Quote:
|
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Dude, Dudette, whatever your gender/sexual orientation/political outlook is, I now KNOW, beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, that you've never, EVER attended Law School. That's not meant as an insult. Your statement is the equivalent of claiming to read "Swank" and "BiggJuggs" "for the articles".
|
Some of us try out hardest to see the glass as being half full. Laws are
supposed to be based in ethics (the combination of logic and morality). Whether they are or not (not) is up to you. If I was pushing for a law to get passed or not to get passed, I would argue the law's ethical effects. I, as you so eloquently pointed out, am anything but a lawyer.
Quote:
|
That doesn't work with me, since I'm pretty much Anti-Christian, a Heathen, and have, on occasion, been accused of being the [Antichrist] himself. I support freedom of religion, but exercise freedom FROM recognized religions, at the point of a gun if necessary. But you REALLY don't want to get me started on religion, ESPECIALLY my religious beliefs.
|
I was not saying you are religious. I was saying "the religious right seems to be heading this", so I poked a hole in them, thustly *pop*. As for you....hmmm...well some people in this thread have accused you of being bigoted towards homosexuals. I haven't decided for sure myself - as some of the time you push peoples buttons for fun
(don't think I don't notice that). I *think* we can all agree that being a bigot is wrong. If your case is based in the fact that you don't want homosexuals ruining what you consider to be marriage, then it's a weak one. What is traditional marriage? Haven't gay people been around, and a lot of the time socially accepted, for generations? Rome, Greece, and several other civilizations make a multitude of references to homosexuality even in high ranking governmental officials and heroes. That awful Alexander movie was actually right in that Alexander the Great may have been openly bisexual. Was he dethroned? Was he shunned because of his love of other men? Somehow I doubt it. What we are seeing now is leftovers from our puritanical days. Had the "right" been left unchecked, we might have seen David Copperfield burned at the stake next to David Blane for witchcraft. There is still this tug of war between the puritanical roots and our let-freedom-reign side (I know, this sounds like a load of crap, but maybe someone out there agrees with me). The homosexuality conundrum comes down to a simple "play it safe" against "why not". I'm starting to babble.
I hope I had some good points in there somewhere.