Belgian_Draft

Nope. Who people marry is up to them. Always said that, always will. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I agree. I think you have been remarkably consistant. What do you think of this law? Everyone shall be free to drink the beer of their choice. As long as it's Budweiser. I think it would be just as wrong as the law that says you can marry anyone you want as long as they are of the opposite sex. I have never said I agreed with Prop.8 and have stated that in this thread in a previous post. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

You can only reach that conclusion if you take one sentence I wrote completely out of context and separate from the rest of the paragraph. Seriously, Jakee, this obscession you have with trying to prove I made some sort of mistake when you can't understand a simple paragraph is getting pretty sick. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Actually, my position has been very firm and consistent. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Now you know how it feels to be falsely accused. The only thing I ever said ..the ONLY thing...was that I don't feel Prop.8 is discrimination based on sexual preference or against gays specifically. THAT IS IT! Then you and others come along and accuse me of saying things i never said, etc. Are you proud of misrepresenting people's words? If you really want to change to law...REALLY WANT TO...then stop calling it discrimination against gays and start calling it what it really is; discrimination based on gender. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

No offense, but I've found your posts in this thread to be somewhat confusing and contradictory, so it hasn't been very clear what it is that you're trying to say. You've made several comments about how people can choose who they love, so I'm not surprised that people would infer from that that you think gays choose to be gay. If you read what I wrote, and not what others have claimed i wrote, you would see my position has been the same all through this thread. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I think you have confused the definition of 'fact' with the definition of 'lie'. "B_D, thank you for outright stating your opinion..." Nice try at changing the context by leaving out half the post. In case you didn't notice, it was avery sarcastic reply to a PM that she then posted. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

No, I did not say gays choose to be gay. What I said was that we can choose who to love and who not to love. What we cannot control is who we have an instinctual sexual attraction to...something that does not have to include love or affection but it may. Sexual attraction and love are two very different emotions. It's too bad you don't feel people who disagree with you have the same rights as you. It is truly sad. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

No, it doesn't clarify it. Yes, it does. You just don't want to accept it for what it is The two sentences talk about two distinctly different things.Uhh, no...they don't. Except in Jakee world But you've apologised for not writing what you meant, so that's fine. No, I apologized for you misunderstanding what I wrote. Big difference but what is the relevance of it anyway? Why do you keep bringing it up and how do you feel it impacts the issue at hand in any way? Is that going to remain a secret like these 'special' rights you think people are trying to give to gays? Ok, since you are incapable of figuring it out. The people of California, by accepting Proposition 8 in a legal election, decided that only marriages between a man and a woman shall be recognized in their state. Now the opponents to that proposal want the state to ignore their own state constitution and the decision of their own state supreme court to give them the right to change what prop. 8 brought about. Those are the special rights I referred to. So, Jakee, where do you feel the line should be draw for who can marry whom? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Jesus H Christ you people can't read. Where the Hell did I ever say that gays chose to be gay??? WHERE???? A big part of the problem with any debate about any controversial subject is that SOME people hear or read somebody disagreeing with them in even the slightest way and they go off the deep end and think that person is the Anti-Christ. Finally admit homosexuality is a trait? I never once said it wasn't. I am fully aware of Prop. 8. That is the basis of this thread. My challenege to all here has been, and still is, to show where in that law gays/homosexuals are singled out by trait. Since you obviously have not read enough of the thread, I'll clue you into something. The one and only point that I disagree with most here is very simple. I don't feel gays are being disciminated against. That's it. I don't give a shit if they marry each other or not. Not my business. I have friends who are gay. They know my position yet they have never treated me the way I'm being treated here because they know I fully support their right to marry who they want. To them, my contention concerning discrimination is a non-issue. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Rude private messages don't have an expectation to stay private. Otherwise, you're right to have some expectation, but to hide that a PM was sent at all seems a bit unrealistic, and silly. since her citation was nothing you hadn't already written, I see it as a technical violation only. Nothing rude about it, merely stated fact. FACT: If she had read my posts she would have found the answer to her question. FACT: I was under no obligation at all to respond publicly or privately. I feel I did her a favor by responding with my position and saving her the time of going through all the old posts. FACT: She did not thank me or show any sort of appreciation for the favor, only betrayed the small trust I put in her to keep the PM private. THAT, my dear friend, is rude. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

He didn't misunderstand the statement as you wrote it. Whether or not your statement conveyed the point you were attempting to make is a different issue, but [jakee] can hardly be blamed if what you wrote and what you meant are two different things. Sure he can. The post he is getting his panties in a knot over was as follows: "In the history of marriage the concept of marrying for love is relatively new. Until relatively recently virtually all marriages were for reasons of family stability, social acceptance and promotion, etc" The first sentence, taken on it's own, could be interpreted as meaning love was never a basis for marriage until recently. However, the second sentence clarifies the first. Jakee chose to ignore that. So, yes, he can be blamed. If he was confused or didn't understand he should have asked for clarification. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I learned that the hard way. It is too bad that it has to be that way. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

That's not even the point. You stated that the concept was new, as if the very idea was not something people were even aware of. Which is both false and a seperate issue from any practical realities that would affect most people. And what even was the point of bringing it up in the first place? Or will that remain just as much of a secret as the 'special' rights you think people are trying to give to gays? Once again, I apologize if you misunderstood the statement. Do you have anything positive to add to the discussion? Or are you just stalking me? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I understood his statement perfectly. When a government refuses to recognize a same-sex marriage they arte, in effect, siding with religion. There is no reason other than religious beliefs for denying people that right. Do you not agree with that? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I'm sorry if you mistook my statement to mean that marrying for love never happened until relatively recently. I should have kept in mind that some people need to have everything spelled out for them in perfect detail. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

What part of the word "private" don't you understand? It is not necessarily the content that the sender wishes to be kept confidential, but often the fact that a message was sent, such as it is in this case. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

The idea of a PM is exactly what the label states...PRIVATE! Not for general publication, not to be copied and pasted. The upside is that it shows you cannot be trusted. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

And I have been a victim of racial discrimination. So, yes, the issue of marriage is trivial to me in comparison. VERY trivial. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I'm trying, Bill, I'm trying. I even asked if he had anything related to the thread topic to add to the discussion. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

***The concept of marrying for love, specifically and only for love, is not new or recent." Is what you posted "Marrying for love was a very, very rare occurance for most of the history of the concept of marriage." Is how I replied I can only assume that you are trolling. Yer gonna need fresh bait. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

Maybe you need some new spectacles or something Grandpa, because you don't seem to be able to read what I'm actually writing. You're sure as hell not understanding it because I've been entirely consistent in my statements so far. Here, I'll repeat it in big type so you can see it easier; The concept of marrying for love, specifically and only for love, is not new or recent. It is you who is not understanding. Marrying for love was a very, very rare occurance for most of the history of the concept of marriage. Do you have anything relative to the topic to add...or are you just trolling? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore, but i will answer your question. I have already addressed this, but will so again. There is nothing about all people having equal rights that abhors me. I would love a world where that actually happened. But you people here have interpreted my position that gays are not being discriminated against as my somehow being against their right to marry who they want. I am not. People are disciminated against for all kinds of things. Gender, age, intelligence, height, weight, etc. I will worry about who people can marry (something that is relatively trivial) when discrimination for much more important things is eliminated. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

What's the matter, Jakee? Can't get your facts straight? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

I love the irony of this. Probably time to let the dead horse be. You're right. This whole thread is making circles. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.