Padded-glove Righties...

[Adam Weinberg]

I was drifting off to sleep and I realized I could have saved many pages of writing with just a simple question:

Why is the right to life so important?

Isn't it because that life is invaluable, unique in all of creation, and that the life belongs to that unborn person who should have the right to pursue it to the fullest nature will allow?

Why is it ever less important that this special person who was so worth being born, is not worth granting the liberty to live out the free choices they wish to make to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny?

Didn't you fight for the life in the womb so it could go on and live in peace and freedom? Was there ever a condition in your mind about the kind of life they should live?

Even if you disagree with what they do with their freedom, isn't their right to life interconnected with their other liberties? Aren't they just as important? If they do nothing to offend your liberties, do you really have the right by any means to interfere with theirs, even if it makes you anxious about what the future might hold?

That's all I'm asking, I suppose.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Should we devoid ourselves of societal morality because morality is associated with the church? .

No. So define it rationally. Check my sig, biatch.

Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Dixie, I think societal morality is an oxymoron in most cases. Our society is perverted from the top down, to be a massive instrument of dysfunction and death.

 

[midcan5]

Dixie lives in a fantasy world so deep that coming to the surface would take a millennium. He should simply label his thoughts the 'World of Dixie, a world no one can enter as it exists only in his imagination. Republican political governance since Reagan / Gingrich / Bush has been a failure, the rotten fruit of that failure is all too obvious today.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html

"The reality is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power of the government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income upward. However, conservatives have been clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, pretending all along that everything is just the natural working of the market. And, progressives have been foolish enough to go along with this view."

 

[midcan5]

Why is the right to life so important?

Isn't it because that life is invaluable, unique in all of creation, and that the life belongs to that unborn person who should have the right to pursue it to the fullest nature will allow?

Life requires context, I agree that life is unique - at least in our immediate limits of knowing - but life is more a force than a right. Every month people decide if they want the responsibilities, burdens, and joys that life brings. but life requires context and hope. It is in this curious juxtaposition of values that liberals and conservatives differ. Liberals want life to be meaningful and full, I am never sure conservatives want the same.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Dixie lives in a fantasy world so deep that coming to the surface would take a millennium. He should simply label his thoughts the 'World of Dixie, a world no one can enter as it exists only in his imagination. Republican political governance since Reagan / Gingrich / Bush has been a failure, the rotten fruit of that failure is all too obvious today.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html

"The reality is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power of the government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income upward. However, conservatives have been clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, pretending all along that everything is just the natural working of the market. And, progressives have been foolish enough to go along with this view."

Dixie is just another run of the mill internationalist fascist totalitarian, but he tries to dress himself up to appeal to both the christian right and jibber jabber new agers.

 

[Canceled2]

I was drifting off to sleep and I realized I could have saved many pages of writing with just a simple question:

Why is the right to life so important?

Isn't it because that life is invaluable, unique in all of creation, and that the life belongs to that unborn person who should have the right to pursue it to the fullest nature will allow?

Why is it ever less important that this special person who was so worth being born, is not worth granting the liberty to live out the free choices they wish to make to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny?

Didn't you fight for the life in the womb so it could go on and live in peace and freedom? Was there ever a condition in your mind about the kind of life they should live?

Even if you disagree with what they do with their freedom, isn't their right to life interconnected with their other liberties? Aren't they just as important? If they do nothing to offend your liberties, do you really have the right by any means to interfere with theirs, even if it makes you anxious about what the future might hold?

That's all I'm asking, I suppose.

I believe that the "right to life" speaks to the answer in and of itself. When a woman finds herself with an unwanted preganancy should her rights to liberty include killing another human being? This is where societal responsibility, i.e. the government, meets the question.

With regards to homosexual marriage, not homosexual activity; the societal responsibility meets the question when viewed from what is governements role in protecting society as a whole. To pretend that the errosion of the family has not harmed society, and that establishing a firm support of the family is a role government can and should play is naieve. Marriage is the institution of the family.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. So define it rationally. Check my sig, biatch.

Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

Wow, what a coincidence, so is the Mafia! So are wolf packs! So are street gangs! I never realized they were all practicing pure unadulterated morality!

AssClown, you are an idiot. You've spewed this nonsense for months, even after being handed your ass in debate on the subject. Apparently, you think, if you just keep repeating nonsense, it will one day become relevant! You and Lummox need to form a club!

btw... biatch.... i have sigs turned off.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Wow, what a coincidence, so is the Mafia! So are wolf packs! So are street gangs! I never realized they were all practicing pure unadulterated morality!

