Really? What court?

I cna't believe that people feel any one should have the right to do what ever they want. Dan S., do you really think the courts have ruled that? I would love to see that case. We have all kinds of limits on personal freedom. No one here has a problem with zoning laws do they. Tell you what, I will start running my sled up and down the Hoh, Sol Duc and Bogie and then listen to you all cry about it. What a joke. I have to wear a seat belt, but a bunch of wierdos can run around trying to expose themselves to my kids. Since this behavior, is in your mind, protected, then I guess I can't go anywhere and not expect to have to put up with it. And since it this protection is unlimited, then I can expect to see anything anywhere. Sorry, but I might just move to Utah then. The truth is, I have certain religious and moral beliefs, and I want to live by them the best I can and raise my kids to do the same. You can do otherwise, and I really don't care. But please, let me have the freedom that you so dearly claim to want and limit your perversions to places where I can avoid them. Oh yeah, and don't loose it if you see a christmas tree in the airport.

Sorry boys and girls, but this isn't about the Mormons. That story is only an example of how intolerant the left is about any view than their own. You all preach tolerance, but if you lose an open, free election, then what is exhibited is intolerance of the highest order. If people don't agree with the left, then off with their heads. I am not preaching riot and sedition against anyone simply because my candidates or issues did not win an election. It's the intolerance of people that preach tolerance that never ceases to amaze me. It almost looks like a psychological disorder. Anyone know how to spell schizophrenia?

a-l-a-n-m-i-k-k-e-l-s-e-n

Damn, how hard was that?

Zzzing !

Cute, Harley. Right on point, again. I mean if ya can't argue the principle, ya can always zing the messenger. Another intelligent debate point from the brilliant minds of the left. Just to keep this going:



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goharley said:
Only if those far left fringe groups are the ones that founded the Democratic Party. Since it was Jefferson that founded the party in the late 1700s, are you indentifying him as a leftist?

So the left is intolerant of the right's intolerance. Hmmm, interesting dichotomy. The big difference being the left doesn't try to restrict your rights because of your hate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cute, but more obsfucation. Study Thomas Jefferson, then move forward and really study Andrew Jackson. Jefferson founded the Democrat-Republican party. Andrew Jackson was clearly the first real Democrat. Thomas Jefferson's party was much more closely aligned with today's conservative principles than the Democrat party has been for 150 years. Andrew Jackson really started the country down the road to nasty political shennanigans. His playbook would read like a typical political playbook today. I love it when the left tries to wrap themselves in Thomas Jefferson's cloak. That's another of the most disingenuous arguments they make.

Specifically, what rights has the right tried to restrict? When was the last time the right was on the streets en masse, threatening churches, political contributors, businesses, little old ladies, and spraying graffitti or performing acts of vandalism after they lost an election?

OOPs, forgot, if you're on the left, that protected free speech. My bad.

"The truth is, I have certain religious and moral beliefs, and I want to live by them the best I can and raise my kids to do the same. You can do otherwise, and I really don't care. But please, let me have the freedom that you so dearly claim to want and limit your perversions to places where I can avoid them. Oh yeah, and don't loose it if you see a christmas tree in the airport."

I don't want to see some guys ass either but I am not advocating arresting people for running around naked. You have freedom right now. You can run around naked too or not. You can choose to look or not. What you want is to restrict others freedom to be in line with your "religious and moral beliefs" and that's a scary slippery slope.

The problem is very simple.
Anyone who grew up in the 60's and 70's saw plenty of naked people, in fact they undoubtedly dropped trow themselves on occasion.
Thinking that people with no cloths on is some indication of moral decay, just proves your just not that old.

If your parents instilled in you that seeing naked people "is F'd up" then they were far from "down to earth." [/quote]

Go harley, were you raised in a Hot Boxed VW van just out of curiosity? I'm glad my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong. Not everything is okay there just different mentality.

???

Can two women enjoy the same rights through marriage that a man and woman obtain? Can people without clothes on have the right to freedom of movement in a public park?

Maybe instead, it should be made legal to punch the people in the face if they show up unannounced, naked, and start "prancing" around your kids. I bet they would not do it then. Or atleast they would have some discretion about it and then they would announce themselves. Simple minded? Yes. Effective? Definitely.

I think the funniest thing about all this is that the people that are forcing their ways and ideals on everyone are the same hypocritical pricks that piss and moan about the general society forcing normalcy upon them. Sounds like the little kids in the sand box that keep throwing handfuls of sand at each other because the other did it last.

Feciciousness= fuel for the fire! Lets see how long this can keep going.

Goharley,

Why should 2 women get the right to marry?

Why not?

Well for one, the plumbing just don't match up...

I won't get into the public nudity, as I think it's a bunch of sophmoric individuals clamoring for attention and I don't want to dignify that. As far as the right restricting marriage, I'm under the impression that a majority of people, including blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Mormons, etc., all voted in favor of proposition 8 in California. Are those all rightists? These are these same people who elected Barack Obama, in many instances. Seems to me like this was a broad cross section of the population who decided they wanted to protect traditional marriage. I don't think anyone voted to take away any right.

So it boils down to this: Is this an attack by the right on civil unions or an attack by the left on traditional marriage? I'm just not convinced that I've seen much from the mainstream right that is trying to take established rights away from anyone. What I have seen in the public forum is a lot of vicioius anger directed at people who exercised their right to vote about something they felt needed to be preserved, traditional marriage. In fact, this is the second time it's been voted on in California. The left didn't like the first vote, so they sued to have it overturned, probably the same with the current vote.

Bottom line: Creed of the left---Let the will of the people be done, until it doesn't meet with our goals and criteria. Agree with us and you're enlightened, disagree and you're a bigot, facist or both.

Not much room for intelligent discourse within those parameters.

"Well for one, the plumbing just don't match up..."

So you only get married to produce kids? Should all marriages that fail to produce a child be null and void?

Whose traditional marriage? The ones spelled out in the bible that accepted plural marriages? Or the ones by Joseph Smith that preached the same? Or the traditional marriages of today that are more out of convienence until one spouse is tired of the other, and then man tears apart that which God has joined together? Is that the value you put on your "traditional" marriage; that you can do something gays and lesbians cannot?

That is truly spot on!

Is that an attempt at some sort of intelligent debate, or do you really know how foolish that sounds?

OOPs, forgot, more enlightenment from the left, I'm sure.

I know several young couples, who I admire greatly, who have adopted two or more children, since they are unable to have any on their own. And before you ask, these are children from mixed marriages or different races, all adopted from inner cities here in the U.S. Loving parents and wonderful children.

But I know that doesn't probably count for much, since they are also 'conservative' young couples. That means there is no way they will be able to find enlightenment, I guess.