Subject:
|
Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:36:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
466 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
| |
| |
To answer the first part of your paragraph. No, I don’t have a problem with
multiple partner marriages or with communal lifestyles for that matter. It
makes no difference in answering this question that I am in an ordinary
heterosexual two person relationship myself. I don’t have a problem if other
people want to choose something different for themselves from what I choose
for myself.
|
Please, stick to the issue. We are talking about government sanctioned
unions, not tolerance of lifestyles. You want to shack up with a chicken?
Knock yourself out. But you don’t have the “right” of recognition by the
government. But feel free to point it out in the Constitution or BoR.
|
The first phrase of the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...”
| |
| |
Freedom, John. Haven’t you heard? It’s what being an american is supposed
to be about. Privately, you can opine on these subjects as pleases you, but
I would expect a true american to support legislation expanding personal
freedom when it costs the community nothing to provide that freedom to those
that need it.
Can you imagine being denied access to the sickbed of a loved one just
because the law does not recognize the nature of your relationship? Is there
a point to something like that?
|
Sounds like hospital policy to me.
| |
And if you can’t handle that level of freedom for others, let’s take it
another way: it would be my opinion that no one should be granted the
special status of having a legally recognized marriage -- let it remain a
purely symbolic social or religious custom. Why should the state be allowed
to pick and choose from amongst the many possible lifestyles those that are
to be be given the special status of “legal” marriage. Maybe the state
doesn’t need to be in that business at all.
|
You call me “unamerican”, but what you have stated above is completely
unamerican! We live in a Judeo-Christianity society whether you like it or
not, and we have decided as a culture to uphold the traditional male-female
family structure as the foundation of our society.
|
I consider myself a Christian and I am sick of hearing this nonsense.
| |
Attempts to undermine
that foundation are not efforts to protect freedoms, but to destroy the
fabric of our society as we know it. I am afraid that you are in the vast
minority here, because this issue of “family values” cuts through
political, economic, and gender lines.
Your vision of what America should be is simply not shared by the
overwhelming majority of Americans. Whine all you want; it is a free
country.
|
If you have read here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=22019
Well some letters came back touting the same basic thing Mr. Neal did above. I
sent another letter which they actually printed in the local paper again, as it
is relavent to this topic here it is:
There seems to be a popular misconception that our country was founded by
Puritans and Quakers. While those groups had a large impact on the accepted
social mores of our country they had minimal, if any, impact on the founding of
our government.
Most of our founders came to the colonies because of religious
persecution. At the time persons that did not accept the English state church
were branded as heretics and usually executed. The Roman-Catholic Church was not
much better in that regard.
Our founding fathers recognized this as a threat
to freedom and liberty. That is why the first amendment to the constitution
includes the phrase; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...” This isn’t exactly
rocket science, its meaning is quite clear.
Anything the Government does can
not endorse one religious belief over another. In the case of legal marriage,
(not to be confused with the sacred religious vow,) the government treats it as
an entitlement to privileges. As this is a government institution,
constitutionally it must be offered to anyone regardless of their religious
beliefs. If that happens to include homosexual partners that is just tough. They
are entitled to the same constitutional rights and protections as everyone
else.
Note: The other letters were whining about the removal of the Ten
Commandments too
As far as the Ten Commandments, lets be honest here, if we
were talking about removing a statue of Buddha from a courthouse no one would
question its unconstitutionality. The only reason people oppose the removal of
the Ten Commandments is because they agree with that religion. People love
freedom until it works against their beliefs.
I wonder if people realize that
they are unintentionally sending the message that Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Wiccian, and many other religions are not as important as Christianity just
because they are not the majority. (Nevermind the fact that most people are too
close-minded to realize that those of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths,
all pray to the same god. Allah is the Arabic word for God and is not a name.)
Note: The one guy wrote that the ACLU was a puppet of the liberal left because
they fight to legalize lots of things he found morally wrong
Last but not
least is the ACLU. The American Civil Liberties Union is not liberal left,
rather they are extreme conservative right or what people call libertarians.
Above all else this country was founded on liberty. That means that so long as
everyone can legally consent, people can do whatever they want. Who in their
right mind would tell someone otherwise?
Most of what the government tries to
regulate it has no constitutional authority to do so. Teaching morality is the
job of parents not the government. I strongly encourage people to avoid
attempting to force their morals and beliefs on others through “lawmaking.”
History has shown us that oppressors rarely last long and often become the
victims of their own policies. While I can appreciate the poetic justice of
that, I would prefer that we simply leave well enough alone and continue to live
in freedom.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) You can link until the cows come home, but it really proves nothing. Nada. The best you can hope for is that Bush believed intelligence that suggested that WMD still existed (assuming that they indeed don't) and he was wrong. Nobody can prove (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
220 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
|
|
|
|
