So 2pid, do you agree with this? Here are your conservatives

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
is not an American citizen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> is not an American citizen.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433

The ****uplicans still haven't figured out that they've adopted fringe
positions on all social issues and most international issues.

"... for a president [Bush 43] who publicly embraced conservative
principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the
sentiment."

The last "conservative" candidate the ****uplicans nominated was Nixon.
Reagan threw his support behind big government like no one before, and
Dumbya made Reagan look like a piker. "Conservative"? In a pig's eye.

[[email protected]]

On 28 Feb, 20:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> is not an American citizen.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433

I saw a comment on Fox News, no less, that Rush
(talking at the conservative conference today) reminded
her of Billy Mays.
If you buy this agenda in the next ten
minutes, I'll throw in another for free! (A 'small" shipping and
handling charge, extra)
I love just love it when the radical Dems roll themselves up
in an uncompromising divisve ball and bring the whole party down.
..I hate it when the right wing Reps do the same thing

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 28, 8:47*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:59*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> > is not an American citizen.
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
>
> You should be able to realize you're reading uninformed BS when
> crap like this rolls forth:
>
> "Indeed, for a president (Bush) who publicly embraced conservative
> principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the
> sentiment."

What does that have to do with the crowd "exploded in enthusiastic
response" to a suggestion that Obama is not a US citizen at a
conservative conference?

> Obviously, you have a problem.

Avoiding questions isn't one of them, 2pid. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 28, 9:27*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:19*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 8:47*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 5:59*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > > > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> > > > is not an American citizen.
>
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
>
> > > You should be able to realize you're reading uninformed BS when
> > > crap like this rolls forth:
>
> > > "Indeed, for a president (Bush) who publicly embraced conservative
> > > principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the
> > > sentiment."
>
> > What does that have to do with the crowd "exploded in enthusiastic
> > response" to a suggestion that Obama is not a US citizen at a
> > conservative conference?
>
> *So you'll believe any source that fits your ideology
> no matter how much BS precedes it.

Do you have a cite that says otherwise?

Or is this "bull**** " Stephen-level proof?

What a hypocrite. LoL.

> I am not surprised.

Me either. LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> So you'll believe any source that fits your ideology
> no matter how much BS precedes it.
> I am not surprised.

Scott has learned to preempt the IKYABWAI.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > So you'll believe any source that fits your ideology
> > no matter how much BS precedes it.
> > I am not surprised.
>
> Scott has learned to preempt the IKYABWAI.

Your afraied of the truthe.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 28, 11:22*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > *So you'll believe any source that fits your ideology
> > > no matter how much BS precedes it.
> > > I am not surprised.
>
> > Scott has learned to preempt the IKYABWAI.
>
> Your afraied of the truthe.

That was very well written, George.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> is not an American citizen.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433

CPAC is a real freak show this year. I really hope that they keep up
with the "Obama is a ferener" thing.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Shhhh! said:
>
> > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> > is not an American citizen.
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
>
> The ****uplicans still haven't figured out that they've adopted fringe
> positions on all social issues and most international issues.
>
> "... for a president [Bush 43] who publicly embraced conservative
> principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the
> sentiment."
>
> The last "conservative" candidate the ****uplicans nominated was Nixon.
> Reagan threw his support behind big government like no one before, and
> Dumbya made Reagan look like a piker. "Conservative"? In a pig's eye.

I wouldn't think that true conservatives would be concerned about
people's bedroom activities, or who marries whom, either.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 1, 9:27*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> > > is not an American citizen.
> >
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
> >
> > CPAC is a real freak show this year. *I really hope that they keep up
> > with the "Obama is a ferener" thing.
>
> Why? Do you really want no effective opposition or alternative to the
> democratic party? What kind of democracy is that?
>
> ScottW

Of course I do, but I want the Repub Party to show clearly what they are
about these days. OF COURSE I want my "side" to win.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> Just shows dems as a party or more about power than policy.
> I hope Republicans return to conservatism and offer a contrast to
> Obama.

Some of Scott's implications are self-contradicting.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 1, 11:40*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:27*am, Jenn > wrote:

> > CPAC is a real freak show this year. *I really hope that they keep up
> > with the "Obama is a ferener" thing.
>
> Why? Do you really want no effective opposition or alternative to the
> democratic party? *What kind of democracy is that?

LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 1, 2:56*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:11*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 1, 9:27*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > > > > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> > > > > is not an American citizen.
>
> > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
>
> > > > CPAC is a real freak show this year. *I really hope that they keep up
> > > > with the "Obama is a ferener" thing.
>
> > > Why? Do you really want no effective opposition or alternative to the
> > > democratic party? *What kind of democracy is that?
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > Of course I do, but I want the Repub Party to show clearly what they are
> > about these days.
>
> *I could say the same for the democrats. *Pelosi telling blue dogs
> it's ok to support off-shore drilling if they must to get re-elected
> is BS IMO.

You're right, 2pid: it's a far better thing for a political party to
ignore the "will of the people". That way they can stand on the
sidelines and have no power to effect any change, just like the
republicans!

> Just shows dems as a party or more about power than policy.

So if the republicans do something that's not very popular because
they have a majority, it's "the will of the people". If it's the Dems
that change their stance based on current conditions ($4 gas), it's
"not having a backbone".

Got it, 2pid. Your analysis is 'brilliant' as usual. LoL.

> I hope Republicans return to conservatism and offer a contrast to
> Obama.

So, 2pid, tell me: when have the republicans *ever* been conservative?
(Hint: you have to have been something to "return" to it.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 1, 3:33*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > Just shows dems as a party or more about power than policy.
> > I hope Republicans return to conservatism and offer a contrast to
> > Obama.
>
> Some of Scott's implications are self-contradicting.

I'd say "most".

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Mar 1, 11:28*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > > > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> > > > is not an American citizen.
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
> >
> > > The ****uplicans still haven't figured out that they've adopted fringe
> > > positions on all social issues and most international issues.
> >
> > > "... for a president [Bush 43] who publicly embraced conservative
> > > principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the
> > > sentiment."
> >
> > > The last "conservative" candidate the ****uplicans nominated was Nixon.
> > > Reagan threw his support behind big government like no one before, and
> > > Dumbya made Reagan look like a piker. "Conservative"? In a pig's eye.
> >
> > I wouldn't think that true conservatives would be concerned about
> > people's bedroom activities, or who marries whom, either.- Hide quoted text
> > -
>
> The first part is largely true as long as the parties are consenting
> adults and reasonably discreet. The second is not. Marriage is in fact
> the cornerstone of the primary social unit of the society and as such
> deserves considerable social attention. I personally believe that not
> only should marriage be restricted to two people of opposite sexes
> there should be considerable further restrictions. There should be
> limits on how closely or distantly related the partners may be (again,
> what do we call a partially inbred extended family??), how far apart
> their ages may be, and other restrictions.

How does limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples hurt the cornerstone?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 3, 10:48*am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 11:28*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > > > > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama
> > > > > is not an American citizen.
> > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
>
> > > > The ****uplicans still haven't figured out that they've adopted fringe
> > > > positions on all social issues and most international issues.
>
> > > > "... for a president [Bush 43] who publicly embraced conservative
> > > > principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the
> > > > sentiment."
>
> > > > The last "conservative" candidate the ****uplicans nominated was Nixon.
> > > > Reagan threw his support behind big government like no one before, and
> > > > Dumbya made Reagan look like a piker. "Conservative"? In a pig's eye.
>
> > > I wouldn't think that true conservatives would be concerned about
> > > people's bedroom activities, or who marries whom, either.- Hide quoted text
> > > -
>
> > *The first part is largely true as long as the parties are consenting
> > adults and reasonably discreet. The second is not. Marriage is in fact
> > the cornerstone of the primary social unit of the society and as such
> > deserves considerable social attention. I personally believe that not
> > only should marriage be restricted to two people of opposite sexes
> > there should be considerable further restrictions. There should be
> > limits on how closely or distantly related the partners may be (again,
> > what do we call a partially inbred extended family??), how far apart
> > their ages may be, and other restrictions.
>
> How does limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples hurt the cornerstone?

Did you mean "help"?

