Question for Political Right Wing
Tom the Canuck
I sleep with?
If I am not doing any harm to myself, another person, or society, who gives
you the right to dictate to me who I sleep with?
This whole issue about polygamy is truly another area where the political
right wants us to behave in a certain way. Yet, in other ways the political
right says that the government has no right to put gun control in place.
What the political right wants to do is a)say that the government cannot
dictate to people when it comes to taxes and/or gun control; but on the
other hand b)dictate to me what THEY think civil marriage is-and who I can
or cannot sleep with.
Like I said, what gives anyone the right to dictate to me the person or
persons whom I choose to sleep with? What are you going to do next-dictate
what I can think?
"The Right One"
"Tom the Canuck" <canuck2...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
Tom the Kook, who like the Dimwit Deilly, claims to have gone
to university, driveled the usual gay argument:
After several posts, he hasn't grasped the main isue yet.
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
There are two types of values
in Canada. Moral and Liberal.
>
>
Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³ @.=x¶³GÓЮ¯°±²³ØÇÖ.nor>
who
> I sleep with?
>
> If I am not doing any harm to myself, another person, or society, who
gives
> you the right to dictate to me who I sleep with?
Unless we are talking about someone not able to give knowledgeable consent,
there is nobody [from a lawfully principled viewpoint] who has a right [by
which you mean authority] to dictate who you sleep with.
The reason people like you are in this position [no pun intended] is that
you failed to recognize and fight against the other cases where nobody
[namely government and their hired thugs] has any authority to "dictate"
matters that are private, and/or deal with the exercise of a fundament
right.
Tyrants will often use "public safety" arguments to claim some mythical
authority in a host of areas, because the argument appeals to many with a
socialist or utilitarian mindset. They then change the true definition of
democracy to indicate that minorities have no absolute rights - that all
positions are "justified" by tyranny of the majority.
I hope you see why their argument is not only unsupportable from a justice
standpoint, it is very dangerous to a free society.
Why the next thing you know, they will be dictating how much of your labour
you must give them to fund all their projects, services and interests. See
how it works?
OhBoy
news:oGWId.153725$Xk.55649@pd7tw3no...
Why don't you enlighten us one more time? What is that main issue?
The fact that you claim the right to tell other people how to lead their
lives? Or are you going to come up with more of that 'agenda' business?
OhBoy
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
who
> I sleep with?
Look Tommy as I pointed out to you and all your other minions full stupidity
for your cult like groups.
What give the Status of women, feminazis, lebo's the right to claim
slanderous things in a Liberal Government document with no proof of anything
but facist feminazi propaganda on men and CHILDREN...you know the same type
of bigoted malice you promote and force on others you idiot.
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
"Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³" <tÔ?__dûr(@.=x¶³GÓЮ¯°±²³ØÇÖ.nor> wrote in message
news:9XWId.154167$6l.42616@pd7tw2no...
I doult Tommy the feminist will grasp anything Tyler, you know the type of
propaganda and fearmonging Tommy promotes for it's cult like god...
>
>
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
"OhBoy" <oh...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:TrXId.142946$KO5.104804@clgrps13...
Gee no to bright boy, isn't that's what the Liberals are telling the people
of Canada, except it or else....
"The Right One"
"David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
news:GBXId.142950$KO5.26813@clgrps13...
Haximus
Tom, I think you're barking up the wrong tree - the issue isn't about
who can sleep with who but redefining the legal definition of marriage.
Considering the current definition has been the accepted norm for
hundreds if not thousands of years, in reality it's a case where a small
minority wishes to impose it's beliefs on the traditionalists, and not
the other way.
Let me give you a good example: when Trudeau passed away Ottawa got the
big idea to rename Mt. Logan in Trudeau's honour - what an insult to
tradition and the honour bestowed upon Sir William Logan! You see, over
time things become proprietary in nature - it is not possible to simply
rename or redefine something without dishonouring the original intent.
"The Right One"
"Haximus" <e...@t.me> wrote in message news:41F44B39...@t.me...
Awsome post! Could have been plagiarism,
but for once I agree
Tom the Canuck
parts of a slippery slope, and obviously, I am not "consistent", when it
comes to asking the government to stay out of my life in one area (eg. SSM),
yet inviting it in another (eg. income tax).
I don't think tho this is a black and white issue. Government intervention
to make society better off-eg. for free healthcare for example, or to help
the poor is IMHO justifiable. The government is there to ensure, as much as
possible, and within limits, that there is a reasonable distribution of
income. I don't want the government to take all the money from the rich, or
from me, because this would reduce efficiency too much. However, there is a
trade off between efficiency and equality-too much efficiency means too
little equality, IMHO.
