and another thing.....

Kelly said it best a year or so ago...


Fear On!

That's what this is all about. Don't talk about jobs(lack thereof), war, WMD (lack thereof), dead soldiers and civilians, budget deficits, spent surplusses, lies (or misleads) about national security, bad intelligence, lack of intelligence..... Talk about a lightning rod issue which TOTALLY changes the subject.

'Unpermutated' is just a word you use when someone else writes 'permutated' and you want to add emphasis to how much you disagree with what they're saying.

So Shane, what Hopi says: then what do you mean.

Touche! I mispelled permeated.

As to what I mean? I clarified it in a previuos post...

"Our Constitution is the absolute value I speak of. IMO, We as a people should respect and abide by it. In California the voice of the people decreed that a marriage is as defined according to the dictionary, (Websters), "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

What is taking place in San Francisco amounts to civil disobedience, which is against the law.
If we allow this type of behavior to continue it undermines our constitution, which ultimately may result in choas and anarchy.
And, no society is able to thrive in an anarchistic state."

Has any one heard of the New world Order ?
The post's to this thread prove that they are suceeding in their plans.

Its a big smoke sceen :our government,Religious pressures, The laws, and most of all the crap the
media crams down our throats VIA television.
WE are behaving exactly how they want us to.
Disrupt the structures that might become aware of
somthing not right.

IE: the people on this site mostly friendly folk,
Now wouldn't be safe in a room togethher. Why,
because the puppet masters have dropped a seed of
contention in our lap.
Call it NWO, ILUMINATI,OUR GOVERNMENT,....
The bottom line is they have a plan that is obviously working. And the motive behind it is ...MONEY!!!!!!
NOT OUR BEST INTERESTS

This is not about homo's, ..Or even whats right or wrong. Its slight of hand.
Look how long we've been distracted over this issue right here.
some of you have made statements of now changed respect of others whom all belong to this site.
why? just proves a point. The music has stopped playing for the moment.
AND NOW.....For your listening pleasure...

Not that I want to speak for Shane...

But I see an easily identified difference, which I saw in Shane's original post - and which was completely missed in Nick's misguided interpretation.

A SOCIETY can collectively recognize a set of values/morals which may very well not be perfectly in keeping with any SINGLE individual's values/morals.

To a large degree, that is what we have in America.

There are some laws and mores that I agree with and some that I don't. As I am certain there is at least a subtlely (and in some cases radically) DIFFERENT set of laws and morals that YOU agree with.

Nevertheless, we BOTH agree that the COLLECTIVE set of laws and mores that are observed by the SOCIETY at large are appropriate - and we abide by them. Even though they are neither "my values" or "your values."

That is NOT the same thing as "one person" imposing ther morals on others.

It is saying that, if we have no agreed, common rule (whether it completely fits any single, individual's views or not), then ultimately, we have NO rule.

Shane never said a society without a particular INDIVIDUAL'S values has no values. He said a societly that fails to recognize ANY values, ultimately has NO values.

It is a valid argument that society has to recognize SOME objective values - and not just say "anything is OK - any time." That is moral relativism, the logical conclusion to which is that, with the right circumstances, ANYTHING may be acceptable. Including the most heinous of behaviors.

Anybody else getting this?


*note that conspicuously absent from my explantion here is ANY statement of my personal views on gay marraige - which shall remain my personal views.

I think you're a little off. What is taking place in San Francisco does NOT undermine the U.S. constitution. That is why Bush 2 has proposed the new ammendment. There is currently no mention of restricting marriage to heterosexuals.

When the sodomy case in Texas was overturned, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court said something to the effect of - "You know this opens the door to gay marriage."

My understanding (im no lawyer) is that it's homosexual marriage is pretty much accedemic at this point - UNLESS a constitutional ammendment is passed prohobiting it.

That's the reason for all this.

The Constution is no absolute value! It was designed to be amended as necessary. Without that design this little ditty would not be included.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

And please, elaborate on how gay marriage will lead to choas and anarchy.

Shane, if you're referring to the U.S. Constitution, I can find no reference to marriage in it or anything remotely close to it.

Knife: I understand completely what you're saying, but obviously at this point in time in the United States (as evidenced by this discussion), when it comes to matters of homosexuality, the COLLECTIVE set of laws and mores you refer to is not so collective after all. As for a society that fails to recognize ANY values..., how does that apply here? It simply isn't a case of not having ANY values. It is a case of different people having DIFFERENT values not a LACK of them. I don't think a society can ever completely have no values. It's just that they would value something different - like libertarian freedom as opposed to societal controls.

Gitared and John Gee, Gnomes of Zurich and FreeMason conspiracy theories aside, the cynical ploy I mentioned earlier is very simple: get people bashing gays instead of talking about Iraq in order to win the election.

We're not as stupid as you think in this country, John!

I meant to say we're not *all* as stupid as you think! Oops.