Leaving the community

"Roger" wrote in message
...
I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

Technically, they have no control. But honestly, why would a party that
claims to be "conservative" (it was the Radical Republicans that argued for
ending slavery, for crying out loud..."conservativism" in its purest form,
IMHO) all of the sudden swing around and start wanting to restrict
individual's behavior?

The Republican Party is strongly against legalizing gay marriage and
abortion, is strongly in favor of prayer and religious references in schools
and government (but only Christian prayer and references, naturally), and
there's even a pretty good movement that's been going for the last couple of
decades to teach the book of Genesis in science classes.

For a party that claims to be "conservative", they have swung about as far
way out the other direction as is possible, on several issues, all of which
directly related to personal liberties. Of course, they are still in favor
of businesses being able to do whatever they want.

Basically, the Republican Party is only "conservative" when there's money in
it for them and their own. Otherwise, they've been whoring themselves out
to the Bible Belt for a long while already.

The correlation between the Republican Party's faith-based lawmaking and
Christian evangelical and fundamentalist groups is well-documented. Anyone
who thinks it's just some old canard has their head in the sand.

Pete

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

C J Campbell wrote:

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Stefan

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.

I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.

Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
different.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article vnpkd.81153$R05.56261@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:


I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.

I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.

Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
different.


I agree with you entirely on this and have done exactly the same thing
with my own four now grown children (and my teaching seems to have,
fortunately, "taken" with all four of them, for which I take some
satisfaction, even if not necessarily credit).

I'd also like to extend my understanding of the non-religious arguments
involved in other of our country's current political issues, and maybe
you can help.

I also happen to have -- as I'd be pretty sure you do also -- at least
one specific close relative (not actually one of my children) who is an
openly gay or lesbian person, and who I also know is absolutely a fine,
moral, admirable, and productive person.

So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

Please note: I'm not attributing any views on this issue either way to
you; I have no idea what your views are (and my prediction that you'll
have at least a few gay or lesbian individuals among your not too
distant relatives is based only on simple statistics).

But you're in a Red state, and occasionally outspoken on issues; and I'm
in a Blue state, and genuinely puzzled by this particular issue. So,
what are the non-religious argments on this issue that drive the Red
states to this level of action?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.

That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of the
consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing gays
to marry might hurt someone.

Like you, I'd love to hear any proposed "non-religious argument against gay
marriage". Mainly because all the ones I've heard so far are so stupid,
they make me laugh. And I love a good joke.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual marriage?
Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits. I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now, these
judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They
answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or
the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen to
think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.

That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of
the consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing
gays to marry might hurt someone.

Thanks, Pete, for filling in for me.

However, your distorted view of my point (from way back when we were
discussing the problems that come along with allowing a homosexual Boy Scout
leader to take boys on overnight camping trips) doesn't cast any light on
the question this gentleman is trying to answer.

CJ did a pretty good job of answering the question, however. It's not a
matter of denying homosexuals the right to marry -- it's a matter of
distorting the definition of "marriage" to fit your agenda.

"Marriage" is the union of a man and a woman. There are no laws (to my
knowledge) forbidding homosexuals from engaging in this practice.
Therefore, no discrimination exists.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing
to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down
from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves evolution,
something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more than others.

mike regish

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:vqadnZi1WJDNtw_cRVn-

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.