If a class of people find themselves in the unfortunate position of being so disposed that they cannot benefit from the universally granted individual rights in a given society as do the generality of its people, then, according to pure logic and honest hermeneutics of bible, custom or the constitution there follow only two things:

1. It is sad for them.
2. Society should TRY (but only just try) to give them some compensation for their bad luck, on the idea of generosity, a carefully broad application of the “golden ruleâ€? of mutuality and general goodwill. (By this second token, I find myself supporter of the institution of some kind of “civil unionâ€? between homosexual partners, but cannot agree to your self-evident deduction of a “rightâ€? – or duty of society – to extend the proper concept of marriage on them. For it is NOT clear, in an a-priori fashion, that by such an extension third people, i.e. their adopted children, or society as a whole are not affected negatively.)

If, in the future, defication was looked down upon, or even considered offensive, would it be right to deny someone the right to deficate because of another mans oppinion?

I return to my point: Def-E-cation (please, by the way, try to spell correctly, – it was not nice to come around to what you mean when I was still musing you talked about some kind of “deificationâ€?), – apart from being a “basic needâ€? of every human, and not just a “basic urge/desire/ingredience of happinessâ€? as is sex -, is a right defined on individual terms.

———————————-

By your sweep of logic, .. what do you propose to do about a person who says he cannot and will never love another person than his own sister? Will you “deny him the right� of a fulfilled sex life? Or why is adoption a “privilege� only for those who intend to adopt people younger than themselves?

In this debate, there is A LOT of insinuation being done, which should better be purged before making politics on it.

It’s kind of ironic. Up until 3 months ago I was a card carrying member of the Republican=Christian club. The
last three months so many of my bubbles have been burst. God has a way of doing that when you ask Him for His
Truth.

Thank you for pointing out the truth about sin. I don’t know exactly where it is, but I know in 1 or 2 Sameul God
told Saul that his rebellion and stubborness were the same thing as idolatry and witchcraft. From elsewhere in the
Bible, God makes it clear that idolatry and witchcraft are just as offensive to Him as homosexuality. It seems to me
that sin is actually twofold: one is not believing God and the other is wanting what we want when we want it.
These two heart attitudes act out in a multitude of offenses against God, but He is looking at the heart attitude that
caused the sin.

For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

We’re to think that our safety comes through exporting violence, but now this… i want to hear more about Bush’s domestic package. Maybe he meant domesticating Iraqis? americanizing another commercial support layer in the pyramid scheme? Oh well. And yes, it’s about oil. Brilliantly spoken about the pushing towards heavy oil consumption… Just the other day, there was a documentary on the creation of the u.s. interstate highway system around 50 yrs ago, and how it made everything so wonderful… it made us the biggest oil consumers on the planet.

The hurricanes were nothing short of divine irony – almost satire – on a government trying to sell its people on “securityâ€? through wars and development of an internal police state. Secure? Ha, ask anyone in the south if they feel more secure. All those billions to make us secure? Where were they, or who was at the helm to make it work? All of this illustrated the folly of the preoccupation with war in the supposed interest of national security. The money was gone, an invertebrate middle-manager was fingered (Brown), and no one knows where the money went. This is all mud on Bush’s face, not on the homosexual people of New Orleans or anywhere else. “Homeland Securityâ€? in a pig’s eye. The divine answer is splendidly ironic.

You know what we will call those of New Orleans, in a few years or less? The lucky ones. Because all our US cities are built up as death traps, every one of them. This is all about oil, and individual ownership of vehicles. Gracious, cities can’t even deal with daily rush hour, where only those in the prime of work life are in cars. How can anyone countenance evacuation plans for large cities, predicated on everyone turning over their engines and driving somewhere?

It’s about oil. The country, since Jimmy Hoffa and the teamsters, has been predicated on including as much oil burning as possible to all commerce. Railroads were abandoned to promote trucking. We used to have efficient railroads. But decisions were made, decades ago, to promote oil-burning commerce, to broaden it to the maximum, so that all citizens would own vehicles. The railroads were torn up, dismantled, and this public trust sold into private hands. Even in New York state, there were scandals about bridges being built too low to allow busses to pass into the city. The intention? To keep poor blacks from entering New York City by mass transit. It was intended to limit transport to private vehicles – the privilege of the wealthy, at the time.

Oilmen run our country. Our leaders worship that economy. They are warring about it. But it will, in the end, kill our own citizens, when people are trapped in evacuations from these ill-planned cities. Let such an evacuation happen to a northern city, in winter. Let the east coast be in need of evacuation for some wartime purpose, and watch the approximate 25 percentile of our nation between Washington, D.C. and Boston try to simultaneously drive out of town. It’s solid city from D.C. to Boston, and if anyone thought the Houston evacuation was ugly, guess again. Our cities have been built as death traps, for the cause of oil.

Homosexuals? Try the White House. Google anywhere.
. This family has a history of prosecution for kidnapping boys for homosexual prostitution rings

. The president has a relationship with his college roommate of four years, Victor Ashe

- a known sodomite – which can not easily be explained away. Bush, and his family and colleagues, are not whom they pretend to be. Or: why do so many openly homosexual men flank the presidency (Ari Fleisher, Carl Rove, et al) in his closest members of personal counsel?

No insult to gays here – but to leaders who are not whom they pretend to be. The administration is living a lie.

Thus the storms are not a rebuke to the rural poor of the south, but the pretenders who lead this country.