Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: [hypoth

[Guest guest]

, you haven't taken into consideration adoption. There are many same sex

couples that adopt children. As the mother of one I delivered and one I adopted,

there is no difference in the love and caring involved from the parents. The

possibility of children should always be the criteria, not the sexes of the

couple. I understand your point of view, and I've always thought that was the

only way, but it seems the world is changing.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 6:42 PM

I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

marriage.  Society has a stake in providing for children which is

supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman. 

There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

two women, as they cannot of their union produce children.  We need to

be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

norm.  The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

can't marry each other is bogus.  A straight person can't marry his dog,

his car or a same sex person.  A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

or a same sex person.   The law is precisely equal.  What one or the

other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

..

..

>       Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

>   

   <mailto:val@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20\

Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

>         val1198 <val1198>

>

>

>         Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> be left

> to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have a

> legal social contract.

>

> Val

> Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> create if they want a legal partnership.

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

What document in our founding papers spells out this responsibility of

the government? Clue: There isn't one.

Did you mean to say " immoral " rather than " amoral " ?

In either case your statement is meaningless until you can find a

universally accepted definition of " needy " . Again: There isn't one you

can apply across the board; anyone can define themselves as " needy " of

your earnings.

If you would define the needy as only being those who actually cannot

help themselves you will get a lot more agreement. But you will only

have a few percent of those typically labeled as " needy " .

..

..

> It is the governments' responsibility whether it is local or federal

> to help

> out needy people. to not do that is considered amoral and unethical.

[Guest guest]

Some more right wing closed minded BS

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

..

..

> Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

> <mailto:val@wyosip

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> val1198 <val1198>

>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> be left

> to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have a

> legal social contract.

>

> Val

> Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> create if they want a legal partnership.

[Guest guest]

I just posted one . I did the work because you people can't seem to go

ogle anything.

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

What document in our founding papers spells out this responsibility of

the government? Clue: There isn't one.

Did you mean to say " immoral " rather than " amoral " ?

In either case your statement is meaningless until you can find a

universally accepted definition of " needy " . Again: There isn't one you

can apply across the board; anyone can define themselves as " needy " of

your earnings.

If you would define the needy as only being those who actually cannot

help themselves you will get a lot more agreement. But you will only

have a few percent of those typically labeled as " needy " .

..

..

> It is the governments' responsibility whether it is local or federal

> to help

> out needy people. to not do that is considered amoral and unethical.

[Guest guest]

Honestly the peddlers on the street corner are the worst. The other day I

saw one on the corner with his sign : HOMELESS VETERN. HUNGRY. ANYTHING

HELPS. Then as I was coming out of Wal-Mart I saw him coming out of the

convenience store with a 30 pack of Busch. I believe in helping the poor,

but not by giving them pennies. Helping them learn about money and how to

earn it and how to stay out of debt has to be the key. I also thing homes

are not assets. Anything that takes money out of your pocket isn't an asset

but a liability. JMHO

CW

Traveling? Know someone who is? Use my travelocity site www.travelfhtm

com/crystalwright

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

Not unless you're a liberal, in which case " down " may actually mean

" up " . The constitution is actually pretty straight forward in its

meaning IMHO in most cases. " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

Happiness " have nothing to do with helping the needy.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam@

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 6:44 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> I think " life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness " could be a mantra

> for the federal government's responsibility to help out people.

[Guest guest]

Nancie Barnett wrote:

> I just posted one . I did the work because you people can't seem to go

> ogle anything.

<grin>

I think I " ogle " just fine thank your very much. Apparently, you too

can ogle.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

The point is that they have the right to do that, so if they need some help in

order to be able to exercise their rights, that's what it's all about. Nancie

gave some links to the Federal Government's procedures and programs that were

excellent. Perhaps you could look these over.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 10:25 PM

Not unless you're a liberal, in which case " down " may actually mean

" up " .  The constitution is actually pretty straight forward in its

meaning IMHO in most cases.  " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

Happiness " have nothing to do with helping the needy.

