Re: SO GOOD, IT'S CRIMINAL !

You mean you would force about 5% of the world's entire population to
co-habit with the sex that isn't their choice just because it, "makes you
uncomfortable?"

What? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, homosexuals can do as they
please within the law, and the law in most countries says no to them
marrying, and I support that view.

It's plain that, (as Bret said), "You don't have any skin in the game."

We all have a say in society, that's what Democracy is all about. If we had
a vote tomorrow where the majority voted to legalise abortion or gay
marriage I'd accept it, I wouldn't agree but I'd accept. Thankfully though,
the majority where I live are thoroughly social conservative so I don't have
to worry, but Europe generally is a mess, some countries are now paying
women upto $20,000 for each new born, because of their obscene social
experiments have influenced women to pursue careers in place of motherhood,
causing the birthrate to plummet, coupled with easy readily available
abortion, they are now paying serious money to correct the problems that
their social irresponsibility has created. How would legalising gay marriage
solve any problem? is it so homosexuals can pretend to be like normal
couples?

Just like the ant colony....We all have to do our part.....You certainly
are a good socialist, Joseph

We all have responsibilities as citizens of our respective countries, like
it or not.

How about caring about individual rights to live the life they please as
long as it doesn't hurt anyone else? - Just what is your criteria for
granting people a freedom?

I fully agree with "individual rights to live the life they please as long
as it doesn't hurt anyone else" unfortunately abortion and gay marriage does
hurt others, that's the point.

Should we all live where the state wants us to live, and eat what the state
wants us to eat, for the good of the colony?

Well we should do things for the greater good of the country, we should try
to help out in society to make it healthier, safer, better for the majority,
that's patriotism. Of course no country will be perfect even with the
majority of it's citizens being best intentioned.

Can't you envision a world that functions with its people living, and
loving whomever they want, and living where they want, and wearing >what
they want to wear, and eating what they want to eat?

I'm not against personal freedoms but be mindful, there is more to life than
self-gratification.

What is best for Joseph Kewfi is not necessarily the same thing as what's
best for everyone else. People are not ants. We all have >different
interests and desires and aspirations. Do you think that everyone likes
photography? In your world, everyone would have to do >exactly the same
thing, because it's "best foir the society as a whole". What kind of life
is that for a human being? I like the seashore.....I >wouldn't live in the
mountains. But that's OK, because there are a lot of other people who like
the mountains, and don;t want to live near >the ocean. Would your state
housing authority take that into consideration? - I seriously doubt it. It
would be too expensive for them to >try, and what would they do if there
were only 50 million seaside homes, and 52 million people wanted to live
there? The way it is now, >people can work and save until they have the
money to live where they please......The operative phrase there is, "where
they please"........

I don't see your point here, you seem to be painting what as said as an
attack on personal freedoms, when it was anything but.
I am not proposing dictatorship, I'm proposing responsible citizenry, moral
values, altruism, husband and wife, mother and children, law and order,
work, honesty in public life, the national interest and the nation state.

These are old fashioned ideas I know, but I and millions of others in
countries around the world quite like them.

"William Graham" <weg9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:upudnZgdsp-4VmDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Joseph Kewfi" <f_stopblues@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:etkbqh$ko9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And just what is your reason for not allowing gay people to marry?

It's completely unnatural and I'm just not comfortable about it being
made equal to the natural union of a man and woman. I would suspect that
the vast majority in every society in the world would share my view on
this, even though they might not dare say so openly.

You mean you would force about 5% of the world's entire population to
co-habit with the sex that isn't their choice just because it, "makes you
uncomfortable?" How would you like to be born with the body of a woman, so
you had to sleep with other men simply becuse there is a Joseph Kewfi
somewhere who is uncomfortable should he find out that you are sleeping
with another woman?


Or for forcing a raped woman to bear the baby that results from that
rape?

Killing the baby does not erase the rape, why punish the innocent, two
wrongs don't make a right.

How would you like a watermelon seed to be growing inside of you that
will have to force itself out of you when it becomes a watermelon in 9
months?

This is a ridiculous analogy even for you. Even if the conception is
through a horrible crime like rape, one should not pretend as if
childbearing and childbirth are somehow unnatural for a woman to go
through. We have engineered societies for ourselves that have
stigmatised pregnant women, as if the natural function of a woman is to
have a career instead of childbearing, well if that is the future you
won't need to worry about "terrorists", because without women giving
birth we're all doomed anyway, I cant do it - do you know any men that
can?

