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.

 

Dont know if this was directed at me, but I appreciate the modified clarification. 

---

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.

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.  

 

So let me get this straight, if I dont agree with the lifestyle, or have a viewpoint that it is immoral then I have not moved on like society has correct?

 

If we get to the point where we legalize Poligamy and Zoophilia im guilty for not keeping up with society and embraced the lifestyle correct?

---

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.

So let me get this straight, if I dont agree with the lifestyle, or have a viewpoint that it is immoral then I have not moved on like society has correct?

 

If we get to the point where we legalize Poligamy and Zoophilia im guilty for not keeping up with society and embraced the lifestyle correct?

 

The only thing you're guilty of in this thread is making illogical comparisons.

---

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


 

So let me get this straight, if I dont agree with the lifestyle, or have a viewpoint that it is immoral then I have not moved on like society has correct?

 

If we get to the point where we legalize Poligamy and Zoophilia im guilty for not keeping up with society and embraced the lifestyle correct?

 

You would not have evolved (or devolved) in the same way that society would have, that is correct.   Society would have moved on, and you would not have moved on.   You and society as a whole would have parted ways in those issues.   Why is this even a question?  

---

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

 

At first it was allowed, then censored. 

 

You mean bestiality?  

---

The only thing you're guilty of in this thread is making illogical comparisons.

 

The comparisons I made exist, but you already said on the record you was not comfortable with having that type of discussion on here.

 

But to you its illogical.

---

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.

You would not have evolved (or devolved) in the same way that society would have, that is correct.   Society would have moved on, and you would not have moved on.   You and society as a whole would have parted ways in those issues.   Why is this even a question?  

 

So in 15-20 years I have to embrace Polygamy and Zoophilia if its legalized and become the norm in society?

---

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.

So in 15-20 years I have to embrace Polygamy and Zoophilia if its legalized and become the norm in society?

 

No.   Where did you get that idea? 

---

No.   Where did you get that idea? 

 

In your previous response.

---

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.

So in 15-20 years I have to embrace Polygamy and Zoophilia if its legalized and become the norm in society?

Yes, obviously you must. This is what you want to hear right? 

---

In your previous response.

 

I said you have to embrace it?   No, I did not say that.   Not even close.  

---

This conversation has gone from the sublime to the bizarre.

---

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


 

So in 15-20 years I have to embrace Polygamy and Zoophilia if its legalized and become the norm in society?

What if the social norm swings the other way. What if in 30 years the social norm is against interracial marriages, society figures were all so polarized we should just keep to our own. Would you support legislation prohibiting interracial marriages?


For the same reason you wouldn't you shouldn't support any legislation based on the whims of society.

---

So in 15-20 years I have to embrace Polygamy and Zoophilia if its legalized and become the norm in society?

What if the social norm swings the other way. What if in 30 years the social norm is against interracial marriages, society figures were all so polarized we should just keep to our own. Would you support legislation prohibiting interracial marriages?


For the same reason you wouldn't you shouldn't support any legislation based on the whims of society.

---

The comparisons I made exist, but you already said on the record you was not comfortable with having that type of discussion on here.

 

But to you its illogical.

I guess I wasn't clear. We all know what we're discussing here. My point was that it is neither appropriate or necessary to go into too much detail about one of the activities in your analogy.

---

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


 

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?

Societal acceptance of immoral behavior doesnt make it moral.


Another way to put it, "that's just, like, your opinion man."

---

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

Societal acceptance of immoral behavior doesnt make it moral.


Another way to put it, "that's just, like, your opinion man."

Morality is a subjective issue which is why i can't understand why people would ever try to legislate it.


You and Df have different morals, ones not right ones not wrong their just different, so who's morals do we make law? Doesn't it make more sense to just not have laws about morals?

---

Morality is a subjective issue which is why i can't understand why people would ever try to legislate it.

You and Df have different morals, ones not right ones not wrong their just different, so who's morals do we make law? Doesn't it make more sense to just not have laws about morals?

It's already legislated, we're discussing a legislative change via judicial fiat. I've not suggested that we write laws to ban gay marriage, but others have decided that marriage, as we've defined it for our culture's entire history, is now something else, which inevitably opens it up to further changes (something apparently denied by those who strongly supported the first change).


And your concept of moral equivalence is quite faulty, though we obviously cant discuss why. Simply compare the morals of ISIS to your own and you'll see that "ones not right and ones not wrong" collapses on itself. Some morals absolutely are immoral, though the degree of response is different to sexual perversion in a free society versus headchoppers in a tyrannical one.

 

And please don't forget that my own position on this is similar to yours, I don't think the government has any business writing laws about marriage. I don't have to try to legislate immorality out of existence unless the immorality is something that needs to be obliterated for the good of all (slavery, murder, rape for example)

---

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

And please don't forget that my own position on this is similar to yours, I don't think the government has any business writing laws about marriage.

Does that include "Gays can't marry"?

---

Does that include "Gays can't marry"?

 

Nope, I don't care what they do. I don't think the law should have any say in it, but at the moment it does and I don't really approve of how this has happened. I also expect that I won't be forced to perform a service for them and that I can still hold my opinion that the behavior is immoral.

---

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