If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#461
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#466
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#467
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#468
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#469
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#470
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 556 | November 30th 04 08:08 PM |
aero-domains for anybody in the aviation community | secura | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 26th 04 07:37 PM |
Unruly Passengers | SelwayKid | Piloting | 88 | June 5th 04 08:35 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Big Kahunas | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 360 | December 20th 03 12:59 AM |