? Yeah, plenty of those. :roll: Give me a break, RD.

What you may not be including into your analysis is the change that occurs to folks over time. Not all Hippies remained as long haired freaky folks... they were smart enough to alter their attire and looks. They assimilated into the greater society in order to find their niche in life. Some even adopted the Conservative philosophy because it made sense at the time. Bush may very well have been part of that back when he was a student or a wanna be.... Skull and Bones notwithstanding. Many were.

I know my history and that of many of my youthful friends... Even the folks who worked at the Post Office carrying mail while getting their PhD and/or JD's were not 'Silver Spoon' Preppy types.
You may very soon have a 'dude' who many would say was a hippy become president next January... Kerry seemed to fit that hippy model fairly well I'd think.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That's all well and good LR, but I still think that if we can deny a woman from marrying more than one guy at a time then we ought to be able to deny fundie bigots from marrying too. They only reproduce and brainwash more bigots. They are evil according to the revelation I had on my LSD trip and the government shouldn't institutionalize that sort of evil with it's imprimatur in the form of a marriage license. It's just a utilitarian argument to save our culture from deviants since most marriages in the world are not Christian.

EDIT: PM full and no time to clear, bye and later. Hold down the fort.

Ok to the edit..

I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that Cain married to start all of this... I mean there was Adam and Eve... Able is dead... So... who did Cain marry..
Let alone marrying more than one of what ever or whomever he ended up with.

 

[cquark]

Now, why do people not want a guy and two woman to be married? and don't give me Feminist babble.

This situation is analagous to same sex marriage in some ways, and while there are some issues regarding benefits that would likely require changes to the law, I don't see a problem with this idea. Of course, if we're talking about the US, you'd constitutionally be required to let a women marry two guys as well.

Now, why do people not want a guy and an animal to be married? and don't give me Animal rights babble.

However, this situation isn't analagous as animals don't have the ability to comprehend or sign a legal contract such as marriage.