Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

I only speak from the experience point of observation. I saw it early on in the aids crisis. From there it has branched into a movement. From redeining marriage then you could also eliminate the need for a mutual contract. That is simaler thing as an arranged marriage. If the government holds no interest in marriage then all laws surrounding its definition can and should be changed. Isnt that how the system is suppose to work?

I dont get my news from drudge. I have many sources including personal ones. I know how media works. There is a tendency to twist what is news and spit it out as truth.

---

Specifically what are you talking about? My experience says when you define others and what they have a right to, they get pissed and make changes. While you were making DOMA rules you should have been making CIVIL UNION rules. You didn't. Just like when you said in writing we are equal you excluded slaves, women, and poor white guys.

Now you are a victim of losing YOUR society? Well whose fault is that? The ones you exclude, or the ones who ARE excluded? Of course it's the fault of the ones who are not happy with being excluded by your DEFINITION of who has what rights. RIGHT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Specifically what are you talking about? My experience says when you define others and what they have a right to, they get pissed and make changes. While you were making DOMA rules you should have been making CIVIL UNION rules. You didn't. Just like when you said in writing we are equal you excluded slaves, women, and poor white guys.

Now you are a victim of losing YOUR society? Well whose fault is that? The ones you exclude, or the ones who ARE excluded? Of course it's the fault of the ones who are not happy with being excluded by your DEFINITION of who has what rights. RIGHT?

---

And where was your voice to make the changes to civil unions? You would first have to define one and then you can define another. That is how the system works. As far as excluding others there are laws about that. It is usually done for medical reasons and public safety. In defining marriage as between a man and a woman it was just that. A definition. If you are so inclusive then why not give marriage rights to poligymists and to adult child relationships? After all by forbidding it arent you being the person you are accusing others of being? I never had a problem with civil unions being elevated. It kept a clear line within the law. Now all of that is out the window. If you think that is a win win then you are entitled to your opinion.

Hello again, dad:

Quote:

---

If you are so inclusive then why not give marriage rights to poligymists and to adult child relationships?

---

Let's review, shall we?

In the eyes of the law, a marriage is FIRST and FOREMOST, a contract. WHO can enter into it, is the issue. Children CANNOT enter into contracts. That is just so. It appears that you DON'T believe me. Would you tell me why?

As long as adults want to marry each other, I have no problem with polygamy. I BELIEVE in the 1st Amendment.

Please stop that stuff about marrying a lilac, or a fence post.. You sound like smoothy.

excon

Many States currently have laws on the books regulating minors and adults marrying. But as has been stated there were laws on the books definining a marriage. In many states a minor can marry with parental consent. That is for now. There are many cases on the books where a child is treated as an adult. One of them being children that have children. By extension it could be argued that that should also be the case in marriage.

But why do you care if a woman marries her refrigerator?

Hello again, dad:

Let's not argue by extension, or what COULD ensue from these laws.. Let's talk about what IS. And, what IS, is a child can't enter into a contract... Now, if thus and so happened, it could. But, if thus and so happened, we could be dead.

Let me reiterate.. NOBODY is gonna change a law to allow CHILDREN to marry. That would be NOBODY. To think that liberals would LIKE that is a complete misreading of your opposition..

I guess THAT ain't so unusual, though.

excon

ex, what your missing here is that it wasnt that long ago that children did have to get permission for medical procedures. Now in todays time they still do except for abortion. So to say it is a strech just isnt true. Also we have seen in our own system how sharia law has had an impact as well as evaluating and proposing for our law to be like it is in other countries.

That being said I dont trust that our politicians are always going to do the right thing nor do I trust our court systems to do so either. It is all we have but it is quickly reaching a tipping point. Did you imagine in your lifetime that you would see a child sue their parents for support after running away? The world is changing and not all of it is for the good in my opinion. But it is my opinion and Im going to express it as best I can.

Quote:

---

proposing for our law to be like it is in other countries.

---

this is a little backwards, there is no nation on Earth that attemps to impose its laws on the rest of the world like the US, embodied in its treaty proposals and EFT's are deliberate attempts to align the laws of foriegn countries with the US and yet you say you should object to the process flowing the other way, fact is you don't hold the patient on due process and democratic rights. You are correct that sharia law should not be imposed upon you but neither should you try to change the law in Muslim countries, however barbaric you discern it to be

Few too many Victoria Best Bitters tonight?

