I went through the entire thread again, but I didn't take offense to anything Gary wrote and I'm surprised that Joe did. I simply narrowed the scope of my questioning back to Gary and he responded directly to my question and then clarified his position which was on complications with polygamous marriages. Truthfully, I just wanted to focus on substantive parts of the topic and off of the generalized "weak argument" (my fault for throwing this into the mix) and "blowing in the wind" statements. Joe, I think you misinterpreted Gary's post. Or maybe Gary insulted me too and I just missed it. In any event, I appreciate Gary's exchange on this topic.<br><br>-Scott<br><br><b><i>"g. crabtree" <jampot@adelphia.net></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Joe, I am sure that you would have preferred to keep this communication on <br>the down low, but I really
thought that some of our friends on the Vision <br>would enjoy getting to see a different side of our mild mannered, oh so <br>reasonable, philosophy professor, the esteemed Dr. Joseph Campbell. If this <br>is in bad form or a breach of net etiquette, I'll try to deal with the <br>sorrow.<br><br>The Declaration states that "Natures God" entitles us to hold some truths <br>to be self evident and that we are endowed by our Creator with certain <br>unalienable rights. Nowhere does it state that I have to be personally <br>acquainted with anyone seeking to exercise the aforementioned truths and <br>rights. If it did, they wouldn't be self-evident and unalienable now would <br>they? Also the Declaration was a document between the original thirteen <br>colonies and the monarch of Great Briton and as such has precious little to <br>do with current law, making your original argument just that much more <br>awkward.<br><br>As to your ridiculous threat to come to my place of
employment and do great <br>physical harm to my poor proboscis, a protuberance which has done you <br>absolutely no injustice, might I suggest that you reconsider this extremely <br>poorly thought out scheme? I feel sure that there would be regrets in the <br>aftermath. After all, since when has "not knowing what one is talking about" <br>on this forum been a valid rationale for violence? If after giving this <br>matter some serious further thought you still feel that this course of <br>action is wise and the only way to salve your "sacred Honor" so be it. I'm <br>easy to find, tough guy.<br><br>G. Crabtree<br>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc@adelphia.net><br>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot@adelphia.net><br>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:13 PM<br>Subject: OFFLINE: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad <br>dayin IDAHO<br><br><br>You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I asked you a question: <br>Do you know of one
f--king person who is a polygomist fighting for the right <br>to marry? Answer: No, you don't! Whether you do or not, I certainly don't <br>know anyone who is a polygomist who is fighting for the right to marry. I <br>know several gays and lesbians who are fighting for the right to marry. And <br>so I bet do you! That accounts for the relevant difference.<br><br>Before you insult me on-line again make sure you know what you are talking <br>about or I will come to your place of work and punch you right in the nose.<br><br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br>---- "g. crabtree" <jampot@adelphia.net> wrote:<br><br>=============<br>Well Scott, it sounds to me like you and Joe base your thinking on your <br>feelings on any given day. This is why I was asking him about the <br>declaration and how it applied to a variation of this discussion. My <br>thoughts on the matter are that the government should not be in the business <br>of sanctioning relationships of any kind. As far as equal
rights go, what's <br>OK for a man & a women should be good for a man & a man. Or a man & a man & <br>a man. Or a woman, a snake & a apple. Just how equal do you want to get? My <br>objections stem from problems that I see when it comes to insurance, social <br>security, inheritance, and child custody along with a host of other issues. <br>Same gender marriage will cause far more problems then it will solve. To <br>call my argument weak and base your assertion on your "feelings" all the <br>while offering no coherent argument of your own (in fact stating that with <br>regard to a large portion of the discussion that you have "no opinion") <br>seems a mite vapid. Perhaps the reason that you have no opinion and Joe <br>elects to stick with one issue at a time is because you all are waiting for <br>someone to tell you which way the wind is blowing?<br><br>gc<br> ----- Original Message ----- <br> From: Scott Dredge<br> To: g. crabtree ; Joe Campbell ;
Ed<br> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<br> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:02 AM<br> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad <br>dayin IDAHO<br><br><br> This is the same weak argument that Dale Courtney and Doug Wilson offer <br>up. Do you, Gary, believe that polygamy (including all same sex polygamy) <br>should be legalized in the name of equal rights? Yes or No?<br><br> I support equal rights under the law for same sex couples. I have no <br>opinion about legalizing polygamy. Make your case for polygamous equality <br>compared to a marriage between two consenting adults and I might form one.<br><br> -Scott<br><br> "g. crabtree" <jampot@adelphia.net> wrote:<br> So Joe, If the Declaration of Independence is to be your ultimate guide <br>in<br> this matter, I am sure that you have no objection to three men/women who<br> love and respect one another enjoying the right to marriage and their <br>own<br> version of the pursuit of
happiness. After all, why should couples enjoy<br> special rights? Like you say, equal rights for all.<br><br> gc<br></jampot@adelphia.net></jampot@adelphia.net></jampot@adelphia.net></joekc@adelphia.net></blockquote><br>