[Arlo had said] I don't know of many people who consider Hitler a "socialist".
[Craig] Except those who see him as wanting to "regulate marriage [see Nuernberg Laws], drugs, the armed forces, roadways and waterways, public libraries, state game lands and parks, public oceanfronts and offshore waters, fire services and EMT (in most areas), and more!!!! [Arlo] Well now you're arguing my point. Equating "socialism" with "Hitler" and then making blanket fear-mongering statements about "socialism" is absurd. As I originally suggested (following the author), the language manipulation around this is appalling. But you raise an interesting topic, the Nurenberg Laws forbid an Aryan and a Jew from marrying. Was that moral? Within the bounds of the state? What about laws that defined marriage as between a same-race couple (like white-white, or black-black), where the state decides that inter-racial couples can not wed? The argument Hitler used was the same, inter-race marriage threatened the stability of German society and was leading to a erosion of traditional German values. Why was Hitler wrong, but Pat Buchanen right? Shouldn't consensual adults define "marriage" for themselves (for all civil interests and purposes)? Or are people too stupid to enter loving and consensual relationships that have not been sanctioned by the state? Me, I'm with Jesse the Body on this one. If we are so worried about the "homelife" of kids, the whole one father one mother thing, then why do we permit divorce? As The Body correctly points out, more children are harmed by divorce than by being raised by two parents who are in love, but of the same sex. So, should we do away with divorce? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
