Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:58:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> If a Democratic government decides (ie the will of the people, the
> *majority*) to sanction
> hetereo marriages and not homosexual ones, what's wrong with that? I think a
> case can be
> made that the traditional nuclear family is a good foundation on which to
> build a stable
> society. You are free to shack up with a horse if you want; just don't
> expect equal or
> special considerations, because the majority don't want it.
OK - I'll bite on that one. I would agree that the traditional
nuclear family as a good foundation on which to build a stable society.
However, I can't see any reason why a family with - say - two gay men
at its head shouldn't be equally good, and although you don't say so
explicitly, you seem to be implying that you'd regard it as inferior.
Why? Isn't how people treat each other and members of their families
the important thing rather than their sexual orientation?
> A lot of people do stupid things and their lives are train wrecks. A lot of • people are
> unhappy. Christianity offers a way to lead a meaningful life, not judgment • of an empty
> one.
Whether one agrees with that statement is true, surely you'd have to
agree that it can only be relevant if people _choose_ to live
according to Christian principles - it's pointless forcing them to
do so by enacting laws (eg. anti-gay laws or anti-suicide laws)
if they don't agree with those principles.
(At least where other people are not being harmed)
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) First, explain to me how 2 gay men "create" a family. Not possible. Unless, you say, if they adopt. In my perfect world, there would be no children for such "couples" to adopt, because orphaned children would be care for by immediate family (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) you (...) hetereo (...) that's (...) I believe I asked you to justify what could be inferior about 2 gay men as the head of a family unit, not simply to restate the fact that you believed that :) (...) I can't see any difference - as long as (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) If a Democratic government decides (ie the will of the people, the *majority*) to sanction hetereo marriages and not homosexual ones, what's wrong with that? I think a case can be made that the traditional nuclear family is a good foundation (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
