Pilot's Political Orientation

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...


Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion? Or
is
that too a mistake?

The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of money.

If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No way
in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
answered.


Federally, the question HAS been answered. You just don't like the answer.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Dude wrote:

snip


Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.


All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have been
better off without college.

That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

snip

--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.


That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.



2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
western world. It is far from a universal definition, though. Until
fairly recently Mormon's believed firmly in polygamy, and polygamy
is still a common practice in much of the world (the general
rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
elected to have more than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an
acceptable approach in parts of Tibet and other areas where life is
considered so hard, more than one "wage earner" is required
to support a family.


I don't see how that definition necessarily excludes polygamy or polyandry.



3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
unchangable. All traditions should be examined periodically to see
if they still make sense.


And proposed changes should be examined to see if they make sense. Same-sex
marriage does not make sense.



4) If we accept your definition,


It's not my definition.



then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".


Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
conservative administration against the right of people to marry?


It isn't.



I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't
agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex
couple marries. Why would anyone care?


Because if the meaning of marriage is altered, assuming for the sake of
argument government has that authority, then every marriage is altered.



Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we
American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them
as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with
them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to
being "for freedom".


What the hell are you talking about?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".


Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

Same sex civil unions are redistribution away from heterosexual women to gay
men, just the same as gay marriage. In Canada when AIDS broke out the
medical system quit treating breast canacer to keep the fags alive. If
women went for more than 6 months without threatment the Canadian
Governement would buy them a bus ticket to Vermont.

Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

.... to you.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
marriage, they should be. The main issue is the US Constitution.
I got married in Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states
must recognize my marriage and all things that naturally occur as
a result of that marriage, such as hospital visitation, benefits, etc.
If California passes a law making gay marriage legal then all 49
other states would have to recognize it.


Well, then, if a state bans "same-sex marriage", then the other 49 states
will have to recognize it and this silly argument is over.

What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

... to you.


True. Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...
"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.

You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
explanation/argument?

Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.