..

..

>

>       Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>   

   <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3\

A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

>         matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

>         Thu Apr 9, 2009 6:44 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> I think " life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness " could be a mantra

> for the federal government's responsibility to help out people.

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

In Florida marriage is a LEGAL process, and if you don't follow it you

are not married.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

>

<mailto:val@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geo\

politics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> val1198 <val1198>

>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 8:46 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> The word " marriage " is a religious term and as such, should not be used by

> government. Domestic contract would be more appropriate.

>

> Val

>

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

>

> People get married all the time in non-religious contexts. All

> " marriage " is

> , is a legal contract between 2 people. Where you have it is your

> business.

[Guest guest]

False statement. However, you were correct until you added " and

government " if you mean the federal government. The purpose of

government IS NOT to help the needy. It's not in the declaration of

independence; it's not in the constitution; it's not in the bill of

rights or any of our national founding paperwork. As a matter of fact

it is specifically prohibited on the federal level by the 10th amendment

[which, unfortunately is essentially ignored].

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%2\

0Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 11:31 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> You are missing the point. In a civilized society, one hopes that you

> don't

> have to have it the constitution in order to provide for the less needy in

> the society. There is a moral and ethical duty for society [ and

> government]

> to help the needy.

[Guest guest]

Crystal, your comment seems pretty discriminatory to me.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley@...>

Subject: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big Business

Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 10:38 PM

Nancie...do you have an 800 hotline we can all call for our 'horoscopes'?

>

> Some more right wing closed minded BS

>

> -- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

>

> Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

> can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

> his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

> or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> > Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

> > <mailto:val@wyosip

> com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

>

> %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > val1198 <val1198>

> >

> >

> > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > be left

> > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have a

> > legal social contract.

> >

> > Val

> > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > create if they want a legal partnership.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Another statement from a closed mind

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

>

> Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

> can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

> his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

> or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> > Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

> > <mailto:val@wyosip

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

>

> %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > val1198 <val1198>

> >

> >

> > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > be left

> > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have a

> > legal social contract.

> >

> > Val

> > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > create if they want a legal partnership.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

Common law marriage does not entail a contract does it?

-- Re: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics,

> and Big Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 5:33 PM

>

> People get married all the time in non-religious contexts. All

> " marriage " is

> , is a legal contract between 2 people. Where you have it is your

> business.

[Guest guest]

Common-law marriage (or common law marriage), sometimes called de facto

marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is a form of

interpersonal status which is legally recognized in some jurisdictions as a

marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or

civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a

civil registry. A common law marriage is legally binding in some

jurisdictions but has no legal consequence in others. In some jurisdictions

without true common law marriages (e.g. Hungary), the term " common law

marriage " is used as a synonym for non-marital relationships such as

domestic partnership or reciprocal beneficiaries relationship.

ERGO, no contract between 2 parties. I was speaking about a LEGAL contract

between 2 consenting adults. Big difference

-- Re: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics,

> and Big Business Re: [hypoth

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 5:33 PM

>

> People get married all the time in non-religious contexts. All

> " marriage " is

> , is a legal contract between 2 people. Where you have it is your

> business.

[Guest guest]

Maybe in your conservative world, but in the real world, the federal, state

and regional governments have taken on that role and will continue to do so

until poverty is stamped out.

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

Business Re: [hypoth

False statement. However, you were correct until you added " and

government " if you mean the federal government. The purpose of

government IS NOT to help the needy. It's not in the declaration of

independence; it's not in the constitution; it's not in the bill of

rights or any of our national founding paperwork. As a matter of fact

it is specifically prohibited on the federal level by the 10th amendment

[which, unfortunately is essentially ignored].

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit@msn

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 11:31 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> You are missing the point. In a civilized society, one hopes that you

> don't

> have to have it the constitution in order to provide for the less needy in

> the society. There is a moral and ethical duty for society [ and

> government]

> to help the needy.

