posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
I try hard to keep personal comments/ad hominem from influencing my posts/replies.
Perhaps we differ on what are "social" as opposed to "moral" issues.
Many legitimate political positions have 'social" implications, such as the provision of educational opportunity and the control of curricula.
While I agree that funding of K-12 should be optimized, I do not agree on a standard curriculum as a "one size fits all" dictate.
I do not beleive that the federal government has any legitimate interest in who or what I love, but I accept that it and individual States can favor
certain relationships over others with incentives, such as the "marriage deduction" that reinforces certain behavior such as monogamous,
heterosexual, unions for rearing children. Anyone feeling otherwise should be free to move to States that accomodate their beliefs; but it is
D.C.'s prerogative to dictate that everyone behave in such-and-such a manner.
We have ceded too much authority over personal choices to others who do not live in our communities, or stand in our shoes
True "social" issues are inherently personal choices, over which we have not ceded control to the federal government.
it seems that people need to be guided
So, if the people of Germany were "guided" in 1939, would this legitimate their behavior?
Did the "Klan Bake" of the democrats sufficiently "guide" Southern voters and Congress?
These were matters of legislation on "social" issues; and I fail to see how sovereign "guidance" helped.
The federal government has no business intruding into "social" issues, regardless of party or political orientation.