Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Individuals don’t foster personal responsibility. Society fosters personal responsiblity. Even through legal discriminations. The libertarian worldview is the biggest and most destructive scam running when it comes to shrinking the nanny state. Your utopian vision has already failed. Conservative morality underpinned the smallest federal government from the beginning of our history. Your “shh, shh, that’s PERRRRRsonal responsibility” has fostered the nanny state. Protestant morality made a free market most feasible. Libertarain “shh, shh, that’ PERSONAL responsibility” has us bankrupt with entitlement obligations (in place of relying on intact and robust families). Libertarianism is a scourge to the free market.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
. From a libertarian prospective, it is the social conservatives that have weakened morality. Social conservatives want laws to fix everything[/quote]

Um, take a look at the west. It has, by and large, adopted libertarian social liberalism and (as I continue to point out) rejected economic liberalism (miniscule to no welfare state). Libertarians only helped, by obstructing the the only realistic free market philosophy, conservatism.

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
Zeb,

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]

Doogie, you’re a smart guy I’ve seen your posts. I know that you would not agree with a blanket statement that “killing” is wrong. But killing can be wrong. Would anyone argue that killing Hitler would have been wrong? But of course killing an innocent child, for example, is absolutely wrong. One cannot say that discrimination regardless of the topic is wrong. Just as 45 year olds cannot enter the military. Would you argue that this discrimination is wrong?There is no comparison between the African American crusade for equal rights and homosexual marriage, none.

[quote]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!

So when did this slippery slope start? [/quote]

I think that depends on the topic if you want to be specific. Morally, I think it began with removing prayer from public schools. I know your an atheist, or is it agnostic? (sorry, I know it’s one or the other). However, whether you are a believer or not, not many can argue successfully that religion, Christianity in particular didn’t play a large roll in keeping people from doing things that not only harmed themselves, but society as a whole.

Before you disagree compare the statistics to many of societies woes from 1962, the year prayer was removed from public school to the most recent stats 45-50 years later.

AIDS- Up

STD’s- Up

Suicide- Up

School violence- Up

Drug abuse- Up

Alcohol Consumption- Up

Sex and Violence on TV- Way Up

The list is virtually endless.

I know that it is possible to bring up children with a moral base and not have religion in the house, I assume you are doing that. But most children (and most adults) need to be rooted with a moral base. With both parents working and less time being spent with children where do they learn right from wrong? The TV set? Hollywood? YIKES! Their friends? What we’re seeing is that whatever happens to “feel good” is the rule of the day.

You and I, as adults, know that just because two men want to have sex together doesn’t mean that society will crumble, immediately. But, with that said, when children see that this is okay the envelope is pushed even further. And what one generation allowed in the name of “acceptance” or “equality” becomes standard for the next generation. And the new generation of liberals and progressive thinkers will seek to go the next step.

And as I’ve said we are living the slippery slope. And I submit to you gay marriage passing in New York is a product of that slippery slope. If you think that our founding fathers would agree to this you are very wrong. Hey, we don’t even have to go that far back. FDR, Truman, Ike, even JFK (who by today’s standards would be a republican) would NEVER have agreed to this nonsense at any level or for any reason. But today’s standards have eroded and almost anything goes - A product of the slippery slope.

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< 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.[/quote]Document one example of where a Christian denomination demonstrated that interracial marriage is unbiblical. There is NO commandment that says “a man or women found to be black shall not be married to a man or women who is not so found. A man or women found to be black or white who marries one who is not the same as themselves shall be stoned outside the gates by the congregation of the saints”.

There is NO morality inherent in race. It is not an action or attitude until somebody deliberately makes it one. Who one has sex with is one the most morally charged issues there is with impact sufficient to make or break an entire society as we are seeing and will continue to see until this nation finally collapses for good under the weight of it’s own carnal hedonistic self worshiping corruption. Like I said we have been progressively (pun intended) poisoning our own well since the 60’s until now the generation presently in their teens WILL oversee the final burial of what little may be left of this once great nation. Write it down.

