Journal Chacham's Journal: Rant: News: Stupid Amendments (including Define marriage) 21
On a roll.....
Fox News has this story about the Conservative Republicans thinking about passing an amendment to define what marriage is.
These people couldn't ban abortion, which is murder. They couldn't protect the flag, which is our national pride. And now they think they can outlaw same-gender marriage, which is a personal right?
Even if they did define marriage, the law would just have to drop marriage as a requirement.
All in all, i think they are stupid. Seriously. I think abortion didn't pass for a very simple reason. They didn't have an ideal. Those against abortion are against it because it is murder. Thus, even if the mother will be ill, the child is a product of incest or rape, or any other reason, it cannot be allowed. If the problem is death, only another death should overrule it. Yet they stupidly made all these exceptions to make people happy, thus revealing their lack of sincerity. Another reason is that it outlawed an act. What it should have done was defined when life starts. Or at least say that congress (or the individual states) can define that by law.
The flag burning. Again, outlawing of an act. One Democrat showed it's idiocy by burning a napkin with a picture on it. Again, no clear definition. Are the conservatives really that brainless?
Even Prohibition, which was passed after nearly a century of "dry towns", was felled in mere years. Simply, it outlawed an act, a personal right. When will these people learn?
And now they want to define marriage. At least they're defining something. Though, it's doomed to failure, even if it does pass. Why don't they spend time on important things?
Re:Ha Ha (Score:2)
Personal rights (Score:2)
The problem being, you consider gay marriage a personal right - just as others consider abortion and flag-burning to be personal rights, and indeed others consider drug taking to be a personal right too. Personally, I don't feel strongly either way about any of them: I certainly don't think they're important eno
Re:Personal rights (Score:2)
It's tough to come up with a comparable situation to someone's life eclipsing one's own, but i guess it could be likened to a comatose but possibly revivable conjoined twin... whose revival means you would die. It's possible that you could choose to end their life f
Re:Personal rights (Score:2)
Someone smoking certainly isn't enough threat - it's only a (small) probability of harm to you, rather than a genuine threat - but if instead of cigarette smoke, the person were releasing nerve gas or similar, you'd be justified. It certainly has to be a real threat, rather than just a statistical chance of harm (
Re:Personal rights (Score:2)
But abortion also murders. Flag burning also destroys national pride (that's what the burning is intended for anyway). Marriage and drug taking are *only* personal rights, and should therefore be allowed.
If you, as an adult, pose a threat to somebody else, they're entitled to kill you in self-defense; why should that not apply before birth as well?
It should. That's
Re:Personal rights (Score:2)
Of course, that is just your humble opinion, right? You post the above as if it is fact and that does negatively affect your argument.
Just my 2cents (worth about a nickel).
Re:Personal rights (Score:1)
murder, illegal willful act of killing
kill, to cause death
Killing a child who poses a certain death to the mother would not be murder. A friend of my wife had a "fallopian (sp?) pregnancy (?)" where the egg settled in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus (I think, mot a med student). As the child develops it would kill the child and mother, so she did have an abortion. This would not be considered murder even if life wer
Re:Personal rights (Score:2)
I did use "murder" instead of "kill" to make a point. But, your definition and explanation is on the mark, and agreed to.
Re:Personal rights (Score:2)
Only if you consider the unborn child a life; many don't. From their perspective, abortion is purely a personal matter - there's only a single person involved, the mother.
Flag burning also destroys national pride (that's what the burning is intended for anyway).
No, it's (usually) a personal expression of hatred of that country/government, at least where I've seen it. Thus also a personal right. If your argument is that this particular expression of feelings is harmful, do you
Re:Personal rights (Score:2)
But they understand that the ones who want to ban it condsider it that. And the ones for it are strongly in that opinion. Thus, it puts force behind them to pass the amendment, which is the context of that statement.
Anyway, rather than rule on whether abortion is allowed, the decision should be on what constitues life. That would clear up a lot of the arguments for and agianst it.
>Flag burning also destroys national pride (that's what the burn
Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
These people couldn't ban abortion, which is murder.
Yes they can. Collectively they choose not to until everyone is satisfied (including the Supreme Court).
They couldn't protect the flag, which is our national pride.
This is much different then above since you are not talking about a ban anymore but physical force upon a populace. That I am glad they can't do, and though I value the flag greatly I would value it much less i
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
>These people couldn't ban abortion, which is murder.
Yes they can. Collectively they choose not to until everyone is satisfied (including the Supreme Court).
The comment is to be taken within the context of passing amendments.
They couldn't protect the flag, which is our national pride.
This is much different then above since you are not talking about a ban anymore but physical force upon a populace.
No, i am specifically talking about a ban. Just like they
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
Theres the semantical fascist I've come to expect. Of course it is a reference to their child! Marriage is inseperable from pro-creation.
No, i am specifically talking about a ban [on flag burning].
You had said they can't stop people from burning the flag. Banning it is not stopping people from burning it. Its an important thing to understand first and formost in the discussion of freedom that a law is not the enforcement of it. A law against doing somet
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
Theres the semantical fascist I've come to expect.
It just seems odd that you'd calling understanding the Bible according to what it says, rather than what people want it to say, is fascism. Oh well, to each their own.
Of course it is a reference to their child!
I thought you were using it to back up "marriage is a combination of two different entities into a new entity".
Marriage is inseperable from pro-creation.
So old people (who can no longer ha
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
You assume a lot. God did not create or form the universe with linguistics. While I find He means precicely what he says, semantics many times do not reveal the truths being taught.
I thought you were using it to back up "marriage is a combination of two different entities into a new entity".
Isn't that what the Bible says? Even with your
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
God did not create or form the universe with linguistics.
The verse explicitly states before each creation that G-d spoke it. In fact, by light it say the he said that there should be light, and light existed. There is no doing there, only saying.
semantics many times do not reveal the truths being taught.
That is your opinion. The Talmud, the Midrush, and the various Jewish commentaries on verse specifically translate based on semantics. There are
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
Allow me to amplify that then. I think it rather nieve to think that the spoken sentence "Let there be light", was all the blueprints neccisary to create light in the universe. Nor does that even display the use of linguistics as the code of the blueprint.
If you believe that the semantics of the verse tell you that linguistics were used to form the universe then that is a good example of what I'm talking about.
The Talmud, the Midrush, and the var
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:2)
I'm merely relying on the verse. That's what it says.
(Hebrew as a language has evolved quite a bit)
No, it hasn't. Unless you mean Ivrit, or Modern Hebrew. Invrit (Modern Hebrew) is not Ivri (Hebrew). When books are written in Ivri, they do not use any new rules that i know of. Though, perhaps some Aramaic is thrown in.
Funny, before you mentioned that "one c
Re:Redefinition a right? (Score:1)