Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Liberals never win ANY argument!!!

She just said she was leaving, so I was trying to hold the door open for her. This is a forum aimed at having intelligent points exchanged, and if she wants to leave, Ill not lose any sleep.

I enjoy an intelligent conversation over a conversation full of opposing distractions.

Thanks for looking out though Larry

IMHO, you're too new to this forum to be so judgmental.

You haven't asked for it but I'm going to give you some "friendly" advice. Open up your mind a little. We all have a lot to learn. I'm, at least, twice your age and will tell you that I'm here to learn from everyone. I think it's wonderful you show such an interest in politics and current events. But, lighten up a little. There are a lot of loony lefties on this forum. Unfortunately you're projecting yourself as a loony right. I say this with empathy.

Question 1 : indeed, no. I never said that either. You blame other people that they don't read what you write, but have you read anything that I wrote???

Question 2 : Perhaps if incest practitioners are forbidden to have kids of their own, one might actually consider the legalisation of such a marriage.

89th,
One more thing. IMHO, you've lost the debate. Your arguments were very good but the issue of the debate became secondary when you started going off the deep end.

89th,

So, based on that statement, gay marriage should not necessarily be outlawed. Right?

I am about as far from liberal as one gets except when it comes to religion, and civil rights. I subscribe to a mostly libertarian viewpoint.

Based on your statement above, one could surmise that just because allowing gay marriage could lead to the allowance of polygamist and incestuous marriage doesn't automatically mean that it would if fact lead to that.

I will answer your question flat out.

It is OK. Polygamy is a crime. You would need to legalize polygamy first. Incest is a crime in a genetic sense but I am unaware of specific laws against consenting adults from engaging in incest. If there are in fact laws against this then those would also need to be changed. Is homosexuality illegal? I know there are probably many old laws on the books in several states regarding this but I am not about to go researching the law. I have much better things to do with my time.

The federal government has no business meddling in these affairs anyway. It should be a state by state decision to allow or recognize any type of marriage.

In fact, the idea of amending our constitution to deny rights to any citizen or group of citizens, makes me shudder in fear. It only proves how we appear to be so willing to yet again ignore the founding principles of this country.

MarkJ

ycul - OK, ok I know. all I was saying was that, from what I know of her, that she was a good leader, thats all. I really don't want to list a whole load of situations that Margaret Thatcher was in and the decisions she took, as we could do that with Labour as well, I was just saying I though she was a good leader. I really don't want to get into a debate about it, if you didn't like her, thats fine enough with me.
I don't think that most of the Scots hate the Tories, but it's true enough that Labour is popular around here.
Freedom

Just an aside.....incest, while completely disgusting, has only a slightly higher chance of producing defective offspring than a "normal" union.


one more....89th....a member was recently drummed out of here and banned due to an off color remark. Hopefully the warnings you are receiving are related to the content and not the tone of your messages.

Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

Hey, can we all get together, and buy this guy a sense of humor?

What are you talking about? I never said that you said it.

Read it again if you dont mind.

You were talking about incest and reasons against it, but didn't talk about polygamy, so I asked if you thought it applied to polygamy as well.

Do you have any idea how many doors are going to open if you dont want to deny rights to any citizen?

There is chaos-free, and there is civilized-free.

CHAOS-FREE: you are allowed to do anything you want, you shouldn't be repressed by any government in anyway

CIVILIZED-FREE: There are laws that might offend a few people, but it is for the better good of society, the long term.

Phlebas, believe it or not, I have a sense of humor, in fact I usually have TOO much of a sense of humor.

But when debating politics, I let repressed serious side come out to present facts and opinion...again, Phlebas, are you not going to answer my original question, hundreds of posts ago?

Everyone, please message Phlebas and get him to answer!! Everyone on the count of 3....

1......2..........3

Frank defending Pique? And I thought the Red Sox winning the pennant was a sign heck froze over.

89th,

Take Frank's advice. Look at how long some of the members here have been around, and have a little more respect - with the exception of me because I could care less what you say to or about me, and what you think.

Read some of what these people have posted. Larry, Apple, Jolly, Pique, Kathyk, and many others, not because they've been around here for a while, but because they contribute thoughtful posts here. You, on the other hand, have not. You fail to understand a number of things: 1) People here have been debating these same issues here for a long time, 2)We don't always agree, but we overall like each other and treat each other with respect - something you have not done - and we do not appreciate newbies (especially ill-reared ones like yourself) treating us here in an insulting manner, 3) We don't discuss these issues in a one dimentional manner like it's a game. We have real lives, and the issues we talk about have profound influences on our lives.