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]This is extremely big of you to say my friend. I promise that I mean that with all sincerity and good will. Quite true as well. The colonies were predominantly protestant (and predominantly Calvinistic, though I will not address that further in this thread)

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
. From a libertarian prospective, it is the social conservatives that have weakened morality. Social conservatives want laws to fix everything[/quote]

Um, take a look at the west. It has, by and large, adopted libertarian social liberalism and (as I continue to point out) rejected economic liberalism (miniscule to no welfare state). Libertarians only helped, by obstructing the the only realistic free market philosophy, conservatism.[/quote]

As a libertarian I strongly believe in the free market, so don’t lump me in with those social libertarians who support socialism. Enough said there.

Let’s play a mind game. Suppose you were made King of the U.S. for a Day. What laws would you repeal and/or enact to make society better. Anything goes here. For example, if you wanted to imprison atheists you could do that. Your laws could not be overturned.

I open up this question for everyone because I’m curious.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Before you disagree compare the statistics to many of societies woes from 1962, the year prayer was removed from public school to the most recent stats 45-50 years later.[/quote]

Correlation = Causation

amirite

Not that I think it will make any difference to your bigotry, but for the record:

[quote]Arguments against same-sex marriage are nearly identical to those used to condemn “inter-racial” marriage. Discrimination against both have been justified by tradition based on “natural law”, and the opponents of both types of marriage have used the Bible to justify legislated discrimination. Both have attempted to add to the Constitution words governing which types of marriage the state may sanction, yet both claim their efforts to exclude certain types of citizens from marriage are somehow “non-discriminatory”. The parallel is uncomfortably close, as anti-miscegenation laws have only recently been repealed across the United States…

In the 1660s, Maryland became the first colony to prohibit interracial marriages. By 1750, all the southern colonies as well as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania made interracial marriages illegal. For example, Virginia had a law stating that “All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.” (Code Ann. A7 20-57)

In Maryland, when slavery was introduced in 1664, the law also prohibited marriages between white women and black men. between 1935 and 1967, the law was extended to forbid marriage between Malaysians with blacks and whites. The law was finally repealed in 1967.

During the 1950s, half of the states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. By the early 's at least 41 states had enacted anti-miscegenation statutes…

“Miscegenation violates God’s Law (natural Law) of reproduction, no matter how much Billy Graham and his ilk put their seal of approval on it. This inter-mingling is unknown to all other species. It is only man who interferes with God’s law. It has been proven that if the horse mates with a zebra, it will produce offspring with zebra stripes for generations to come. The lion will not mate with the tiger, unless man forces it to. In many cases of artificial, or forced interbreeding, as between a horse and a donkey, the offspring becomes incapable of reproduction.”

As the New York Times (Feb. 23, 1911, p. 23) phrased it: The “white and black races should live apart. Their hybridization forms a degenerate type; anthropologists declare that some of the most cruel and treacherous specimens of humanity are to be found among ‘mottled’ negroes.”

A Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

Similarly, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that:

“moral or social equality between the different races does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity.”

This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said a Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

According to the Community Relations Coordinator at Bob Jones University, which prohibited inter-racial dating as late as 2000:

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain… Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.

There are verses in support of this position, just as there are in support of those who want to legislate their dislike of homosexuality.

After the Fall, what sort of marriages were introduced by men, which were productive of great evil?

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Gen. 6:1,2.

Not only was there plurality of wives, which in itself is an evil, but the “sons of God,” descending from Seth, married the “daughters of men,” the descendants from the idolatrous line of Cain, and thus corrupted the seed, or church, of God itself. All the barriers against evil thus being broken down, the whole race was soon corrupted, violence filled the earth, and the flood followed.

What restriction did God make respecting marriages in Israel?

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

What prohibition did God give His chosen people against intermarrying with the heathen nations about them, and why?

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

Intermarriage with the ungodly was the mistake made by the professed people of God before the flood, and God did not wish Israel to repeat that folly.

