Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:57:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1875 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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.
|
I frankly don’t care what they believe; it’s what they do that can concern
me...
| |
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.
|
Harriet Miers was a terrible choice-- unqualified, and a crony. The Dems should
be thankful that they were spared the job of excoriating a woman nominee (who
probably had a chance simply due to her femaleness).
“Conservative” and “religious right” are not synonyms.
| |
| |
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?
|
If they want to live under Sharia, let them. If someone there doesn’t like it,
then they can always come to America (or elsewhere).
| |
Or where the majority are in favour of terrorism
against other countries?
|
Now we have a problem, Houston. For obvious reasons.
| |
If the majority should rule then we should be
leaving countries like Iraw alone rather than trying to bring them ‘freedom’.
|
If Iran isn’t training terrorists to attack other countries, and if Iran isn’t
building nukes for purposes of exterminating Israel, then they can do as they
wish. But then again, they are currently engaged in both. Houston, we have a
problem.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
But you can’t assume that to be true. At the heart of the gay marriage issue is
the desire to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. They aren’t equal.
They are not simply “lifestyle choices”. It goes a lot deeper than that.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
This has been advocated by Dave! But there are a lot of logistical and legal
reasons why recognizing marriage is a good idea-- a lot to do with property
rights. Where is Lar when ya need him?
JOHN
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
