Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:02:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
524 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > > Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people".
> >
> > Isn't that a majority?
>
> No. Check out what "Pure Democracy is Evil" has to say about majority
> rule. I love the silly quotes at the bottom.
So I agree that unfettered democracy is evil. I think what Orion is asking you
is for a definition of "enough people." I'm curious too.
> The minute you show up in *public*, prancing around naked with your
> various body piercings flailing about, you impinge upon *my* freedom
> to ignore you.
I think there is a degree of behavior that could be called impinging on your
freedom, but simply choosing not to wear as many clothes as you while going
about my perfectly natural business doesn't seem like that.
> And don't get me started on the marriage thing. Marriage is NOT a
> right.
Um, I think that every way you can look at it, you're wrong. Article 16 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights says you're wrong. But hey, we in the US
don't give a stinking rat's turd what the UN says, right? OK, so how about the
fact that marriage is a right in English common law -- the very foundation of
our judicial system? The normal limitation (and this applies for appropriate
age and other mental capacity issues) on this right is to those with
"sufficient understanding to deal in the common transactions of life."
> It's a construct invented by organized religion and supported
> by the government, ostensibly to provide some stability for children
> in order to safeguard our future.
It almost certainly predates religion.
> Demonstrate an equivalent benefit
> to society when it's extended to gay couples.
The benefit to society would be the affirmation that homosexuals are people too.
It would help, in the long run, if not immediately, to remove the strife
experienced between homosexuals and the close-minded bigots who oppose their
equal access to the law. Further, I reject that the governing of marriage and
more specifically, reproduction, actually does provide the benefit you cite.
What do you think, that people would stop raising children with we did away with
the institution of marriage as an object of governance?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) I don't think any one definition fits all situations. Look at the peanuts on airplanes issue. Apparently these peanuts cause an extreme amount of suffering for a rather small number of people. The relativly light pain caused to others by (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) No. Check out what "Pure Democracy is Evil" has to say about majority rule. I love the silly quotes at the bottom. (URL) The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad (...) Agreed. Except for one small detail. You don't (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