What instruction is given in the New Testament regarding marriage with unbelievers?

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God.” 2 Cor. 6:14-16.

This instruction forbids all compromising partnerships. Marriage of believers with unbelievers has ever been a snare by which Satan has captured many earnest souls who thought they could win the unbelieving, but in most cases have themselves drifted away from the moorings of faith into doubt, backsliding, and loss of religion. It was one of Israelâ??s constant dangers, against which God warned them repeatedly. “Give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace [by such compromise] or their wealth forever.” Ezra 9:12. See also Ex. 34:14-16; Judges 14:1-3. Ezra 9 and 10; and Neh. 13:23-27.

In sum, therefore:

“Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.”

  • Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965

They were sincere, but should Christians have seen through this pseudo-Biblical nonsense?

How could Christians 140 years ago, or even 40 years ago, have discerned the truth about these hateful statements and these false Biblical arguments? They could have seen through the hatred if they had only taken to heart the words of the man they call the savior: if they had applied the litmus test of Jesus. Jesus called on his followers to judge whether or not a religious teaching brought “good fruit” or “bad fruit.”[/quote]

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< What laws would you repeal and/or enact to make society better. Anything goes here. For example, if you wanted to imprison atheists you could do that. Your laws could not be overturned. >>>[/quote]This is exactly the wrong question to ask and demonstrates perfectly why secular social libertarians have absolutely no clue what either the problem or the solution is. Laws, either too many, too few, the wrong kind etc. are but symptoms. The private voluntarily held morality of the citizenry is the key to freedom. Our government was meant to pretty much only protect the populous from the deviants and a few other things. When everybody becomes a deviant no amount or manner of laws will reign in the destruction that follows. Especially in a country where the legislature IS the people.
Strong Words
John Adams said: [quote]We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. >>>[/quote]Not even HE could have foreseen how true his words would turn out to be.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
Zeb,

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]

Doogie, you’re a smart guy I’ve seen your posts. I know that you would not agree with a blanket statement that “killing” is wrong. But killing can be wrong. Would anyone argue that killing Hitler would have been wrong? But of course killing an innocent child, for example, is absolutely wrong. One cannot say that discrimination regardless of the topic is wrong. Just as 45 year olds cannot enter the military. Would you argue that this discrimination is wrong?There is no comparison between the African American crusade for equal rights and homosexual marriage, none.

[quote]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!

So when did this slippery slope start? [/quote]

I think that depends on the topic if you want to be specific. Morally, I think it began with removing prayer from public schools. I know your an atheist, or is it agnostic? (sorry, I know it’s one or the other). However, whether you are a believer or not, not many can argue successfully that religion, Christianity in particular didn’t play a large roll in keeping people from doing things that not only harmed themselves, but society as a whole.

Before you disagree compare the statistics to many of societies woes from 1962, the year prayer was removed from public school to the most recent stats 45-50 years later.

AIDS- Up

STD’s- Up

Suicide- Up

School violence- Up

Drug abuse- Up

Alcohol Consumption- Up

Sex and Violence on TV- Way Up

The list is virtually endless.

I know that it is possible to bring up children with a moral base and not have religion in the house, I assume you are doing that. But most children (and most adults) need to be rooted with a moral base. With both parents working and less time being spent with children where do they learn right from wrong? The TV set? Hollywood? YIKES! Their friends? What we’re seeing is that whatever happens to “feel good” is the rule of the day.

You and I, as adults, know that just because two men want to have sex together doesn’t mean that society will crumble, immediately. But, with that said, when children see that this is okay the envelope is pushed even further. And what one generation allowed in the name of “acceptance” or “equality” becomes standard for the next generation. And the new generation of liberals and progressive thinkers will seek to go the next step.

