Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 06:59:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1738 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
I will consider your removal of and lack of counterargument to the prior text
to be agreement. I’m glad I could be so convincing. ;)
|
You were just asserting that the US was a secular demo, no? We are. But most
of our FF were men of faith and our very existence was due to those who were
looking to practice their religion freely, so we have an integral, religious
history.
| |
| |
I also believe secular democracies are best. Democracies come in second.
Now, I’ve never supported religion-based laws per se-- I’ve supported laws
that are based on religious values. I think that there is an important
distinction there. I respect no particular religion, but certainly I prefer
certain values certain religions profess.
|
I don’t really see much difference here but it is a matter of semantics and
thus purely opinion based.
| |
Everybody gets their values from somewhere; that some get them from
religion is irrelevant.
|
Which I think kind of defeats the thrust of your earlier argument.
|
I don’t know if I’m really arguing anything. Everyone’s values come from
somewhere. A secular state can have laws based on values derived from religion
and not be a religious state. Do you dispute this?
| |
| |
But if we continue this conversation, I think it would be best to select a
concrete example and examine it more closely.
JOHN
|
Sure. Gay civil marriage. I believe you have made your opinions on that topic
quite clear before.
|
I’m not so sure that my views on this topic are “quite clear”, because every
time that I try to articulate them, I feel that they are misunderstood. But
since you and I have never discussed them with each other, I’ll have another go
at explaining them.
First, I believe that the traditional family (1 husband, 1 wife, n children) is
the most efficient way to rear children and to perpetuate a given society, at
least in our country. There are other forms that work, but ideally, this is the
optimum config. I believe then, that the State has a vested interest in
promoting the most efficient rearing of its next generation. If you dispute
this, please cite a better system.
So, the State decides to recognize this most important aspect of society (the
socialization and rearing of its youth) and set apart the institution of
marriage. Yes, the intended goal is for a marriage to produce offspring, but it
is not a requirement.
So the State recognizes the union of 1 man and 1 woman as a special
relationship. This is most equitable; any person (male or female) can choose
another other person of the opposite sex, to be their spouse (notice that sexual
preference is not taken into account). So, a straight man or a gay man have
the same right to choose any female they want for marriage.
Now you say, “But what if a gay man doesn’t want to select a female. What if
he wants to marry a man? Okay, for the sake of argument then, the State then
decides to change it’s stance and recognize the union of any 1 person to any
other person. Problem’s solved, yes?
Not quite. Because now comes along a polygamist. He wants not just 1 wife, but
3. So who is to say that his wishes shouldn’t be honored? And now (you
guessed it) along comes a
British women and
she wants to marry a dolphin. And the next thing you know, some clown wants to
marry his pet rock.
Here’s my point. The line must be drawn somewhere; otherwise the marrige
relationship will be meaningless-- it will be indistinguishable from any other
kind of relationship.
So currently the State recognizes a 1 man and 1 woman marriage relationship. If
that were to change in any way, I don’t see the justification for not
recognizing any relationship, no matter how inane. A 1 person to any another
1 person recognition discrimates against a 1 person to any number of other
persons just as much as a 1 male to 1 female does against it.
So to replace an “inequitable situation” with another inequitable situation is
just pointless.
No doubt this is as clear as mud, but now it’s late and I’m tired...
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
109 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
|
|
|
|
