BOB wrote:

"S. Maizlich" <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote in news:_LHkf.9749
$wf.464@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

davie shitbag barnes lied:

In article <h7Gkf.9213$N45.8415@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:

davie shitbag barnes lied:

In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:

Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?

Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Because we can?

The whole

The whole kick-davie-in-the-***** thing.

^^^^
You misspelled

"boob" again. Sorry, boob - I'll try to be more careful.

In article <_LHkf.9749$wf.464@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu> wrote:

davie shitbag barnes lied:

In article <h7Gkf.9213$N45.8415@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, S.
Maizlich <s.e.maizlisch@utaa.eduu> wrote:

davie shitbag barnes lied:

In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:

Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?

Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Because we can?

The whole

The whole kick-davie-in-the-***** thing.

I don't blame you for being so

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:

Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?

Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

I've answered this question over and over. Why can't you answer MY
question? Because it would expose your hypocrisy, perhaps?

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <pan.2005.12.04.17.27.12.45823@XXXoptonline.net>, Bill K.
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:

Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?

Why do you want to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

I've answered this question over and over. Why can't you answer MY
question? Because it would expose your hypocrisy, perhaps?

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:27:13 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:

What "attack"? I pointed out that *IF* he supported those things, while
saying we can't legislate morality, he's a hypocrite. That's not an
attack, that's an observation based on fact.

By calling him a hypocrite, you are attacking him, and not his
argument.

and when you are called on it, you

have no answer, and so, in good xtian fashion, you try and tell us
that you meant something different.

Now, in answer to YOUR questions;

But do you support the welfare system?
Do you support same-sex "marriage"?
Do you support socialized medicine?

Yes I do, all three.

You're a hypocrite. That's not an "attack",

Agreed, because I deliberately invited that comment.

that's an observation based on
fact.

What facts, apart from my statement that I support all three
offerings?

And how do they make me a hypocrite?

If you
support any of these, you're a HYPOCRITE.

Now tell us all, how supporting fair treatment for all, and protection
for all, makes me, or IAAH, anyone else, a hypocrite.

You can call it "fairness", but what is it REALLY if not your version of
"morality"?

Agreed, but how does that make me a hypocrite?

I am not forcing you into a gay marriage.

I am not forcing you into receiving welfare handouts,

or free
medicine,

and I am certainly not forcing you, or anyone else, to have
an abortion.

I do, however believe that they should be available to those who, in
the case of gay marriage, and abortion, want them, and in the case of
welfare and free medicine, those who need them.

I am not even suggesting that abortion should be available, free, only
freely available.

OTOH, I do think that if you are gong to charge for an abortion, it
should not be a fixed sum, but a fixed percentage of the person's
income.

Is denying marriage to same-sex couples immoral in your view?

Very much so. What right have I, to tell you, or anyone else, who you
should love, who you should spend your life with?

Would eliminating the welfare system be immoral in your view?

Tricky. I am not sure about immoral. It is not as if it was always
there. I would consider it immoral, to eliminate it in order to
finance a war, and to force people who would otherwise receive welfare
benefits, into the armed forces, as cannon fodder.

I would consider it immoral if it was done, knowing that there was no
other way, jobs for instance, that those on it, could earn a living. I
would consider it immoral, if it were done without first addressing
the causes of poverty.

The state is, in part, responsible, because in creating the welfare
system, it has also created a dependency.

For example, there are thousands of children running around who would
have been aborted, or stillborn, or died avery early, had the welfare
system not been there to support the mothers, or someone else's
misguided morality not been there to prevent them getting abortions.

But there is no simple yes or no answer to that

Is failing to provide universal health INSURANCE immoral in your view?

Of it's self, no.

But I would consider it rather uncivilized, for a nation that had the
funds, and the technology, to fail to provide it..

You don't need to answer because your fellow leftists have answered them
over and over.

What is a leftist, and on what do you base your assumption that I am
one?

snip

Baseless hyperbole.

I reflect what I am offered.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:07:29 -0500, "Bill K."
<bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:

Typical 'liberal' obfuscation. You ignore the central issue, which is your
HYPOCRISY.

No, the central issue is abortion

Don't give us this "You can't legislate morality" as you seek
to do exactly that.

Then stop trying to.

You call abortion, a moral issue, and yet you want legislation to
prevent it.

You want to make, what YOU consider to be morality, law. That is
trying to legislate morality.