Comments on: Right To Contract vs. “Human Rights”

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:44:23 +0000

MikeF,

Actually, that was me…not Mark. :)

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:32:44 +0000

MikeF: I’m sorry for being harsh. I was in a belligerent mood yesterday, and actually got you confused with Mike M, who really pissed me off. I apologize thoroughly.

By: MikeF

MikeF — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:39:21 +0000

Mark, it sounds like we are in agreement about this topic. I think you are exactly correct about the state pushing people into marriage, and making it much too difficult to divorce, with the associated problems of each.

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:31:10 +0000

Mike,

Isn’t that kind of what they are doing right now in Texas with the polygamists? I don’t agree with the cult’s actions against the young girls of course forcing them to marry old men, but what valid reason is there for the govt to stop people of legal age from engaging in a polygamist relationship?

Aside from the underage girls aspect (which I’m also opposed to), I don’t have a problem with polygamists and think it’s wrong for the government to intervene or forbid what they do. Then again I think that a lot of the government’s involvement in marriage is wrong. Marriage is a contract, just like any other…beyond arbitrating or enforcing the terms of it through the courts when one or both parties wish to separate, I think that government ought to stay out. If one guy finds three or four women willing to marry him all at once, more power to him. What business is that of mine or anyone else, really? Same would apply to one woman and multiple men, of course…or whatever mix of gender you’d care to name :)

Actually, I’ve long wondered if the state’s involvement doesn’t tend to push people into marriages too quickly (by creating incentives to do so) and make divorces more bitter and hostile than they need to be (by making it a more difficult and drawn out process).

By: MikeF

MikeF — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:05:43 +0000

“would see” not “would so”….posting too late is not a good idea….sorry.

By: MikeF

MikeF — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:04:34 +0000

Well, Mark, if you had actually read all of my post instead of just the last line you would so that I did not agree with the actions of the cult taken against the young girls as well.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:54:48 +0000

…Uhh, there would be none. Except for the fact that many of the “wives” didn’t exactly have much of a choice in the matter (you might want to look into the fact that some of these girls were as young as 13).
But as far as I’m concerned, if a woman willingly desires to marry a man who is already married to another woman, and that other woman also willingly goes along with the arrangement, well that’s their business. When one of the women is 13 and is sexually assaulted in the process, then I have a problem.

By: MikeF

MikeF — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:31:07 +0000

Eh…as long as we’re not demanding that the government draft up a law to forcibly stamp out their beliefs I think we’re still okay :)

Isn’t that kind of what they are doing right now in Texas with the polygamists? I don’t agree with the cult’s actions against the young girls of course forcing them to marry old men, but what valid reason is there for the govt to stop people of legal age from engaging in a polygamist relationship?

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:30:12 +0000

Stephen,

I’ve ran across certain Catholic blogs where the authors believe such crazy shit. This one blogger believes that the only “appropriate” sex is coitus and the only appropriate family planning is natural family planning (NFP). You have to read this shit. It’s truly insane.

Oh, I grew up in a very religious area so I’ve heard stuff that’s just as bad if not worse.

oilnwater,

so basically what you’re doing right here is engaging in one of the last unassailable discriminations: religious.

Eh…as long as we’re not demanding that the government draft up a law to forcibly stamp out their beliefs I think we’re still okay :)

By: oilnwater

oilnwater — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:47:31 +0000

so basically what you’re doing right here is engaging in one of the last unassailable discriminations: religious. otherwise, it’s socially unacceptable and condemnable to engage in any other form of discrimination as dictated by unspoken social mores.

people are so gay.

By: Stephen Littau

Stephen Littau — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:36:13 +0000

U.C.

"So I’m taking from this that you’re saying anyone who engages in sex for recreational or non-reproductive purposes (hetero or not) is likewise sexually dysfunctional?"

I've ran across certain Catholic blogs where the authors believe such crazy shit. This one blogger believes that the only "appropriate" sex is coitus and the only appropriate family planning is natural family planning (NFP). You have to read this shit. It's truly insane.

By: Nitroadict

Nitroadict — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:00:02 +0000

Mike, you are aware that various populations of animals have been scientifically proven to be not only gay, but also bi-sexual & asexual as well?

You’re attempts at sounding moderate in your backwards view, in a sad effort to give yourself credence, is what should be really pitied here.

But, hey, as long as we have the right have such idiotic views, and my right (as well as others) to object to such, I suppose we should enjoy the ride while it lasts.

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:19:32 +0000

Mike M.,

I’m not bashing what gays do, (I pity them, they will never experience the attraction to the opposite sex)

Actually, you are bashing them.

Homosexuality is simply a behavior sex dysfunction just like impotence is a physical sex dysfunction. Gender only exists for one reason only – procreation.

So I’m taking from this that you’re saying anyone who engages in sex for recreational or non-reproductive purposes (hetero or not) is likewise sexually dysfunctional?

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:09:31 +0000

Whoever is saying to just lie is wrong, that is EXACTLY what the elitist left wants everyone to do! They live and breath lies and POWER. They will delight in knowing they are forcing honest people to be like them – liars. Homosexuality is simply a behavior sex dysfunction just like impotence is a physical sex dysfunction. Gender only exists for one reason only – procreation. Therefore, whatever physical OR behavioral affliction prevents procreation is a dysfunction. Homosexuality occurs throughout nature – so does cancer. I’m not bashing what gays do, (I pity them, they will never experience the attraction to the opposite sex), but I do bash who some of them ~think~ they are.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:26:06 +0000

J. Wesley: Except that the Right is now just as bad at creating new rights (that aren’t really) as the Left. In fact, they’re often worse. The only rights the Left creates that aren’t rights come their twisted conception of economic liberty. Meanwhile, the Right has decided that the word “liberty” means “freedom, except as limited by our interpretation of the Bible” rather than just simply “freedom from control.”