Common Sense - Christians will vote according to their beliefs. So will muslims, jews, hindus, athiests, agnostics, whoever. To not expect them to do as such is ridiculous and would be implying, as queen elizabeth once said, that we had a "window into the hearts and souls of men" and the very oppression the constitution protects us from: the freedom OF religion.
Recall, I'm not evading the issue concerning lying and deception. But, in a city with more strip clubs per capita in the entire U.S. and with a support group for Adams that seems intent on deeming sexual responsibility as "puritanical" I feel the need to defend us "prudes". Jeme, you back up none of your points in your response to me. No statistics and very little truth. The most common STD and arguably the most dangerous, next to HIV, is HPV which is spread even through condom use. Actually, it is shown that condoms do very little to protect partners against contracting HPV, which begs the need for abstinence. Just think, if people didn't have sex before marriage, if people stayed physically committed to their partners, if men harnessed the responsibility that they should there would be no STDs, no single mothers, no sexual assaults and the divorce rate would be absymal. So, in response to your point that a cheating spouse is better off forgotten, a defeatest attitude to say the least, the government should be doing more to protect marriage and innocents in living the good lives that we all aspire to.
Jeme, you talk big but your words are hollow. you seem to say that the world is a better place with the breakdown of moral barriers, with the sexual freedom first initiated in the seventies. I have a few reasons why the degradation of sexual morality is not working so well for our society:
Aids and other STDs
You must admit that these are more rampant than ever and directly resulting from the removal of repercussions from sexual irresponsibility. It seems that you say that people should be able to sleep well at night with the knowledge that the freedom of our actions outweighs the inherent goodness that comes with moral responsibility. When husbands leave their wives for young men or women, the wife should be so grateful that her husband had the social freedom to go where his penis led him. You seem to say that it is better to worship the orgasm than the pride and well-being that comes from personal responsibility. It's people like you that are destroying this society.
One more point, how can you laud the beauty of living in a democracy if you do not allow majority rule? It's a scary path to embark on when you start dismissing the fundamental tenets of democracy, whether you agree with the vote or not. That sort of precedent bolsters tyranny.
I love how you belittle the major opposition (christianity) to Mayor Adams' lifestyle into the possible homophobic opportunists category. You brand Christians with "homophobia" with the hope that the loaded term will classify Christians as zealots, irrational, hate mongers. But the fact remains that Christians do not embrace homosexuality - they cannot embrace it and stay true to their religion, just as muslims and jews cannot and stay true to theirs. This argument has become a battle of one group force-feeding another group their own philosophical beliefs. But the fact remains, this isn't a fight for rights that were taken away, but for rights that have never in the history of the world been granted.
"I love the way those white Europeans moved here from out of the country 300 years ago, displaced the natives, and then complain when the people who were already here have the audacity to demand respect for their land and cultures."
Wah. Nobody owns the earth or has any more claim to it than anyone else. If your limited knowledge of history demonizes colonial america as the epitome of geographical robbery then it's time to crack a book. The world has a way of providing for progress and personally I'm happy with the progress that has come to this land.
As for the bridge, it seems to make sense to make it as wide as possible as we're constantly growing and perhaps in twenty years the city would have to pay for an expansion. However, it seems that Vancouver should be required to split the cost fifty-fifty.
And city employees are losing their jobs because of the economy. Isn't it time to start living within our means?
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |