From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 18:43:31 BST
Hi Platt,
You addressed:
> Steve P.
>
The one who signs Steve P has something like arborealman for his e-mail
address. I've always just used "Steve" which has now gotten confusing
especially since it seems arboreal Steve and I are both Steve P's. I'm
not sure what to do.
>> Do you support gay marriage?
>
> No.
That's what I thought. Do you support a Constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage?
>
>> Where do you think the gay marriage issue fits
>> in with the state versus individual war?
>
> The state isn't obligated to grant benefits to individuals whose
> choice of
> partners hinders procreation on which the state depends for its
> survival.
>
I'm not at all surprised by your view, but it seems contradictory to
your claim of support for the individual over the collective. That's
why I brought it up.
You said: "The state wants its citizens to behave in certain,
predictable ways by
following its rituals, laws and mores. For the state to survive (or any
group for that matter) it must lay down rules and practices governing
relations among individuals in the group. Thus, the social level's
highest
morality is static conformity."
I agree. A great example is society's disdain for homosexuality. The
state would love to see nice ordered male/female roles and today we see
the state trying to lay down rules and practices governing sexual
relations to that end.
You also said: "The individual by contrast, while recognizing the
necessary role of the
state, wants to be recognized as unique human being and not just another
cog in a machine. She wants to be the means to her own ends, not the
ends
of others. Most of of all, she wants to be free to act and speak
according
to dictates of her own intellect, not the dictates of politically
correct
thought imposed by the state."
Again, I strongly agree. The homosexual does not accept society's
purpose for her of producing new citizens nor should any individual
accept being the means to society's ends. She wants to be free to act
and speak according to the dictates of her own intellect. I can
understand that "the state isn't obligated to grant benefits to
individuals whose choice of partners hinders procreation on which the
state depends for its survival," but I don't see why individuals
shouldn't support the state extending rights (actually, in this case,
to not take away rights) to others since we both see rights as
protections of the individual from the dictates imposed by the state.
> Hope this answers your question. Note the lack of contortions to make
> the
> point. :-)
>
Do you think that homosexuality is immoral?
The simple answer that most conservatives give for this type of
question is that it is simply wrong. It just is. Or that the Bible
says it's wrong or my church says its wrong or God says it's wrong.
These are simple uncontorted answers but their simplicity is their only
virtue.
Thanks,
Steve Peterson
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 05 2004 - 18:43:04 BST