[Guest guest]

Is this all spam lately,or what? Isn't his a thyroid grp? This is sooo

weird,I've just been deleting left and right! Deb

--aliano

[Guest guest]

I was speaking about you, . The one who makes cruel discriminatory

stamens about the poor and gay parents. Whx equal a right wing close minded

person

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> > Business Re: [hypoth

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> > marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> > supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> > There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> > two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> > be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> > than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> > norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> > places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

> >

> > Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

> > can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

> > his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

> > or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> > other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

> >

> >

> > .

> > .

> >

> > > Posted by: " Valarie " val@

> > > <mailto:val@wyosip

> >

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

> >

> >

> > %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > > val1198 <val1198>

> > >

> > >

> > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > > be left

> > > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have

a

> > > legal social contract.

> > >

> > > Val

> > > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > > create if they want a legal partnership.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I was speaking about you, . The one who makes cruel discriminatory

statements about the poor and gay parents. Whx equal a right wing close

minded person aka cindy

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> > Business Re: [hypoth

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> > marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> > supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> > There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> > two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> > be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> > than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> > norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> > places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

> >

> > Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because they

> > can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog,

> > his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his car

> > or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> > other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

> >

> >

> > .

> > .

> >

> > > Posted by: " Valarie " val@

> > > <mailto:val@wyosip

> >

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

> >

> >

> > %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > > val1198 <val1198>

> > >

> > >

> > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > > be left

> > > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should have

a

> > > legal social contract.

> > >

> > > Val

> > > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > > create if they want a legal partnership.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

The federal government enforces MANY policies and programs that are not part

of the constitution, although there is one clause that all men should be

created equal which means that all people poor and rich should be treated

the same, . But you believe that poor people should be 2nd class

citizens. Sounds like you would be someone who would vote against civil

rights.

You can house 100 homeless people but I wonder what they would think if they

knew that you were against them getting governmental assistance and against

the living wage? HUH? Care to ask them? You are a hypocrite

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> False statement. However, you were correct until you added " and

> government " if you mean the federal government. The purpose of

> government IS NOT to help the needy. It's not in the declaration of

> independence; it's not in the constitution; it's not in the bill of

> rights or any of our national founding paperwork. As a matter of fact

> it is specifically prohibited on the federal level by the 10th amendment

> [which, unfortunately is essentially ignored].

>

>

[Guest guest]

so, I apologize if I incorrectly thought you made the statement about gay

parents.

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and

Big

>

> > > Business Re: [hypoth

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> > > marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> > > supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> > > There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> > > two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> > > be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> > > than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> > > norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> > > places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

> > >

> > > Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because

they

>

> > > can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog

> > > his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his

car

> > > or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> > > other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

> > >

> > >

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > > > Posted by: " Valarie " val@

> > > > <mailto:val@wyosip

> > >

> >

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > > > val1198 <val1198>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > > > be left

> > > > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should

have

> a

> > > > legal social contract.

> > > >

> > > > Val

> > > > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > > > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > > > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > > > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > > > create if they want a legal partnership.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I am not lying cindy but I think you are the hypocrite. Taking in the very

people that you believe should not be getting governmental assistance and

should not benefit from a living wage.

Sounds like a person who has little empathy for the homeless in the long run

In order for most homeless to get off the streets, they have to make a

living wage and 12.00/hr at walmart is not going to cut it in this country.

As I clearly stated this is what 12./hr will get you BEFORE TAXES ARE TAKEN

OUT:

12.00 hr at 8 hrs a day, she made $96 BEFORE taxes x 5 = $480.00 /week

BEFORE taxes;

equal $ 1920.00 a month BEFORE taxes; times 12 months = 23,040 BEFORE taxes.

So, tell me how could a family support themselves or even a single

person support themselves on that little of a salary. And pay all their

bills and still have a quality of life??

Remember the 23,040 is BEFORE taxes.

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and

Big

>

> > > Business Re: [hypoth

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> > > marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> > > supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman.

