Originally posted by equistar
I would like to state the I feel the left are the ones who are opressive. You want EVERYONE to live as they see fit and EVERYONE to chip in
monetarily to help guide morals and ethics but those two things (moral and ethics) are very subjective and you will never get 300 million people to
agree on every issue that requires moral and ethical lines. You say what will the revolutionists do with the ones who did not want it? I say
nothing, it isn't a matter of controlling people it is a matter of freeing people and allow the individual states and communities to live as they see
fit, if you want socialized medicine go to California, if you want to be responsible for your self go to Texas for example, let each state has it's
own flavor, it is the only way to peacefully resolve opposing opinions of government control.
[edit on 5-1-2010 by equistar]
Hi Thanks for posting.
Is this a response to my OP? or to someone in particular?
I agree you'd be hard pressed to find anything 300 million people would all agree with, not even the need for breathing.
That's why "I" believe we need something called "Governance" in some fashion. The alternative is Anarchy.
I know some will disagree. The book "Lord of The Flies" comes to mind.
I thought every State already had it's own flavor. Your reference to Texas, would tend to indicate you believe it to have it's own flavor
I'm of the opinion, that "having" to move to another State to find my own personal freedom, flies in the face of what the "United States"
I'm staying put where I am, I like my State, and I'm going to try to work on it the way the Constitution stipulates. I like the Constitution.
There are laws in my state that I don't agree with. We have elections, and representatives, I have seen the system work and fail. When it works, I'm
happy, when it fails, I do what I can to change it.
We just had a failure of the system here but we let it happen, our bad. Now we have to deal with it.
We all want to live as we see fit. No matter what you do, this is not possible, even if we repealed all the laws, burned the Constitution, and
declared a free for all.
How long before 1 person decided to step on the next person's (?) way of life? We could call whatever we want a right in a state of Anarchy.
A right implies that there is some mechanism to sustain it. If the only mechanism is self defense, then only the strongest, best armed person, or
organized group would rule. Is that what you advocate? I don't think so.
This entire question is precisely about States rights. That is the proverbial Elephant in the room. The difference of opinion for the most part has to
do with an age old question.
What should the role of centralized government be? If there was no disagreement there, we would not be having this conversation.
Who do you trust to lead? Your President, your Governor, your Senator, your Congressman, your Mayor, your Police Chief, your Sheriff? your Neighbor,
If I start with the President, Not really.
The Governor, no.
The Mayor? No way.
The Senators? are you kidding?
The Congressmen, not the ones from my State, or any State.
The Police Chief? No in fact a recent one is in Jail
The Sheriff? I don;t even know who that is where I live. So no.
The Neighbor? If I trusted them I would not have a lock.
Personally, I only trust myself in that context, but, I'm 56, too late for me to take over my fiefdom. A younger stronger guy will eventually come
and kill me, take my stuff, game over. Law of the Jungle.
It's no easy trick to be free. I don't have answers for you, mostly questions.
In my case, out of all the mentioned officials, I trust the President more than the other ones.
You can disagree, but is that not my right under the Constitution?
On this thread, one guy says, I want gay people to be able to get married.
Another says, no, they can have a union with all the rights of married people but no 'Marriage.
Both have a point of view, both are Americans, they agree on a lot of things, but not Gay marriage. So who's right? In an Anarchy, it's a moot
Let's explore causation. Why are so many people opposed to it being a Marriage as opposed to a Union. There is only one answer to this, Religion.
Ok I get it. Marriage is said to be a Religious rite. But is it? Depends who you ask. But let's say it is. Ok then, if you were not married by a
Priest/Minister/Witch Doctor/etc, are you Married? Depends who you ask again.
So it's really about the word/concept, what the "label" represents.
If you love freedom, why do you have a problem with the Gay people who want to be married? Are you not imposing your will, dogma, and religious
conviction on the Gays? I think you are. I'm not Gay, or religious, so I say, let them get Married. I was married by an official of the State, legal,
binding, everybody was happy. No problem. Got divorced same way.
What's a Common Law Marriage? Common Law.... Is it Legal, you betcha. Is Common Law valid? I would think so, but again depends where you are.
In Spanish Married is Casado, the literal translation is "enhoused" meaning housed, or in the same abode or residence. In English it comes from the
Latin mas Link
meaing "man". First found in English in the 13th century. Not exactly
enshrined in religion. For the purists we have Matrimony
from the Latin "mater" or Mother
According to History, to call it a Marriage, would be OK it has absolutely nothing to do with a woman if the Gays are male. But by the same measure
then you could not accurately call it a Matrimony if the gays are male, but in the case of Lesbians it would be fine according to history and
Illuminating when you actually research it. If the objection is based on Religion, it has no basis because the words origins have nothing to do with
Religion. Plain and simple, it's a denial of rights to Gay people based on ignorance of the Etymology of the 2 words. Freedom of Religion does not
apply in this case, only freedom of way of life. So tell me who's rights are abrogated when Gays get married?
So my friend, welcome to the thread.