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.
This is just one more reason why we would have better been served under the Articles of Confederation instead of that God forsaken federalist constitution. As a libertarian, I really don't give a flip if two consenting gay adults get married. I personally don't support gay marriage, but if California wants it, let them have it. Just don't force my state to accept it against it's will via the fascist interstate commerce clause or whatever piece of bureaucratic legislation is responsible for it.
"Not all of us are content with living in a free society. Some of us wish to break free from the shackles of liberty and equality in order to dictate to others what they may believe and say." Saganista
Excellent thought. Don't people realize how dangerous to everything that is right and proper freedom can be. Freedom destabilizes society and must be restricted to only allow the things I believe to be true and desirable. We must do whatever is required to support the society dominated by the male patriarch. If we do not we will become weak, feeble and womanized.
"Not all of us are content with living in a free society. Some of us wish to break free from the shackles of liberty and equality in order to dictate to others what they may believe and say." Saganista
Excellent thought. Don't people realize how dangerous to everything that is right and proper freedom can be. Freedom destabilizes society and must be restricted to only allow the things I believe to be true and desirable. We must do whatever is required to support the society dominated by the male patriarch. If we do not we will become weak, feeble and womanized.
Does that involve economic freedom as well? Or just "social" liberty? The root of all social freedom is economic freedom. You cannot have one without the other as history shows us.
Sorry. In effect, by enabling NAMBLA to continue their efforts, they do. And no amount of parsing will change that.
I don't think you actually "get" what the ACLU "did" and why they "did it" and what the actual result was and why said result has implications 100X greater and bigger than NAMBLA.
But that's OK. Why do I suspect the only thing you know about the infamous ACLU "defense" of NAMBLA is something you read off an opinion article or Anti-ACLU website?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
I won't ask you to reread my post. Just enjoy that whole army of strawmen you've created to keep you company.
Sorry, just trying to imagine what "horror show" for society is envisioned by "progressive thinkers".... were you referring only to NAMBLA, or was the whole NAMBLA thing your own strawman meant to derail and insert weak correlations between two very different and separate debates?
Sure. A bisexual woman should be able to marry both a woman and a man. People should be able to marry animals. The same arguments used for homosexual marriage can be applied to all of those situations. That's what happens when the door's thrown open.
If the "slippery slope" argument is all you've got, then you have no argument.
If you can't think of a reason why X should be denied or disallowed, other than "it will open the door for Y," then you've lost.
How about allowing "X", and then when somebody clamours for "Y", you either come up with independent reasons why "Y" is bad, or also concede that "Y" should be allowed?
Why do we have alcohol and tobacco legal in this country, but not crack cocaine and meth? By that which passes as "logic" for some of you around here, we have no reason to allow the former and forbid the latter because once we allow alcohol and tobacco, we naturally must allow meth and crack, because there are absoluetly no independent reasons or arguments to justify the continued legalization of alcohol whilst criminalizing crack.
"Slippery slope," ya know.
THAT'S how you guys think? Really? People function in society with these kind of thought processes... or is it easier when surrounded in communities with like-kind thinkers?
I am still amazed that in this day and age gay marriage is even an issue. Do people actually care if other adults get married or not? To me, life is to short to worry what anyone else is up to as long as they are not hurting anyone else.
I live in Mass., and as far as I can tell, nothing has happened. No one even talks about it except the crazy religious zealots who want to dictate the behavior of others.
Who the heck would even KNOW if I married a man or a woman?!
theoretically.. I would not want to marry my sister or brother... but if two people who are adults want to do that... then so be it...
its one of those things where I don't agree with it... but It is not my place to tell them they can't if they are adults and I think its kinda gross
afterall ancient societies married each other as brother and sister...to each their own I guess....I don't believe in the government defining love and marriage...I think people can rule their own lives and make their own decisions... and that is good enough for me.. i don't have to agree with it
Because everyone's personal lives are matters for the government to step into.
Whoops - forgot that!!
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.
