Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Well, you seem to have a problem with the term ‘marraige’ being redefined.
|
EUREKA! Really, is it that obscure what I’m arguing?
|
John, we all understand what you’re arguing. We just disagree with you.
|
You know what, in my crazier moments I’d be happy to leave the definition of
“marriage” to whatever non governmental sanctioning bodies wanted to sanction
it, and they can define it however they like. As part of that leaving I’d then
go through with a big red pen and change every single occurance of the word
marriage in the entire body of US law to a different term. “Relationship
contract” for example, I dunno. I’m not really attached to the word Marriage per
se.
But in exchange for that I would expect that the goverment STOP
discriminating in favor of a particular sort of relationship contract and
against other sorts. No forbidding contracts, of whatever sort, among
consenting contractable entities (of whatever species, should dolphins get
Uplifted, or aliens arrive bearing gifts, as long as they’re competent to enter
into contracts)... No awarding government benefits, tax breaks, preferences, or
special favors to persons who entered into certain permutations of the
possibilities. No recognising inheritance to flow a certain way in certain cases
but not flow to other equally valid contractual arrangements. And so forth. An
end to relationship discrimination.
But I bet John (and his co-religionists) would not take that deal despite it
meeting what he currently claims he wants, because it would mean that the
government would be, however slightly, removed from imposing JudeoChristian
values on everyone. And that, I fear, he cannot accept. In the final analysis,
he thinks he is better than we are, and his irrational morality is superior to
one that merely espouses live and let live.
(as a side note, I am not a moral relativist, long term readers know that... I
am happy to claim that certain systems, certain moralities are superior to
others, it’s just that my yardstick is a much simpler one than “god said so”,
(which can be rather tricky to interpret and enforce) it’s merely evaluating
which system better adheres to honoring individual rights...)
So for that reason, until these imposers of unjust morality are stopped once
and for all (and I think the Founding Fathers think they did just that,
regrettably, and I think they’d be dismayed to see how it has unraveled), I am
not ready to cede control of the term Marriage. Instead I’ll fight for its
expansion to include all valid relationship arrangements.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
|
|
|
|
