The only thing that should trump our Freedoms is family

[Larrymc]

It took you long enough to start in with the unsubstantiated, and false btw, claims. You must have been chomping at the bit.



You are against marriage for some who are raising kids together and you have yet to set forth your definitions by which to legislate.

the fact that two people are raising kids together, don't change or have anything to do with marriage and the definition of it, legislate by what is or is not detrimental to children in public, actually like i told you before there are still such laws on the books in some places, we just don't enforce them, also the FCC was established for the same reason, but has become another Government wast of money, see i would like to be able to take my kids to a Restaurant, Ball Game, or pump gas without people around use spewing filthy language, or have it thumping from there cars radio, but people like you are why we have to deal with it, because you have shown that you have no respect or use for Family or Traditional values, i know it wont help them but, i do fell sorry for you kids if you have any

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

the fact that two people are raising kids together, don't change or have anything to do with marriage and the definition of it, legislate by what is or is not detrimental to children in public, actually like i told you before there are still such laws on the books in some places, we just don't enforce them, also the FCC was established for the same reason, but has become another Government wast of money, see i would like to be able to take my kids to a Restaurant, Ball Game, or pump gas without people around use spewing filthy language, or have it thumping from there cars radio, but people like you are why we have to deal with it, because you have shown that you have no respect or use for Family or Traditional values, i know it wont help them but, i do fell sorry for you kids if you have any

Diversity, inclusiveness , limitless tolerance and the great liberal "enlightenment" is so misunderstood these days!
Get with the program, anything goes no matter how filthy and degenerate it may be.. To ask for even basic standards of decency is simply intolerable now, so say the supposed "enlightened" better people that we should strive to imitate!!
In a pig's eye we should!--Tyr

[fj1200]

the fact that two people are raising kids together, don't change or have anything to do with marriage and the definition of it, legislate by what is or is not detrimental to children in public, actually like i told you before there are still such laws on the books in some places, we just don't enforce them, also the FCC was established for the same reason, but has become another Government wast of money, see i would like to be able to take my kids to a Restaurant, Ball Game, or pump gas without people around use spewing filthy language, or have it thumping from there cars radio, but people like you are why we have to deal with it, because you have shown that you have no respect or use for Family or Traditional values, i know it wont help them but, i do fell sorry for you kids if you have any

You have no idea what I have respect for and who what I don't.

You're the one, among others, who stated that you think kids should have a stable home environment, marriage would provide that. You also haven't yet proffered the definitions that you would use in your legislation. Is it just the foul language or is it any man-on-man contact that makes you uncomfortable?

BTW, I don't think there should be any state-sponsored marriage; it's nothing but a private contract IMO. Are you willing to give up all your marriage benefits?

[aboutime]

It took you long enough to start in with the unsubstantiated, and false btw, claims. You must have been chomping at the bit.



You are against marriage for some who are raising kids together and you have yet to set forth your definitions by which to legislate.

fj. As expected. And as the good liberal lamb you appear to be. You are just following the Liberal, DNC rules about NEVER answering any question without FIRST, asking another question to distract attention from your lack, or unwillingness to answer the first.

Even if I am, or was...chomping at the bit. YOU still haven't answered my questions. Which tell me. You have no intention of doing so, and the DNC Talking Points manual you follow...has been exposed...again.

[Larrymc]

You have no idea what I have respect for and who what I don't.

You're the one, among others, who stated that you think kids should have a stable home environment, marriage would provide that. You also haven't yet proffered the definitions that you would use in your legislation. Is it just the foul language or is it any man-on-man contact that makes you uncomfortable?

BTW, I don't think there should be any state-sponsored marriage; it's nothing but a private contract IMO. Are you willing to give up all your marriage benefits?

i think most of us here can pretty much guess what you don't have respect for, you make it pretty clear, and your right a marriage sense its between a man and a women would in most cases be a more stable environment for kids, your so obsessed with your deviant behavior, though i didn't mention it you admit it would be inappropriate around children, and your right i would include Homosexual behavior, which would include no Gay couples having children, you are an adult you can make a chose but involving kids is wrong, that's just another thing that Gay want that's unnatural they can't make kids so they shouldn't have any. better facepalm this one the girls will want to read it

[aboutime]

i think most of us here can pretty much guess what you don't have respect for, you make it pretty clear, and your right a marriage sense its between a man and a women would in most cases be a more stable environment for kids, your so obsessed with your deviant behavior, though i didn't mention it you admit it would be inappropriate around children, and your right i would include Homosexual behavior, which would include no Gay couples having children, you are an adult you can make a chose but involving kids is wrong, that's just another thing that Gay want that's unnatural they can't make kids so they shouldn't have any. better facepalm this one the girls will want to read it

Larrymc. As you can see. fj is just another Obama wannabe sponsor. Along the same lines as jafar, and gabby in many respects.
They make spit-balls, or mud-balls. Drop in, and lure others to play their silly word games, with plenty of false rhetoric. Then they hide in waiting...until they can launch their Liberal Mud-ball examples of ignorance, and stupidity...hoping nobody will notice how dumb they are. But so far.
It hasn't worked for them. So...watch out for more of the same. Nothing, from Nothing..equaling NOTHING...liberally speaking.

