| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Comments:
<0> Cry: I really like seeing things like this
<0> feels like we are kind of...making up for ****
<0> heh
<0> broken promises..ect
<1> well..they offered us Cam Ranh Bay some time back...
<1> after we left Subic/Clark
<2> Iron Monk, Yes but I am not in opposition to domestic partnerships
<3> FreeTrade - why?
<2> Iron I think I just bore my soul for the last 10 minutes
<2> did you listen ?
<3> I'm not asking about your cheat record
<0> LOL
<4> starlys script will kick in
<0> some people just don't pay attention...hehe
<2> Like I said first I was a libertarian, and to bend to the states will in anything which isnt properly the states business is contrary to my instincts. But after living with my wife and deciding to have kids we got married. And we pay a huge fiancial penalty for that every year. Would I be an less committed to my wife with or without a marraige license ? No
<2> But if it makes her happier its worth it.
<2> I am secure in my relationship without state approval.
<2> Secondarily
<1> CB....they seem desynched
<4> cry .. their botnet also seems much smaller :)
<2> I am against the expansion of the state, and tertiary, I am against changing the meanings of words as I have stated on this channel long before gay marraige was even an issue of public discussion
<1> but they have not been able to pull off a synched join
<2> I used to always quote Confusious.
<2> When words lose their meaning people lose their freedoms.
<1> CB Hax0rzed them
<4> FreeTrade .. in my case, its a personal issue with me. :)
<3> How does allowing gay marriage constitute an expansion of the state?
<2> I used to argue all the time about leftists coopting the term liberal
<0> lol
<1> CB you ever see a music box that could play 2 separate tunes?
<2> and about pro choice coopting the word choice because its not choice its about one persons chocie at the expense at all authors.
<4> cry .. not that I can recall
<2> Which is why I am pro Womans choice in my politics
<4> FreeTrade, imo, you are truly a liberated male
<2> at the same time I dont accept the term pro choice as valid
<2> its a smoke screen
<5> why was the channel +i?
<2> Comet thankyou.
<1> this Reuge I got plays lartas theme ...and Love story
<4> nomex .. I don't know ..
<5> I was sad :(
<6> The word 'Choice' is just a nice way of saying "Hey, I don't care if you slay your child"
<4> I wsn't here when it went +i
<2> I am liberated but I also am very committed to people my wife, my friends etc.
<6> Honestly
<5> then I got in, and I got happy
<1> pro-education
<1> brb food :P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<4> it looks like starly set it +i ..
<2> And I am very committed to the idea of monogomous gay relationships and I understand that, and I think its natural But its not the same as marraige which has a distinct definition so I say call it by any other name.
<5> off with starly's head!
<3> So you're against gay marriage because your wife wanted you to get married but you didn't, gay marriage somehow constitutes state expansion, and gay marriage changes the word marriage?
<2> Well You got 50% of it right
<7> HOME RUN Andy phillips
<7> wooooooooo!
<7> yanks take a 4-2 lead
<5> I think he's for civil unions
<3> FreeTrade - the problem is, if you call it something else, it isn't an equal right. The State has meddled into what rights marriage affords. Those aren't going away.
<7> i thin civil unions for all, not just gay people
<5> it is an equal right under the law, it's just splitting hairs about the title
<3> Nomex - Howso?
<7> man, 4 straight hits for the yanks
<2> Every person here has a right to an opinion about to what extent and by what name the state calls anything it gets involved in.. And noone is wrong Wrong is when you hate anyone ever for any reason, I have said this 1000 times too so everything I say can be reinforced by years of channel logs.
<2> Actually they have a right to hate too
<2> But it will kill them
<5> Iron_Monk: if you afford gays all legal rights granted to "married" couples, then you're just quibbling over symmantecs
<2> if they dont let stop
<2> And thats is their right to, to kill themselves
<5> because you're equal in everything that actually matters
<2> Abusive Domain or User
<3> Nomex - Howso? How does a "civil union" create an equality to married people?