> > > There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men or

> > > two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need to

> > > be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for longer

> > > than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by that

> > > norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> > > places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

> > >

> > > Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because

they

>

> > > can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his dog

> > > his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his

car

> > > or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> > > other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

> > >

> > >

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > > > Posted by: " Valarie " val@

> > > > <mailto:val@wyosip

> > >

> >

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > > > val1198 <val1198>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages should

> > > > be left

> > > > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should

have

> a

> > > > legal social contract.

> > > >

> > > > Val

> > > > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult consenting

> > > > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > > > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a marriage

> > > > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that they

> > > > create if they want a legal partnership.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

So, you don't support the endangered species act? Or the anti-nuclear

proliferation act?

Or medicare ? Or social security? Or the legal age of drinking or OSHA? Or

FEMA? Or the clean air and water act? What about domestic violence programs?

Etc

What will happen after they leave you home? Then what? Are you going to

support them for the rest of their lives? Are you going to guarantee them a

job?

Governmental assistance is to help them get a leg up so they can stabilize

their lives. Didn't you take wic or food stamps to feed your kids when money

was tight?? If so then you are a hypocrite.

Part of governmental assistance programs are job training programs,

are you going to deny them the chance to train for a job? The government

also offers education grants so that they can go back to school. Are you

saying that they should not be able to take advantage of those

programs????????

I am not a hypocrite because I support those programs and I lobby for them.

Just like other Liberal Democrats do. Namely the Kennedy's, the shrivers and

the smiths and n wright edelman and the children's defense fund. Are

they all hypocrites, too because we support these governmental programs? Are

we hypocrites because we care deeply about the cycle of poverty in this

country and work to end it?

You should check out this site, the children's defense fund: http://www

childrensdefense.org/

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> > Business Re: [hypoth

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > False statement. However, you were correct until you added " and

> > government " if you mean the federal government. The purpose of

> > government IS NOT to help the needy. It's not in the declaration of

> > independence; it's not in the constitution; it's not in the bill of

> > rights or any of our national founding paperwork. As a matter of fact

> > it is specifically prohibited on the federal level by the 10th amendment

> > [which, unfortunately is essentially ignored].

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You have posted a number of " facts " that as far as I can tell are not

facts at all, but fallacies. I have not accused you of " making it up "

as I think you're probably just repeating the " common knowledge " of your

liberal friends; common knowledge which is actually false.

Note that I have given you the complete benefit of the doubt as to your

honesty and sincerity in your expressed concern for the needy. I do not

do that for a lot of liberals because I'm quite sure their positions are

in fact not honest ones dedicated to helping the needy but are rather

cynical positions taken for personal or political gain.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%2\

0Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:23 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Right, that is why Steve keeps telling me that I am making up tsh*t. Nice

> try james, but i don't believe anything steve tells me as far as politics

> goes.

> he says he has empathy for less fortunate people but frankly that has not

> been demonstrated here from him or even sometimes from you.

> forgive if i feel it is a bit hollow...and cold...

>

> -- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> Nancie, I'm quite sure you're honest and sincere in your position; more

> than I can say for a lot of others. It's unfortunate that you don't

> seem to be able to see that people like Steve are also very honest and

> sincere in their [our] belief that the best way to help someone is often

> to not help them at all. Or perhaps to teach them to fish rather than

> give them a fish. We honestly, sincerely and very deeply believe in the

> evidence of our senses, intelligence and education [whatever it may be]

> that the most empathetic way to promote the well being of those who are

> now struggling is the route of personal responsibility and other tenants

> of conservative [and libertarian] philosophy. It is profoundly clear to

> me that little if any of modern liberal thought had any place in the

> considerations of the founders of our country. The idea that

> generations could live on the public dole with no personal

> responsibility would no doubt have been an incredulous one for them.

>

> To disparage the motives and moral character [or mental capabilities, as

> we continue to see here] is a pathetic position, indicating one cannot

> defend one's position in an honorable, logical and intelligent manner.