If you look at Canada, our "genie" coefficient, an economic term that refers
to the distribution of income, is far superior to the US-ie. our society has
a far superior distribution of income than the US. Thats because our
government intervenes in the economy more than the US government, to try to
ensure that the rich don't get too rich. Yes, this has a price to pay in
efficiency terms but I am willing to pay for this to have a more just
society.
Without government, there would be very very rich people, and very poor
people, without a middle class, because big corporations would pollute all
they wanted, pay employees pittance for pay, etc. etc. If there were no
competition act/competition bureau in Canada, for example, corporations
would be allowed to become extremely large and investors very wealthy, and
would be able to set prices, having oligopolistic or monopolistic power in
the marketplace.
The Government I believe has a function to promote the well being of
society. We can argue whether I or anyone else should dictate this- but I
believe there are basic human rights, like shelter, food, clothing, and
healthcare. Without government, no one would provide this. Certainly you
could argue that private charities would provide this, but what about the
Great Depression? Private charity was not capable of feeding and clothing
everyone, and certainly was incapable of providing jobs.
The government always has a role to play-therefore I believe it is entitled
to take income tax from me, provided that it distribute it according to my
basic wishes. Meaning, I can't possibly dictate to such a large organization
where every dollar of my income tax should go. Suffice to say that I want it
spent helping the poor, regulating the economy so that big corporations
don't become oligopolies/monopolies, healthcare, etc. etc.
Yes, I can see your point that I am inconsistent in saying "let the
government have my income tax" but turning around and saying "the government
has no business regulating our sexual mores." But I'm willing to live with
that inconsistency because, for lack of a better arguement, I don't believe
that this is a black and white issue.
"Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³" <tÔ?__dûr(@.=x¶³GÓЮ¯°±²³ØÇÖ.nor> wrote in message
news:9XWId.154167$6l.42616@pd7tw2no...
>
Tom the Canuck
traditional definition of marriage, but I would argue that the traditional
definition has been altered in the past one hundred or so years.
Its gone from where a man owned a woman when he married her to one where it
is more or less an equal partnership. Furthermore, women can now divorce
men, whereas a hundred years ago, they weren't unless under special extreme
circumstances. (See: http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf/gaymarriage.pdf)
Women were once considered property-and weren't allowed to divorce men. Was
this right? Absolutely not. Yet, it changed.
So the traditional defintion has changed, so what makes this change
different from the others?
"Haximus" <e...@t.me> wrote in message news:41F44B39...@t.me...
Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³ @.=x¶³GÓЮ¯°±²³ØÇÖ.nor>
> I can partly agree with you that things like income tax and gun control
are
> parts of a slippery slope, and obviously, I am not "consistent", when it
> comes to asking the government to stay out of my life in one area (eg.
SSM),
> yet inviting it in another (eg. income tax).
>
> I don't think tho this is a black and white issue. Government intervention
> to make society better off-eg. for free healthcare for example, or to help
> the poor is IMHO justifiable. The government is there to ensure, as much
as
> possible, and within limits, that there is a reasonable distribution of
> income.
Where are they getting authority to do that? From the consent of people
giving them money [like charities work] or by threat, intimidation and
assault?
Why is this such a difficult matter for you to understand? If intensions are
good, people will consent to be part of them, therefore there is no need
[let alone lawful justification] to put a gun to their head.
You can't cherry pick which causes to support by government aggression - it
doesn't work, and it is morally [and principally] indefensible.
> I don't want the government to take all the money from the rich, or
> from me, because this would reduce efficiency too much. However, there is
a
> trade off between efficiency and equality-too much efficiency means too
> little equality, IMHO.
Your spouting utilitarian double-talk..... Either it is unlawful to take
property without consent or it is not. If you wish to wave *your* right to
private property, i have no intension of stopping you.. but if you think you
have any authority to wave MY right, or your neighbours right to property
[or ANY OTHER RIGHT] there is going to be instability, mistrust of
authority, disregard for authority, violence, tyranny, war and/or
revolution.
It really is that simple.
CONSTITUTION of the Common Law Association
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/membership.htm
Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³ @.=x¶³GÓЮ¯°±²³ØÇÖ.nor>
> I can see where you are coming from, in terms of not redefining the
> traditional definition of marriage, but I would argue that the traditional
> definition has been altered in the past one hundred or so years.
>
> Its gone from where a man owned a woman when he married her to one where
it
> is more or less an equal partnership. Furthermore, women can now divorce
> men, whereas a hundred years ago, they weren't unless under special
extreme
> circumstances. (See: http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf/gaymarriage.pdf)
>
> Women were once considered property-and weren't allowed to divorce men.
Was
> this right? Absolutely not. Yet, it changed.
>
> So the traditional defintion has changed, so what makes this change
> different from the others?
