Oh good Lord, I don’t who you are, or your positions on something because you posted it on some distant thread.
I can’t believe that you were wasting all this time on this thread because you think people remember you and one of your posts from months ago.
I will say that typical of libers here, you want to fiercely defend the liber position on personal relationships, while getting angry and personal, while refusing to admit that you agree with it.
It is mind boggling, this liber trait of fighting fiercely and nastily for liber positions that they will not admit to sharing personally.
I wasn't; you've constantly affirmed my suppositions: that you are merely here to attack.
I will say that typical of libers here, you want to fiercely defend the liber position on personal relationships, while getting angry and personal, while refusing to admit that you agree with it.
See, there we are!
I cannot say personal relationships are not the business of the government
without you jumping to attack.
(Point to the post were I'm angry and personal; defensive, yes [and reason given]. Snarky: yes, at times. But angry and personal? Where?)
It is mind boggling, this liber trait of fighting fiercely and nastily for liber positions that they will not admit to sharing personally.
Why is it that you cannot accept a partial agreement on some position?
Do you think it is just and right for the government to define, license or restrict personal relationships
?
(Do we need marriage licenses? What about friendship licenses? Acquaintance certificates? Permits regarding personal association?)
See, I'm asking you perfectly good, valid, on-topic questions and it is you who are hung up on whether or not I ascribe, wholly and completely*, to a document I have not published nor hand in creating.
* You reject any in part
, or take agreement with the underlying principal
to be utter endorsement of their entire statement.