And as I’ve said we are living the slippery slope. And I submit to you gay marriage passing in New York is a product of that slippery slope. If you think that our founding fathers would agree to this you are very wrong. Hey, we don’t even have to go that far back. FDR, Truman, Ike, even JFK (who by today’s standards would be a republican) would NEVER have agreed to this nonsense at any level or for any reason. But today’s standards have eroded and almost anything goes - A product of the slippery slope.

[/quote]

Thing is, Zeb, I grew up in the 80s and there was a guy named Jerry Falwell from a group called the Moral Majority who said these exact same things. Falwell predicted the downfall of society within a few years. Here we are, 30 years later, and we’re still here. And while we’ve seen better economic times, we’re still pretty prosperous. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. I’ve actually read statistics saying that teenage pregnancy is down. Interestingly, teenage pregnancy rates tend to be higher in Southern states like Mississippi - the so called Bible Belt of the nation that fancies itself to be the most religious. This region also has the worst education record of the nation. This leads me to think that education and critical thinking have more to do with morality than religious influence.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< What laws would you repeal and/or enact to make society better. Anything goes here. For example, if you wanted to imprison atheists you could do that. Your laws could not be overturned. >>>[/quote]This is exactly the wrong question to ask and demonstrates perfectly why secular social libertarians have absolutely no clue what either the problem or the solution is. Laws, either too many, too few, the wrong kind etc. are but symptoms. The private voluntarily held morality of the citizenry is the key to freedom. Our government was meant to pretty much only protect the populous from the deviants and a few other things. When everybody becomes a deviant no amount or manner of laws will reign in the destruction that follows. Especially in a country where the legislature IS the people.
Strong Words
John Adams said: [quote]We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. >>>[/quote]Not even could have foreseen how true his words would turn out to be.[/quote]

Tirib, I do have a clue. And guess what, I agree with you!

“The private voluntarily held morality of the citizenry is the key to freedom.”

I agree with this statement 100%. And this is the core of libertarianism. This is what I’ve been saying all along - it is our job to develop morality within ourselves and our children. Moral values should come from within. Once moral values are internalized, what happens externally should make little difference. I use myself as an example. I value my marriage because I have internalized the principle that being married is good. The fact that it would be very easy for me to obtain a divorce and the fact that a lot of people are getting divorces are both irrelevant to me. Similarly, assuming that the NY law now makes gay marriage the new “in” thing to do will NOT cause me to leave my wife and family and hook up with a gay guy.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Before you disagree compare the statistics to many of societies woes from 1962, the year prayer was removed from public school to the most recent stats 45-50 years later.[/quote]

Correlation = Causation

amirite[/quote]

Please then share your own theory of how we got to this place. I’d actually love to hear it.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
Zeb,

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]

Doogie, you’re a smart guy I’ve seen your posts. I know that you would not agree with a blanket statement that “killing” is wrong. But killing can be wrong. Would anyone argue that killing Hitler would have been wrong? But of course killing an innocent child, for example, is absolutely wrong. One cannot say that discrimination regardless of the topic is wrong. Just as 45 year olds cannot enter the military. Would you argue that this discrimination is wrong?There is no comparison between the African American crusade for equal rights and homosexual marriage, none.

[quote]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!

So when did this slippery slope start? [/quote]

I think that depends on the topic if you want to be specific. Morally, I think it began with removing prayer from public schools. I know your an atheist, or is it agnostic? (sorry, I know it’s one or the other). However, whether you are a believer or not, not many can argue successfully that religion, Christianity in particular didn’t play a large roll in keeping people from doing things that not only harmed themselves, but society as a whole.

Before you disagree compare the statistics to many of societies woes from 1962, the year prayer was removed from public school to the most recent stats 45-50 years later.

AIDS- Up

STD’s- Up

Suicide- Up

School violence- Up

Drug abuse- Up

Alcohol Consumption- Up

Sex and Violence on TV- Way Up

The list is virtually endless.

I know that it is possible to bring up children with a moral base and not have religion in the house, I assume you are doing that. But most children (and most adults) need to be rooted with a moral base. With both parents working and less time being spent with children where do they learn right from wrong? The TV set? Hollywood? YIKES! Their friends? What we’re seeing is that whatever happens to “feel good” is the rule of the day.