The principles i discussed earlier...
"Women as property" is a profound violation of the well established tenet
that the only legitimate authority is over self. Marriage describes a
CONSENSUAL contract [actually a blood covenant] between =members of the
opposite sex= for the general purpose of establishing a stable family and
home for children.
Gays are not restricted from such a contract/covenant.... it is the
definition of the contract/covenant they wish to change.
OhBoy
>
> "David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
> goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
> news:GBXId.142950$KO5.26813@clgrps13...
>>
>> "OhBoy" <oh...@canada.com> wrote in message
>> news:TrXId.142946$KO5.104804@clgrps13...
>> > ""The Right One"" <nosoc...@freedom.ab> wrote in message
>> > news:oGWId.153725$Xk.55649@pd7tw3no...
>> > >
>> > > After several posts, he hasn't grasped the main isue yet.
>> >
>> > Why don't you enlighten us one more time? What is that main issue?
>> >
>> > The fact that you claim the right to tell other people how to lead
>> > their
>> > lives?
>>
>> Gee no to bright boy, isn't that's what the Liberals are telling the
> people
>> of Canada, except it or else....
>>
> When it comes to truth or logic, the liberals aren't to bright
I notice that as usually you avoid answering my question.
OhBoy
OhBoy
goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
news:GBXId.142950$KO5.26813@clgrps13...
>
> news:TrXId.142946$KO5.104804@clgrps13...
>> ""The Right One"" <nosoc...@freedom.ab> wrote in message
>> news:oGWId.153725$Xk.55649@pd7tw3no...
>> >
>> > "Tom the Canuck" <canuck2...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
>> >
>> > After several posts, he hasn't grasped the main isue yet.
>>
>> Why don't you enlighten us one more time? What is that main issue?
>>
>> The fact that you claim the right to tell other people how to lead their
>> lives?
>
> Gee no to bright boy, isn't that's what the Liberals are telling the
> people
> of Canada, except it or else....
Given your spelling, it is somewhat strange that you call me 'not too
bright', but ok.
Let me spell it out for you one more time:
(1) people who are opposed to same-sex marriage are effectively telling
other people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
(2) people who are not opposed to same sex marriage are not restricting
anyone in how they live their life.
Getting back to your 'isn't that's what the Liberals are telling the people
of Canada, except it or else....', no, they are not telling anyone how to
live their lives. They are letting more people live as they would like to
than you do.
What do you mean by this 'or else ...'.
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
"notritenottteri" <k0ldas...@hades.com> wrote in message
news:TG6Jd.1747$P_3.11608@newscontent-> You live in fantasy land Marriage is
about as close to a consensual
> contract as Hairy balls is to a rational being. Till the last half
> century or so in western countries the woman was screwed in more that
> the physical sense.
You should know you been taking it every way but loose....hahahaha
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
> "David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
> goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
> news:GBXId.142950$KO5.26813@clgrps13...
> >
> > "OhBoy" <oh...@canada.com> wrote in message
> > news:TrXId.142946$KO5.104804@clgrps13...
> >> ""The Right One"" <nosoc...@freedom.ab> wrote in message
> >> news:oGWId.153725$Xk.55649@pd7tw3no...
> >> >
> >> > "Tom the Canuck" <canuck2...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
> >> >
> ...
>
> >> > After several posts, he hasn't grasped the main isue yet.
> >>
> >> Why don't you enlighten us one more time? What is that main issue?
> >>
> >> The fact that you claim the right to tell other people how to lead
their
> >> lives?
> >
> > Gee no to bright boy, isn't that's what the Liberals are telling the
> > people
> > of Canada, except it or else....
>
> Given your spelling, it is somewhat strange that you call me 'not too
> bright', but ok.
>
> Let me spell it out for you one more time:
>
> (1) people who are opposed to same-sex marriage are effectively telling
> other people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
Since when, it about benifits coming out of my tax dollars you goofy shit,
you seem to believe all this political correct BS is going to save the world
you anal dwelling butt monkey
> (2) people who are not opposed to same sex marriage are not restricting
> anyone in how they live their life.
I couldn't give a rat's ass if you want to marry a goat, you goofy shit, but
I do care how my tax money is used
> Getting back to your 'isn't that's what the Liberals are telling the
people
> of Canada, except it or else....', no, they are not telling anyone how to
> live their lives.
your either retarded, or been running around with a stick up your ass, or
your just really stupid. The Liberals have been for years telling people how
to live their lives based on spiecal interest BS, not only in the laws but
based on political correctness coming into legislation....Grow up you goofy
shit...
They are letting more people live as they would like to
> than you do.
BS, is that why they put out hit-lists in government reports because I
disagree with Liberal stupidity, or having Government hate crimes and lies
put on a Liberal website, see you have no clue because your an idiot!!!
