Angelia, We can't make it due to family issues, but you how much it matters to me. What I will do that day instead is make sure my little one gets a bit of exposure to alternative lifestyles. I am thinking that Barbie might just have a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend that day. What the heck, we have two wedding dresses. Ha, it is easier to raise unbigoted children than to rip out bigotry:) Now, if I just had two Ken dolls....
good job momasita:) On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I thought your response was exceptionally well-written. Very clear > and down-to-earth. > > On Nov 27, 1:58 pm, "~JP~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is my response to a comment from a blog: > > > > The blog - Irony, fromhttp://reputo-quod-sentio.blogspot.com/ > > (Feel free to comment on his, but please don't bombard him with > > insults and say you found his blog because of me). > > > > I cannot help but find some amusement at the reaction among liberals > > at California's ban on gay marriage. They are collectively outraged! I > > find it ironic that a group that champions democracy - majority (mob) > > rule - suddenly doesn't like it very much when the majority disagrees > > with them. > > > > This is the danger our Founding Fathers saw in democracy - in a > > democracy the rights of a minority can be 'legally' denied with no > > limit on how far those restrictions can go. > > > > What is sad is that, rather than realize that the only legitimate > > function of government is to protect rights that already exist and not > > to grant rights at its discretion and begin to demand such a > > government, these people will seek to subvert the very form of > > government they champion using the courts. They must do this because > > if they acknowledge that their rights do not come from the government > > but are, in fact, inherent in being a rational, volitional human > > being, it undermines their belief that a government has the authority > > to create unnatural rights such as housing, health care, education, > > etc. > > > > ============================================================ > > My response - > > I'm not sure how you define "Liberals", but I consider myself one. I > > highly doubt many people of a progressive or liberal nature would ever > > champion mob rule!! That is completely contradictory to the nature of > > progressive issues as I understand them. If anything, Libertarians > > tend to be of the "51%" mindset, wherein the majority speaks and the > > majority rules, which silences or marginalizes the minority. This is > > the view espoused by columnists such as Jacob Sullum of Reason > > magazine and Steve Chapman, both of whom are reliably libertarian > > leaning. > > > > I agree that the Founding Fathers did not intend for a true democracy > > to flourish and that's why we have a democratic republic. Of course, > > most folks use 'democracy' as the colloquial shorthand to describe the > > American system of gov't. > > > > Using the courts is not 'subverting' our form of gov't; the courts > > exist partly for this reason. That's why we have 3 branches, the > > legislative & executive are not the end-all-be-all. Do you think we > > should have put civil rights for Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, > > women, etc. up to a majority vote in the day & age when those > > struggles were going on? > > > > Lastly, I don't find anything unnatural about the rights you describe > > - a roof over one's head (housing), education, health care, the > > pursuit of happiness - that was enumerated in the Declaration of > > Independence - and a form of happiness is certainly MARRIAGE. How to > > obtain those rights and to what degree they should be provided is up > > for debate. Those are all at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs > > and are quite necessary for a rational, volitional human being to > > function. Our road-building, police protection, and fire protection > > are already socialized, extending it to health care is not much of a > > stretch. The entire postal service would be a better candidate for > > complete privatization instead of healthcare. Equating profits with > > lack of treatment as the insurance companies have done is one of the > > most immoral things about capitalist healthcare, and you don't have to > > watch "Sicko" to realize that! > > > > But let me get back to my point, which was prop. 8 and gay marriage. > > It's immoral and unethical - and eventually will be illegal - to deny > > rights for homosexuals given (or inherent) for heterosexual people. To > > deny those rights for a person's quality that he/she is born with, > > much like skin color, race, gender, etc - all of which are protected > > against federal discrimination is immoral and unethical. Calling them > > 'civil unions' instead of marriage just creates a Separate But Equal > > position, and we all know how well that turned out in the early 20th > > century! > > > > I'm not sure if you're coming from a religious background as I'm > > definitely not, but what flabbergasts & bewilders me about the whole > > opposition to gay rights is confusing what is legal & moral vs. > > whether religions will be "forced" to accept homosexuals and conduct > > gay marriages. Of course churches/mosques/temples won't be coerced to > > do that; it wouldn't hold up to a legal challenge. All homosexuals > > want is equal protection and equal rights under the law, the same that > > heteros have. And I'm very fortunate for those rights & protections, > > but it's despicable that my gay friends don't share in them. > > ~JP > > > -- gnothe se auton --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
