I'm not excusing these people's actions in the least. However, I do believe getting in people's faces while in public about something is necessary at times for change.
It is practiced more than the public knows about, but the smart ones keep a very low profile, and don't involve the kids...
I have no moral opposition to it, but some of them have been known to abuse welfare and foodstamp programs...and the fiscal conservative side of me objects to that...
But there needs to be a principle, or it's just case-by-case, and that's not rule of law; it's just arbitrary.
If the principle is, consenting adults have the right to marry whomever they wish, what's the principled argument against polygamy, group marriages, or siblings marrying?
I did mention brothers marrying in order to take an incestuous child out of the equation, but seriously, couldn't a brother and sister marry and just abort any child?
So, what's the principled argument against it?
It is practiced more than the public knows about, but the smart ones keep a very low profile, and don't involve the kids...
I have no moral opposition to it, but some of them have been known to abuse welfare and foodstamp programs...and the fiscal conservative side of me objects to that...
The fiscal conservative side of me objects to that abuse regardless of someone's marital status.
It isn't about you because you're not gay. Were you gay it would be about you. And is how I see precisely where the problem is. Those like you think, well it's not about taking away my rights it's about someone else's rights and I don't give two ****s for them anyway so, who cares, damn their rights.I have already explained to you in a previous reply, that this is not about me.
It also isn't about you.
It is about the subject.
Making any topic for debate, about the person engaged in the debate, is wrong.
If the marriage constitutes a health risk for the offspring or is a genetic abomination then it shouldn't be allowed. This eliminates inter-species marriage and incestial marriage.
The only arguments against polygamy and same-sex marriage are possible financial fraud and social acceptance which exists in stages for heterosexual marriage as well.
The child can simply be aborted.
How about same-sex siblings? Father and adult son? Mother and adult daughter? No possibility of children.
And . . . "social acceptance"? Explain.
Robt. A. Heinlein had something to say about incest...it is just as likely to have some good genetic changes as bad. But it must be closely monitored. Dog breeders do it all the time.
Look at the ears on the british royal family....:lol:
To some getting married by the justice of the peace is immoral, yet it is protected. Tell me why should YOUR definition of immoral be used as law?
ACtually most people that are for gay marriage are also for polygamy being legal as well. The problem with polygfamy comes from an administration issue, not a moral one.
If there was a good size of the population that wanted to marry multiple partners, I see nothing wrong with it except for administration issues would need to be done.
Any more glaring generalizations from our local man hater?
I have no problem with polygamy or gay marriage.
I think polygamy get a bad name from the religious whackjob implications of it, but it doesn't have to be that way. I think if 3 or more consenting adults decided they wanted to legally join together other who am I to stand in the way of their happiness?
Please provide links for your urging legalization of polygamy.
Please provide links for your urging legalization of polygamy.
Society has rules...
:shock:I'm sure others will jump in to tear you up, so I'll just say, I think that homosexuality is part of cultural progress.
Why does progress have to be toward any particular goal? It's just an evolution.:shock:
Progress... towards what?
Why does progress have to be toward any particular goal? It's just an evolution.
I'm sure others will jump in to tear you up, so I'll just say, I think that homosexuality is part of cultural progress.
Society has rules, and we made the rules to eastablish order and to protect humankind.
On the other hand, gays show no other thing but hatred against the principles of society.
Being gay is to be against the natural development of society, and gays are individuals who live in their own perversion to which they call "love" as the masquerade.
Our species cannot survive with the proliferation of homosexuality, this is a fact, homosexuality only brings extinction to our species from all points of view.
Families are living in shame because some of their members became gays, this is to say, there is not a parent who will feel proud of having a gay son or daughter, the parents might say that they "love" their gay son anyway, that they "understand" their lesbian daughter anyway, that they "support" their decision anyway, but no pride can be found in these parents but shame. This is the same feeling as if their children became criminals, and this feeling is right, homoseuality kills society.
The behaviour of gays in society isn't negative alone but its influence to follow what is against the order is covered by their claim of deserving "rights". Just read about their invasions to churches saying that the Christ was gay...:lol: Homosexuals show no respect to what order is, and the problem will be worst, they will invade your house, they will brake the order with public events so they can impose their pervert style of life on others.
Who knows how much money was paid by wealthy gays to manipulate government dudes and psychologists to take away homosexuality as a mental deviation or desease, but such a wrong step of the past can be reversed.
We need to reinstall homosexuality back in books of psychology in the chapter which correspondas to sexual behaviours like incest, sexual rape, necrophilia, zoophilia, sodomism, etc.
Instead of taking solely the action of tolerate this individuals, it is a duty of society to look for their treatment and cure. Homosexuality is not a crime but the individuals infected with this desease must be under treatment. Of course,m this is not obligatory but optional, like people with cancer have the option to be under treatment or not.
Gays are overpassing the limits of cordure, and society must act with strong hand now. Such "rights" claimed by gays do not exist neither in the constitution and neither in the moral principles of our culture. On the contrary, the Constitution was createdv also to preserve humankind, and this includes the preservation of the integrity of the physical body.
To a straight person to be indentified as gay might be taken as an offense.
What good comes from homosexuality after all? I have posted this question several times in these forums and no one has gave a single answer showing something positivie from/about homosexuality.
It is time to stop being indifferent to this situation, if you want to protect your family you better start to make your voice to be heard against this desease before is too late.
As a conscious citizen, as a person of principles you must vote "no" for every attempt of homosexuals to gain more ground to spread out their pervert style of life. Remember that their perversion will reach your door sooner as faster is their influence to acquire more power in society.
Homosexuality is a desease and we must look for its cure instead of proliferate it.
I'm sure others will jump in to tear you up, so I'll just say, I think that homosexuality is part of cultural progress.
By its nature, the word 'progress' means 'toward something'.
So... evolving toward what?
Well, in that case, show here what good comes from homosexuality, show here the "cultural progress"...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?