User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 65 to 72 of 231

Thread: Ron Paul 2008 Revolution

  1. #65
    SirKristoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, WA United States
    Posts
    4,132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rattler_mt View Post
    Kristoff....you and Wurm are new to these forums.....use the search function and you will find an awefully long discussion about firearms. you to seem unintereted in facts you want to control guns but not all guns. you cant decide what kind of guns should be banned.....you say machine guns, something which Wurm brought up not me, hell i wasnt the one who brought up the gun control issue, i was specifically staying away from it as it had no bearing on the discussion. i prove law abiding ppl with machine guns dont kill ppl and you say it has no bearing on the discussion though they were the main example brought up. what it boils down to is that CRIMINALS MURDER PPL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DONT! gun laws do nothing but take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while the criminals get to keep theirs.what more control do you want on who owns them, it is illegal and punishable by jail time for felony offenders to own a gun. seems like that should do it. no need for more laws.

    show me where i said they should ban ANY gun what so ever
    i said they need to enforce it, get it right before you try to argue with me
    i dont care how new to these forums i am
    the fact of the matter is that you cannot argue much less debate with anyone
    you cannot get your facts or your story right if your life depended on it.

  2. #66
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, Outsiders, I meant the definition changed. Not "acceptance" or anything. The legal definition changed when racism fell out of fashion and the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples became offensive. Similarly, nowadays it seems absurd to deny these things between gay couples. Apparently you approve of gay marriage, however, as you support the legal equality of gay couples and straight couples. But remember, "marriage" as we are discussing it is not a "covenant" among anyone. It is, rather, a legal contract with the state that confers financial and legal benefits and responsibilities upon the couple. Gay couples have homes, have kids, have family troubles, face hospital stays, and have every need for these protections just like straight couples. It is the same thing, and it seems more than a bit absurd to hang onto the "man and woman" part (minus the "of the same race" that used to be in there) as if it's somehow what's important. What's important is the stability and protections it offers families. There's no need to call it anything else. "Separate but equal" never is.

    Capslock
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

  3. #67
    SirKristoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, WA United States
    Posts
    4,132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    No, Outsiders, I meant the definition changed. Not "acceptance" or anything. The legal definition changed when racism fell out of fashion and the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples became offensive. Similarly, nowadays it seems absurd to deny these things between gay couples. Apparently you approve of gay marriage, however, as you support the legal equality of gay couples and straight couples. But remember, "marriage" as we are discussing it is not a "covenant" among anyone. It is, rather, a legal contract with the state that confers financial and legal benefits and responsibilities upon the couple. Gay couples have homes, have kids, have family troubles, face hospital stays, and have every need for these protections just like straight couples. It is the same thing, and it seems more than a bit absurd to hang onto the "man and woman" part (minus the "of the same race" that used to be in there) as if it's somehow what's important. What's important is the stability and protections it offers families. There's no need to call it anything else. "Separate but equal" never is.

    Capslock

    well said Caps.

  4. #68
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thats right Caps.......................gay ppl have every right to be just as miserable as us straight married ppl
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  5. #69
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ROFL Rattler! Excellent!

    Capslock
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

  6. #70
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like these videos. I think it sums up the situation.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=dyXEaR-qdyg
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=TrwAUV8Ofcc
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=niUsik0NQmc

    The second is my favorite lol.

    Didn't we try that "separate but equal" thing once already? It's just a matter of time before we are awarded the same rights as everyone else. It WILL happen, the question is when.

  7. #71
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    No, Outsiders, I meant the definition changed. Not "acceptance" or anything. The legal definition changed when racism fell out of fashion and the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples became offensive.
    Interracial Marriage and Mixed Race Heritage
    Prohibiting Interracial Marriage and “Mongrelization”
    • 1661 Maryland law
    – White-black marriage banned
    • 1880-1948 California Civil Code
    – bans marriage between a white person and “a Negro, Mulatto or Mongolian”; Filipinos added in 1933 (13 other states follow suit)
    • 1922-31 Cable Law
    – female citizens lost their citizenship if they married “aliens ineligible for citizenship”
    – Brenda Wong Aoki’s discovery of her Grand Uncle Gunjiro’s girlfriend
    • 1967 Loving v Virginia
    – Supreme Court rules that states cannot outlaw interracial marriage

    Sigh... the definition of marriage never changed. Here's the legal definition of marriage:

    "marriage n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities."

    It doesn't matter what race the female or male are as long as they aren't the same sex they don't violate the definition of marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    Similarly, nowadays it seems absurd to deny these things between gay couples.
    Is there a record playing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    Apparently you approve of gay marriage
    No, I believe gay unions should have the same legal equality as a marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    But remember, "marriage" as we are discussing it is not a "covenant" among anyone. It is, rather, a legal contract with the state that confers financial and legal benefits and responsibilities upon the couple.
    The definition is above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    Gay couples have homes, have kids, have family troubles, face hospital stays, and have every need for these protections just like straight couples.
    Gay couples don't have kids, they adopt them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    It is the same thing, and it seems more than a bit absurd to hang onto the "man and woman" part (minus the "of the same race" that used to be in there) as if it's somehow what's important. What's important is the stability and protections it offers families. There's no need to call it anything else. "Separate but equal" never is.

    Capslock
    The history of interracial marriage cannot draw parallels to gay marriage.

    I think it's absurd you want to remove the "man and woman" part because that's the basis of the definition. If I decided to call the color red, blue that would be ridiculous, because RED is RED and BLUE is BLUE. RED can't be modified and defined as BLUE, it's already RED. I think "Different but equal under law" is a better fit.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  8. #72
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JustLikeAPill View Post
    Didn't we try that "separate but equal" thing once already? It's just a matter of time before we are awarded the same rights as everyone else. It WILL happen, the question is when.
    You're not after rights, you're after forcing social acceptance using the law. If gays were really passionate about rights they could have had them by now.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •