Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:19:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1784 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
Which is all fine up until the point where the separation of church and
state begins to be eroded. That point has almost been reached, and, with
President Bush’s new Court nominations is in danger of being reached.
|
You are repeating simply the sour grapes of one group who isn’t currently in
power. Boo-hoo. Bush’s nominations are eminently qualified to hold their
positions. Even if Roe v. Wade were to be repelled, that still means
nothing. Why is it that a conservative court is tantamount to
totalitarianism, but a liberal court is normative. Sour grapes (putting it
nicely).
|
No John. I’m not repeating (nor speaking of) sour grapes. I have nothing against
the conservatism of the appointees, I have something against the religious
fundamentalism of them. You know, the same thing you don’t like in Muslims.
As it is, I realise that I am talking about a nominee that even the Rebuplican
party wouldn’t allow as opposed to the far more reasonable chap they did
eventually appoint.
| |
But this is a state issue, not a federal one (as it is here as well). At
some point you are restricted by what the majority wants, for whatever the
reason. Motivation doesn’t really matter, whether religion, tradition, or
superstition based. As long as the law is within the limits of the
Constitution (State and Federal), your option is to get it changed by law.
That is how the process works. But it isn’t the process to try and initiate
change via judical fiat. This is the real reason why liberals are literally
freaking out over conservative judges: not because they will help initiate
an executive monarchy, but because their avenue of instituting change while
in the minority is blocked.
|
And how is that different to countries in the Middle East where the najority are
in favour of Sharia law? Or where the majority are in favour of terrorism
against other countries? If the majority should rule then we should be leaving
countries like Iraw alone rather than trying to bring them ‘freedom’.
| |
| |
That’s by far the best summary I’ve seen about it from you. Not at all clear
as mud. I disagree with certain points but the argument is quite clear based
on your assumptions.
Firstly I don’t believe that a society composed only of nuclear families is
the best system. I believe a society benefits greatly from childless and/or
single people (eg. there is more tax money per child for schools).
|
I was speaking specifically to the issue of child rearing. I think having
a 1 father, 1 mother family is the optimal system. Of course there are
single parent families due to death, and multiple parent families due to
divorce/remarriage, and other scenarios as well. But the one I believe to be
the best for raising a child is the one I described. I didn’t mean to
suggest that everybody should conform to that model.
|
But by that argument you should have no problem with people getting married who
aren’t going to conform to the mode. In no way are they changing the child
bearing model if they have no intention of having children.
| |
| |
Personally I would allow for marriage any arrangement that is agreed upon
and does not cause harm for any of the members involved. Thus allowing
polygamy but forbidding goats (since a goat cannot make it’s opinions felt).
The State has no business recognising one sort of living arrangement over
another.
|
Don’t you think that the State has a vested interest in the development of
its future generations? That to me is the whole reason for recognizing
marriage. If not for that, then I would agree with you.
|
Not really. I think the State should be there to ensure that a society is fair,
safe and equitable and do little or no more than that.
| |
| |
Of course, as you say, this muddies things so I think the best system is for
the State not to legally recognise any sort of Oath based union and
recognise relationships only on their duration. Marriage would become a
purely religious ceremony with no recognition in Law thus allowing each
religion (or areligious organisation) to practise its own preferences. Now
that solves the problem for everyone.
|
But a solid and stable family unit is the best foundation for a society, and
I believe it is in the best interest of the State to foster them.
JOHN
|
If there was no State sanctioned marriage but you and your wife could still go
throught the same motions in a church do you really think it would make any
difference to you? Note that under my proposal you would have exactly the same
rights as you have now assuming you has been in a relationship for long enough.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
