[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You just cannot get it through your thick skull that race IS NOT in any way analogous to gender can you? My church has a bunch of racially mixed families. Black/white, Arab/white, asian/white that I can think of at the moment going both ways with the races of the men and women. Interestingly we have more white men with black women.
In Detroit in general it’s usually the other way around. They are simply godly families to us. That is not even in the same social or moral universe as people of the same gender. It isn’t. Come up with something else. That just does not fly at all.[/quote]
You do understand that this hasn’t always been the case, right? You know, back in the days when we had anti-miscegenation laws, and bible thumpers like you discriminated against mixed race couples based on their religious beliefs that races shouldn’t intermarry?
They didn’t see themselves as bigots back then, any more than you see yourself as a bigot now. Bigots never see themselves as such.
Believe whatever fantasy you want, I really don’t care. Our country IS moving toward equality for gays, just as we have moved toward equality for women and minorities. It’s only a matter of time, and your whining about it will make no difference in the long run.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I mean, like, shouldn’t we let the individual states decide if they want to allow black men to marry white women???
And of course, if black men marry white women, they shouldn’t be able to get immigration rights, file jointly on their tax returns, or any of the other 1,000+ federal rights reserved to properly married same race couples.[/quote]
So?
I am assuming those laws are written on a federal level, they can choose to acknowledge those marriages anytime.
[/quote]
That was kinda my point. If the laws aren’t written on the federal level, gay couples won’t enjoy the 1,000+ benefits of marriage currently granted at the federal level.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I mean, like, shouldn’t we let the individual states decide if they want to allow black men to marry white women???
And of course, if black men marry white women, they shouldn’t be able to get immigration rights, file jointly on their tax returns, or any of the other 1,000+ federal rights reserved to properly married same race couples.[/quote]
But unlike two guys having butt sex, a black man can impregnate his white wife and produce children.
Christians weren’t against mixed race marriage because they couldn’t have children, genius. They were against mixed race marriage because the bible prohibits it.
And after the Polygamists get their way then of course incestual marriage is only a hop skip and jump from approval. Why would we want to show bigotry toward those people? Don’t they have rights as consenting adults? Just like the Polygamists and homosexuals?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
We skyrocketed into the most prosperous, powerful, feared and respected nation in all of human history over the course of a few generations BECAUSE despite our human foibles we were the most moral because we were the most Christian.[/quote]
You skyrocketed into a powerful nation because you had cheap human labor you dickhead. Don’t you fucking forget it.
[/quote]
Ahh, well that explains both our ascent and decent.
I guess we can look to Bangladesh, Jordan and Sri Lanka as the next Big Three superpowers, then. [/quote]
Well, it is one of the BIG factors that had made China and India emerging superpowers.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it. [/quote]
Bestiality?
Come on now if someone owns the pet it’s his or her property they can do with it what they like.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it. [/quote]
Bestiality?
Come on now if someone owns the pet it’s his or her property they can do with it what they like.
You in?[/quote]
An animal isn’t a consenting adult. I don’t care if you like to fuck goats, but you aren’t getting a tax break for it.
But you never answered my question. Did this slippery slope of yours start at inter-racial marriage?
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it. [/quote]
Now here’s a man who actually believes in the ‘consenting adults’ mantra. Not that I agree with him, but at least he’s forthcoming about where he desires marriage to go, ultimately.
There’s always been two pro positions.
An illogical and rebelious fascination with gay marriage. And, solely with gay marriage. That is, despite repetitious crys of “consenting adults” and “bigotry,” the fadish activist would disappear from the argument when other arrangments of consenting adults are put forth. “Bisexual polyamorous marriages? Uh, um, I believe I hear the tea kettle a-whistlin’! Later!” In otherwords, they screwed over the institution not out of heartfelt principle, but for a cultural fad. Lady GaGa told them to, I guess.
Orrrrr, they put aside the act, “Hey, stop making silly slippery slope arguments” and adopt #2.
The long-term planner. The guy or gal who actually believed in the whole ‘consenting adults’ malarky. Gay marriage is just the first step in ‘undefining’ marriage in the public sphere. Making it into something so amorphous it couldn’t possibly discriminate against any imaginative arrangment of consenting adults (though, that implies more than one ;P).
You libertarians may just one day realize that certain social and public expectations, certains norms and morals, requirements, and even laws, actually minimize the role of government. It was the protestantism of earlier americans which gave them not only the attitude, but the actual ability, to be self-reliant (thus self-governing) individuals. Faith, family, and local community and custom being the pillars. You have been, and always will be, your own worst enemy in shrinking the welfare state, and naturally, taxation.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it. [/quote]
Bestiality?
Come on now if someone owns the pet it’s his or her property they can do with it what they like.
You in?[/quote]
An animal isn’t a consenting adult. I don’t care if you like to fuck goats, but you aren’t getting a tax break for it.
But you never answered my question. Did this slippery slope of yours start at inter-racial marriage?
[/quote]
Not at all, I thought I made that clear. You either didn’t pick up on the fact that I thought it was insulting to even be asked such a question. Or, you’re continuing the insult by asking it yet again.
As to marriage, just because YOU say that marriage should be between consenting adults of any number and nature does not mean that others will agree, or that it will end there. There will be those who deem animal/human relations as perfectly fine. And still others that think adult/child relations should be legal and maybe even government sanctioned - THAT along with the two other examples that you apparently agree with is more of the slippery slope which I refer to and you seem to mock.
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it. [/quote]
Bestiality?
Come on now if someone owns the pet it’s his or her property they can do with it what they like.
You in?[/quote]
An animal isn’t a consenting adult. I don’t care if you like to fuck goats, but you aren’t getting a tax break for it.
But you never answered my question. Did this slippery slope of yours start at inter-racial marriage?
[/quote]
Not at all, I thought I made that clear. You either didn’t pick up on the fact that I thought it was insulting to even be asked such a question. Or, you’re continuing the insult by asking it yet again.
As to marriage, just because YOU say that marriage should be between consenting adults of any number and nature does not mean that others will agree, or that it will end there. There will be those who deem animal/human relations as perfectly fine. And still others that think adult/child relations should be legal and maybe even government sanctioned - THAT along with the two other examples that you apparently agree with is more of the slippery slope which I refer to and you seem to mock.[/quote]
What makes your slippery slope arguments different than the Klan’s when they argued against interracial marriage? What sets your reasoning apart?
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it. [/quote]
Bestiality?
Come on now if someone owns the pet it’s his or her property they can do with it what they like.
You in?[/quote]
An animal isn’t a consenting adult. I don’t care if you like to fuck goats, but you aren’t getting a tax break for it.
But you never answered my question. Did this slippery slope of yours start at inter-racial marriage?
[/quote]
Not at all, I thought I made that clear. You either didn’t pick up on the fact that I thought it was insulting to even be asked such a question. Or, you’re continuing the insult by asking it yet again.
As to marriage, just because YOU say that marriage should be between consenting adults of any number and nature does not mean that others will agree, or that it will end there. There will be those who deem animal/human relations as perfectly fine. And still others that think adult/child relations should be legal and maybe even government sanctioned - THAT along with the two other examples that you apparently agree with is more of the slippery slope which I refer to and you seem to mock.[/quote]
What makes your slippery slope arguments different than the Klan’s when they argued against interracial marriage? What sets your reasoning apart?[/quote]
I have no idea what the “Klan” said regarding interracial marriage. Nor is there a comparison to be made. However, you cannot deny where this country has been regarding gay marriage, and similar moral issues, and where it is now. The slippery slope has been proven - We are living it!
Did this slippery slope that we are now on start for you at allowing inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
I’ll let pass the opportunity to return an insult for that insult. And I’ll just say that those who think that homosexual marriage will not lead to other perverse forms of marriage are smoking something that they’d be better off without. Just as homosexuals scream for “tolerance” turned into a cry for “acceptance” which turned into a demand for marriage. The slippery slope is alive and well.
And by the way YOU cannot give me a logical argument why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry. And I dare you to try.[/quote]
I agree. There is no logical reason why polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]
Ah, very good, now tell me is there any reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed to marry? And don’t give me that genetic mutation argument as we can make sure that they are either unable to bear children, or willingly become sterilized. [/quote]
As long as they willingly become sterile, nope. No LOGICAL reason not to allow it. [/quote]
Bestiality?
Come on now if someone owns the pet it’s his or her property they can do with it what they like.
You in?[/quote]
An animal isn’t a consenting adult. I don’t care if you like to fuck goats, but you aren’t getting a tax break for it.
But you never answered my question. Did this slippery slope of yours start at inter-racial marriage?
[/quote]
Not at all, I thought I made that clear. You either didn’t pick up on the fact that I thought it was insulting to even be asked such a question. Or, you’re continuing the insult by asking it yet again.
As to marriage, just because YOU say that marriage should be between consenting adults of any number and nature does not mean that others will agree, or that it will end there. There will be those who deem animal/human relations as perfectly fine. And still others that think adult/child relations should be legal and maybe even government sanctioned - THAT along with the two other examples that you apparently agree with is more of the slippery slope which I refer to and you seem to mock.[/quote]
What makes your slippery slope arguments different than the Klan’s when they argued against interracial marriage? What sets your reasoning apart?[/quote]
I have no idea what the “Klan” said regarding interracial marriage. Nor is there a comparison to be made.
[/quote]
They used the same arguments you make against gay marriage. There is a perfect comparison to be made.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You libertarians may just one day realize that certain social and public expectations, certains norms and morals, requirements, and even laws, actually minimize the role of government. It was the protestantism of earlier americans which gave them not only the attitude, but the actual ability, to be self-reliant (thus self-governing) individuals. Faith, family, and local community and custom being the pillars. You have been, and always will be, your own worst enemy in shrinking the welfare state, and naturally, taxation.
[/quote]
Wrong. True libertarians always have, and always will, believe in personal responsibility. Get it - personal responsibility. It is not the government’s job to make sure we have healthy marriages and strong families, it is our job. From a libertarian prospective, it is the social conservatives that have weakened morality. Social conservatives want laws to fix everything. The result is the message that if the law says it’s okay, it must be okay, but if it says it’s not okay, than it’s not. This is strange to me. The law is meant to maintain social order within the confines of a legal system with limited resources. I don’t interpret no fault divorce laws as sending the message that it’s perfectly okay to get divorced if you’re tired of being married, screw the effect on your spouse and children. No fault divorce is a recognition that judges and court personnel are not marriage counselors, nor should they be.
Civil marriage simply provides certain rights. That’s it. It doesn’t guarantee a good marriage, it doesn’t require a couple to have children (and many don’t), it doesn’t even require a couple to love each other (and for many years, love was irrelevant). Civil marriage simply says who gets property in the event of divorce or death. Civil marriage is really no different than getting a license to drive a car. This has nothing to do with how I personally view my marriage, which I value on a level way, way, beyond a license to drive a car. Do you understand the distinction between legal/governmental and personal? Do you understand that I do not allow the government to dictate what I should think or how I should conduct myself? This is the very heart of libertarianism.