AssClown, you are an idiot. You've spewed this nonsense for months, even after being handed your ass in debate on the subject. Apparently, you think, if you just keep repeating nonsense, it will one day become relevant! You and Lummox need to form a club!

btw... biatch.... i have sigs turned off.

All you have is a misunderstanding of the ironic "protection money" tradition of the mafia. Street gangs and the mafia care little of the mutual benefit aspect of my definition.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Life requires context, I agree that life is unique - at least in our immediate limits of knowing - but life is more a force than a right. Every month people decide if they want the responsibilities, burdens, and joys that life brings. but life requires context and hope. It is in this curious juxtaposition of values that liberals and conservatives differ. Liberals want life to be meaningful and full, I am never sure conservatives want the same.

Actually, biology and science says, a life requires a sperm and an egg. That, and time, is all that is needed to produce a life. In the United States, we have a little thing called a Constitution, and it guarantees us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What was that first word again? Oh yeah... LIFE! So, life is a right enumerated in our Constitution. If you don't like that, change the Constitution.

When it comes to abortion, liberals want life to be redefined, they want to call life something else, so they can exterminate it. They couldn't give two shits about life being meaningful and full, because they completely ignore the emotional damage done to millions of lives each year, who decided they should kill their baby for convenience sake. Like all issues from the left, they mouth off these illustrious phrases, as if they are on some righteous high horse, but the words ring hollow. The fact is, liberals are responsible for over 40 million lives being lost since Roe v. Wade, and they don't bat an eyelash over it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

All you have is a misunderstanding of the ironic "protection money" tradition of the mafia. Street gangs and the mafia care little of the mutual benefit aspect of my definition.

LOL... Well of course they do care about mutual benefit. You respect their territory, and your mutual benefit is, you live! You see, it all depends on your perspective and how you see "mutual benefit!" From the mobster's perspective, he is providing a service (protection) for a fee, and the recipient is getting a service (protection). It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. Completely moral in your book!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

LOL... Well of course they do care about mutual benefit. You respect their territory, and your mutual benefit is, you live! You see, it all depends on your perspective and how you see "mutual benefit!" From the mobster's perspective, he is providing a service (protection) for a fee, and the recipient is getting a service (protection). It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. Completely moral in your book!

No. Because the mafia is playing two roles, the potential murderer and the protector. Threats of violence are not beneficial. Stop being moronic.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

First of all, I just want to chime in that I really appreciate this respectful dialogue so far. It's definitely a change of pace.

With regards to homosexual marriage, not homosexual activity; the societal responsibility meets the question when viewed from what is governements role in protecting society as a whole.

As I said before, isn't it a bit convenient that same-sex sexual activity is not the target here, now that we live in a country where the courts have decided that these things cannot be banned? Before this precedent, the same explanation was used to justify anti-sodomy laws (or laws that prevented gays and lesbians from being teachers)- that they protect society as a whole from corruption.

Or for that matter, any other kind of social expectation which was subject to law...like what words could come out of Lenny Bruce's mouth at a stand-up act, or images Larry Flynt could print in his magazines. As you know, in all of these cases it was eventually determined that to be legally protected from the moral inconvenience or discomfort of these peculiarities meant that the people were less secure in their constitutional liberties.

In reality, it seems these laws only protect the preferences of people who are against what they consider an anomaly. In this case, same-sex marriages and non-traditional families, while preventing the social advancement or livelihood of those who disagree or do not adhere to those common traditions.

I don't see what legal right you have to be secure in your interpretation of what is a correct society. You do have a right to expect certain forms of social behavior as far as they relate to your freedoms, but going beyond this enables a very dangerous kind of power, and it only goes unrecognized because it is often used for the majority. But that doesn't need to be the case, for sure.

My argument is not whether you can legally acquire these protections. It's whether you should, whether you actually get what you want, or whether you can honestly expect from your government the maintenance of the society you consider appropriate for your values.

I don't believe government can make better families by assigning requirements for what constitutes a family. Governments can assist families in certain ways, particularly through justice and economic avenues, but to discriminate against families that would otherwise form or prevent the creation of families, has anti-family, anti-social consequences.

