From Wikipedia, Theocon is a term sometimes used in United States political rhetoric to describe a person whose conservative ideology includes a belief that religion should play a major role in forming public policy. The term typically refers members of the Christian right, particularly those whose ideology is a synthesis of elements of American conservatism, Conservative Christianity and social conservatism, expressed through political means.
This simply won't do. The actions of the individuals were obviously wrong. The woman was protesting peacefully. Unfortunately I don't expect most people to act like Christians. I expect a person, one too may times wronged, to turn and be angry. California had a workable solution to the gay marriage issue, and that law was allowed to be changed through pure democracy. I think pure democracy, as a process, is extremely dangerous. It would not take much for Christians to become the target of legalized persecution through pure democracy. I don't necessarily believe in the legislative process that legalized the homosexual contracts, either. Instead, as a Christian, I am somewhat indifferent to forms of government. I like whatever form of government is weakest, yet still able to protect rights, enforce contracts, and prosecute torts. Anytime government goes beyond these basic functions it takes on the role of granting privileges to some at the expense of others. This is how I view the legal institution of marriage. It is a state granted privilege. It has no relationship to the Christian covenant of marriage. As a state privilege, I treat my marriage certificate as a discount coupon. It saves me money when dealing with various other institutions, some of these discounts are justifiable in that a marriage contract reduces transactions costs. But legal privileges attached to the contract are wholly illegitimate. Therefore, I would rather not extend the franchise to homosexuals, but rather eliminate it for heterosexuals. Nathanael Snow
1 comment:
This simply won't do. The actions of the individuals were obviously wrong. The woman was protesting peacefully.
Unfortunately I don't expect most people to act like Christians. I expect a person, one too may times wronged, to turn and be angry.
California had a workable solution to the gay marriage issue, and that law was allowed to be changed through pure democracy.
I think pure democracy, as a process, is extremely dangerous. It would not take much for Christians to become the target of legalized persecution through pure democracy.
I don't necessarily believe in the legislative process that legalized the homosexual contracts, either.
Instead, as a Christian, I am somewhat indifferent to forms of government. I like whatever form of government is weakest, yet still able to protect rights, enforce contracts, and prosecute torts. Anytime government goes beyond these basic functions it takes on the role of granting privileges to some at the expense of others.
This is how I view the legal institution of marriage. It is a state granted privilege. It has no relationship to the Christian covenant of marriage. As a state privilege, I treat my marriage certificate as a discount coupon. It saves me money when dealing with various other institutions, some of these discounts are justifiable in that a marriage contract reduces transactions costs.
But legal privileges attached to the contract are wholly illegitimate. Therefore, I would rather not extend the franchise to homosexuals, but rather eliminate it for heterosexuals.
Nathanael Snow
Post a Comment