Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:08:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1695 times
|
| |
|
|
--SNIP--
| |
| |
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...
|
I agree completely, but we’ll have to wait and see what happens before deciding
on this.
| |
| |
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.
|
Wasn’t me who confused the two. It was you. Thus my statement above regarding
conservatism and fundamentalism.
| |
| |
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.
|
I’ve seen no proof that either of these statements are correct. Were these
claims made by the same people who went looking for the WMDs in Iraq by any
chance?
| |
| |
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.
|
To quote you “I frankly don’t care what they believe; it’s what they do that
can concern me...”
--SNIP--
| |
| |
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
|
In Australia we manage quite well with a thing called de facto relationships.
It accords the same rights as marriage to couples who have been cohabiting for a
reasonable length of time. You need to prove you’ve been cohabiting to be
granted it but in the case of your beloved man and wife couples that wouldn’t be
a problem.
Tim
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