You and I, as adults, know that just because two men want to have sex together doesn’t mean that society will crumble, immediately. But, with that said, when children see that this is okay the envelope is pushed even further. And what one generation allowed in the name of “acceptance” or “equality” becomes standard for the next generation. And the new generation of liberals and progressive thinkers will seek to go the next step.

And as I’ve said we are living the slippery slope. And I submit to you gay marriage passing in New York is a product of that slippery slope. If you think that our founding fathers would agree to this you are very wrong. Hey, we don’t even have to go that far back. FDR, Truman, Ike, even JFK (who by today’s standards would be a republican) would NEVER have agreed to this nonsense at any level or for any reason. But today’s standards have eroded and almost anything goes - A product of the slippery slope.

[/quote]

Thing is, Zeb, I grew up in the 80s and there was a guy named Jerry Falwell from a group called the Moral Majority who said these exact same things. Falwell predicted the downfall of society within a few years. Here we are, 30 years later, and we’re still here. And while we’ve seen better economic times, we’re still pretty prosperous. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. I’ve actually read statistics saying that teenage pregnancy is down. Interestingly, teenage pregnancy rates tend to be higher in Southern states like Mississippi - the so called Bible Belt of the nation that fancies itself to be the most religious. This region also has the worst education record of the nation. This leads me to think that education and critical thinking have more to do with morality than religious influence.[/quote]

  1. I don’t recall Jerry Falwell predicting the end of civilization within a few years. And I was very tuned into him in the 80’s as he was a big supporter of our greatest modern day President Ronald Reagan.

  2. Please tell me out of a list of 100 things which ones are better now than in 1962? 3 or 4 maybe, sure. But that is not exactly a resounding victory for our current culture is it?

  3. We are still standing, and we look pretty much the way Rocky Balboa looked after fighting Apollo Creed. Not pretty…No sir eeeeee!

  4. Teen pregnancy rates are down from 20 years ago, true. But not because 13-16 year olds are abstaining from sex. It’s because they are having other forms of sex and are using condoms when they have intercourse. AND…the abortion rates are much higher too. But none of this has stopped the spread of AIDS. Where was AIDS in 1962? Where was homosexuality in 1962? According to the CDC almost 60% of all new HIV cases come from male homosexuals. Who, according to the CDC also lead the way in STD’s, suicide, anxiety, depression and an entire host of other unwanted tragic illness. HEY LETS PROMOTE MORE OF THIS BEHAVIOR. Why not the media will never tell us the truth. It would be funny if it were not so tragic. Allowing gay marriage is like subsidizing alcoholics to drink more. Pathetic and destructive and…we, as a nation, will continue to pay a price for this! The slippery slope has a huge price tag.

  5. There is not one of the statistics that I mention in my original post above that look better in 2011 than the did in 1962.

It’s not pretty my friend. And if we don’t do something quickly we will continue to slide down that slippery slope while we are playing the fiddle and celebrating perversity.

No Mike, you DON"T have a clue. Conflicting moralities cannot coexist and make the freedom of a society so divided impossible. How could that be any clearer than what we’re seeing right now. And here you go “OK, who decides what morality is enforced then?”. To which I respond again that private morality CANNOT BE enforced. It must be voluntary, it must have vaaaast majority voluntary support AND it must be conducive to the cultural and societal goals of the people enacting it.

Judeo-Christian morality was in the unquestionable ascendancy when this nation was founded. That was the free enjoyment of sex within the new testament covenant bonds of the marriage of one man and one woman for life from which would be spawned new citizens who were raised under all the self sacrificing high principles of character that that model promotes. Even in those who weren’t true believers. The loss of that single component of our culture IS absolutely responsible for every last social and economic ill under which we now find ourselves laboring. Faithful marriage and family produces character in and for everybody. No faithful marriage and family? No character. Make no mistake Mike. The welfare state took off at the exact same time as did the rise of recreational sex. 2 sides of the same coin and now the former fuels the need for the latter as responsible faithful families utterly disappear from our midst while the perverse sexual union of members of the same gender is now called marriage and family.

