|
|
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| Given that explanation, I think we both agree that discussion of "inherent rights" must assume that it is a social/legal construct. And that discussions of these general topics might be better served focussing on "inherent preferences." At least (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I did. Notice -->Bruce<-- chose a secondary definition, not the primary one. The cheek:-) (...) THIS IS PRECIOUSLY MY POINT!!! (I'm screaming, but not at you). This is what our kids are being taught! It's REVISIONIST and WRONG! (...) Then I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| I've written here before that I think it would be more valuable to reframe the entire notion of rights as responsibilities. I think the absolutism of rights is easy to get tripped up on. (At least for me.) (...) One common stance is that an entity (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Hopefully you mean "best possible within economic reason." Also, I'd like to see how the "stable relationship":"good start" metrics are compiled (you're reporting actual findings, right...not just opinion or impression?). Further, since I know (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it. The (...) I just knew there was someone out there who thought exactly the same as I did... well put, Chris! Pedro (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
