U.S. 'gay' activist touts Canadian 'marriage'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, July 24, 2003

[OWK]

Wow, personal attack. "Limited Mind" what have I said that justifies that comment?

You are either gay yourself, or a pot obsessed Libertarian.

You're not exactly out to win the Nobel prize in physics..... are ya....?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

You're not exactly out to win the Nobel prize in physics..... are ya....?

The first sign of a weak argument, is personal attacks.

Also, don't waste you time waiting by the phone for your call from the committee.

[OWK]

The first sign of a weak argument, is personal attacks.

This from a guy who's first post to me was "F*** You".

Do you have more than three teeth?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

You know full well that that comment was in response to your first post. You will have to do better than that, Moron.

[OWK]

Geez... it's been quite awhile since I've had one of these trailer-park pig-rasslin sessions.

Moron..?

That really stung.

You're just too good for me.

I give up.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Geez... it's been quite awhile since I've had one of these trailer-park pig-rasslin sessions.

Well now that we've established where you reside.

[freeeee]

I've been thinking about your concept of marriage since we last spoke. You apparently believe married couples, by definition, have some duty to society to procreate. And that society will endow procreating married couples with socialistic benefits, while denying the same to those who choose not to reproduce.

And the justification of this expectation seems to be that society needs new individuals for its continued survival.

This to me sounds a lot like a farm. Society becomes the farmer, and individuals become his herd. Children are merely pack animals born with saddles on their backs. Those animals that reproduce to provide for the farmer are rewarded and fed, those that do not are culled.

This is an anathema to the concept of a free individual. People do not reproduce to provide you with servants, or neighbors. Your neighbors owe you nothing. They reproduce (or don't) of their own free will, based on their own desires and wishes whatever those may be.

I owe no social support whatsoever to those who choose to reproduce. If they want something, they have to earn it just like everyone else. They have to take responsibility to provide for their family if they choose to have one.

I find your theory of marriage to be one of the most intrusive forms of collectivism ever devised. It smacks of the workings of a commune.

[OWK]

Golly.

You are an exceptionally clever sort.

Perhaps if you'd ended with "I'm rubber and you're glue" or some other suitable phrase, you'd have really looked like the big man on campus.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

LOL, you do turn a mean attack phrase!

[Guillermo]

I think you missed my point...my point is simply this:

There is no law preventing a homosexual man from marrying any willing, single female, just as I have the right to marry any willing single female (as I am a heterosexual single male).

We have the exact same rights.

[jmc813]

This small-l libertarian (and from observation there are many of FR who agree with me) thinks the Lawrence decision was crap and was a dangerous step away from states rights and the 10th Amendment. As much as I hate to admit it, Kevin has a very well-written piece on his FR profile page about how that decision was dangerous from a constitutional standpoint. I'd suggest reading it if you haven't yet.

[Guillermo]

I understand your point, as you are able to articulate your views quite well.

Whether or not the State plays a role in it, isn't really relevant to the definition of marriage. When the State agrees with the definition of marriage, it isn't turning a tree into a rock.

The problem I have is with the State changing the definition of marriage. This is what the homosexual agenda is precisely seeking, which is State intervention.

[freeeee]

So I take it you dont want future generations to pay into Social Secutiry so it will be there when youre ready to retire.

That's kind of funny. I no more expect to see a dime of the money stolen from me by SS than I expect to meet Elvis.

Pyramid ponzi schemes don't work, even when the government runs them.

How about I keep my own money in the first place?

[scripter]

Thanks. I'll check it out later.

[tpaine]

This small-l libertarian (and from observation there are many of FR who agree with me) thinks the Lawrence decision was crap and was a dangerous step away from states rights and the 10th Amendment.

States have delegated powers under the 10th. They do not include the power to violate an individuals rights as the Lawrence 'law' did.

As much as I hate to admit it, Kevin has a very well-written piece on his FR profile page about how that decision was dangerous from a constitutional standpoint. I'd suggest reading it if you haven't yet.

Kevins 'piece' is summed up by this portion of it below, which presupposes, just as you do, that the Lawrence opinion did something "dangerous".
It didn't. -- It just struck down a "silly" [see Thomas] state 'law', nothing more.
Heres kevin:

"This activist SCOTUS is a symptom of nanny government run amok. I don't care where you stand on the Lawrence sodomy issue personally."

Bull. Obviously you care a lot, or you wouldn't use hype like "amok".

"Action on such legislation should have taken place locally, with all due deliberation, at a state level--not impatiently imposed by judical fiat."

The Texas law in question was a state "fiat", that violated individual rights. The USSC said it was unconstitutional. Case closed except for all the hyperbole. .

"If it was important enough to be dealt with on a national level, it should have been subjected to the process of constitutional amendment--as slavery was."

Kevin, do you really want to amend our constitution to allow states to write laws that ignore our bill of rights?

This is what you call for above.

[jethropalerobber]

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals do regarding marriage.

translation: "you can have any color model-t you like so long as it's black."

[Guillermo]

I don't have the right to marry my best male friend.

You tell me how my rights to marriage differ from theirs.

[tpaine]

>>>>>>>>>> CRICKETS <<<<<<<<<<