02-02-2005, 01:46 AM
Quote:Theres a fairly lengthy discussion on gay marriage on this board, it was one of the nominations for thread of the year last year. I made my feelings on the subject known there. In short, I think the "where does it stop" argument is ridiculous. It the party line for conservatives. The precise challenge for morally serious people is to make rational distinctions between what is arbitrary and what is essential in important social institutions. If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage—or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs
I would never be so petty and ridiculous as to claim “people will end up marrying their dogs” and no, I will not make the argument that homosexuality or lesbianism is related to or comparable with child molestation. I am however using the “where does it end” argument when it comes to polygamy. What do you say to the wife who’s husband comes home to his family of three that he cannot support and says, “Hey honey, guess what. I got married, again”. Where does that leave the wife? She can’t divorce on the grounds of adultery because his other marriage is legal. What would this do to healthcare costs? How many families will be covered? Bottom line is this. We are a country that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. We will not discriminate against those who choose and alternative lifestyle, BUT, we will not change our laws to accommodate the you. We are a nation of toleration, not adaptation to anything and everything.
Quote:I'm fine with that, but the far right christian agenda calls for way more than that.You’re talking far right. Not what’s in control of the White House and that’s not what mobilized the Republican vote this year. Sure, there were some morality issues but there were many, many more issues than that. One of which was the Democratic ticket containing a weakling cardboard prop who couldn’t take a stand on anything because he had to please too many bases. One of which was the extreme left cooks, the conspiracy theorists and all around Bush haters. He allowed them to control him and that’s the last thing we need in a time of war.
Quote:Keep your religious items out of my houses of goverment. The government should not be showing preference to one religion or another especially by sanctioning a statue of religious nature. The first commandment requires that no god other than Yahweh is to be worshipped. This is in open conflict with the "first freedom" in the U.S. and Canada -- religious freedom. The second commandment, interpreted literally, punishes a man's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and perhaps even great-great grandchildren if the man has sinned by serving other Gods. Spreading the responsibility for one person's sin onto innocent descendents was common in the ancient Middle East. However, most contemporary ethical systems -- both secular and religious -- hold a person responsible only for their own actions. Punishing innocent children widely considered a seriously immoral act. The fifth commandment requires that children honor their parents. Many would feel that it is unreasonable to expect a child to honor a parent who was a sexual molester, a physical abuser or was guilty of neglect. There are two problems associated with the tenth commandment:
It treats women as pieces of property It condones slavery. The terms "manservant" and "maidservant" in the King James Version of the Bible refer to male and female slaves. Equal treatment for men and women form an integral part of many religious groups' beliefs. Almost all North American religious groups reject the concept of owning another human being in a state of slavery.
No one is saying they need to be there for guidance. They’re there for symbolism. Judges and juries do not refer to the 10 commandments statue to help them make their decisions.
It’s just another exercise in extreme political correctness to throw a hissy fit over a statue.
Quote:you need to be more specific in your response as to why my take on Iraq is unfounded.
You say it’s a religious war, yet the only thing you back it up with is that Bush readily admits he’s a person of faith and some obscure 3rd hand quote printed by some sand nigger that doesn’t even speak English.
This war has to do with 9/11 and the results of complacency. It has to do with Saddam having 13 years and 17 U.N. Resolutions to comply (which we now don’t blame him for not doing given his false impression of protection due to the U.N. Oil For Food Scandal involving many of our allies)
Go back to the late 90’s and read some of the Clinton administrations statements on Iraq, you’ll find that they aren’t all that different then the statements made by the Bush administration. Oh, and spare me the no WMD argument. While I admit that’s a blow, it still doesn’t answer where they are.
Saddam was responsible for proving they were destroyed – he didn’t.
Every nation on earth with an intelligence agency said they knew Saddam had WMD’s. Including those countries who opposed the war. (France, Germany and Russia)
Hell, a few months back Putin even admitted Russian intelligence had information that Saddam was interested in helping to strike the U.S. after 9/11.
So yeah, I think calling it a religious war is intentionally leaving out a mountain of issues.