If anything, the idea that government can secure the institution of family is an alien idea that runs counter to thousands of years of tradition.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Adam, I can somewhat see where you're coming from on a Federal level. I don't think the Federal government has any right to determine collective moral values for the states. However, I do think that society has an obligation and right, to advocate for, and instill, decent societal values in their communities. What is "decent" will differ with the area or community, but this is why it's important for this to take place on the state level, and not at the federal level.

I am opposed to Gay Marriage for a variety of reasons, but the foundational reason is, because it seeks to redefine a somewhat religious institution, on the grounds of sexual lifestyle. Once you redefine marriage to include one sexual lifestyle, you must offer "equal protection under the law" for any other sexual lifestyle which demands it. So, this opens the door for polygamists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, etc... they can claim the same "right to marry" as homosexuals, and according to our Constitution, we have to grant it to them! In other words, it's a can of worms I don't want to open.

The reasonable solution is Civil Unions. Remove the aspect of sexual lifestyle from the debate, as well as the religious sanctity issues. Instead of states issuing "marriage" licenses, they would administer civil union contracts. Those with a civil union contract, could get married by a church, file joint tax returns, buy property, become beneficiaries, adopt children, or whatever traditional married couples now do. It solves the problem of gay couples not having access to the same benefits as their straight counterparts, but it removes the barriers which fundamentally can't be crossed.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Dixie believes that if a majority believe stealing is fine, it should be ok.

 

[unphased]

Actually, biology and science says, a life requires a sperm and an egg. That, and time, is all that is needed to produce a life. In the United States, we have a little thing called a Constitution, and it guarantees us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What was that first word again? Oh yeah... LIFE! So, life is a right enumerated in our Constitution. If you don't like that, change the Constitution.

Really? what's that one of those "super duper, special, secret amendments" to the Constitution or something ?

How about we guess again and this time try the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Dixie believes that if a majority believe stealing is fine, it should be ok.

Well, you're the champion of populism here.

 

[Cancel3]

Really? what's that one of those "super duper, special, secret amendments" to the Constitution or something ?

How about we guess again and this time try the Declaration of Independence.

LMAO!

Now that was funny.

 

[Canceled2]

First of all, I just want to chime in that I really appreciate this respectful dialogue so far. It's definitely a change of pace.



As I said before, isn't it a bit convenient that same-sex sexual activity is not the target here, now that we live in a country where the courts have decided that these things cannot be banned? Before this precedent, the same explanation was used to justify anti-sodomy laws (or laws that prevented gays and lesbians from being teachers)- that they protect society as a whole from corruption.

Or for that matter, any other kind of social expectation which was subject to law...like what words could come out of Lenny Bruce's mouth at a stand-up act, or images Larry Flynt could print in his magazines. As you know, in all of these cases it was eventually determined that to be legally protected from the moral inconvenience or discomfort of these peculiarities meant that the people were less secure in their constitutional liberties.

In reality, it seems these laws only protect the preferences of people who are against what they consider an anomaly. In this case, same-sex marriages and non-traditional families, while preventing the social advancement or livelihood of those who disagree or do not adhere to those common traditions.

I don't see what legal right you have to be secure in your interpretation of what is a correct society. You do have a right to expect certain forms of social behavior as far as they relate to your freedoms, but going beyond this enables a very dangerous kind of power, and it only goes unrecognized because it is often used for the majority. But that doesn't need to be the case, for sure.

My argument is not whether you can legally acquire these protections. It's whether you should, whether you actually get what you want, or whether you can honestly expect from your government the maintenance of the society you consider appropriate for your values.

I don't believe government can make better families by assigning requirements for what constitutes a family. Governments can assist families in certain ways, particularly through justice and economic avenues, but to discriminate against families that would otherwise form or prevent the creation of families, has anti-family, anti-social consequences.

If anything, the idea that government can secure the institution of family is an alien idea that runs counter to thousands of years of tradition.

You are welcome for the civil discourse.

I am not asking government to "secure" the institution of family, rather I ask that it promote its welfare via standing behind what it knows to be that which best establishes its success; in this instance marriage between one man and one woman.

I agree that sodomy laws with regards to consensual sex is a pretty silly business for the government to be into, however sodomy laws that have special punitive sentencing guidelines for victims of rape are the purview of government.

I really think that the test for all issues that ask government to intervene is "protection from harm". This test can be for society as a whole or the individual. It would need to pass a series of litmus tests to be sure, but this is imo, a valid approach.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Well, you're the champion of populism here.

Populism is not mob rule.