<5> but I hate everyone who isn't me... Surely I can't be wrong :(
<5> reread what I said
<2> Yeah Gays said once they wanted rights that married people had so in califonia we came up with domestic partnerships and a lot of gays were happy in fact when I got my corporation license in the sec of states office 2 guys on valentines day got thier domestic partnership license and they were blissful is the only way I can describe it
<2> nwo this was some years ago
<5> if you have all the same rights, then the word marriage is just a title
<2> Yes and a title whose meaning would be changed from a 3000 year history
<2> Since the written word existed in Sumer..
<3> I see the point. You're creating some arbitrary definition for a "civil union" ... Gays don't have that.
<5> I just don't see the point of arguing over the title if you've got everything else
<5> Iron_Monk: speak for your own country, Canada does.
<2> Arbitrary ? Arbitrary ?
<3> Gays don't have everything else
<2> Gays chose the word
<2> or term
<2> I didnt pick it
<2> and all terms are probably in their genesis arbitrary
<3> Nomex - uhh, I'm surprised you're ***uming that two Americans were discussing Canada.
<2> The probelm is Marraige is not in its genesis its 3000 years of meaning one thing
<5> I know which country you're discussing
<5> I can't break balls?
<5> :)
<2> I suppose 3000 years ago the word marraige was arbitrary
<2> BRB need to make a phone call
<3> The argument over semantics is equally invalid from both sides
<3> if its invalid from one side
<3> Although, not being gay, it doesn't bother me too much
<3> What bothers me is that gays aren't afforded equal rights, whatever the term.
<3> If they want to fight about the word, that's a separate issue in my mind
<3> I suspect, though, that they are fighting for marriage rights because "civil union" is an automatic way to cherry-pick state rights, based on each state that decides to grant them
<2> Iron_monk only true if your a disciple of let me thinkg..Deconstructionist philosophy.
<2> Nothing has meaning
<2> no words have meaning
<2> Meaning id whatever the individual decides..
<3> What is only true?
<2> A dog is not a dog unless I agree its a dog
<2> And this is not irc
<2> this is the psyhcic connection
<5> I think philosophy is a good reason to keep marijuana illegal
<5> ;p
<2> I think Marijuana should be legal the same reason I have always supported gay rights, but not rights beyond everyone elses.. Individuals should make free choices about how they live their own life.
<5> that was a joke FT
<2> No but I am making a point about my philosophical beliefs, I believe individuals should be free (Adults to do anything they want which doesnt harm other people)
<5> hmm.. kinda slow in here tonight
<3> Ten states ban any kind of same-*** union constitutionally. That's not going to change
<2> But they dont have the right to walk all over other people
<2> Marijuana should be legal
<2> Heroin Should be legal
<5> actually, I agree with you FT
<3> nah, heroin shouldn't be legal
<5> you sure about that?
<3> it should be regulated
<2> it should be criminal when while using it you harm another human being. And then the crime is the harm you caused not the heroing
<5> Switzerland regulated Heroin use, giving out free heroin to addicts, and their crime rate dropped because of it
<2> well yes if people are going to tax my business they damn well better tax drug growers and producers
<5> drug related crime is a tremendous cost to any country
<3> [20:08] <3> it should be regulated [20:08] <5> Switzerland regulated Heroin use <---- err, thanks for proving my point :)
<5> if you regulate it, it gets cheaper and safer
<2> But the actual crime is not the drug use
<2> the crime is the act of harm
<5> I mean regulate it like alcohol is regulated
<2> If you beat someone up on crank
<3> ok looks like the gay marriage thing is dead
<2> its not hte crank its you and you should be severly punished for being violent to another human being.
<2> And drugs shoudl not be an excuse, Once drugs were an actual excuse to get off easier
<3> too bad MacNamara is too old to do a real tell-all memoir
<2> I"I couldnt help myself I was drunk and high and didnt knwo what I was doing"
<2> And they got off easy
<2> but I am saying now to punish the crime and not the drug use
<2> we all use drugs
<2> cops use adrenalyn evertime they make a dope bust
<2> they talk openly and frequently about the high they get they call it the rush they get
<5> if you legalize and regulate drugs a lot of the crime vanishes
<2> thats just a drug by another name
<5> because addicts suddenly don't have to mug people for a fix
<2> Artificial vs natural ?
<2> I never saw a distinction
<2> high is high is high
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#3dsmax
shutdownscript winxp
#stocks
#politics
alhekma channel
#computers
#politics
#windows
#worldcup
valery plane
|
|