http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...hoice.html

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...legal.html

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timsta...advocates/

 

 

When Man is no different than animal, civilization can no longer exist.

 

According to Eric, its a weak argument. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

 

There's a reason the word is filtered, it's best we not delve too deeply into this particular tangent.
 
I'm to blame for letting it get this far, my posts aren't filtered and so I did not realize the word is filtered.

 
It was like a game for the rest of us. All I saw was you quoting his censored word and claiming it was "ridiculous". My first guess was the P word.

---

A more reasonable argument for discussion is polygamy, a paradigm that I believe is the next step of our moral regresssion. So, considering the legal ramifications of that relationship structure, how can we, after permitting the same sex marriage, tell people that they cannot marry more than one person at a time? What about the tax ramifications of the legalization of multiple partner marriages? The legal decision-making issues, especially with end of life care, and other power of attorney issues? Having already redefined marriage, its now inevitable that it will continue to devolve.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

A more reasonable argument for discussion is polygamy, a paradigm that I believe is the next step of our moral regresssion. So, considering the legal ramifications of that relationship structure, how can we, after permitting the same sex marriage, tell people that they cannot marry more than one person at a time? What about the tax ramifications of the legalization of multiple partner marriages? The legal decision-making issues, especially with end of life care, and other power of attorney issues? Having already redefined marriage, its now inevitable that it will continue to devolve.

 

Polygamy isn't a government issue either, it's a religious issue. Fixing the tax problem is easy, tax away the deductions and put everyone on the same consumption tax. The tax system is flawed that doesn't mean we need government making more religious and social decisions for society.

---

A more reasonable argument for discussion is polygamy, a paradigm that I believe is the next step of our moral regresssion. So, considering the legal ramifications of that relationship structure, how can we, after permitting the same sex marriage, tell people that they cannot marry more than one person at a time? What about the tax ramifications of the legalization of multiple partner marriages? The legal decision-making issues, especially with end of life care, and other power of attorney issues? Having already redefined marriage, its now inevitable that it will continue to devolve.

 

Can't you make that same slippery slope argument every time we change the law in any way?   "If we allow interracial marriage, what's next?  [Insert ridiculous thing that nobody wants here]?"

 

Society evolves.  Laws change to reflect the evolution of society.   We live in a democracy and we can allow same sex marriages without allowing polygamy if we choose to. 

---

The funny thing is, the argument goes in the other direction much better

 

So you want to ban gay marriage?  What's next, banning bacon and blended fabrics?

"Have you ever read this thing? Techincally, we aren't allowed to go to the bathroom." -Reverend Lovejoy on the Bible

---

Can't you make that same slippery slope argument every time we change the law in any way?   "If we allow interracial marriage, what's next?  [Insert ridiculous thing that nobody wants here]?"

 

It is absolutely a slippery slope. 


 

Next will be changing the age restrictions, and then inter-species marriages.

---

It is absolutely a slippery slope. 


 
Next will be changing the age restrictions, and then inter-species marriages.

Any slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Anyways, some lady is already married to the Empire State Building. How do you like that for the sanctity of marriage?

---

Can't you make that same slippery slope argument every time we change the law in any way?   "If we allow interracial marriage, what's next?  [Insert ridiculous thing that nobody wants here]?"

 

Society evolves.  Laws change to reflect the evolution of society.   We live in a democracy and we can allow same sex marriages without allowing polygamy if we choose to.

That "ridiculous thing that no one wants" was gay marriage. Twenty years ago no one, including gays, wanted gay marriage. It was too heteronormative for the queer culture. Then you get lawsuits and some judges decide that marriage isn't what it's always been in our society. Polygamy has a much more legitimate history, and its highly hypocritical for some one to say I can change the institution to suit my desire but you cannot do the same to suit yours. And no one voted on gay marriage to my knowledge, did we have a referendum that I missed? Seems to me that the activist judiciary struck down the will of the people in permitting gay marriage rather than expressing that new desire through the legislature as is proper. Why would you think we'll have a say in the next cultural perversion to crop up?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It is absolutely a slippery slope. 


