Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to BANNING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, THE DOWNFALL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Janes
What poor grammar? Typos are not grammar issues, they are simple mistakes. I type slower than I think and so my hands are unable to keep up with my thoughts, causing me to miss keys or hit them in the wrong order. That has nothing at all to do with grammar or intelligence. I also will admit I am not good at editing myself and work little on doing do here on Blogit.
For although I am unsure as to why my father said such things, it really does not help for you to show a level of ignorance while trying to make a point. Especially is that ignorance is directed and trying to insult me while pretending not to. While I do not agree with how my father stated his views here, you show yourself to be no better in how you go about trying to show him the error of his ways.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 29, 2005 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
"limited educational background"? Xenox, pretty ballsy of you to make such accusatory, degrading statements of someone you don't know. Just because you disagree with a person's opinion of a subject does not mean you need to cast aspersions on their intelligence or education. I could say the same of your son Kooka because of his consistently poor grammar, in spite of the fact that he says he has some sort of college education. However, I don't denigrate his intelligence in spite of his multiple typos.
So please, disagree with someone, but show a little respect. Your egotistical stance on all things pertaining to religion and politics is a little insufferable at times.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 29, 2005 at 7:12 PM
| link to this | reply
ccnews comes from
a limited educational background -- limited ocntact with the issues he/she addresses.
That is why he/she will make statements that do not hold water -- because he/she has not experienced. Many people do this, though, repeating statements made by authority figures (so they have to be true, right?).
experience with these things proves the invalidity of those statements made from an unknowing posit8on.
And regarding the Mormons -- it's not polygamy that was banned as a practice, it was an attitude (shared by most Christians of the same era) that women are chattel, to be used as the men desire, and it was an expose of the abuses of such that led to federal laws (and forcing Utah to accept them) prohibiting polygamy.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 26, 2005 at 3:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Fatherless homes?
What makes a father a father ccnews? Is it a penis? If that is the defining feature of fatherhood, does that make everyone with a penis a father? What does a father do with/for children that a woman can't do (and vice versa)? Furthermore, legalizing what you call homogamy does not necessarily have something to do with parenthood (although in many cases it does).
posted by
Trevor_Cunnington
on November 26, 2005 at 3:15 PM
| link to this | reply
ccnews
Marriage should be an agreement between consenting adults. I do not agree with incest at all, but even though I find the thought disturbing, that is really up to the consenting adults. In the end I have no right at all to tell other people how to live their lives as long as it does no harm to others. Guy marrying guy, guy marrying two or three woman (Poor sucker, one wife is enough for me) or a brother and sister who feel they want that kind of commitment with each other (Even though I do find such an idea very disturbing and holds possible problems for their offspring, which really is the key reason someone can oppose such a union) as adults it should be their choices, no one else's.
Actually the banning of polygamy does hurt religious freedom, as we see with the Mormons. They are not allowed to practice what their faith teaches.
Wow are you ever pushing some boundaries. You are just looking for any piss poor logic to prove your point. Healthy children have been raised in one parent homes. Healthy children have been raised in homes with two parents of the same sex. There is not logic to your question on this. At no point is this trying to say it is normal for a fatherless home, nor should it be viewed as abnormal. In the end there have already been all makes of family structure in raising healthy children. Raising kids goes well beyond the simple idea that they need one father and one mother. If a father dies and the child is then raised by the mother and grandmother is that unacceptable in your eyes? Do you believe that chill is going to be a criminal or a deviant, or worst yet a born again conservative Christian trying to destroy freedom and the American way of life through his narrow mindedness?
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 25, 2005 at 7:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Banning polygamy didn't hurt religious freedom. And homogamy never
was an issue anyway, how can not allowing something that never was hurt something that has been? And my question for you is this: What limits would you place on marriage? Is it limited to two people? If so, why? What about several people being married together, either one man and several women, several men and several women, several men together? What about marrying your sister or brother, can two brothers marry? What about marrying your offspring?
And consider one more thought: homogamy necessary creates either a motherless home or a fatherless home. Are we willing for the first time in history to say that having a fatherless home is good and should be celebrated? And anyone claiming that a fatherless home is not ideal be called a bigot and a homophobe?
The foregoing elements are portions of the debate that no one seems willing to have. The pro homogamy camp simply thinks there should be now conversation about this issue. They think anyone who dissents should simply be labeled, discredited, hated and ignored.
Such an important issue should be debated in the public arena. So thank you for bringing it up.
posted by
itisdone
on November 25, 2005 at 12:34 PM
| link to this | reply
good point
I never thought of it that way, but it's true!
posted by
Trevor_Cunnington
on November 25, 2005 at 6:24 AM
| link to this | reply
if it benefits them, all sorts of freedoms can go by the boards
but if it does not, then they would certainly be in favor of restricting yours.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 23, 2005 at 3:52 PM
| link to this | reply