No smoothy can't drink VB any more besides it comes from south of the border where all the wetbacks live. By the way it is morning, or it was. If i'm a little more lucid it might be this new medication. Makes people vague, they say. No I'm just telling it like it is or calling hypocritical diatribe. We can all learn from each other and it has to be a free process.

What's been going on over there? has the place shut down? all the usual suspects stayed away in droves, I thought they may have been lost for words the list of posts for the last two weeks is getting shorter and shorter

Can't speak for anyone else... but we just got plastered with another snowstorm last night. But that's not going to effect everyone. And I've been really busy with other things. I suspect that's the reason for them too.

THe VB is WAY better than that Fosters swill. Have drank cases of it (the VB) over the years... they don't sell it here... I got it from your Embassy. Your guys have a taste for that, and its pretty decent. I'm sure there is lots better. I know I've had some in the UK having actually spent enough time there, and I know most of them aren't imported here if they are exported at all... but the samplings of your countries brews are quite sparse out my way.

Well if you can get it try Crown but we have so many boutique breweries it has become rediculous, when I say I can't drink it beer causes gout and so must be taken infrequently, but what is in the bottle is inferiour to what is in the keg. Yes the weather is haywire I think we are having a monsoon and we are a little far south for that, still it is the equinox. I spent six weeks on a russian liner with nothing to drink but VB and vodka so I prefer something else. by the way a secret, we make that Fosters "swill" for those who don't know better

I agree... From my own experience... stuff in the Keg is far better than bottles... and those beat cans any day. Had an incredible local unfiltered HeifWiezzen in Munich a couple years ago... actually a couple of them... I typically go for the British style Ales and Stouts.

Same here with the Botique breweries... here we call them Micro Breweries. Had some really good stuff here from time to time.

I don't drink much however... and go weeks without anything stronger than Iced tea frequently.

Hello again,

I LOVE the way you guys talk longingly about BOOZE.. Yet, you'd BOTH throw someone in the slam for smoking pot...

Hypocrites!

excon

Ex what we do is legal, and I don't think someone should be jailed for smoking pot just jailed for the things they do to get it besides I don't get stoned out of my brain by drinking a beer with a meal. You want to talk constitutional rights, your government has the right to regulate access to harmful illicit substances

Smoking pot should be legal too! Goes great after a meal.

You want another excuse to pollute the atmosphere, ex carries on about CO2 but wants to pollute the environment with smoke, give me a break, what a hypocrite

I am sure Ex smokes responsibly, and would you rather have a contact from his smoke, or mesothelioma or cancer from industrial smoke? What part of humans cannot survive with too much CO2 is so hard for you to grasp?

Repeat after me too much CO2 will kill you, and everything else that breathes oxegen. End of this silly debate. Go breath what you want!

tal the question is how much is too much, smoking creates an environment where the concentration is far more than a few partis in a million, I can't smell CO2 but I cough when someone smokes nearby. Industrial pollution isn't CO2 it is the particulates emitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

tal the question is how much is too much, smoking creates an environment where the concentration is far more than a few partis in a million, I can't smell CO2 but I cough when someone smokes nearby. Industrial pollution isn't CO2 it is the particulates emitted.

---

All of which are poisonous to humans, and you can't walk away and find fresher air. You can avoid smoke filled rooms though. By the way CO2 IS a byproduct of burning COAL and FOSSIL FUEL. What are you smoking down there?

Hello clete:

Quote:

---

You want to talk constitutional rights, your government has the right to regulate access to harmful illicit substances

---

Show me where it says that.

excon

not smokin anything and we have beautiful clear skys and plenty of oxygen we have been using coal for electricity generation for a long time and it hasn't caused a problem, coal used for home heating causes a problem and we don't do that anymore, but then burning wood does teh same thing and isn't regulated. you see tal there are some sensible restrictions and there are some that are not, declaring CO2 emissions as pollution is a rediculous politically motivated exercise no matter where you live

Not when you have the technology and means to NOT pollute.

Australia should cut emissions by 19 per cent to play fair role: Climate Change Authority report

Quote:

---

It found that action being taken by other countries, including China and the US, meant Australia's minimum commitment was out of step with current global efforts.

---

China has taken steps? When , where, what?