 

Next will be changing the age restrictions, and then inter-species marriages.

 

We already changed the age restrictions.  They've been going up.


 

 

That "ridiculous thing that no one wants" was gay marriage. Twenty years ago no one, including gays, wanted gay marriage. It was too heteronormative for the queer culture. Then you get lawsuits and some judges decide that marriage isn't what it's always been in our society. Polygamy has a much more legitimate history, and its highly hypocritical for some one to say I can change the institution to suit my desire but you cannot do the same to suit yours. And no one voted on gay marriage to my knowledge, did we have a referendum that I missed? Seems to me that the activist judiciary struck down the will of the people in permitting gay marriage rather than expressing that new desire through the legislature as is proper. Why would you think we'll have a say in the next cultural perversion to crop up?

The problem is -- polygamy is already legal in parts of the world where gay marriage is not.  (And will likely never be).  So this isn't a case of 'the next thing up'.  Gay Marriage is a separate issue altogether.  One that would pop up eventually whether we allow gay marriage or we don't.  There was nothing stopping polygamy from being the next thing up instead of gay marriage.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I know the temptation is to believe I'm enforcing a rule just so I can win this argument, and I doubt you'll believe me if I say that's not the case. I would have shut the discussion down had I realized the word was filtered, but would your reaction be any different?

 

I don't make the rules, but surely you understand the difficulty in keeping the forum going while adhering to the rules.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

A more reasonable argument for discussion is polygamy, a paradigm that I believe is the next step of our moral regresssion. So, considering the legal ramifications of that relationship structure, how can we, after permitting the same sex marriage, tell people that they cannot marry more than one person at a time? What about the tax ramifications of the legalization of multiple partner marriages? The legal decision-making issues, especially with end of life care, and other power of attorney issues? Having already redefined marriage, its now inevitable that it will continue to devolve.

 

Acceptance of gay marriage is a moral progression, not regression. We have not devolved, we have evolved.

 

Personal freedom should be restricted because the legal ramifications are problematic?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

That "ridiculous thing that no one wants" was gay marriage. Twenty years ago no one, including gays, wanted gay marriage. It was too heteronormative for the queer culture. Then you get lawsuits and some judges decide that marriage isn't what it's always been in our society. Polygamy has a much more legitimate history, and its highly hypocritical for some one to say I can change the institution to suit my desire but you cannot do the same to suit yours. And no one voted on gay marriage to my knowledge, did we have a referendum that I missed? Seems to me that the activist judiciary struck down the will of the people in permitting gay marriage rather than expressing that new desire through the legislature as is proper. Why would you think we'll have a say in the next cultural perversion to crop up?

 

Polls show that by large majorities, the public does not believe homosexuality is immoral, and also by a large majority, the public believes gay marriage should be allowed.   So I don't think it was a case of activist judges striking down the will of the people.  The people in general support gay marriage.  

 

Obviously, you believe homosexuality is a perversion and immoral.  Most people don't agree with you.   They used to.   As late as 2007, a majority thought homosexuality was immoral.   But as of 2014, according to the Gallup poll, 58% do not think it is immoral and 38% think it is immoral.   That's quite a swing.  Society has moved, and you have not.   I can see why you are frustrated.   But there's nothing you can do about it.  

---

That "ridiculous thing that no one wants" was gay marriage. Twenty years ago no one, including gays, wanted gay marriage. It was too heteronormative for the queer culture. Then you get lawsuits and some judges decide that marriage isn't what it's always been in our society. Polygamy has a much more legitimate history, and its highly hypocritical for some one to say I can change the institution to suit my desire but you cannot do the same to suit yours. And no one voted on gay marriage to my knowledge, did we have a referendum that I missed? Seems to me that the activist judiciary struck down the will of the people in permitting gay marriage rather than expressing that new desire through the legislature as is proper. Why would you think we'll have a say in the next cultural perversion to crop up?

 

Imagine how long Jim Crow laws would have remained in effect had we waited on the will of the people in southern states.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Putting the "morality" argument aside for a moment, lets's look at a couple of scenarios (and yes, I have witnessed both).

