Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Feb 2006 05:36:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1864 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--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.
|
Well, see, this is part of the problem. If we wait, for instance, until Iran
gets nukes and uses them, then it is a bit late, don’t you agree? This is the
reason for pre-emptive strikes. A stitch in time and all of that.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I guess I was just making a distincetion that often gets missed by those on the
left.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Seriously, why do you think that Iran is jerking the UN around right now? For
kicks? Surely they realize the high stakes game they are playing, what with the
example of SH and Iraq. Their conduct is completely unacceptable. And if
they are stoopid enough to rattle enough nuclear swords, they are going to be
punished. Israel, who is within missile range simply cannot afford to sit
back, given the unbelievable rhetoric flying out of that place. They are
literally (:-) giving the world no choice but to strike.
| |
| |
| |
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...”
|
This is strange-- we are talking about gay marriage AND Iran in the same post...
That comment was directed at Iran.
| |
--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.
|
We have this as well in 15 of our states I believe (common law marriage) But
same-sex relationships don’t count.
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
|
|
|
|
