I've been here nine years and I've yet to see you use an honest argument about anything. Even when we're on the same side of an issue, I shudder at your "logic".
No, I "accused" him of lifelong Puritan brainwashing because he grew up in the U.S., same as you and me. That is our culture. It's how we react to that brainwashing that makes us different. Some remain in that Puritan mindset and feel compelled to control those who have more diverse values. Others either reject those values, or at least recognize they have no right to impose their values on others. Freedom, you know. We Americans are supposed to believe in that.Besides the burka comment, you also accused him of having "lifelong puritan brainwashing" for opposing people having sex in public.
So if people do offensive things but there's no one around to see them they aren't offensive?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/2...rriage-ruling-will-lead-christian-persecution
I find this article's purpose for existence is to stoke flames of persecution and ultimately violence..
ala Dylann Roof.
You don't see even the tiniest difference between a private party and a public street?Is someone making you look at and/or think about what some folks are doing?
And, where is your condemnation of things like Mardi Gras or Shriner's conventions.
"On Jan. 25 [2001], Winnipegs Khartum Temple held its 22nd annual V.I.P. Gentlemens Dinner fundraiser at the Garden City Inn. Three hundred to 400 men threw down $75 each to attend the function, the menu of which offered the traditional staples of a Shriners diet: steak dinner, open bar and nude dancing chicks. What the Shriners hadnt anticipated, however, was the attendance of two reporters from the Winnipeg Free Press, who witnessed the drunken goings-on and ran a series of stories that described public cunnilingus and nude hookers. The bad press has stirred Winnipeg into a froth of controversy, leaving local Shriners with the unmistakable stench of scandal.
http://www.salon.com/2001/02/05/shriners/
You don't see even the tiniest difference between a private party and a public street?
I'll give you a hint: How many children do you think witnessed the Shriner party? How much effort and planning would parents have to do to keep their children from witnessing those things at the Shriner party versus parading down public streets?
And I quote: "stories that described public cunnilingus".
No, there is no "scientific" argument against incest marriage because the whole "marriage equality" slogan was purely based on "love" and "age of consent" and not science.
You could have just said "No, I cannot see even the tiniest difference between a private party and a public street, parents should read the paper and carefully plan routes any time that kids must be taken outside the vault, and excuse me but I really must get back to counting my pills again because I'm pretty sure the toaster is stealing them."And I quote: "stories that described public cunnilingus".
As for pride parades, you don't want to see what happens, don't go, don't take your kids and don't think about it.
It takes serious effort to 'see' at one of these events:
Or can one simply stumble in to one of these crowds, easily make their way to the street curb and then be surprised and offended by what is happening during the parade. (not to mention that they try and surprise people by advertising the parades months in advance)
This, exactly. Except I really don't want to even know Shriners do that.hmm, it was a private event at their temple or whatever, and the only reason it was reported is because 2 reporters gained entrance, somehow. The use of the word "public" in the phrase "public cunnilingus" is very disingenuous.
Sounds like a kick-ass party.
fwiw, I don't want to see any of that shit, straight or gay, on an actual public street. It wouldn't horrify or shame me as it would some of the prudes around here--I just don't want to see it.
And it is generally illegal in most places.
Oh? please explain.
...your "because" really has nothing to do with an argument regarding science, so I'm not sure if you don't understand the rational behind discouraging/forbidding incest, or you are simply using that explanation to construct your strawman.
There actually is a scientific argument against incestuous marriage based on higher incidents of birth defects. There is also an argument to be made against incestuous marriage based on historic patterns on power abuse. All the gay marriage ruling means is that such groups are free to make their cases as to why they should be allowed to redefine marriage to include them, and have those claims evaluated on a rational basis with the understanding that government should not be able to infringe on individual liberty without a compelling societal reason. "Eew" is not a compelling societal reason. Tradition is not a compelling societal reason - we are certainly not where we were on marriage two hundred years ago. Nor should we be - a society which cannot change is doomed to become irrelevant and outdated. And in any case, those forms of marriage present complications that gay marriage simply does not.Love wins, huh?