 

A heterosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up somewhat embarrassed and leave, perhaps even apologizing to the parents that were concerned.

 

A homosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up making a scene, accuse the family and the manager of discriminating, and start howling about their "rights".

 

My question is this.  Given those two situations, why is it that some, even many are against gay marriage or any other "gay rights" kind of thing?  Does couple #2 help the cause?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Putting the "morality" argument aside for a moment, lets's look at a couple of scenarios (and yes, I have witnessed both).


A heterosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example). They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another. A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager. The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up somewhat embarrassed and leave, perhaps even apologizing to the parents that were concerned.


A homosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example). They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another. A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager. The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up making a scene, accuse the family and the manager of discriminating, and start howling about their "rights".


My question is this. Given those two situations, why is it that some, even many are against gay marriage or any other "gay rights" kind of thing? Does couple #2 help the cause?

I wouldn't think many gay couples eat at Denny's.

---

Putting the "morality" argument aside for a moment, lets's look at a couple of scenarios (and yes, I have witnessed both).

 

A heterosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up somewhat embarrassed and leave, perhaps even apologizing to the parents that were concerned.

 

A homosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up making a scene, accuse the family and the manager of discriminating, and start howling about their "rights".

 

My question is this.  Given those two situations, why is it that some, even many are against gay marriage or any other "gay rights" kind of thing?  Does couple #2 help the cause?

 

How about the other way around?


A heterosexual couple make a fuss, stating that they can do whatever they want, and insist that the customer is always right.


The homosexual couple on the other hand apologizes for making a scene.


A friend of mine used to work as a waitress at a restaurant, and she always said that there were unruly customers that always said they were right, no matter how much other people complained about them.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Putting the "morality" argument aside for a moment, lets's look at a couple of scenarios (and yes, I have witnessed both).

 

A heterosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up somewhat embarrassed and leave, perhaps even apologizing to the parents that were concerned.

 

A homosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up making a scene, accuse the family and the manager of discriminating, and start howling about their "rights".

 

My question is this.  Given those two situations, why is it that some, even many are against gay marriage or any other "gay rights" kind of thing?  Does couple #2 help the cause?

 

As a parent of a specific belief that does view homosexuality as immoral, it's my responsibility to decide what and when I'll expose my kids to. In either situation if the heterosexual or homosexual is acting inappropriately I'll take my family and leave. My views and how I want to raise my kids however don't default to government. Just like there are plenty that would view my belief system as offensive and seek legislation to restrict it, I won't support legislation to restrict others.

 

I've left public areas because of behaviors by others, it happens. That's part of going out into public places, that doesn't mean we should default to government to legislate away anything we disagree with, that's a quick path to tyranny.

---

Putting the "morality" argument aside for a moment, lets's look at a couple of scenarios (and yes, I have witnessed both).

 

A heterosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up somewhat embarrassed and leave, perhaps even apologizing to the parents that were concerned.

 

A homosexual couple comes into a "family restaurant" (think Denny's as an example).  They sit in their booth lip-locking and fondling one another.  A family with a couple of young children is close to the booth, and they complain to the manager.  The manager asks the frisky couple to leave, and they get up making a scene, accuse the family and the manager of discriminating, and start howling about their "rights".

 

My question is this.  Given those two situations, why is it that some, even many are against gay marriage or any other "gay rights" kind of thing?  Does couple #2 help the cause?

 

If it was a behavior repeated so often everyone has a similar story, perhaps. I lived in Riverside 33 years, had quite a few homosexual friends and acquaintances, frequented area businesses owned and patronized by homosexual men and women, and never once saw a homosexual couple even share a brief kiss in public. The only exception was the Gay Pride activities, and that was so over the top, in a girls baring their breasts at Mardi Gras way, it softened the effect.

 

If anyone had their attitude towards homosexuality affected or confirmed by the second couple, it was an easy push.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

 

 

It was like a game for the rest of us. All I saw was you quoting his censored word and claiming it was "ridiculous". My first guess was the P word.

 

It was the act describing people have sexual relations with animals.

 

At first it was allowed, then censored. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.