Another point, some cultures eat dogs and cats. Who are we to say you can't do that? Their culture might say you can't eat cows their divine beings. We see them as a main course. Why is our culture superior to theirs? who's morality should we legislate? Is it immoral to eat a dog but not a cow?

Some cultures eat humans.  Who are we to say you can't do that? 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Dont get mad at me because someone poured sour milk in your cornflakes.

 

I speak on behaviors that I deem inappropriate.  

I asked you a question. 

 

I also pointed out how during the times of women's suffrage and segregation (not to mention slavery) there were people taking the exact same holier than thou, moral superiority stance, you are attempting to take now. You ignored that as well. 

---

Some cultures eat humans.  Who are we to say you can't do that? 

 

Easy, humans have rights according to our constitution. The issue is property, we've clearly stated that people can not be owned as property (the whole slavery thing) but animals they don't have rights, they are property.

 

Now I'm sure some people would argue that animals SHOULD have rights, but that's a whole different conversation.

---

I think the laws are unnecessary so as a default yes I'm against animal cruelty laws. Now if you want to have the discussion do animals have rights, that's a discussion to be had. If laws are passed for animals to have rights then they would be extended legal protection. As it is today, animals are property. If someone owns property they are free to do with it as they will.

 

There's so many ways to prevent animal cruelty without passing laws specifically forbidding someone from doing something with their private property.

 

Libertarianism is great as an ideal, but I part ways with it here.  I would not allow people to torture animals, for example torture dogs, even their own dog.   To allow animal cruelty just so you can stand on your political principles, well that's where I get off.   And that's where libertarianism fails.   Because as much as we all like to say that governments should not legislate morality, there are still cases where a majority of people would agree that some things should not be allowed, even if there are no human victims. 

---

Libertarianism is great as an ideal, but I part ways with it here.  I would not allow people to torture animals, for example torture dogs, even their own dog.   To allow animal cruelty just so you can stand on your political principles, well that's where I get off.   And that's where libertarianism fails.   Because as much as we all like to say that governments should not legislate morality, there are still cases where a majority of people would agree that some things should not be allowed, even if there are no human victims. 

 

It's why I favor the Green Party.  I even voted for the Green Party candidate here.  They didn't get a lot of votes, but I like them a lot better than the libertarian party.  I feel that the government has more responsibilities than the Libertarian party does.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Jeez, you make these things sound so...cute.

That wasn't what I was going for! Lol

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Libertarianism is great as an ideal, but I part ways with it here.  I would not allow people to torture animals, for example torture dogs, even their own dog.   To allow animal cruelty just so you can stand on your political principles, well that's where I get off.   And that's where libertarianism fails.   Because as much as we all like to say that governments should not legislate morality, there are still cases where a majority of people would agree that some things should not be allowed, even if there are no human victims.

I'm with you on this one.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Libertarianism is great as an ideal, but I part ways with it here. I would not allow people to torture animals, for example torture dogs, even their own dog. To allow animal cruelty just so you can stand on your political principles, well that's where I get off. And that's where libertarianism fails. Because as much as we all like to say that governments should not legislate morality, there are still cases where a majority of people would agree that some things should not be allowed, even if there are no human victims.

Fair enough and there's some libertarians that would agree with you. that's just my personal belief I was expressing.

---

Libertarianism is great as an ideal, but I part ways with it here.  I would not allow people to torture animals, for example torture dogs, even their own dog.   To allow animal cruelty just so you can stand on your political principles, well that's where I get off.   And that's where libertarianism fails.   Because as much as we all like to say that governments should not legislate morality, there are still cases where a majority of people would agree that some things should not be allowed, even if there are no human victims. 

 

Bingo.

---

I don't like to say that morality should not be legislated because no one who says that actually believes it. They just don't think the things they want to do should be legislated.

 

I'm odd, I don't think that if I think something is "wrong"  that it should be illegal if it doesn't affect more than the person doing it.

 

EditL clarity

---

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

Oh.... So YOU are the morality police. As long as YOU are ok with it then other people can do whatever they want. 

 

It's a good people of such high moral standing as yourself were not able to stop women's right to vote or desegregation. 

 

Nope,

 

I have a right to not agree with certain behaviors no matter how much it irks you or not.

---

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.

