Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gator113
The Dead, Children, and Animals cannot give consent... so no. Don't be an idiot. These points have all been gone over here before and done to death. The sides are polarized and there seems to be no resolution in sight.

I'd err on the side of freedom. As long as my neighbors living arrangements are no drain on my pocketbook, why should I care? The only drain there possibly COULD be would be our increasing reliance on socialized government programs and interference in free markets like health care.

you Ms. Grundy types never friggin' learn.

23 posted on 04/23/2004 8:26:31 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Dead Corpse
"I'd err on the side of freedom."

Freedom? Forcing a handout because you don't otherwise qualify is not freedom. How about giving veterans' benefits to people who've never served? or seniors' benefits to the middle aged? or welfare benefits to the wealthy? Would you not think it "discriminatory and exclusive" to omit the "unqualified"?

As any qualification for a specific benefit must be based upon preset absolutes - marriage must also be defined with absolutes for couples to enjoy those benefits. Those not qualifying must remain unmarried.

Or should we move the standard so those qualify instead of requiring those to meet standards? If we do the former, where do we leave the qualifying line?

Is that freedom's definition? the ability to move the standards of qualification?

31 posted on 04/23/2004 8:53:22 AM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Dead Corpse
Well Pal, I don't know who Ms Grundy is and you best refrain from calling me an idiot.

Now, you say that you would error on the side of freedom..........is that with all things or just sexual perversion that provides the odor and contact with human feces. Oh never mind dear smart one.... the answer is obvious!
38 posted on 04/23/2004 9:44:42 AM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Dead Corpse
you Ms. Grundy types never friggin' learn.

You know, I thought like you when I was younger, but now I see this plural marriage thing as a political movement by the side that would have socialism and redistribution of wealtn. This cuts right to your pocketbook, so you should be wary. Sometimes what two people alone do in private makes so little difference that it can be ignorred. But when a whole country takes up the same activities, it will have a negative effect on the society, in many ways. The political is what I mentioned to keep the discussion out of the morals area, but a moral ethical society is also part of what holds us together or tears us appart if we don't keep it.

This movement to homosesual marriage, now includes transvestite activities, transgender if you will, and will soon be joined by pedophilia as it has been with polygamy. Anyone who does not see where this is headed is not really for freedom in the sense of nationalism, he is for libertine (anything goes) freedom and the country will not sustanin this kind of freedom.

55 posted on 04/24/2004 10:45:49 AM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson