Originally posted by keholmes
Prior to activist judges legislating from the bench – thought-> marriage: religious institution co-opted by the government to collect taxes in yet a
new and unique way. Definition = man and woman probably family related
After activist judges legislating from the bench – thought -> marriage: religious institution co-opted by the government to collect taxes in yet a new
and unique way. Further expanded by the judiciary in contravention to the constitution to include gays; this is done because gays are desirous of the
title. They appear a little different and it wasn’t a voluntary change, I wonder what prompted the change, hmmm?
Your still free to think
what you like, keholmes. As an example, If you wanted to, you'd be free to think
that Michael Moore should die
a horrible death. However, if you decided to act
upon that thought; ending up perpetrating an act of murder, then that act
doubt cause 'policing'.
This particular issue somewhat seems to be of semantics, but I'll add what is described as the right to freedom of
thought by the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights':
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public
safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
so you don’t believe that gays wanting to be called “married” is PC?
If you want to hear my understanding of this label, then I'd say the actual purpose behind what proponents such as you would like to call 'political
correctness' is to prevent the use of offenses such as ''n-word'', 'coons', 'dagos' etc.
But quite honestly, I personally don't
subscribe to the label PC.
So clearly you’re for the abolition of affirmative action, elimination of prosecution for fraud, legalization of prostitution, elimination of
welfare. And also you’d be in support of allowing spouses to sell/give up for adoption their minor children if they were so inclined, without approval
of the other parent, right?
I said the same reasoning
should be applied. I also said, I'm taking to account the situation at hand. Few issues are as simple as black and
white, therefore society and its government have to take the various surrounding issues into consideration such as equality, moral, ethics etc. I'd
say to legislate against
the act of marriage for a group, no matter how small, simply based on the sexual preference of two consenting adults
is IMO an obvious bias. Again, considering the fact that as it currently stands, marriages are and can be licensed by the government.
one of the previous was directly on point…the president put forth a judicial nomination that both local parties supported….the liberal
constituency allowed the national party to oppose through filibuster his nomination, based on his being ‘racist’. There are other examples but as I
said if you want to close your eyes to the obvious you never will see it.
Again, I would hardly constitute that as satisfactory evidence of how the left is redefining the word 'racist' to 'a person disagreeing with the
, and how this alleged act is supported by the majority. But by all means, feel free to keep posting your 'evidence' of this notion of
[edit on 12-11-2004 by Durden]