Re: Mass voters bring back the death penalty!
posted at 7/5/2013 6:24 PM EDT
In response to JMUFranco's comment:
In response to BabeParilli's comment:
I assume you are consistent and would favor polygamous marriages and marriages between close family members as well.
Frankly, I think the whole "marriage" thing is a can of worms. I would abolish that institution from a legal/secular standpoint and allow "civil unions" affording the same rights for any two adults that wish to enter one. It would have nothing to do with gender or sexuality whatsoever. That should shut both sides of the argument up.
Marriage would be relegated to a ceremonial status administered by whatever religious or other entity the partakers chose.
I agree that marriage is definitely a can of worms. I would be all for your proposed amendment. As it stands, marriage exists as two separate functions, religious and civil, so furthering the divide between the two would certainly end the heated debate. Of course, such a radical change would never be accepted, so we're stuck with the current state of how things are.
Who knows if that proposal would be accepted or not. None of our leaders have had enough brains to propose it. Frankly, I have seen a large number of persons such as yourself finding the idea to be a good solution to the issue.
And you avoided my questions regarding whether you apply the same principles to polygamy and incest.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your contentions that legal definitions mean nothing at all. Legal definitions are the framework of our society. Of course, the true value in their existence lies in the reasoning behind such definitions and codes. But without thoroughly thought-out and carefully worded legal definitions, our system loses its backbone, its legitimacy, and ultimately fails.
Yeah, we need law. But just because something is law does not make it right.
I'm sure you know this, but obviously pro-abortion and pro-choice are different. Be more careful with your choice of words, because they imply different rationales. I'm all for a woman having her choice, but by no means do I advocate having an abortion for all instances. I'm lucky enough to have never been faced with such a decision, and to be honest, I don't know what I would do in such a case. I believe that the woman should have a choice regardless.
Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing. One is either for the complete freedom to abort babies or they are not. Mincing the words does not change that fact.
And yes, killing babies is wrong. Once again, we fall back to the issue that your definition of a beginning of life and mine differ, simple as that.
It is irrefutable scientific fact that human life begins at conception. Whether that life is developed enough to be aborted is a subjective judgement.
And I agree that it should be a state issue, for the most part. However, when the issue of Constitutional rights arises (the right to life in particular), that's when these cases have to be heard by higher courts.
No they don't.
As for your last post, I am aware of the framework and rationale behind the second amendment. I simply do not know where I stand as far as specific topics related to regulation, like what's appropriate to require for permits, transportation, and where to draw the line ethically when it comes to lethal weapons.
The line should be drawn roughly at the same point the framers drew it. Back then, the army had muskets, so the citizens get muskets. Now the army has assault rifles, so the citizens get assault rifles. It doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't like it. It's the mandate of the Constitution. If people don't like it, they can change it.
But actually, too few lawmakers, judges or people seem to care much about the Constitution these days. They only care about their political agenda. And that's why we are going to hell in a handbasket. It will get much worse. Soon.