[Larrymc]

Larrymc. As you can see. fj is just another Obama wannabe sponsor. Along the same lines as jafar, and gabby in many respects.
They make spit-balls, or mud-balls. Drop in, and lure others to play their silly word games, with plenty of false rhetoric. Then they hide in waiting...until they can launch their Liberal Mud-ball examples of ignorance, and stupidity...hoping nobody will notice how dumb they are. But so far.
It hasn't worked for them. So...watch out for more of the same. Nothing, from Nothing..equaling NOTHING...liberally speaking.

its ok i know i gave the benifit of the boubt, before i drew any conclutions, that was for me not him

[Kathianne]

fj. As expected. And as the good liberal lamb you appear to be. You are just following the Liberal, DNC rules about NEVER answering any question without FIRST, asking another question to distract attention from your lack, or unwillingness to answer the first.

Even if I am, or was...chomping at the bit. YOU still haven't answered my questions. Which tell me. You have no intention of doing so, and the DNC Talking Points manual you follow...has been exposed...again.

FJ is not a 'liberal lamb' or liberal anything. He is really the one adhering to the Constitution, however disarming that may be.

[aboutime]

FJ is not a 'liberal lamb' or liberal anything. He is really the one adhering to the Constitution, however disarming that may be.

And how would that be Kathianne? Please explain 'adhering to the constitution'.

[Kathianne]

And how would that be Kathianne? Please explain 'adhering to the constitution'.

You need to follow along here, if not you'll be left behind. In other words, follow the lede.

[aboutime]

You need to follow along here, if not you'll be left behind. In other words, follow the lede.

No Kathianne. You have told other members their interpretations are wrong. Now you are avoiding answering the question by telling me I have been left behind?
I want an honest answer. That's all. You want us to believe you are qualified to tell anyone...they have interpreted the meanings wrong. So. Please explain what you meant?

[fj1200]

fj. As expected. And as the good liberal lamb you appear to be. You are just following the Liberal, DNC rules about NEVER answering any question without FIRST, asking another question to distract attention from your lack, or unwillingness to answer the first.

Even if I am, or was...chomping at the bit. YOU still haven't answered my questions. Which tell me. You have no intention of doing so, and the DNC Talking Points manual you follow...has been exposed...again.

Please provide evidence of my "appearance" of liberalness. Please point out which questions I have not answered. A simple post number will suffice. I'm also guessing that you would be surprised how many of my questions go unanswered around here.

i think most of us here can pretty much guess what you don't have respect for, you make it pretty clear, and your right a marriage sense its between a man and a women would in most cases be a more stable environment for kids, your so obsessed with your deviant behavior, though i didn't mention it you admit it would be inappropriate around children, and your right i would include Homosexual behavior, which would include no Gay couples having children, you are an adult you can make a chose but involving kids is wrong, that's just another thing that Gay want that's unnatural they can't make kids so they shouldn't have any. better facepalm this one the girls will want to read it

Does Dick Cheney also have no respect for marriage? Does Ted Olson also have no respect for marriage?

Which deviant behavior have I admitted would be inappropriate around children?

Are you proposing a law that keeps gay people from having kids? How do you intend to enforce that?

Larrymc. As you can see. fj is just another Obama wannabe sponsor.

Please indicate my support for Obama.

And how would that be Kathianne? Please explain 'adhering to the constitution'.

Please show where marriage is defined in the Constitution. On what basis can the government restrict the liberties of its citizens?

[fj1200]

No Kathianne. You have told other members their interpretations are wrong. Now you are avoiding answering the question by telling me I have been left behind?
I want an honest answer. That's all. You want us to believe you are qualified to tell anyone...they have interpreted the meanings wrong. So. Please explain what you meant?

What is so shocking about an interpretation being wrong?

[Kathianne]

No Kathianne. You have told other members their interpretations are wrong. Now you are avoiding answering the question by telling me I have been left behind?
I want an honest answer. That's all. You want us to believe you are qualified to tell anyone...they have interpreted the meanings wrong. So. Please explain what you meant?

I've no beliefs that I'm qualified to do anything here. I've no 'magic powers.' Read if you wish Blast past, if you wish. I'm not responsible for your behaviors.

[Robert A Whit]

FJ is not a 'liberal lamb' or liberal anything. He is really the one adhering to the Constitution, however disarming that may be.

I really still prefer the original meaning of the term Liberal over this crap democrats pulled to try to pull the wool over our eyes.

That aside, I judge FJ to be libertarian. I am one in fact. Voting republican only means I can't get libertarian candidates elected so I try to help the party most distant from socialism. Leaving me to vote republican.

I agree that if the Feds put in law, some benefit for a person, that benefit should also go to all other citizens. Marriage however is a very legal term. For me, it is not about the parties, but about the very word marriage. Some will snort and say, who cares about meanings.

We see this done all the time with the mexicans who have come to this country but democrats act as if they don't understand what a citizen is or the meaning of that word.

Democrats twist a lot of words to the point they are confusing when you use precise language.

The difference in me and FJ on issues over homosexuals is i see no need to change the word marriage to mean a new thing trying to bring in just one group.

Homoxexuals NEVER argue the greater principle.

The greater principle should be, does he, you or I have the right to create laws that include me and you but leave him out?

But marriage is more than a word, more than a right, it stands for a man and woman contracting under law for things that only affect the two of them.
Marriage has no law that says the Feds must have a tax law to favor marriage or not. That law has nothing to do with marriage as such. The congress had some goal in mind so crafted certain tax laws. Right or wrong, and mostly wrong, it does not mean you correct one wrong using another wrong.

It would be like telling a prostitute she has the same rights to the men that the other women in the mens lives have such as his wife or daughter or son.

We would laugh at any prostitute that demanded rights a wife has with the man.

Homosexuals stand alone. They don't even support polygamy nor adult to adult incest marriages. So long as they are that selfish, I see no need to help them out.