I know, I'm the one saying it's not your place.

 

So you knew what I was talking about. You just wanted to waste a post beating your chest like a stupid gorilla to make yourself feel good by telling me what "I shouldnt do"?

---

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.

I asked you a question. 

 

I also pointed out how during the times of women's suffrage and segregation (not to mention slavery) there were people taking the exact same holier than thou, moral superiority stance, you are attempting to take now. You ignored that as well. 

 

What the hell does women segregation have to do with same sex marriage?

 

Are you too brain dead to realize throughout the times I have posted on here what my views are on slavery, and segregation?

---

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.

What the hell does women segregation have to do with same sex marriage?

 

Are you too brain dead to realize throughout the times I have posted on here what my views are on slavery, and segregation?

I am aware what your views are on those issues but you should really take a second and think about this. The move to suffrage and desegregation were full of people opposed to those movements who went around loudly thumping their books and preaching about morals and breakdown of society along with slippery slope rhetoric all the while basing it on their faith and what they found or found to not be moral. If you can't see how those relate or how you and nearly every one else opposed to it are doing the exact same thing right now than I cannot help you. 

 

You not understanding that does not make me brain dead. 

---

I am aware what your views are on those issues but you should really take a second and think about this. The move to suffrage and desegregation were full of people opposed to those movements who went around loudly thumping their books and preaching about morals and breakdown of society along with slippery slope rhetoric all the while basing it on their faith and what they found or found to not be moral. If you can't see how those relate or how you and nearly every one else opposed to it are doing the exact same thing right now than I cannot help you. 

 

You not understanding that does not make me brain dead. 

 

The move to end segration, and slavery was a benefit to human society. What benefit is there to promoting same sex marriage where it all but guarantees the end of the creation of a natural family?

 

I understand the points made, again I disagree with them its nothing you can change about that.

---

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.

The move to end segration, and slavery was a benefit to human society. What benefit is there to promoting same sex marriage where it all but guarantees the end of the creation of a natural family?

 

I understand the points made, again I disagree with them its nothing you can change about that.

The vast majority adopt. Is this a bad thing? It's also a faulty argument. It doesn't turn straight couple gays. It does not guarantee the end of the "natural family" as you see it. Gay couples would still be together, loving each other, and living together. Why are you so against them having the same legal rights as straight couples?

 

I don't really care if you change your mind, you wont because of obvious reasons.  I do question why you would bother posting if you didn't want to hear anyone's retorts. 

---

So you knew what I was talking about. You just wanted to waste a post beating your chest like a stupid gorilla to make yourself feel good by telling me what "I shouldnt do"?

Some one around here has to attempt to translate your besotted ramblings.

---

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

Gay wedding advice. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtgY1q0J_TQ

---

Why are you so against them having the same legal rights as straight couples?

It's not a question of legal rights. It's about morality and choosing what is right. Marriage was/is/always will be, a physical and spiritual union between a man and a woman. I wish the ban on Religious/Spiritual discussions wasn't still in place; otherwise, I could elaborate even further. I personally could care less if a homosexual couple lived together, raised some adopted children, or even had sex together. Again, it's their lives not mine. But defining a same sex relationship as a "Marriage" is really, really, pushing it.

 

There's a specific reason as to why Nature limits reproduction between a male and a female. The same reason as to why a Planet orbits a Star, why Humans can't breathe in the Ocean, and why Dogs can't fly. There are no "Coincidences" at work here.

---

It's not a question of legal rights. It's about morality and choosing what is right. Marriage was/is/always will be, a physical and spiritual union between a man and a woman. I wish the ban on Religious/Spiritual discussions wasn't still in place; otherwise, I could elaborate even further. I personally could care less if a homosexual couple lived together, raised some adopted children, or even had sex together. Again, it's their lives not mine. But defining a same sex relationship as a "Marriage" is really, really, pushing it.

 

There's a specific reason as to why Nature limits reproduction between a male and a female. The same reason as to why a Planet orbits a Star, why Humans can't breathe in the Ocean, and why Dogs can't fly. There are no "Coincidences" at work here.

While I disagree with this, I understand the point of view and it doesn't bother me. However, as long as marriage provides specific legal benefits denied to those not married, it absolutely is a question of legal rights. 100% it is.

---