I'm not talking about her choice to be a submissive, weak, woman who gives up all individuality. I'm talking about what YOU think it means to be married.
Do you think a marriage is one person completely giving up their own individuality and submitting themselves entirely to the will of another? Do you think a man is pussywhipped if he is an equal partner in his marriage with his wife? And what planet are you living on if you claim this is the natural and normal path taken by women for thousands of years? Women, with very very very little exception, do NOT want to lose their own individuality, and do NOT want to submit themselves entirely to the will of a man. I'll ask my question again, and this time don't avoid it. Do you think a normal, everyday marriage, means a woman is submitting herself totally to the will of another person and should be held to a contract that would even allow a man to murder her? This is a yes or no question. I'd appreciate a yes or no answer. --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am saying that a woman's right to make this choice should be recognized, in the > same manner as her right to be a harlot, slut, lesbian, old maid, manhating b*tch > (unless she voluntarily contracted marriage) or > to have an intimate relationship with some p*ss*wh*pp*d wimp. (Ladies, please > excuse the strong language, but I must use it to defend your rights.) Denying a woman > the right to submit herself totally to the will of her husband is hypocritical and unlibertarian, > especially since so many women have followed this path for thousands of years, during > most of which time it was considered the most natural and prevalent male-female relationship, > other than the unchristian and barbaric alternative of female slavery. > I am going to terminate this conversation now since there are many important events going > on in Ohio and I have made my position as clear as possible. > > For life and liberty, > David Macko > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:11 PM > Subject: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: [Libertarian] Re: The Fallacy of Open I > > > Are you saying that a marriage is a woman sumitting herself totally to > the will of her husband? Don't dance around the issue Dave. > > --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <dmacko@> wrote: > > > > How can you or anyone calling him or herself a libertarian > > deny a woman the right to submit herself totally to the will of > > her husband if she so wishes? > > It is totally illogical to recognize the right of a woman to become > > a harlot, slut, old maid, manhating b*tch (so long as she does not > > aggress) a 50-50 marriage partner (the current divorce rate) or a > > lesbian but not recognize her right to become a wife in a traditional > > marriage, even though hundreds of millions of women have chosen > > this path for millennia. > > If you cannot recognize the total illogic of such a position, then I > > think it is futile to try to educate and enlighten you further. > > > > For life, liberty, justice and peace, > > David Macko > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Paul > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:06 PM > > Subject: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: [Libertarian] > Re: The Fallacy of Open I > > > > > > Wives should OBEY? Does this mean the husband is the BOSS of the wife > > and gives orders to the wife? Is the wife subservient to the husband > > or are they equal partners? > > > > --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <dmacko@> wrote: > > > > > > I was not necessarily endorsing the idea generally. However, if I > > had a wife > > > and I found her voluntarily serving the pleasure of another man, the > > thought > > > just might cross my mind. Also, if I were on the jury for the trial > > of a man > > > who lost his temper over such an outrage, I might well let him off. > > > I agree with you 99%. I don't view wives as slaves either. > Slaves obey > > > through fear. Wives should obey through love. I would not even > advocate > > > government intrusion into contracts where the poor p*ssywh*pp*d male > > > did not require his wife to serve his pleasure wherever, whenever > > and however > > > he wished. > > > Also, as I previously stated, there have been some quite good > > outcomes from > > > miscegenation and it should not be outlawed, although as you noted I > > do think > > > that there were a lot of bad outcomes. > > > By the way, have you ever wondered why it is perfectly ok to want to > > preserve > > > some endangered species such as whales while it brings opprobrium, > > insult and > > > downright hate to want to preserve other endangered groups such as > > white people? > > > I hope that this clarifies my views. > > > > > > For life, liberty, justice and peace, > > > David Macko > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: James Landrith > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:35 AM > > > Subject: RE: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: > > [Libertarian] Re: The Fallacy of Open I > > > > > > > > > Wow. You think killing adulterers is a good idea? Would this be > > another > > > government intrusion in the bedroom, or just simple murder by her > > husband > > > that would be smiled upon by government? If she violates her > marriage > > > contract, why is murder the first thought you can come up with? > > Why not > > > divorce? Why not sue for damages? > > > > > > Why is killing women such a good idea to you? > > > > > > As a libertarian, I favor getting government out of the marriage > > equation > > > all together. No licenses. No data tracking. No interference or > > referees. > > > Private arbitration. The REAL libertarian solution. Further, I > > don't view > > > women as property, potentially subject to government sanctioned > > murder by > > > her husband for the crime of spreading her legs. And no, your life > > boat > > > scenario (always a favorite of those grasping at straws) of STDs > > doesn't > > > justify government sanctioned slaughter of unfaithful wives. > > > > > > Call me crazy, but I don't have such murderous desires or view my > > wife as > > > property. > > > > > > But then, I'm a dirty miscegenationist mongrel myself. I can't be > > expected > > > to know any better. Macko has the scientific "proof" to back it up > > - Haiti > > > and Egypt. > > > > > > Enough said. > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > James Landrith > > > james@ > > > cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 > > > AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 > > > MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith > > > Taking the Gloves Off - http://www.jameslandrith.com > > > The Multiracial Activist - http://www.multiracial.com > > > The Abolitionist Examiner - http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf Of David Macko > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:00 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: > > [Libertarian] Re: The > > > Fallacy of Open I > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: David Macko > > > To: Libertarian@ <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com> > > yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:50 AM > > > Subject: Re: Contracts, Marital and Otherwise was Re: > > [Libertarian] Re: The > > > Fallacy of Open I > > > > > > You bring up a very important point for a future libertarian > society. > > > The government and the establishment media encourage all manner > > > of "diversity". In a libertarian society, it would be most wise to > > encourage > > > people with diverse beliefs and behaviors not to live together. > > > In the theoretical libertarian town about which we are speaking, > > if half > > > the population regards adultery as a crime which justifies an > outraged > > > husband > > > to take direct action, somewhat in the manner that you would take > > direct > > > action against someone breaking into your house at 3:00 AM and the > > other > > > half regards adultery and the seduction of other men's wives as > no big > > > thing, > > > the result will be civil war between those of you who want to kill > > cuckolded > > > husbands and those of us who would not condemn them for permanently > > > eliminating the adulterers who had violated their rights as > husbands. > > > > > > For life, liberty, justice and peace, > > > David Macko > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
