..i don't think conservativism marches anywhere...it usually stands at attention and waits for liberalism to remember to come back down the line of progress to retrieve it, physically pick it up, and put it back down slightly further along the line.
There is more intelligence and grace in my left buttcheek than there is in Dubya. Also? Conservatism is about limiting choices, which is evil. How can you be so cute and fluffy, like a little bunny, and serve Darkness like this? ~_^ Love, Roo
I agree completely that limiting choices is evil, but sometimes there is a necessity to limit choices. If we don't limit at least some choices, nothing will be left sacred, and if nothing is held sacred, whats the point of living then?
Choices that harm other people must be regulated, I'll agree. But holding things sacred is a private matter for each person, not for the government. I hold all life and nature sacred. Does that mean I should deny you the choice to eat meat and drive a gas guzzling, greenhouse-effect making SUV? (Even though an argument could be made that doing so harmed others?) No. If you hold the crown of a woman's head sacred, should the government therefore insist on taking away my choice not to wear a head cover? No. So long as no one is being physically harmed, then people need freedom. It is the first and most basic right. You hold what you hold sacred, and I'll hold what I hold sacred, and in the meantime, what might be the point for living for you, won't be the point of living for others. For me, life is about learning, exploring, and loving. I don't need anything "sacred" to find meaning in my life. Forbidding the teaching of any idea or book, denying passage to the unknown, and breeding hate and fear of The Other (which I would lay at this
( ... )
In response to your website, part 1moonlit_pageNovember 12 2004, 17:55:34 UTC
Unless that article regarding the "gay agenda" to "seduce and corrupt children" was posted in the spirit of sarcasm, I'm so deeply disappointed in you that I have may to unfriend you just 20 minutes after discovering your livejournal, Kevin
( ... )
Re: In response to your website, part 2moonlit_pageNovember 12 2004, 17:56:08 UTC
And to you, personally, I would say:
First of all, God made heterosexuals and God made homosexuals and everything in between. It's not up to anybody to criticize God's work. (The closest species to homo sapiens, with a 98.9% genetic compatibily factor, practice homosexuality. It IS natural. If it was unnatural, it wouldn't exist in nature. )
Second of all, homosexual American citizens pay taxes just like heterosexual American citizens, therefore homesexuals should be allowed the same civil liberties as heterosexuals, including choice as to whom they wish to marry.
The exact same arguments against gay marriage were used in the 60's to prevent the 'abomination' that is inter-racial marriage. It's utter bullshit. If someone wants to get up in front of their friends and family and declare undying love, faithfulness, and a partnership with another person, raise a healthy and happy family, pay taxes, buy homes, and share their health insurance benefits then that's an expression of love, which is a beautiful thing. The article you
( ... )
Re: In response to your website, part 3kaelin42November 12 2004, 20:31:56 UTC
Man, after all that writing, i'm probably #2 on your shit-list, right after the grand demon, Dubya, himself. I'm not even going to try to take this point by point because it's very worthless. I tried that with my sister's friend John and it just went on forever with no progress
( ... )
Comments 18
Reply
Reply
~_^ Love, Roo
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
First of all, God made heterosexuals and God made homosexuals and everything in between. It's not up to anybody to criticize God's work. (The closest species to homo sapiens, with a 98.9% genetic compatibily factor, practice homosexuality. It IS natural. If it was unnatural, it wouldn't exist in nature. )
Second of all, homosexual American citizens pay taxes just like heterosexual American citizens, therefore homesexuals should be allowed the same civil liberties as heterosexuals, including choice as to whom they wish to marry.
The exact same arguments against gay marriage were used in the 60's to prevent the 'abomination' that is inter-racial marriage. It's utter bullshit. If someone wants to get up in front of their friends and family and declare undying love, faithfulness, and a partnership with another person, raise a healthy and happy family, pay taxes, buy homes, and share their health insurance benefits then that's an expression of love, which is a beautiful thing. The article you ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment