 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) This is a very nice summation, overall. (...) A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the philosophical angle. To clarify: By "inherent (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) My feeling is that it is the responsibility of government to ensure our children are provided with the best possible opportunities in childhood. It just so happens that children who are cared for by parents who are in a stable relationship (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent? Hmm. Now that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) But it does demonstrate irrefutably that those rights are not inalienable, contrary to the assertion of the founding fathers. Inalienable rights that can be taken away aren't very inalienable. And in all practical ways, rights that are utterly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) Where's that from? I think I might have one, but I can't remember where I got it. Dave! (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
