Section 1. That the following language be stricken as unworkable from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress." Section 2. And be replaced with "All States, for the protection of their citizens, may reject any Treaty, Alliance, or Confe...
Comments
Like Pope Benedict's coining of the expression "the Dictatorship of Relativism", it makes no sense to say "the Intolerance of Tolerance". It turns everything upside down, which is what Christiand see as a good thing but it's not. It makes people who won't tolerate people different than them feel good about themselves. That's just counter productive. Why don't Christians stop their nonsense and learn to live in harmony with the real world?
It isn't Prof. Beckwith and Pope Benedict that have the problem- it is the people who scream "we want tolerance you evil homophobes" that confuses the issue quite a bit.
It isn't like YOUR side actually tolerates people who are different from them at all. Which is why the message I continually get from your side is "stop being a breeder- take contraceptives and become homosexual instead, it's great", all apparently without ever realizing how incredibly INTOLERANT that is.
Not so. All you are being asked to do is understand that different people have different worldviews and it is up to all of us to live in harmony and stop taking up divisive causes. People have rights and if your religion tells you that they don't then there is something wrong with your religion, not the people who it condemns.
Stop blaming religion for your own bad behavior.
There is a line of civility- and once crossed, it is *very* hard to get back.
We're at that point now. The uncivil behavior has PERMANENTLY affected my view of the left wing to the point that I am finding it very hard to see them as fellow human beings, let alone the people they claim to be "defending" by harming everybody else.
Is that what ALL gays do or a small minority that does not truly represent them?
"... I am finding it very hard to see them as fellow human beings, let alone the people they claim to be "defending" by harming everybody else."
Who is harming everybody else. You don't seem to be a very good judge of people. You'd be better off refraining from so many judgments. Just try to get along with everyone. You'd certainly be happier. Lighten up.
How can I "get along with" people who *clearly* don't want to get along with me? I tried meeting that community halfway, all it got me was more abuse and violence. I tried meeting you halfway, all it gets me is more abuse.
Is that "toung in cheek" or do you really feel like I'm abusing you. That is not my intent. It should just be friendly bantering between a west coast conservative and an east coast liberal.
Yes, you using terms like "homopobe" really do hurt; and worse yet, and what I'd really like to get across to you- is such actions do great harm to your argument and to the people you are trying to defend.
I doubt greatly the people of the United States will react to such bullying the way the people of France have, but that is only because we are more polite.
I'm thinking maybe *some* of my conservative assumptions come from being raised in a rural area and having a distinct upbringing related to raising livestock.
I apologize for coming across as abusive. I always seem to cross the line on emails and blogs. I don't mean to. I just do.
I enjoy bantering with you and I don't take anything as personal and I hope you don't either, although, given some of the things I have said, I can see why you might.
I find it interesting that the pro-choice movement also makes the same mistake quite often. I know a lot of pro-life women who are pro-life ONLY because the pro-choice movement has co-opted the feminist movement.
I'll try to be a bit less knee jerk as well. We could all do with less intolerance disguised as tolerance
That is a foolish reason to choose to be pro-life. I don't have much respect for someone basing such an important decision on how the other side behaves. And what exactly is wrong with feminism?
Still am, in a way. I support the efforts that would make ratification of Amendments easier:
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org
But the form of feminism that says a child can be raised only by one gender and turn out ok; that suggests that fatherhood is worthless, I'm very much against. The kind that insists that all sex is rape, and that dreams of the day human cloning becomes commercially available so that they can end male influence on the world entirely.
I even judge much of the Catholic Laity by the actions of the most radical- whether radlibs or radtrads makes no difference.