We are finally officially living in a morally twisted episode of the twilight zone.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
Zeb,

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]

Doogie, you’re a smart guy I’ve seen your posts. I know that you would not agree with a blanket statement that “killing” is wrong. But killing can be wrong. Would anyone argue that killing Hitler would have been wrong? But of course killing an innocent child, for example, is absolutely wrong. One cannot say that discrimination regardless of the topic is wrong. Just as 45 year olds cannot enter the military. Would you argue that this discrimination is wrong?There is no comparison between the African American crusade for equal rights and homosexual marriage, none.

[quote]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!

So when did this slippery slope start? [/quote]

I think that depends on the topic if you want to be specific. Morally, I think it began with removing prayer from public schools. I know your an atheist, or is it agnostic? (sorry, I know it’s one or the other). However, whether you are a believer or not, not many can argue successfully that religion, Christianity in particular didn’t play a large roll in keeping people from doing things that not only harmed themselves, but society as a whole.

Before you disagree compare the statistics to many of societies woes from 1962, the year prayer was removed from public school to the most recent stats 45-50 years later.

AIDS- Up

STD’s- Up

Suicide- Up

School violence- Up

Drug abuse- Up

Alcohol Consumption- Up

Sex and Violence on TV- Way Up

The list is virtually endless.

I know that it is possible to bring up children with a moral base and not have religion in the house, I assume you are doing that. But most children (and most adults) need to be rooted with a moral base. With both parents working and less time being spent with children where do they learn right from wrong? The TV set? Hollywood? YIKES! Their friends? What we’re seeing is that whatever happens to “feel good” is the rule of the day.

You and I, as adults, know that just because two men want to have sex together doesn’t mean that society will crumble, immediately. But, with that said, when children see that this is okay the envelope is pushed even further. And what one generation allowed in the name of “acceptance” or “equality” becomes standard for the next generation. And the new generation of liberals and progressive thinkers will seek to go the next step.

And as I’ve said we are living the slippery slope. And I submit to you gay marriage passing in New York is a product of that slippery slope. If you think that our founding fathers would agree to this you are very wrong. Hey, we don’t even have to go that far back. FDR, Truman, Ike, even JFK (who by today’s standards would be a republican) would NEVER have agreed to this nonsense at any level or for any reason. But today’s standards have eroded and almost anything goes - A product of the slippery slope.

[/quote]

Thing is, Zeb, I grew up in the 80s and there was a guy named Jerry Falwell from a group called the Moral Majority who said these exact same things. Falwell predicted the downfall of society within a few years. Here we are, 30 years later, and we’re still here. And while we’ve seen better economic times, we’re still pretty prosperous. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. I’ve actually read statistics saying that teenage pregnancy is down. Interestingly, teenage pregnancy rates tend to be higher in Southern states like Mississippi - the so called Bible Belt of the nation that fancies itself to be the most religious. This region also has the worst education record of the nation. This leads me to think that education and critical thinking have more to do with morality than religious influence.[/quote]

  1. I don’t recall Jerry Falwell predicting the end of civilization within a few years. And I was very tuned into him in the 80’s as he was a big supporter of our greatest modern day President Ronald Reagan.

  2. Please tell me out of a list of 100 things which ones are better now than in 1962? 3 or 4 maybe, sure. But that is not exactly a resounding victory for our current culture is it?

  3. We are still standing, and we look pretty much the way Rocky Balboa looked after fighting Apollo Creed. Not pretty…No sir eeeeee!