I appreciate any sympathetic (or empathetic) pieces of advice given to me, I haven't really done this "forum" thing before...

But I am not sure what exactly I am doing "wrong"?

If someone is trying to make a point but distracs from the subject or makes a shallow remark, I am just trying to keep the discussion relevant and intelligent.

There have been some great posts on here, but there also have been just as many personal attacks against me for no reason. You dont win debates with cheap shots and avoiding the question...I have tried to keep all my posts on topic and legitimate.

Lunch time!

Larry,

Actually, he does not have a point. Allow me to offer proof:

Posted by 89th:

Now, I don't know if this young man was so enterprising as to go and fetch a homosexual, polygamist, and incest practictioner to collect these quotes, but I strongly suspect that he has instead offered his own idea of what these people would say. Therein lies the problem. He has inserted imaginary words into imaginary mouths to prove a point, albeit a tenuous one. But the quotes themselves are inaccurate. I know many homosexuals, and I think they would say:

"I can't help that I was born predisposed to want to have sex with people of the same sex."

Hmm.

How would that square with our other two imaginary friends? To keep the structure parallel (and hence to prove any kind of point) they would have to say things like the following:

Polygamist: "I can't help that I was born predisposed to want to have sex with many people."

Incester (is that a word?): "I can't help that I was born predisposed to want to have sex with my family."

Let's talk about the polygamist. His above sentiment probably applies to anyone and everyone of any species. Indeed, we see polygamy of sorts in most marriages even in this country, with husbands and wives cheating on one another more and more frequently. Because polygamy is not a culturally approved institution in the U.S., these situations usually end nastily, with arguments, violence and divorces. I don't see that changing any time soon.

More and more frequently, we see "serial monogamy," the practice of taking many spouses sequentially, one after the other. Is this not also a sort of polygamy?

The only places where polygamy, in its truest form, really thrives are those cultures which use it as an adaptive tool. I mentioned Nepal as an example earler.

There's no reason to fear polygamy because it's already upon us, albeit in maladaptive forms. If consenting adults wanted to enter the traditional form, I'd say more power to them.

And now for Mr. Incest...well, what's the point in restating what others have said? I can only repeat that it is one of the reddest herrings I've seen in some time.

What I'm saying is that I already gave an answer to the polygamy part. If you had read that (it's a few pages back...) then you would not have asked that question (normally).

Be careful 89th key. Almost a year ago I made the exact same mistake you are making now.
Take a break but stick around, it helps, believe me, I know. And an apology here and there would be fitting.

In short, take Apple's advice :
Put on a smiley face, go take a big break, then come back and write a report on what you have written.

Do you realize what you are saying?

You sound like a socialist.

What rights do you suggest we disallow that will ensure no chaos? Do you really believe that gay marriage is a sign of chaos?

Laws to prevent a citizen from denying the rights of other citizens are already in place such as murder, theft, etc. It would be chaos if those laws did not exist. But to equate gay marriage with chaos is a major stretch.

Its easy, if you allow gay marriage, you will open the door for so many other "rights", thus the path down to chaos has commenced.

Ill be back later

It's not a question of "allowing" anything. You are advocating the denial of a very basic civil right.

Just because a door opens does not mean that the domino effect will automatically take place.

Kind of funny how a solar eclipse is debating with a planetary nebula!

It's already here 89...

These are the kinds of doors you're talking about. Some activist lawyer thinks he can sue the President with a whale as his client.

And the funny part is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said, "it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right."

Give me a break!


Court Says Whales, Dolphins Cannot Sue Bush
Wed 20 October, 2004 20:24

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The world's whales, porpoises and dolphins have no standing to sue President Bush over the U.S. Navy's use of sonar equipment that harms marine mammals, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right.

"If Congress and the President intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue they could and should have said so plainly," Judge William A. Fletcher wrote in an 18-page opinion for the panel.

The lawsuit was brought against Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf The Cetacean Community -- defined as the world's whales, porpoises and dolphins -- by their self-appointed lawyer, marine mammal activist Lanny Sinkin.

Sinkin claimed in the lawsuit that the U.S. Navy had violated the Endangered Species Act with its use of long range, low frequency sonar that can cause tissue damage and other injuries to marine mammals.

Sinkin could not be reached for comment on the 9th Circuit's decision, which upheld a lower court ruling.