Warped thinking

[catgate]

Now here is an interesting dilemma that our esteemed leader has got himself into.

His latest pronouncement on anti discrimination, inclusivety and the forced cohesive nature of his ideal society (viz. the adoption of children by unorthodox couples versus the views of the church) has once again demonstrated his view that organized "belief" in a set of values and aims is of no consequence and is indefensible in law.

He seems, however, to have overlooked the fact that party politics is built on this foundation, i.e. the grouping together of people who claim to have common organized beliefs and aims. It seems it is perfectly acceptable to cause resentment, foment hatred, incite divisions in the community, set one section of the population against another, providing it is political. Further more, the bully-boy rule of "might is right"is applied, the chief with most indians comes out on top, and will brook no interference.

People jeer when I claim that we are ruled by people who should be safely locked away, for their own good as well as that of the country.

[andsome]

I have NO problem with anyones choice of sexual orientation. It is none of my business. I do however object to allowing adoption of children by homosexual or lesbian couples. The well being of the children is of paramount importance and takes precedence over the desires of the adults concerned. My father died before my third birthday, and as a result I did suffer at school. Children can be very cruel to each other, and the fact that I did not have a father was soon seized upon by the rougher elements in the school. Children should be placed into as normal a family as possible, and by normal I mean opposite sex couples, because in nature this is the only natural way to procreate. Two males or two females cannot.

[catgate]

Thats fine, but what has that got to do with point of my post.

[andsome]

Thats fine, but what has that got to do with point of my post.

viz. the adoption of children by unorthodox couples

[Thos]

People jeer when I claim that we are ruled by people who should be safely locked away, for their own good as well as that of the country.

I don't think that I, personally, have ever "jeered" at your points of view. Far from it. You present those views calmly and with humour and I, for one, enjoy reading them. I also respect them as having more that a grain of truth in your thinking. But I cannot accept your ultimate conclusion that all those who seek to enter politics are corrupt in the sense that the only reason they do so is to feather their own nests. Indeed if that were to be true there could be no "government" and it is within "government" that our society embraces a rule of law, however imperfect that may be.

As far as the debate over adoption by same sex couples, I do believe that such couples can produce the loving environment that an adopted child needs. Adoption agencies just need to be rigorous in their assessments and most people feel that, at the moment, they are rigorous.

Thos.

[andsome]

Maybe you were lucky enough to have both parents. Believe me when I say that anything that varies from the norm, can be seized upon by unthinking and cruel children. It is unfortunate that any child should have only one parent, but little can be done when this happens. Children who are adopted should only be put into families with two parents, in an endeavour to normalise things as much as possible. Loving is not the be all and end all, and I can well imagine the torment that adopted children would almost certainly go through if adopted by same sex couples. I have no time for religion, but would defend the rights of Catholic adoption societies to place children into homes with two adults of opposite sex.

[catgate]

The post had nothing to do with adoption, per see, but was using his latest proclamation about it as an example of the inability of most politicians to see things logically.

I was pointing out that party politics is extemely devisive, and all issues which are, or may be, devisive are Politically Incorrect, and here, in the adoption nonsense, is another devisive matter.

In the case of politics the devisiveness is acceptable, because it is politics, and yet the devisivemess of the church's attitude is not acceptable because of politics.

Is it not time we consigned politics to where it belongs, history, and developed a form of government that was honest and good for the well being of the population, rather than the well being of those pretending to govern.

[andsome]

We have had similar discussions in the past. Unfortunately there has to be some form of government, things just will not run themselves. The alternative to a democratic government is a dictatorship, and even under B'liar we do not have a complete dictatorship, he does take a little notice of the cabinet now and then. You have in the past talked about a committee to run the country. Someone would have to select or elect this committee, and then the country at large may not like the decisions made by this committee. I see no alternative to what we have now, warts and all, it is better than outright dictatorship as practised by the late Saddam. The best that we can hope for is that the next election will produce a few people better than this present rabble. Why don't you stand for election? I know that I won't because basically I am too damned lazy.

[catgate]

You have in the past talked about a committee to run the country. Someone would have to select or elect this committee, and then the country at large may not like the decisions made by this committee.

No I have not talked about that. It just shows how carefully you read and understand what is presented.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/accord/

Your statement "The alternative to a democratic government is a dictatorship," leaves me wondering how you define democracy.

In my book democracy is where "the people" control their own destiny, rather than handing over this responsibility to an elected body, who, although suppossedly "freely elected" by the people, tell the people what they want, rather than asking them what they want. My democracy would give the people the ability to decide how the country should be run and how the country's democracy would work.

Our current "democracy" and most democracies in the world are heavily disguised dictatorships. The main purpose of MPs is to be lobby fodder. They support the will of the party leader who supports the desires of his backers. Were it not so there would be no need for party "whips".

[andsome]

I appreciate what you are saying, and agree with your comments regarding our present democracy, especially with a leader like B'liar. It is well known the the cabinet have little say. However, unless several hundred people come forward and can actually get elected as independents, what else is there? Someone has to run things, love 'em or hate 'em.

[catgate]

........what else is there?

That is a very defeatist question from a chap with a brain the size of a planet. There are lots of methods better than our current sham. The first that comes to mind, (and easiest for we with normal sized brains) is to make political parties illegal. They serve no purpose other than giving power to minority interests. They are only band wagons on to which the ambitious jump, for personal gain.

[andsome]

We still need someone to run the country, some form of assembly. To be democratic it would still need to be elected, and people standing for election would still group themselves according to their beliefs. That brings us back to parties again.

[catgate]

It's impossible to argue against that sort of irrefutable, constructive logic.

[andsome]

It's impossible to argue against that sort of irrefutable, constructive logic.

What would you suggest then?