Thanks!

Boy, the Fundies would crap their pants if they knew your barbies are
lesbians! ha Maybe my son's Superman should have a gay fling with his
Batman! And then he can go to school and show the other kiddies and I get
called into the principal's office and then I tell her off for wasting my
time. Awww, I truly am a battle ax....and make no apologies for it!

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:20 AM, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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 >>
>>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to