> What do you mean by this 'or else ...'.
If you can't figure it out as what is being placed by moronic liberals, then
you really have been one of the useful idiots the liberal love to hookwink
on every issue going in Canada...No wonder this country has become a shit
hole..
>
>
>
OhBoy
"David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
I give up. You should get help, soon.
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
>
> I give up. You should get help, soon.
Yes you moronic idiots should and take your med's it might help with this
stupidity of yours and the Liberals scum.
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
> "David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
> goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
Gee doughboy, what pain would that be in not wanting my tax money, not to be
misused by Liberal sucking idiots like you!
OhBoy
Banging the keyboard seems to relieve some of your pain. That's good.
One day you should try having a normal discussion with someone.
OhBoy
You lost it, I think. This thread was about 'the right to dictate who I
sleep with', and you keep going on about tax money. At least as far as I can
make any sense out of your sentences that start like 'Since when, it about
benifits coming out of my tax dollars you goofy shit, ...'.
Let me try one more time: 'Since when, it about benifits coming out of my
tax dollars you goofy shit, ...'. Nah. Still does not make any sense. Maybe
Terry understands?
Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³ @.=x¶³GÓЮ¯°±²³ØÇÖ.nor>
> "David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
> goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
news:zkdJd.49550$06.19190@clgrps12...
> >
> > "OhBoy" <oh...@canada.com> wrote in message
> > news:O5dJd.1606$Ob.1543@edtnps84...
> >> "David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
> >> goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
> > news:_FcJd.49371$06.41536@clgrps12...
> >> >
> >> > "OhBoy" <oh...@canada.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:gVbJd.21220$Qb.4169@edtnps89...
> >> >
> >> >> I give up. You should get help, soon.
> >> >
> >> > Yes you moronic idiots should and take your med's it might help with
> > this
> >> > stupidity of yours and the Liberals scum.
> >>
> >> Banging the keyboard seems to relieve some of your pain.
> >
> > Gee doughboy, what pain would that be in not wanting my tax money, not
to
> > be
> > misused by Liberal sucking idiots like you!
>
> You lost it, I think. This thread was about 'the right to dictate who I
> sleep with',
Which you and a few others erroneously tried to tie to the "gay marriage"
debate..
Thanks for pointing out that there is no connection of any kind to the two
issues.
OhBoy
Yes, you are right. I lost the thread too.
De-fly-ie and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss David De-fly-ie
> "David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
> goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
news:zkdJd.49550$06.19190@clgrps12...
> >
> > "OhBoy" <oh...@canada.com> wrote in message
> > news:O5dJd.1606$Ob.1543@edtnps84...
> >> "David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
> >> goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
> > news:_FcJd.49371$06.41536@clgrps12...
> >> >
> >> > "OhBoy" <oh...@canada.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:gVbJd.21220$Qb.4169@edtnps89...
> >> >
> >> >> I give up. You should get help, soon.
> >> >
> >> > Yes you moronic idiots should and take your med's it might help with
> > this
> >> > stupidity of yours and the Liberals scum.
> >>
> >> Banging the keyboard seems to relieve some of your pain.
> >
> > Gee doughboy, what pain would that be in not wanting my tax money, not
to
> > be
> > misused by Liberal sucking idiots like you!
>
> You lost it, I think. This thread was about 'the right to dictate who I
> sleep with',
You can sleep with monkeys if you want, I don't care, but the issue is
really about money and benefits......you just don't see the big picture.
Duncan Patton
Your foaming at the mouth again, Mark. And providing the "Feminazis" with a
unique opportunity, as well.
Dhu
>
--
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breader's Association.
Save the Bagle!
Sun Ðhu
???????????????????????????????????????
and his band@satanicgoats.cult.bazaar.ss De-fly-ie and his band of Liberal misfits
"Duncan Patton" <camp...@neotext.ca> wrote in message
news:20050125121...@babayaga.neotext.ca...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:42:11 GMT
"David De-fly-ie" <David De-fly-ie and his band@satanic
goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote:
>
> "Tom the Canuck" <canuck2...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.1...@news1.mts.net...
> > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
> who
> > I sleep with?
>
> Look Tommy as I pointed out to you and all your other minions full
stupidity
> for your cult like groups.
> What give the Status of women, feminazis, lebo's the right to claim
> slanderous things in a Liberal Government document with no proof of
anything
> but facist feminazi propaganda on men and CHILDREN...you know the same
type
> of bigoted malice you promote and force on others you idiot.
>
Your foaming at the mouth again, Mark. And providing the "Feminazis" with a
unique opportunity, as well.
What a nice fellow you sure are, it nice to know bigots with malice only
orive my point!!!