This was the entire legal argument from gay activists: "Why should we keep people from "loving" each other?" (ignoring the fact the government never legislated nor prevented people from loving each other)
And, based on that, don't deny the bigamists, pro-incestus, and polygamists their rights to love who they want and marry those persons.
No, there is no "scientific" argument against incest marriage because the whole "marriage equality" slogan was purely based on "love" and "age of consent" and not science.
It WILL eventually AFFECT YOU!
Don't be so short-sighted and ignore this.
Oh, I understand the "rationale" behind forbidding incestual marriage, but "marriage equality" was predicated on "love" and age of consent, not science.
So with this HUGE precedent, those people can argue, and quite strongly, that marriage equality should be granted based on the fact that the parties involved both love each other, and are of age -- so there is no reason to deny them their rights.
But I'm willing to bet that gay marriage activists are small minded, short-sighted hypocritical bigots to where they'd be AGAINST allowing these other forms of marriage.
Its affecting them now, you see, or is it?
Sure you can. Just not one waved about by a shriner.Great, now I can't say or think about a peanut log any more without feeling dirty.
This is as predictably stupid as you have ever been. Nothing you said above is true. You are a fool of the worst kind.Love wins, huh?
This was the entire legal argument from gay activists: "Why should we keep people from "loving" each other?" (ignoring the fact the government never legislated nor prevented people from loving each other)
And, based on that, don't deny the bigamists, pro-incestus, and polygamists their rights to love who they want and marry those persons.
THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT" AGAINST OR FOR ANYTHING. Science describes what IS. Social policy describes what OUGHT TO BE and what OUGHT NOT TO BE. Sit your dumb ass down and shut the fuck up.No, there is no "scientific" argument against...
It was based on the 14th amendment of the Constitution, you dolt....incest marriage because the whole "marriage equality" slogan was purely based on "love" and "age of consent" and not science.
There actually is a scientific argument against incestuous marriage based on higher incidents of birth defects. There is also an argument to be made against incestuous marriage based on historic patterns on power abuse. All the gay marriage ruling means is that such groups are free to make their cases as to why they should be allowed to redefine marriage to include them, and have those claims evaluated on a rational basis with the understanding that government should not be able to infringe on individual liberty without a compelling societal reason. "Eew" is not a compelling societal reason. Tradition is not a compelling societal reason - we are certainly not where we were on marriage two hundred years ago. Nor should we be - a society which cannot change is doomed to become irrelevant and outdated. And in any case, those forms of marriage present complications that gay marriage simply does not.
As far as it eventually affecting me, I am already married and my wife assures me that bigamy and polygamy will NOT eventually affect me, and I've never known her to lie.
No, that is a moral argument based on the scientific facts of genetics.There actually is a scientific argument against incestuous marriage based on higher incidents of birth defects.
No it wasn't and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about...again.
There actually is a scientific argument against incestuous marriage based on higher incidents of birth defects. There is also an argument to be made against incestuous marriage based on historic patterns on power abuse. All the gay marriage ruling means is that such groups are free to make their cases as to why they should be allowed to redefine marriage to include them, and have those claims evaluated on a rational basis with the understanding that government should not be able to infringe on individual liberty without a compelling societal reason. "Eew" is not a compelling societal reason. Tradition is not a compelling societal reason - we are certainly not where we were on marriage two hundred years ago. Nor should we be - a society which cannot change is doomed to become irrelevant and outdated. And in any case, those forms of marriage present complications that gay marriage simply does not.
As far as it eventually affecting me, I am already married and my wife assures me that bigamy and polygamy will NOT eventually affect me, and I've never known her to lie.
I thought I did - what did I miss?Re read my post, in its proper context, please.
Splitting hairs, dude. A scientific argument is merely an argument based on a scientific foundation.No, that is a moral argument based on the scientific facts of genetics.
Oh, I understand the "rationale" behind forbidding incestual marriage, but "marriage equality" was predicated on "love" and age of consent, not science.