It's plain that, (as Bret said), "You don't have any skin in the game."


I suggest you check the birthrate
statistics especially in Europe, it's all decline, the replacement rate
is in a big deficit position, there are not enough new citizens coming
into the labour force to maintain the standard of living we enjoy today
into the future. What do you think this means for the Western World
considering that the birthrate of the Third World is still booming?
Hint: some people are going die off because neo-liberal social policies
dictate that women should not be looked upon as wives and mothers but
instead as breadwinners to replace men, while women replace men, men
cannot replace the function of women, see a problem emerging?

Just like the ant colony....We all have to do our part.....You certainly
are a good socialist, Joseph.....


And, what is more important, how does that help or hurt me in any way?
So exactly what business is it of mine?

Every individual has to decide whether they care about society or not, if
you only care about yourself then I understand how it doesn't bother you

How about caring about individual rights to live the life they please as
long as it doesn't hurt anyone else? - Just what is your criteria for
granting people a freedom? Should we all live where the state wants us to
live, and eat what the state wants us to eat, for the good of the colony?
Can't you envision a world that functions with its people living, and
loving whomever they want, and living where they want, and wearing what
they want to wear, and eating what they want to eat?


today, I'm sure may people thought the same about divorce as well, what
has divorce done? well, you see people don't take marriage as a serious
commitment anymore because they can easily obtain a quick divorce, this
has a knock on effect, children without fathers = more crime = more
policing = less freedom = more fear of crime in society etc.. all effects
of the break down in the nuclear family model. I'm not saying divorce is
responsible for all societies ills, but one has to realise that massive
social changes (gay marriage) bring unexpected knock on effects

What is best for Joseph Kewfi is not necessarily the same thing as what's
best for everyone else. People are not ants. We all have different
interests and desires and aspirations. Do you think that everyone likes
photography? In your world, everyone would have to do exactly the same
thing, because it's "best foir the society as a whole". What kind of life
is that for a human being? I like the seashore.....I wouldn't live in the
mountains. But that's OK, because there are a lot of other people who like
the mountains, and don;t want to live near the ocean. Would your state
housing authority take that into consideration? - I seriously doubt it. It
would be too expensive for them to try, and what would they do if there
were only 50 million seaside homes, and 52 million people wanted to live
there? The way it is now, people can work and save until they have the
money to live where they please......The operative phrase there is, "where
they please"........


"William Graham" <weg9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPqdnQGMMeQ0BWDYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Joseph Kewfi" <f_stopblues@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:etjjdo$bi1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The only thing you're a little short on, (with all of the above) is
freedom.......

There is no such thing as total freedom, we all have obligations in
life, things we can and cannot do for various reasons.

And just what is your reason for not allowing gay people to marry? Or
for forcing a raped woman to bear the baby that results from that rape?
How would you like a watermelon seed to be growing inside of you that
will have to force itself out of you when it becomes a watermelon in 9
months?
And, what is more important, how does that help or hurt me in any
way? So exactly what business is it of mine? Please sit down and make a
list of what freedoms you consider "acceptable" and what ones you do
not. Can you make a rule in 10 words or less? And does anyone else's
rule count for anything?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 5768 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 5771 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... > includes freedom, but not anarchy; freedom but not rule of the wealthy ... freedom but not neglect of society. ... IHEU is backed up by humanist organisations in most countries in the ... These old labels, socialism, totalitarianism, freedom,etc.. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Have we become that stupid ..
    ... Kind of assymetrical freedom. ... >> Illegal immigration into the US is primarily the result of significantly ... It can also be viewed as an attempt by some of the other countries to ... the other advantages of a free society for those who do live an orderly ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: RBRK - Something you need to know.
    ... Doom and gloom, doom and gloom...Laughable. ... "A nation which makes the final sacrifice for life and freedom does ... I believe the Middle east(Islamic countries) will need them ...
    (uk.religion.islam)
  • Post-Democracy in the Age of Simulation
    ... designate either a form of society or a form of government. ... Since government is “always exercised by the minority over the ... In a post-democratized world run by inevitable oligarchies, ... what happens when life starts to look a lot like art? ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Boomers have screwed us
    ... US society has become materialist (and ... Um...its the executives that are farming out the jobs to India-China, ... envy of the world and which taught us the "tools of the trade" for life. ... Boomers are therefore leaving their children in a society ...
    (sci.research.careers)
Loading