I find the dilemma created by Bratzi's beliefs to be that he can offer
marriage in everything but name to gay couples and this somehow
"safeguards" hetero marriage. Would calling hetero marriage a "civil
union" destroy the hetero institution? If so, how?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Mar 3, 10:48*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Mar 1, 11:28*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > > > > the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when
> > > > > > Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that
> > > > > > Obama
> > > > > > is not an American citizen.
> > > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090228/pl_politico/19433
> >
> > > > > The ****uplicans still haven't figured out that they've adopted
> > > > > fringe
> > > > > positions on all social issues and most international issues.
> >
> > > > > "... for a president [Bush 43] who publicly embraced conservative
> > > > > principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the
> > > > > sentiment."
> >
> > > > > The last "conservative" candidate the ****uplicans nominated was
> > > > > Nixon.
> > > > > Reagan threw his support behind big government like no one before,
> > > > > and
> > > > > Dumbya made Reagan look like a piker. "Conservative"? In a pig's eye.
> >
> > > > I wouldn't think that true conservatives would be concerned about
> > > > people's bedroom activities, or who marries whom, either.- Hide quoted
> > > > text
> > > > -
> >
> > > *The first part is largely true as long as the parties are consenting
> > > adults and reasonably discreet. The second is not. Marriage is in fact
> > > the cornerstone of the primary social unit of the society and as such
> > > deserves considerable social attention. I personally believe that not
> > > only should marriage be restricted to two people of opposite sexes
> > > there should be considerable further restrictions. There should be
> > > limits on how closely or distantly related the partners may be (again,
> > > what do we call a partially inbred extended family??), how far apart
> > > their ages may be, and other restrictions.
> >
> > How does limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples hurt the cornerstone?
>
> Did you mean "help"?

Yes, thanks.

>
> I find the dilemma created by Bratzi's beliefs to be that he can offer
> marriage in everything but name to gay couples and this somehow
> "safeguards" hetero marriage. Would calling hetero marriage a "civil
> union" destroy the hetero institution? If so, how?

It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. If SSM is
allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
sex.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. If SSM is
> allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> sex.

I think of B whenever I hear a preacher going on about the powerful
temptation of the gay lifestyle.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. If SSM is
> > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > sex.

Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.

> I think of B whenever I hear a preacher going on about the powerful
> temptation of the gay lifestyle.

There's temptation involved? Geez! Why are we doing so much work on
"recruiting" and paying those costly incentives?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 3, 11:47*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. *If SSM is
> > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > sex.
>
> Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>
> > I think of B whenever I hear a preacher going on about the powerful
> > temptation of the gay lifestyle.
>
> There's temptation involved? Geez! Why are we doing so much work on
> "recruiting" and paying those costly incentives?

A friend of mine has a son who may be gay. My friend said "God, I hope
not. It's a hard life."

Not being gay I don't know if it's "harder" to be gay but I do think
it's "easier" in the US to be hetero. The only evidence I need are the
ramblings of people like 2pid, Clyde and Bratzi. I'm glad I'm not
black or some other minority (or a woman for that matter) for the same
reason.

No, instead I am fated to share the white heterosexual male lifestyle
with 2pid, Bratzi and GOIA. <sigh>

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > I think of B whenever I hear a preacher going on about the powerful
> > > temptation of the gay lifestyle.
> >
> > There's temptation involved? Geez! Why are we doing so much work on
> > "recruiting" and paying those costly incentives?
>
> A friend of mine has a son who may be gay. My friend said "God, I hope
> not. It's a hard life."
>
> Not being gay I don't know if it's "harder" to be gay but I do think
> it's "easier" in the US to be hetero. The only evidence I need are the
> ramblings of people like 2pid, Clyde and Bratzi. I'm glad I'm not
> black or some other minority (or a woman for that matter) for the same
> reason.

In the real world, Gay people, like other minority members, have to be lucky
to avoid the prejudice of ignorant people.

> No, instead I am fated to share the white heterosexual male lifestyle
> with 2pid, Bratzi and GOIA. <sigh>

You take the bad with the good.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 3, 6:48*pm, wrote:
> > > I find the dilemma created by Bratzi's beliefs to be that he can offer
> > > marriage in everything but name to gay couples and this somehow
> > > "safeguards" hetero marriage. Would calling hetero marriage a "civil
> > > union" destroy the hetero institution? If so, how?
>
> > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. *If SSM is
> > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > sex.
>
> *But it should not be called marriage. *Children
> should not be led to think that Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve and
> Billie Jo and Mary Sue are the same.

LOL!

