Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
That information has no place in the constitution. What you are refering to is a specific moral imperative which has nothing to do with structuring of personal rights and freedoms that apply to all people, regardless of gender, age, race or sexual orientation. The constitution frames basic freedoms available to all individuals, not specific ones for specific groups.
|
The question of when human life begins is not a moral imperative. It's a necessary question that must be answered before a judge can act in a case that pits a mother against an unborn child. I don't see much difference between this and a time when blacks were considered sub-human. It took courageous law makers to identify a black man/women as an equal under the law.
I watched a interview on Fox a while back with a black man who lived in Florida. He and a long time friend went fishing in the gulf and had there boat swamped and sink. They were floating on a piece of foam treading water when a boat came by, took a look at them and sped off. A while later another boat seen them and came near to them only to turn and motor away. By the time they were spotted a third time the older friend had died from a heart attack. The third boat rescued him gladly.
This story illustrates a moral dilemma: How much do we have to go out of our way in a life and death situation to help our neighbor? Should there be a law requiring such assistance? These moral questions only exist because the question of whether a black man is fully human has been resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
You want to play that game, then how about if they push for a constitutional amendment that states homosexuals have special protections against hate mongers who think they will burn in hell because of their sexual orientation and lifestyle, and they have the right to engage in marriage if they so desire (why should straight people hog all the misery?).
Think that deserves to be in the constitution?
|
So you would make it illegal for a person to think or I assume express a thought that differs from what you believe to be true. Furthermore, you would award special status to one group of people above all others. I mean it would still be legal for you to spread your bile against fundamental Christians but a negative though against a homosexual would be a crime. Wow! I suppose you would have to rescind the conflicting portions within the constitution. You know the ones that offer equality to all and religious freedom. Not to mention that annoying section on free speech. What a wonderful game Lanny.