  4. Teen pregnancy rates are down from 20 years ago, true. But not because 13-16 year olds are abstaining from sex. It’s because they are having other forms of sex and are using condoms when they have intercourse. AND…the abortion rates are much higher too. But none of this has stopped the spread of AIDS. Where was AIDS in 1962? Where was homosexuality in 1962? According to the CDC almost 60% of all new HIV cases come from male homosexuals. Who, according to the CDC also lead the way in STD’s, suicide, anxiety, depression and an entire host of other unwanted tragic illness. HEY LETS PROMOTE MORE OF THIS BEHAVIOR. Why not the media will never tell us the truth. It would be funny if it were not so tragic. Allowing gay marriage is like subsidizing alcoholics to drink more. Pathetic and destructive and…we, as a nation, will continue to pay a price for this! The slippery slope has a huge price tag.

  5. There is not one of the statistics that I mention in my original post above that look better in 2011 than the did in 1962.

It’s not pretty my friend. And if we don’t do something quickly we will continue to slide down that slippery slope while we are playing the fiddle and celebrating perversity. [/quote]

Yes!!! Repent!! The end is near!!

What happened to the debt under Reagan? No too conservative.

Whatever. Going to go finish my arc now.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

  1. I don’t recall Jerry Falwell predicting the end of civilization within a few years. And I was very tuned into him in the 80’s as he was a big supporter of our greatest modern day President Ronald Reagan.

  2. Please tell me out of a list of 100 things which ones are better now than in 1962? 3 or 4 maybe, sure. But that is not exactly a resounding victory for our current culture is it?

  3. We are still standing, and we look pretty much the way Rocky Balboa looked after fighting Apollo Creed. Not pretty…No sir eeeeee!

  4. Teen pregnancy rates are down from 20 years ago, true. But not because 13-16 year olds are abstaining from sex. It’s because they are having other forms of sex and are using condoms when they have intercourse. AND…the abortion rates are much higher too. But none of this has stopped the spread of AIDS. Where was AIDS in 1962? Where was homosexuality in 1962? According to the CDC almost 60% of all new HIV cases come from male homosexuals. Who, according to the CDC also lead the way in STD’s, suicide, anxiety, depression and an entire host of other unwanted tragic illness. HEY LETS PROMOTE MORE OF THIS BEHAVIOR. Why not the media will never tell us the truth. It would be funny if it were not so tragic. Allowing gay marriage is like subsidizing alcoholics to drink more. Pathetic and destructive and…we, as a nation, will continue to pay a price for this! The slippery slope has a huge price tag.

  5. There is not one of the statistics that I mention in my original post above that look better in 2011 than the did in 1962.

It’s not pretty my friend. And if we don’t do something quickly we will continue to slide down that slippery slope while we are playing the fiddle and celebrating perversity. [/quote]

AIDS was not around in 1962 because it wasn’t even a disease then. And you cannot blame gays or any group for starting AIDS unless you can prove that an evil homosexual scientist created the virus in a lab. Starting and spreading are different things.

You have limited your definition of “better” to a narrow list of societal statistics. I agree that these are important statistics. And when you say that these numbers increased, are you talking percentages or raw numbers? The population has increased so naturally the raw numbers went up. But if the percentage didn’t change, then there is no change.

It is interesting that you focus on 1962 and school prayer as the day when all this trouble started. As others have mentioned, and I mentioned on another post, correlation does not equal causation. And this is why the question on interracial marriage is relevant. The slippery slope works both ways. In 1963, the Loving couple challenged the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage. In 1967, the Supreme Court handed down its decision finding the law unconstitutional. Yet another “problem” from the 60s. And I guarantee you that some cranky Southerners were saying, “If we let them Negroes marry white folk, next thing you know, people will want to marry goats.” By golly, if we just kept them black folk in their place we wouldn’t be in this mess.

See what I’m getting at here? I need more than correlation.

As far as whether things are better now than they were in 1962, are you kidding me? Computers alone should equal 1,000 reasons since they went on to bring about so many other beneficial changes.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
No Mike, you DON"T have a clue. Conflicting moralities cannot coexist and make the freedom of a society so divided impossible. How could that be any clearer than what we’re seeing right now. And here you go “OK, who decides what morality is enforced then?”. To which I respond again that private morality CANNOT BE enforced. It must be voluntary, it must have vaaaast majority voluntary support AND it must be conducive to the cultural and societal goals of the people enacting it.

