Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you can produce a thousand "cousin lovers" then we'll talk.
Okaydokee, lets talk. First link is to medical publication establishing ratios of consanguineous marriages in the USA from 1800 - 1950. The second link postulates that the current frequency of cousin marriages in the USA is about 1 in 1,000.
Consanguineous marriages occur more than you think. Serious, Darwin married his first cousin and Einstein did too. The United States is the only Western Civ country that has laws prohibiting against it. It's legal in Canada, Mexico, the EU and Japan.
Quote:
brainwashed cults
That is open to interpretation. Catholics are brainwashed in some opinions. Each to his own.
This is correct on so many levels, I don't know how to thank you.
This country was founded on Christian principles. This does not mean we have to be perfect in every way, but our laws have revolved around moral principles found in Biblical scriptures. Disobeying the law results in punishment on a law-enforcement standpoint. Disobeying God results in punishment for eternity.
We have already legitimized many sinful and immoral conducts such as adultery, out-of-wedlock births, drug and alcohol abuse, pornography, and homosexuality.
I shudder to imagine what is next!
Well yes and no.The U.S.A was founded predominately by people of Christian faith but even Christian secs differ in certain laws and beliefs.Which is why the founders created a system of checks and balances that prevented one faith or particular church from being the government,most evident in the 1st amendment.
While most American's were and are Christian,Christianity is not the principle of America,the belief of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness is.And different people have different ideas of what makes life good,what freedoms they enjoy and what makes them happy.
So while people are free to presuade others to believe or join what they think,passing laws to stifle other's lifestyle because you don't agree with it is at odds with the live and let live principles of liberty in America.
So your neighbor having a affair is none of your business.
Your neighbor drinking,gambling,smoking,watching porn,or engaging in sex is none of your business as long as they don't make their business interfere in yours.
You are free to call them sinners,call them names,not associate with them,but you have no right to legislate their lifestyle just because you don't agree with it
I should add that my comment above goes to leftist progressives as well.Our rights do not come from government,or from man deciding to man what is life liberty and happiness,to do so reduces rights to privilages.
The right to worship,express religious thought in open public areas,self defense,ownership and property are individual rights.You have the right to not believe,not listen,not associate with,but you do not have the right to legislate limits in lifestyle or define what "need" is to others either.
but our laws have revolved around moral principles found in Biblical scriptures.
Actually, you have that precisely backwards: Biblical scriptures codified the laws of a particular society, the most important of which are shared by every other civilized society, including ones that never heard of the Bible.
Neither law nor morality depend on the Bible; they predate it. Any semi-intelligent Christian knows that.
Legalizing same-sex marriage legitimizes the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality.
This is another step, termed progressive, that the leftists are taking to crumble the moral fabric of society. They have already legitimized adultery, pre-marital sex, divorce, abortion, recreational drug use, and so on.
Give people an inch and they will want a foot. The next thing that the leftist judges and self-described progressives will push on society is legalizing adult-child relationships, what we currently define as statutory rape.
Does anybody else find this so-called association highly putrid and absurdly beyond the limits of decency? Does anybody care?
Go ahead, destroy the sanctity of marriage, break down the family unit, ruin the moral fabric of society. NAMBLA and other such extremist movements will find their way to the mainstream, as homosexuality seems to have become mainstream in these modern times.
Society does not have a moral fabric, morals are relative and what I view as moral is clearly not what you view as moral. I could just as easily say that conservatives are crumbling what I view as the moral fabric of society (acceptance, equality, freedom...things that are moral values to me).
I'm about as progressive as they come but out of those thing you have named I'm against all but pre-marital sex (Possible life of bad sex forever...eeks no thank you).
adult child relationships are illegal because children can't consent. ..Though I don't believe every time an adult sleeps with an older teenager (16 or 17) that it should be considred rape...because it IS consentual and at that age kids know what they are doing... however any younger than that it's always illegal because the child cannot comprehend enough to consent. It's a very blurry line though.
NAMBLA is disgusting but you can't hold it against gay people... that is like saying heterosexuality is wrong because some men rape little girls!
Granting gay marriage doesn't break down families it builds them. Also encouraging gay people to marry and become more mainstream, settled down...will decrease the amount of radical organizations..not increase them.
adult child relationships are illegal because children can't consent. ..Though I don't believe every time an adult sleeps with an older teenager (16 or 17) that it should be considred rape...because it IS consentual and at that age kids know what they are doing... however any younger than that it's always illegal because the child cannot comprehend enough to consent. It's a very blurry line though.
Not every society holds 16 as the standard. Until the last couple decades, it was 13 or 14 even in some U.S. states. Peru lowered its age of consent from 16 to 14 a couple years ago. You're right that it's a blurry line. I tend to think, nevertheless, the age of consent tends to be unreasonably high.
"Legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to legitimizing other abhorrent behavior that is currently illegal!" thus saith the OP.
Maybe it's because I'm not some kind of bible-thumper, but I'm afraid I've never understood that particular brand of paranoia. I'm not gay...but if my next-door neighbor should be, it makes no difference to me. So long as I'm not on his/her radar as anything more than a next-door neighbor, I don't care which sex he/she wants to get in bed with.
As to legitimization, I have the possibly silly notion that abhorrent behavior is not going to be legitimized, no matter who is legally allowed to marry whom. And as to the concept of abhorrence, that's strictly a matter of opinion. Some people may think gambling is abhorrent; so I guess there must be campaigns out there to shut down Las Vegas and Atlantic City.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