I always knew you was kind of slow, there, pardner.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
wrote:

> >
> > > I find the dilemma created by Bratzi's beliefs to be that he can offer
> > > marriage in everything but name to gay couples and this somehow
> > > "safeguards" hetero marriage. Would calling hetero marriage a "civil
> > > union" destroy the hetero institution? If so, how?
> >
> > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. If SSM is
> > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > sex.
>
> No one thinks that and no one wants that either. If someone is a
> homosexual-really is sexually and romantically attracted to the same
> sex-and has come to an adult acceptance of that, well and fine.

But you said, "Marriage is in fact the cornerstone of the primary social
unit of the society and as such
deserves considerable social attention. I personally believe that not
only should marriage be restricted to two people of opposite sexes
there should be considerable further restrictions." So how would SSM
hurt this cornerstone?

> No
> one (who is healthy) wants to make their lives any more miserable.
> But they can be happily gay without the official unction of marriage.
> They can just live together or they may have, I would support, some
> legal recognition. But it should not be called marriage. Children
> should not be led to think that Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve and
> Billie Jo and Mary Sue are the same.

How is it different?

> Actually they are not two
> different things, they are three completely different things, any two
> of which have something in common and many substantial differences.
> But one of these is the generally preferable way and two are for a
> small minority each, a very small minority in fact.

lol So because it affects a "very small minority" we should deny them
the ability to marry. For what reason?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. If SSM is
> > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > sex.
>
> Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>
> > I think of B whenever I hear a preacher going on about the powerful
> > temptation of the gay lifestyle.
>
> There's temptation involved? Geez! Why are we doing so much work on
> "recruiting" and paying those costly incentives?

Hey now! I have four toaster ovens thanks to those incentives!

[[email protected]]

On 4 Mar, 02:11, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. *If SSM is
> > > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > > sex.
>
> > Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>

no, I never said they will, I said they could.
What they will elect to do, if permitted in their state, which it
should be, is unite civilly with another gay

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 4, 10:25*pm, wrote:
> On 4 Mar, 02:11, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. *If SSM is
> > > > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > > > sex.
>
> > > Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>
> no, I never said they will, I said they could.
> What they will elect to do, if permitted in their state, which it
> should be, is unite civilly with another gay

So Clyde, a question: do you believe that if gays are allowed to marry
it will somehow undermine the hetero institution of marriage?

[[email protected]]

On 5 Mar, 03:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:25*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Mar, 02:11, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > > > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. *If SSM is
> > > > > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > > > > sex.
>
> > > > Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>
> > no, I never said they will, I said they could.
> > What they will elect to do, if permitted in their state, which it
> > should be, is unite civilly with another gay
>
> So Clyde, a question: do you believe that if gays are allowed to marry
> it will somehow undermine the hetero institution of marriage?-

to answer your question, as asked,
it would make it a non-hetero institutiion.

Marraige is a particular union between a man and a woman.
Another type of union, say, between a man and a man,
or between a woman or a woman, is something else.
Same for polygamy, a union between man and multiple
women, say four women, is not a marriage. In that case it
is four marriages!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 5, 6:46Â*am, wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 03:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 10:25Â*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Mar, 02:11, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Â*George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > > > > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. Â*If SSM is
> > > > > > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > > > > > sex.
>
> > > > > Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>
> > > no, I never said they will, I said they could.
> > > What they will elect to do, if permitted in their state, which it
> > > should be, is unite civilly with another gay
>
> > So Clyde, a question: do you believe that if gays are allowed to marry
> > it will somehow undermine the hetero institution of marriage?-
>
> to answer your question, as asked,
> it would make it a non-hetero institutiion.

And that would "weaken" that institution how?

> Marraige is a particular union between a man and a woman.

IYO.

> Another type of union, say, between a man and a man,
> or between a woman or a woman, is something else.

IYO.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to
marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the
same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-
sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c:
the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is
effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities
or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry —
J. T. Shawcross>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

So what you want is a "traditional marriage".

How about we call hetero marriages "traditional marriage" and gay
marriage "same-sex marriage"? Then you'll have the distinction between
them you seem to desperately need.

> Same for polygamy, a union between man and multiple
> women, say four women, is not a marriage. In that case it
> is four marriages!

Um, hence the "poly"? Compare and contrast to "mono".

