On 10/03/2010 11:17 PM, Pete Theisen wrote: > Leland Jackson wrote: > >> Good; I'm not anti-religion. On the contrary. I believe whole heatedly >> in the USA Constitution and its first amendment rights of freedom in >> religion. What I oppose is mixing religion and politics, which can lead >> to loss of religious freedom, and a theocratic government, eg( an >> autocratic government that imposes a single nation religion on all its >> citizens). >> >> But, since you're not a political activist working through the church to >> push a political agenda, like defining marriage as between a man >> and a women, or making abortion illegal by passage of USA >> constitutional amendments, then you're not a religious righter. >> >> "Religious Righter" has a connotation of mixing religion and politics, >> while vigorously insisting that you are right in all moral matters. >> A Religious Righter attitude can be messy, as it was in Iraq, after the >> departure of Saddam. > Hi Leland, > > I am opposed to gay marriage and abortion, but not within the context of > religion.
Good. You're not a "Religious Righter". > If we let any religion dictate any law we then have no logical > defense against sharia. I can't claim "whole heatedly", however. Perhaps > whole heartedly. Agreed. > I think gay unions should not be called marriages, but I am OK with > "civil unions" - to the extent that I am not personally disgusted. Gays are just being who they are. No need to be disgusted, as being gay is not a choice. > > However, then men and women should also be allowed "civil unions" with > each other - non-traditional marriages. A civil union between a man and > a woman might allow multiple partners or "weekends off", for example. > The objective is to preserve the idea of traditional marriage AND > legalize the personal behaviors we are seeing nowadays while still > accurately describing these behaviors as non-traditional. If the legal > descriptions are allowed to blur, then the people involved don't know > what to expect when it is falling apart. Who gets the rocking chair? The wife an I fight all the time over who gets the recliner, and our marriage; although not heavenly bliss, is fine. LOL > And abortion! We are one war or epidemic away from depopulation and > people want to kill babies! Who will pay for our senior benefits? To say > nothing about the graying of the population without war, disease or famine. The effects of a major outbreak in disease or famine would take a proportionally larger bit out of the over 65 population, leaving Social Security in better shape than it is today. As we age our bodies begin to die, skin wrinkles, vital organ begin to fail, immune systems weaken . . . you see. A prolonged war, (eg 100 year war), could stunt overall population growth, but with war come hard times, which would, again, hurt the elderly more than the general population. Those under 18 would not be allowed to fight and die, so a brief war shouldn't effect that group to much. Then, after the war comes the celebration and population explosion. If you remember, after WW II there came a generation of "baby boomers" of which I'm a member. LOL _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