Judeo-Christian morality was in the unquestionable ascendancy when this nation was founded. That was the free enjoyment of sex within the new testament covenant bonds of the marriage of one man and one woman for life from which would be spawned new citizens who were raised under all the self sacrificing high principles of character that that model promotes. Even in those who weren’t true believers. The loss of that single component of our culture IS absolutely responsible for every last social and economic ill under which we now find ourselves laboring. Faithful marriage and family produces character in and for everybody. No faithful marriage and family? No character. Make no mistake Mike. The welfare state took off at the exact same time as did the rise of recreational sex. 2 sides of the same coin and now the former fuels the need for the latter as responsible faithful families utterly disappear from our midst while the perverse sexual union of members of the same gender is now called marriage and family.

We are finally officially living in a morally twisted episode of the twilight zone.
[/quote]

Judeo-Christian morality was used to justify discrimination against mixed-race couples, too. It wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
And this is why the question on interracial marriage is relevant. The slippery slope works both ways. In 1963, the Loving couple challenged the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage. In 1967, the Supreme Court handed down its decision finding the law unconstitutional. Yet another “problem” from the 60s. And I guarantee you that some cranky Southerners were saying, “If we let them Negroes marry white folk, next thing you know, people will want to marry goats.” By golly, if we just kept them black folk in their place we wouldn’t be in this mess.[/quote]

Exactly. The target has changed, but the twisted logic is the same. Does this rhetoric against interracial marriages sound familiar?

[quote]A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”

These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.

Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior, and entered into by the dregs of society.” [/quote]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
And this is why the question on interracial marriage is relevant. The slippery slope works both ways. In 1963, the Loving couple challenged the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage. In 1967, the Supreme Court handed down its decision finding the law unconstitutional. Yet another “problem” from the 60s. And I guarantee you that some cranky Southerners were saying, “If we let them Negroes marry white folk, next thing you know, people will want to marry goats.” By golly, if we just kept them black folk in their place we wouldn’t be in this mess.[/quote]

Exactly. The target has changed, but the twisted logic is the same. Does this rhetoric against interracial marriages sound familiar?

[quote]A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”

These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.

Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior, and entered into by the dregs of society.” [/quote][/quote]

And many of those people considered themselves good Christians and believed it was a Christian thing to keep the races separate.

My point about the other side of the slippery slope is that lots of things happened in the 60s that transformed society. Which one thing did the most “moral damage?” In addition to school prayer decision, there was school integration, interracial marriage, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why not get rid of all of these things just to be safe. After all, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex. If we got rid of that law, we could harass women in the workplace which would force them to quit and stay home WHERE THEY BELONG AND WHICH IS WHAT GOD INTENDED!

Spare me the slippery slope argument because the other side of the slope doesn’t look so good, either.

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Judeo-Christian morality was used to justify discrimination against mixed-race couples, too. It wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now.[/quote]Show me where. I’m not even saying the attempt wasn’t made. The Klan thought they were Christians too. But where. And even if it was, it has NOTHING to do with this. Nothing, nada, zilch, zero, negatory big ben. For the reasons I’ve already stated. Being descended from this or that ethnicity carries with it NO moral content in itself whatsoever. No implications for marriage and family. No Christian prohibition OR encouragement. Just plain non issue.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< If we heterosexuals are so virtuous, >>>[/quote]You’re smarter than this. That is not what I said. Heterosexual hedonism has been and IS, far and away more destructive than homosexuality if for no other reason than sheer numbers. Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family. Reread the whole post please. All of it is required to get the message.
[/quote]

Maybe I’m missing something. You’re suggesting that ‘THE single component that most accounted for our rise’ is heterosexual marriage?

I realize it was a page ago. Seemed pretty important to understanding your argument about America’s downhill course.