Sorry I failed to read your mind and therefore perceived your mentioning legality as though it were a response to my post and a non-sequitur then. I foolishly interpreted a response to my entry (without extra clues such as a reference to previous discussions elsewhere) as having been a response to what I'd written. Please pardon my confusion.
Some times I jump adhead (or setup a line of arguement) in a discussion to prevent a precieved tangent. In this case the legality of the ad. The reason for it is because I ran into it before.
But I have noticed that you often try to read things into other peoples post. Things not said like you trying find some underlining meaning. Your conclusions are not always correct in this search for underlineing meaning.
I am not trying to anger you. But in the issues of homosexuality I am seeing alot of pushing on both sides. My beef against the pro-homosexual people is that they are using tax dallors and government structure to push for their desires. I would care as much if the used their own money or set up private eduction groups or put up bill boards with their money.
YOu see what offend me isn't the homosexuality. It is the use of the government to promote it. As I eluded to in other discussion I am against government "Social Engineering" no matter how good the cause you think it is. I am against Judges makeing laws, that is the job of the legislature. I am against the government not listening to the people. If your read my arguements that is the steam from which all this flows. My idea of getting government out of marriage in a compromise (since I am sick and tired of government pushing morality and acceptance).
(no subject)
(no subject)
So there is no reason to be "sorry" which I am certain you are not.
I created the confussion because I had linked the two seperate discussion on the same matter.
(no subject)
But I have noticed that you often try to read things into other peoples post. Things not said like you trying find some underlining meaning. Your conclusions are not always correct in this search for underlineing meaning.
I am not trying to anger you. But in the issues of homosexuality I am seeing alot of pushing on both sides. My beef against the pro-homosexual people is that they are using tax dallors and government structure to push for their desires. I would care as much if the used their own money or set up private eduction groups or put up bill boards with their money.
YOu see what offend me isn't the homosexuality. It is the use of the government to promote it. As I eluded to in other discussion I am against government "Social Engineering" no matter how good the cause you think it is. I am against Judges makeing laws, that is the job of the legislature. I am against the government not listening to the people. If your read my arguements that is the steam from which all this flows. My idea of getting government out of marriage in a compromise (since I am sick and tired of government pushing morality and acceptance).