|
|
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) In the consulting racket, that's what we call a "drive by"... "I'm not interested in your discussion but I did have to put this one point in, and now I'm ignoring you again so don't bother trying to refute it as I won't see it" (overstated for (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) Fair enough. But my point remains. Arguing against certain behaviours on the grounds that they are not allowed by the church (which is what Steve is doing) requires a great deal of backstory to be proven before there is any hope of justifying (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) These aren't EXACTLY on track, but they're close, and both of these things happened in West Michigan and both are pretty well documented in media archives. I am working from memory so may not have all the facts 100% straight. - A teacher was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Polyamory
|
| Plowed ground alert. (...) For now. Subject to whim reversal, of course, since you have no mandated and irrevocable protections of your rights (neither do we, but ours are a bit harder to water down since they are in the Constitution, and the ones (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) You're not paying attention, Scott. The very next paragraph explains why a society cannot express a preference. The majority of members can hold a preference and can use the organs of the state to impose their view, but a society, since it is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