[[email protected]]

On 5 Mar, 18:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:46Â*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Mar, 03:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 10:25Â*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On 4 Mar, 02:11, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Â*George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > > > > > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. Â*If SSM is
> > > > > > > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > > > > > > sex.
>
> > > > > > Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>
> > > > no, I never said they will, I said they could.
> > > > What they will elect to do, if permitted in their state, which it
> > > > should be, is unite civilly with another gay
>
> > > So Clyde, a question: do you believe that if gays are allowed to marry
> > > it will somehow undermine the hetero institution of marriage?-
>
> > to answer your question, as asked,
> > it would make it a non-hetero institutiion.
>
> And that would "weaken" that institution how?
>
> > Marraige is a particular union between a man and a woman.
>
> IYO.
>
> > Another type of union, say, between a man and a man,
> > or between a woman or a woman, is something else.
>
> IYO.
>
> Main Entry: mar·riage
> Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to
> marry
> Date: 14th century
> 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
> husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
> recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the
> same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-
> sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c:
> the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
> 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is
> effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities
> or formalities
> 3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry —
> J. T. Shawcross>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
>
> So what you want is a "traditional marriage".
>
> How about we call hetero marriages "traditional marriage" and gay
> marriage "same-sex marriage"? Then you'll have the distinction between
> them you seem to desperately need.
>
> > Same for polygamy, a union between man and multiple
> > women, say four women, is not a marriage. In that case it
> > is four marriages!
>
> Um, hence the "poly"? Compare and contrast to "mono".- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afişare text în citat -

same sex union is fine by me.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> > to answer your question, as asked,
> > it would make it a non-hetero institutiion.
>
> And that would "weaken" that institution how?

Because wives are chattel and in an all-male marriage neither one can be
property.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 5, 7:42Â*pm, wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 18:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 6:46Â*am, wrote:
>
> > > On 5 Mar, 03:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 4, 10:25Â*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On 4 Mar, 02:11, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > Â*George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > > > > It's as if people with those beliefs think, A. If gay couple can't
> > > > > > > > > marry, they will simply marry opposite sex people, and/or, B. Â*If SSM is
> > > > > > > > > allowed, hetero people will, for some reason, marry people of the same
> > > > > > > > > sex.
>
> > > > > > > Your "A" choice is what Sacky says.
>
> > > > > no, I never said they will, I said they could.
> > > > > What they will elect to do, if permitted in their state, which it
> > > > > should be, is unite civilly with another gay
>
> > > > So Clyde, a question: do you believe that if gays are allowed to marry
> > > > it will somehow undermine the hetero institution of marriage?-
>
> > > to answer your question, as asked,
> > > it would make it a non-hetero institutiion.
>
> > And that would "weaken" that institution how?
>
> > > Marraige is a particular union between a man and a woman.
>
> > IYO.
>
> > > Another type of union, say, between a man and a man,
> > > or between a woman or a woman, is something else.
>
> > IYO.
>
> > Main Entry: mar·riage
> > Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to
> > marry
> > Date: 14th century
> > 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
> > husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
> > recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the
> > same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-
> > sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c:
> > the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
> > 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is
> > effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities
> > or formalities
> > 3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry —
> > J. T. Shawcross>
>
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
>
> > So what you want is a "traditional marriage".
>
> > How about we call hetero marriages "traditional marriage" and gay
> > marriage "same-sex marriage"? Then you'll have the distinction between
> > them you seem to desperately need.
>
> > > Same for polygamy, a union between man and multiple
> > > women, say four women, is not a marriage. In that case it
> > > is four marriages!
>
> > Um, hence the "poly"? Compare and contrast to "mono".

> same sex union is fine by me.

Same sex marriage is fine with me.

You have no logic. You just chastised Stephen for not looking at
anything you say "intelligently" or whatever it was you said. Here, on
this issue, we only get platitudes and opinions from you. No logic, no
rational thought. The definition of the word doesn't even agree with
your position.

You, like your buddy 2pid, apparently have a need to generate mindless
'discussions'. And then you both wonder and whine that nobody takes
either of you seriously. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > it would make it a non-hetero institutiion.
> >
> > And that would "weaken" that institution how?
>
> Because wives are chattel and in an all-male marriage neither one can be
> property.

Ooh, snap!

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > it would make it a non-hetero institutiion.
> > >
> > > And that would "weaken" that institution how?
> >
> > Because wives are chattel and in an all-male marriage neither one can be
> > property.
>
> Ooh, snap!

Patriarchy rules!

Stephen