> Too often those who can't marshal facts to support their position are

> pretty good a slinging the $#!+ to cover up that lack.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Taking it off list

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and

> Big

> >

> > > > Business Re: [hypoth

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I agree with Steve on a lot of things but disagree with him about

> > > > marriage. Society has a stake in providing for children which is

> > > > supported by the cultural norm of marriage between a man and a woman

> > > > There is no similar benefit for supporting the marriage of two men

or

> > > > two women, as they cannot of their union produce children. We need

to

> > > > be careful about upsetting cultural norms that have existed for

longer

>

> > > > than our country except in cases where someone is being harmed by

that

>

> > > > norm. The cultural norms of how women are treated [quite legally] in

> > > > places like Saudi Arabia come to mind.

> > > >

> > > > Besides, the idea that gays are being discriminated against because

> they

> >

> > > > can't marry each other is bogus. A straight person can't marry his

dog

>

> > > > his car or a same sex person. A gay person can't marry his dog, his

> car

> > > > or a same sex person. The law is precisely equal. What one or the

> > > > other might WANT has no bearing upon discrimination or lack thereof.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > > > Posted by: " Valarie " val@

> > > > > <mailto:val@wyosip

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Eliminate%20force%20-%20Re%3A%20%20Geopolitics%2C%20an

>

> >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > %20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypoth>

> > > > > val1198 <val1198>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:02 am (PDT)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " Marriage " is a religious expression and performing marriages

should

>

> > > > > be left

> > > > > to religious institutions. Anyone not desiring a marriage should

> have

> > a

> > > > > legal social contract.

> > > > >

> > > > > Val

> > > > > Socially liberal in that I think that any 2 or more adult

consenting

>

> > > > > individuals should be able to marry as they see fit and that the

> > > > > government should not have anything to do with " granting " a

marriage

>

> > > > > license - individual should enter into marriage contracts that

they

> > > > > create if they want a legal partnership.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Taking it off list

-- Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> Business Re: [hypoth

>

>

>

>

> Nancie, I'm quite sure you're honest and sincere in your position; more

> than I can say for a lot of others. It's unfortunate that you don't

> seem to be able to see that people like Steve are also very honest and

> sincere in their [our] belief that the best way to help someone is often

> to not help them at all. Or perhaps to teach them to fish rather than

> give them a fish. We honestly, sincerely and very deeply believe in the

> evidence of our senses, intelligence and education [whatever it may be]

> that the most empathetic way to promote the well being of those who are

> now struggling is the route of personal responsibility and other tenants

> of conservative [and libertarian] philosophy. It is profoundly clear to

> me that little if any of modern liberal thought had any place in the

> considerations of the founders of our country. The idea that

> generations could live on the public dole with no personal

> responsibility would no doubt have been an incredulous one for them.

>

> To disparage the motives and moral character [or mental capabilities, as

> we continue to see here] is a pathetic position, indicating one cannot

> defend one's position in an honorable, logical and intelligent manner.

> Too often those who can't marshal facts to support their position are

> pretty good a slinging the $#!+ to cover up that lack.

>

>

[Guest guest]

So you think homosexuality and/or lesbianism just started up in the last fifty

years or so?

Come on, you're kidding? Just because their families weren't " sanctioned " by the

states, doesn't mean that they didn't live together and have children by

adoption, in vitro fertilation or whatever other means they chose. Same sex

prediliction have been around forever.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley@...>

Subject: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big Business

Re: [hypoth

hypothyroidism

Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 1:16 AM

It struck me as rather neutral...since this is the first generation to have any

children raised in our society with same-sex parents, to say otherwise is just

hypothesis...either way...

>

> Crystal, your comment seems pretty discriminatory to me.

>

>

> Roni

....

> > From: Crystal

> > Date: 4/10/2009 8:41:25 PM

> > hypothyroidism

> > Subject: Re: Re: Eliminate force - Re: Geopolitics, and Big

> > Business Re: [hypoth

> > 

> >

> >

> >

> > Only time will tell how well a child raised by a gay couple will function is

> > society.

> > CW

------------------------------------