As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate 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?

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?

From:	Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:03:17 GMT

"Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@news1.mts.net...
> As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
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?

From:	Tom the Canuck
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:52:18 -0600

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. 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 ual 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" wrote in message
news:9XWId.154167$6l.42616@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
> news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@news1.mts.net...
> > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
> 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?
>
>

From:	Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:13:37 GMT

"Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
news:MwYId.14761$Ka6.101864@news1.mts.net...
> 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

From:	David De-fly-ie
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:44:01 GMT

"Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³" wrote in message
news:9XWId.154167$6l.42616@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
> news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@news1.mts.net...
> > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
> 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?

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...

>
>

From:	\The Right One\
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:45:24 GMT

"Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@news1.mts.net...

Tom the Kook, who like the Dimwit Deilly, claims to have gone
to university, driveled the usual argument:

As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
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?
>
> 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?

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.
>
>

From:	OhBoy
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:38:11 GMT

""The Right One"" wrote in message
news:oGWId.153725$Xk.55649@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
> news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@news1.mts.net...
>
> Tom the Kook, who like the Dimwit Deilly, claims to have gone
> to university, driveled the usual argument:
>
> As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
> 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?
>>
>> 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?
>
> 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? Or are you going to come up with more of that 'agenda' business?

OhBoy

From:	David De-fly-ie
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:48:38 GMT

"OhBoy" wrote in message
news:TrXId.142946$KO5.104804@clgrps13...
> ""The Right One"" wrote in message
> news:oGWId.153725$Xk.55649@pd7tw3no...
> >
> > "Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
> > news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@news1.mts.net...
> >
> > Tom the Kook, who like the Dimwit Deilly, claims to have gone
> > to university, driveled the usual argument:
> >
> > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
> > 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?
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> > 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....

From:	\The Right One\
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:13:42 GMT

"David De-fly-ie" goats.cult.bazaar.ss> wrote in message
news:GBXId.142950$KO5.26813@clgrps13...
>
> "OhBoy" wrote in message
> news:TrXId.142946$KO5.104804@clgrps13...
> > ""The Right One"" wrote in message
> > news:oGWId.153725$Xk.55649@pd7tw3no...
> > >
> > > "Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
> > > news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@news1.mts.net...
> > >
> > > Tom the Kook, who like the Dimwit Deilly, claims to have gone
> > > to university, driveled the usual argument:
> > >
> > > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to
dictate
> > > 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?
> > >>
> > >> 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?
> > >
> > > 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
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
There are two types of values
in Canada. Moral and Liberal.
>

From:	David De-fly-ie
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:42:11 GMT

"Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
news:jwWId.14736$Ka6.101933@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.

From:	Haximus
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:13:12 GMT

Tom the Canuck wrote:
> As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate 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?
>
> 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?

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.

From:	\The Right One\
Subject:	Re: Question for Political Right Wing
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:21:49 GMT

"Haximus" wrote in message news:41F44B39.4090009@t.me...
> Tom the Canuck wrote:
> > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
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?
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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.

Awsome post! Could have been plagiarism,
but for once I agree
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
There are two types of values
in Canada. Moral and Liberal.

From:	Tom the Canuck
Subject:	Haximus: the Traditional Definition of Marriage HAS changed already
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:03:33 -0600

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/marriage.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" wrote in message news:41F44B39.4090009@t.me...
> Tom the Canuck wrote:
> > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
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?
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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.

From:	Tylêr - Ðûrden°±²³
Subject:	Re: Haximus: the Traditional Definition of Marriage HAS changed already
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:24:16 GMT

"Tom the Canuck" wrote in message
news:jHYId.14763$Ka6.102091@news1.mts.net...
> 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/marriage.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 = 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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Haximus" wrote in message news:41F44B39.4090009@t.me...
> > Tom the Canuck wrote:
> > > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to
dictate
> 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?
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
>