 | | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Because the longer we stay there, the more it looks like they're a puppet government controlled by the US. And if they can't stand on their own without having us there to quell rebellion, they effectively are, by virtue of the fact that we'd (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) (URL) fun) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) And the scary bit is that, from what I've read, all Dave's seem to be on the same page regarding this issue, and these Dave's come from widely divergent backgrounds. Wow! Dave K -go Daves (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) So your point is that the state has a vested interest in NOT recognizing marriages? Why? I thought your point (in a past debate) was that somehow gay marriage negatively affected the American family, which was the foundation of society (though (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I14L96.1r36@lugnet.com... (...) to/seem (...) debunking (...) Hmm, is that debunking that democracies tend to/seem to go to war less, or debunking that certain nations are (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:I15rpI.1v7n@lugnet.com... (...) pee in (...) so, (...) involving the (...) in the (...) I'm with you on this one. I visited a dorm at MIT that had a co-ed bathroom, that had multiple stalls (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I recognize that the law requires boys to pee in one place and girls to pee in another, but I can't really think of a solid reason that this should be so, other than because people can be quaintly immature about functions involving the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) How many persons? (...) So are public restrooms. Are you against separating those? (...) For what possible reason? That is downright strange. (...) Well, that "church" has some issues. (...) lol "evolution of society"? Are you so sure our (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) So you would have no objection if the Federal government enacted laws barring Christians from marrying? I want you to go on record on this, with the following qualifiers: You can't claim "our country is based on Judeo-Christian tradition" (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Hey, I'm cool with that. Whoever brings the issue to the table has done the right thing, IMO. I figured that John was right in citing Left-leaning judges as the source of the current controversy, but if the controversy began its momentum with (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The state should recognize marraige as a contract between persons, no matter their sexual affiliation. If the Church wants to put quantifiers on that contract, i.e. one person must be female, and the other must be male, all the power to the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This discussion is about the definition of marriage, Dave. How would you define it? (...) The issue is whether the state has a vested interest in recognizing marriages or not. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Ever tried to use the women's restroom? Or do you advocate unisex bathrooms? JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) BUT, does the state have a vested interest in promoting certain contracts above others? Marriage and families are pretty efficient at raising the next generation of citizens (at least as compared to the state). What is wrong with giving these (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Nike sued over a stick-man drawing?
|
|
Honestly, I think Nike ripped off xiaoxiao but will win the case ;-) (...) What's that? I live outside the US. (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) For instance, show me in the Constitution the right to marry. You will have to stretch and twist, until finally you can come up with a ruling such as Roe vs Wade that allows a women to kill her baby in her third trimester of pregnancy under (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) I agree, but it wouldn't be right to leave them before they were ready and able to defend their land and freedom on their own. And what is the rush, anyway? We are a powerful ally, and a valuable resource. The smart would utilize us, not (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The operative word I'd say would be "two". (...) Not really. Marriage is a religious institution-- that governments decide to recognize marriages as civil unions is where the rub lies. All I am arguing is for the preservation of the definition (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Don't forget anullment which is the Catholics' way of getting around that little religious entanglement. (...) Now, see, there you're just restricting the rights of the citizenry to break their solemn vows. That'll never fly (heck, in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
|
(...) Every wrong? No more than the next guy, which is to say that we shouldn't just ignore them if we have the power to coerce them to go away, and we shouldn't be unwilling to step up and correct them by force if it's unconscionable not to do so. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
