Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:24:48 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net%avoidspam%
|
Viewed:
|
1222 times
|
| |
|
|
Simon Robinson wrote:
> 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.
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 first, and barren hetereos wishing children second. I would say a hetereo
couple wanting a child is preferrable to a gay couple wanting a child; if that's
considered thinking the latter is inferior, then yes.
>
> Why? Isn't how people treat each other and members of their families
> the important thing rather than their sexual orientation?
Yes, but it's more complicated than that. All things being equal, would you
prefer a hetereo or a gay couple to raise a child?
> > 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)
I do. And stop calling me Shirley;-)
-John
>
>
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
