Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:25:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1502 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Once again, show me in the Constitution any mention of “gay” rights.
|
Does it say anything about the rights of Republican voters? :)
| |
| |
Parenthetically, it’s great when straight white guys tell gays and/or blacks
what they should think their rights are.
|
As I said-- all of those things should be irrelevant.
|
So you disagree with Hood’s proposal? I guess I was assuming you were agreeing,
but that is admittedly pretty presumptious of me.
| |
It isn’t, and here is why, Dave! Right now the government recognizes unions
between 1 man and 1 woman. If you are going to set out and change that
because you feel it is wrong in some way, then the challenge is to come up
with a more equitable solution that doesn’t equally discriminate. I don’t
see how that can be done.
|
I don’t think gay marriage is the point on this one-- but how is allowing gays
to get married not equitable? As far as I can see, you’re allowing government
perks to one group, and disallowing them to another group. So allowing both to
have the same perks is *more* equitable, by definition. How does it
discriminate?
| |
| |
Hagen isn’t arguing on behalf of centenarians or polygamists, so your
insistence that the issues be linked or equated is a straw man (and a
very common tactic among Conservative pundits and legislators who favor
discrimination against homosexuals, by the way).
|
These are other groups who are equivalent in nature to gays. Any arguments
for gay adoption should apply to others as well.
|
Let’s be a bit more clear here. Are there presently laws against polygamists
adopting? Are there presently laws against gays adopting? Are there laws against
elderly adopting? I’m not aware of any, but then again, I don’t know. So, to the
best of my knowledge, polygamists and centenarians already HAVE those rights, so
they don’t need to be fought for.
What Hood’s bill is trying to do is *revoke* rights from those who already HAVE
them. Hence, it’s our duty to let them *keep* their rights.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
