DanKroh Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Brent: "How would a brother marrying a brother harm anyone? Please be specific. What if a brother and sister wanted to marry, and wanted to adopt kids instead of having their own? How would that harm anyone? Please be specific." As long as the relationship is not pedophilic or abusive, I couldn't really care less. I have several clients who have spend years trying to recover from incestuous pedophilia or rape, so I have a difficult time envisioning an incestuous relationship that is healthy. But it has certainly been socially acceptable in some societies (pretty civilized ones, too) in the past, until they noticed that their kids had genetic problems. "In recent history, we have had a woman marry a dolphin, and someone else marry a cobra. If someone wants to marry their dog or cat, what is the harm? They are already living together, in some cases sharing the same bed. What harm would that do?" Did the animals give consent? If not, then it's animal abuse. "Who says a 14 year old is too young? I've known some very mature 14 year olds, and some very immature 20 year olds. To make a rule like that is pure age discrimination - it does not take into account the maturity of the individual. Are you telling me all people are the same maturity at 14? Other countries allow people to marry at that age - why can't we? If the two people love each other, what is the harm? Please be specific." If the government wants to start administering "maturity tests" before issuing marriage licenses, they could probably also prevent a lot of divorces between couples who are not emotionally ready (even though they are physically adults) for marriage. Again, in many civilized societies in the past, the legal age of marriage was 14 (or even younger). However, in modern times, we have empirial evidence that most 14 y.o. are not ready for marriage. That MOST of them will be harmed by trying to enter into a marriage so early. Can you provide any evidence that homosexuals marriages will harm the participants? Now that I've answered your contined interrogation, will you finally answer my single question? How is legalizing homosexual marriage going to have any impact whatsoever on YOUR day-to-day married life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Sheesh, guys, why do you keep challenging Merlyn on one of the few things he's right about? Even BSA has recognized that they couldn't continue having public schools charter units. Why? Because the well-established legal precedent made it obvious that U.S. federal courts would rule that public schools can't own or sponsor an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. You may not like this, but it's the law--the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is part of the law of the land. Remember, this is not about whether BSA units can use school property--they can, as long as it's open to all organizations. But a public school can't sponsor a religious organization. It's really that simple, and when you keep arguing the contrary, you're just inflaming a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Yeah, I know this skips way back into the archives but what the (mythical place)! I just stumbled onto this article. It was interesting: 'conservatives' interpreting the original wording of The Constitution in support of gay marriage. Cool! http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/how_conservatives_learned_to_stop_fighting_the_14th_amendment_and_what_it_could_mean_for_gay_marriage.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engineer61 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Kinda reminds me of the "professor" in Saudi Arabia who has stated that allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia would increase the number of prostitutes, increase the divorce rate and cause a decline in the number of virgin women. Total crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Pack, Your making the asumption that social "conservatives" and political "conservatives" are the same, when in fact they are not. True polical conservatives, would agree with the article and argue that unless there is a compelling interest of the government, the government should stay out of peoples private lives. As one Libertarian bumper sticker puts it, "Deliver the mail, defend our shores and otherwise stay the (mythical place) our of my life!" Social "conservatives" that expect the government to take an expanded role in regulating individual morality and limiting individual freedom are really Social "socialists". SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engineer61 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Oooo.... I LIKE THAT ONE... So it's not "Social Conservative" .... Social Socialist ... Just curious....what would a Social Fascist be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Boyce Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 It's interesting to me the number of pro-homosexual people who have simply wadded cotton in their ears and refuse to listen to people who disagree with them. So, my friend, be another to jump on the "bandwagon" and go along with this nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I take it a "pro-homosexual" is someone who believes that all persons deserve to be treated with equal dignity and worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 And here it was I thought it was a gay golfer who had gone "Pro". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 >>I take it a "pro-homosexual" is someone who believes that all persons deserve to be treated with equal dignity and worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Barry, sorry I've been misunderstood. "All or nothing"? Me?? LOL, I'm told I always see too many shades of grey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Seriously, if we could all treat each other with equal dignity and worth, that's good enough for me. It really doesn't matter if we think Bob is abnormal or is going to hell for his beliefs and/or actions, as long as we treat Bob the same way we want to be treated ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 >>Seriously, if we could all treat each other with equal dignity and worth, that's good enough for me. It really doesn't matter if we think Bob is abnormal or is going to hell for his beliefs and/or actions, as long as we treat Bob the same way we want to be treated ourselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Before we accept or support a "Bad Habit", one should probably look into who gets to decide what constitutes a "bad" Habit in the first place and how much/little we have in common with them(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now