Former Colorado Legislator Now In Porn Business With Daughter: "I Feel No Shame"

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 8/7/04 | John aguilar

[Redcloak]

Marriage shouldn't confer citizenship. The State's interest in the matter should be only so far as contract law is concerned. The State does not issue licenses before one can enter into other types of contracts nor should it. Marriage is an exception merely because we've allowed a religious matter to become a matter of law.

[cyborg]

In thinking about it, I agree. It's pretty outdated, and now there's too much abuse of it.

[Redcloak]

I can't believe that no one's said "I see that your Schwarz is bigger than mine."

[beezdotcom]

You haven't the capacity to trick me into anything.

You're probably right.

Nor do I fear you do.

No, you probably don't. But your tone indicates you fear I'm trying to do something untowards, I just can't quite tell what.

Nor am I interested in political parties to which I do not belong.

For not being interested in political parties, you spent an awful lot of time in this thread pointing out to everyone that the Republicans can't disavow Schwarz. Repeatedly. As well as insisting that they not lump him in with any other parties. I wish my bank paid interest as handsomely as your non-interest.

I'm happily unable to continue this inane conversation as I must go now. I hope you have fun chasing your tail. Goodbye

How nice for you. If it was inane, why did you bother to participate at all? It speaks poorly of me, but not so well of you, either.

Protagoras was known as the "father of debate" because he taught that there are two sides to every issue.

Guess my side is just inane, and doesn't count...oh well...

[SoothingDave]

Marriage shouldn't confer citizenship.

In thinking about it, I agree. It's pretty outdated, and now there's too much abuse of it.

But then the writers of, um, every sitcom would have to think of an original idea. :-)

SD

[cyborg]

LOL!!!!! Does my post read that marriage is outdated and too much abuse of it?? hehehehe ooops

[Redcloak]

Of course, I don't want to live under Sharia law, either. But I don't quite agree with your wording. I think a Christian is specifically under an obligation to at least respect the Christian sense of morality in writing laws. In some cases, that may indeed translate to taking an amoral approach to the law, because it best allows the Christian to practice his morality. However, amorality is a slippery slope, too.

No, I wouldn't expect a legislator of any religion to write a law that specifically contradicts his moral views. I wouldn't expect a Vegan to write a law making the eating of meat mandatory or a Muslim to try to outlaw head coverings for women. However, if one is going to participate in the business of governing, there are rules to follow. In the US, that means not writing one's religious views into the law. If I were allowed to insert my Christian beliefs into law then there would be nothing to stop a Muslim from inserting Sharia law into our legal codes. Since I do not want the latter, I cannot insist upon the former.

[beezdotcom]

If I were allowed to insert my Christian beliefs into law then there would be nothing to stop a Muslim from inserting Sharia law into our legal codes.

That's not entirely true...unless Muslims comprised a majority of the voting bloc, or unless there was an activist court with a Muslim bias, it would be difficult to do.

By the way, what rule is there about writing one's religious views into the law? With few exceptions, you can't get a law to stay on the books (well, indefinitely, anyway) unless supported by a majority of people. If it's supported by a majority of the people, is it still a religious view, or a societal one? If a court decides it, then the interpretation is subject to their own biases.

I guess I'm just a bit of a cynic, and I ALWAYS assume there's going to be bias in law and interpretations - in which case, I'd rather it be a bias I agree with.

[SoothingDave]

Does my post read that marriage is outdated and too much abuse of it??

No, I mean every sitcom in history (well, nearly) has done an episode where someone gets married just so a foreigner can stay in the country. And then they always have to "fool" some INS inspector who quizzes the couple, seperately.

That 70s Show was the latest to do so, just last season.

SD

[cyborg]

Hehehe well actually you're right about that... I don't wath 70s Show that much. There's something really annoying about it that I can't quite put my finger on.

[SoothingDave]

However, if one is going to participate in the business of governing, there are rules to follow. In the US, that means not writing one's religious views into the law.

It is not a mere "Christian belief" that killing the unborn is murder. There are even athiests who can recognize murder when they see it.

This isn't outlawing meat on Friday, this is a fundamental question of life. If gov't is not to be bothered with protecting life, what use is it?

SD

[Junior]

Why? Are there strict entry requirements for being a Republican?

[Junior]

Amen.

[Junior]

The fluffer.

[cyborg]

No but the republican party platform and ideals do not mesh with the skin trade that is pornography. The libertarian party platform is pro-abortion and pro-porngraphy. The republican party is platform is pro-life and anti-pornography. Which party would welcome him more?

[eddie willers]

LOL!

I was "Little Red Chief"

[Havoc]

Thank you for that. I think I'm gonna be sick.

[dukeman]

My pleasure, and here's a breakfast bump for the quesy!

[Protagoras]

For not being interested in political parties, you spent an awful lot of time in this thread pointing out to everyone that the Republicans can't disavow Schwarz.

Not entirely correct. I point out that no political party can dump their miscreants on a different party without being called on it. This guy is not and never has been a Libertarian, much less a libertarian. The other poster just wanted to smear a party and philosophy with which he/she disagrees.

I really don't care about either of these parties, I'm interested in urging people to debate ideas, not childishly try to stain one group with a person. I'm sorry you don't understand the concepts.

How nice for you. If it was inane, why did you bother to participate at all?

It took a few posts to identify for sure that it was going no where. I was hoping for something better, it didn't work out that way.

Guess my side is just inane, and doesn't count...oh well...

Difficult to figure out what your side is. I'll count it if it ever becomes apparent.

The offer to discuss ideas still stands. The nonsense about who belongs to what party is a non starter with me. I have already pointed out how imbecilic that is and nother further need be said on the topic. (Until the next goof comes along and needs to be rebuked)

[beezdotcom]

I'm interested in urging people to debate ideas, not childishly try to stain one group with a person. I'm sorry you don't understand the concepts.

I'm sorry, too. I wish you luck in discerning more quickly in the future when the other poster is a person like me, and thus a complete waste of your time. You seem sincerely frustrated that I wasn't more attuned to your intentions, and I apologize for that. You deserve far better.