http://wweek.com/columns/qw/#35.03
and as to santa... http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=16562 On Nov 28, 7:45 am, "Angelia Stinnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
