Leaving the community

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual
marriage?

A general belief in non-discrimination is sufficient 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.

Suggest all you want, it ain't true. Homosexuals make up a very tiny
proportion of our population. Plenty of corporations already extend
"partner benefits" to unmarried couples, including homosexuals, and it has
not made any sort of noticeable dent in the bottom line.

There's no "major cost". Any potential "minor cost" hypothesized can easily
be offset by further hypothesizing by a "minor benefit". (Economic benefit
to eliminating a discriminated-against group, for example).

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.

Funny. I wonder if the same arguments were made when we gave voting rights
to blacks. Or to women. "Gosh, you never know WHO ELSE will want the same
thing!"

There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships

So, let them. What do I care?

, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous.

Spouse abuse and incest is already illegal, and occurs with frightening
regularity in marriages currently allowed by law. As you also point out,
abuse and incest already happens in "marriages" not legally sanctioned. How
do you know that making such marriages legal won't allow them to be more
public, and provide greater legal standing for spouses who are abused.

Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

Oh, please. Let them try. A person's sexual orientation isn't anywhere
close to the same difference that exists between a child and an adult. We
have plenty of laws that discriminate against children, and generally for
good reason. You're just being absurd now.

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.

You pretend to know the law better than those judges? Uh, sure. Nice
fantasy world you live in there.

Whether you agree with them or not, judges generally do their best to follow
the letter of the law. If ever there was a canard being thrown around, it's
the "activist judges are changing the law!" panic attack the religious right
is having. I haven't looked as closely at the other states, but in
Washington the two decisions made already (by two different judges!) made
very clear the letter of the law they were following. State constitutional
protection against discrimination is a very strong foundation on which to
base the decisions.

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.

I can?

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.

Widespread violence? Civil disorder? Disrespect and politicization of the
judicial system? You're on a trip, man. Other than a handful of
whacked-out fundamentalists who mind-bogglingly believe that it's okay to
kill full-grown adults, but not blastocysts, what violence and civil
disorder are you talking about? They are a mere blip on the radar compared
to other public safety issues, like gang violence, sexual predators, and
even terrorist attacks like OK City and 9/11.

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

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.

Seriously, dude...give me some of what you're taking. I gotta see what the
fuss is all about.

Most people, even the evangelicals and fundamentalists, if homosexual
marriage were legalized, would get over it. The rest of us already do a
host of other crap they think dooms us to hell anyway, and it's not like by
preventing gays from marrying, they prevent them from having sex (well,
maybe it prevents the fundamentalist gays from having sex...I dunno). If we
can get past suffrage for blacks and inter-racial marriage, a few
homosexuals getting married isn't going to doom the country. Not even
close.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
om...

What moral values again? The USA would have been better off to let
the slavers seceed. They've been dragging the country down for
centuries: slavery, bigotry, and financially. And now they're
sticking us with idiots like Bush.

Wow. And you call others bigots.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


The military that makes a living going to war for the US? The military
that
would be cut back if there weren't any apparent need for it?


Our troops only get paid during war time? Why would anyone ever enlist for
that?

Allen

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Malcolm Teas) wrote:

Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

which brings to mind that saying about the rooster thinking
the sun rises because he crows...

No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.

So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
Government is responsible for appropriation.


And time that people learned the difference between CORRELATION and
CAUSATION.

Also, it's time they learned to dig in and get economic data that explains
such things as tax revenue during boom years, the y2K run-up, that the boom
90's were mostly attributable to Bill GATES, not Bill CLINTON. That the
ground work and foundation for the 90's were laid in the Reagan 80's...

Savvy? My sweaty behind!!

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

These people all had religious beliefs.

Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

I disagree. C.J. has consistently argued that freedom of religion is right
and
proper. That implies a recognition that worship of gods other than the
Judaen/Christian tradition are religions.

And that has...what?, to do with this?

Perhaps he draws the line at the Hindu
pantheon, but he has not implied that he feels that way, AFAIK.

The Greeks and Romans, had legends, but they were not based in
superstition. The Hindu's are primarily philosophic, not religious.

Comments in text:


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

The military that makes a living going to war for the US? The military
that
would be cut back if there weren't any apparent need for it?

The military makes a living by ensuring that no other nation wishes to go to
war against us, not by going to war. Don't you think every nation on earth
would come after us if we had no means of defending ourselves?



Is this a trick question? You might as well ask why a Detroit auto worker
votes for a presidential candidate who promises to increase import tariffs
on cars.

Poor analogy. In the "auto worker" scenario the worker voted for a candidate
that might help him keep his job. In the "military" scenario the soldier
voted for a candidate who had demonstrated that he would use military action
when necessary, and who might put him in a position where he would be
killed.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you don't
hold that belief.


If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what is
it?

After all, if we are nothing but sacks of chemicals, doomed in the end to
become nothing but waste heat, why should we care what happens to us or to
anything else? Nothing we do makes any difference at all if we eventually
just become random ergs scattered throughout the universe.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:58:33 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

There is no evidence that the public was lied to

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and
Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

No where do you hear them saying: "Well we have some sources of
information that indicate Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction
but there are a number of operatives in the CIA who think that this
information is false." They did not say that, even though they knew
this was the case because they did not want the public to know there
was dissent. They especially did not want the Senate and Congress to
know there was dissent because they wanted them to give the White
House the go ahead for war. They were determined to go to war. They
were, according to a number of revelations from White House insiders,
interested in invading Iraq well before the attacks of Sept 11.

They also did not say that their source of information for WMD was
none other than an expatriot Iraqi group who wanted Saddam removed
from power. It now appears that this group was prepared to say
whatever the neoconservatives wanted to hear to make their case. This
conflict of interest should have made them automatically suspect, and
they were suspect to the CIA, but not to the White House.

This is so close to lying to the American public that it's hard to see
the difference.

Corky Scott

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:

snip

My main point was simply that the electorate in general believes what
they
want to believe, regardless of what the actual truth is. This is true of
all people, regardless of party affiliation. My secondary, much less
important point (especially now that the election is over), might be that
I personally feel that lying to the public in order to justify a deadly
war is a much bigger transgression than has been witnessed in the
Executive branch since the Iran-Contra scandal.

Pete


Very well put Pete.

I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled
badly.
The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of
it.
For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.


There is no evidence that the public was lied to. Having and acting on
bad intelligence isn't the same as lying. That would imply that the
intelligence was known to be bad and I simply don't think that was the
case.

Sure, certain things about the invasion and aftermath were bungled, but
you don't fire people for making a mistake or two. If that was the case,
then not a single congressman would survive more than one term.

And most of us would have lost our pilot's licences long ago if a mistake
or two was the metric.


Matt


And according to NPR this morning they find Sarin in Falluja. Sounds like a
WMD to me.