Looks like Polygamy and adult incest marriages are now legal

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/polygamists-gay-marriage-ruling/2013/06/27/id/512233?s=al&promo_code=13FB6-1



Polygamists See Gay Marriage Ruling Opening Door to Multiple Marriages

Thursday, 27 Jun 2013 12:11 PM
By Alexandra Ward





Polygamists cheered the Supreme Court for their gay marriage rulings Wednesday, which they considered one step forward for the legal and social acceptance of multi-person relationships.

"We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail," Practical Polyamory spokeswoman Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News & World Report. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/24/polyamorous-advocate-gay-marriage-blazing-the-marriage-equality-trail)

Special: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal? Vote in Urgent Poll. (http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/GayMarriage/Should-Gay-Marriage-Be-Legal-/id/70/kw/default?PROMO_CODE=13FB6-1)

The Supreme Court struck down a central portion of the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday, (http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/gay-marriage-decisions-twitter/2013/06/26/id/511998) a decision that will allow legally married same-sex couples to claim all the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

The Court also decided on California's Proposition 8 ruling, determining that supporters of the state's gay marriage ban have no legal standing. The high court upheld the lower court's decision to allow it.

Though the Court stopped short of legalizing gay marriage universally — it is still only recognized in 12 states and the District of Columbia — Wednesday's ruling was viewed as a major step forward, especially by those involved in nontraditional relationships.

Polygamists, or people who are married to more than one person, cheered rulings.

"The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore," former polygamist Anne Wilde told BuzzFeed. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/polygamists-celebrate-supreme-courts-marriage-rulings)"Now it's grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose."

Others polygamists say they don’t want their lifestyle to necessarily be legalized, but just decriminalized.

"If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it," Wilde said. "They might say, you have to make so much money, you can't have any more than four like it says in the Koran."

Soon after Wednesday's decisions were announced, people across the globe took to Twitter to speculate whether a court decision on polygamy could be next.




Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/polygamists-gay-marriage-ruling/2013/06/27/id/512233?s=al&promo_code=13FB6-1#ixzz2XRy5j1eX
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now! (http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Obama-Policies/Should-Congress-Repeal--Obama-s-Health-Plan-and-Ot/id/13/kw/default?PROMO_CODE=10EFE-1%22target=%22_blank%22)

[red states rule]

At least the human circumcised dick - Andrew Sullivan - is happy. The major flaw in his statement is the4 words "I think" NEVER goes with Andrew Sullivan

Like this obnoxious liberal has a clue on the teachings of Jesus Christ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKGC6DQbLsw

[Robert A Whit]

At least the human circumcised dick - Andrew Sullivan - is happy. The major flaw in his statement is the4 words "I think" NEVER goes with Andrew Sullivan

Like this obnoxious liberal has a clue on the teachings of Jesus Christ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKGC6DQbLsw

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again."

[red states rule]

Sullivan would not know the teachings of Jesus if it bit him on his over sized ass. He is to busy following the teachings of his messiah Obama

[aboutime]

At least the human circumcised dick - Andrew Sullivan - is happy. The major flaw in his statement is the4 words "I think" NEVER goes with Andrew Sullivan

Like this obnoxious liberal has a clue on the teachings of Jesus Christ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKGC6DQbLsw


Sullivan disguise...applies...5189...best part of him ran down a liberal's leg, like the tingle of Matthews.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0628cd20130627085129.jpg

[fj1200]

At least the human circumcised dick - Andrew Sullivan - is happy. The major flaw in his statement is the4 words "I think" NEVER goes with Andrew Sullivan

Like this obnoxious liberal has a clue on the teachings of Jesus Christ

And your clue on the subject???

[gabosaurus]

Polygamy and incest are still prohibited by law.

[KitchenKitten99]

Polygamy and incest are still prohibited by law.

So were same sex marriages.

This is the slippery slope people were talking about.

Now the polygamists and incestuous relationship people are going to whine about equality (when there was no inequality to begin with before the SCOTUS ruling).

The same emotional argument for same-sex marriages can be applied and used for any other perversion, as I listed above, or going further down the road, necrophilia and bestiality.

The point now comes to where does it stop? Where will the actual line of standards be now? Or is that line now gone and we're going to see 'pro-necrophilia' ads and signs up?

[hjmick]

Polygamy and incest are still prohibited by law.

And will remain so.



On a side note...

Can we please find something to replace the phrase "slippery slope?" Sorry KK, but I think it's terribly over used...

[logroller]

So were same sex marriages.

This is the slippery slope people were talking about.

Now the polygamists and incestuous relationship people are going to whine about equality (when there was no inequality to begin with before the SCOTUS ruling).

The same emotional argument for same-sex marriages can be applied and used for any other perversion, as I listed above, or going further down the road, necrophilia and bestiality.

The point now comes to where does it stop? Where will the actual line of standards be now? Or is that line now gone and we're going to see 'pro-necrophilia' ads and signs up?
I believe the line is firm at consenting adults; which would exclude the dead and animals. As for polygamy and incest. I believe the far more likely result would be the end of legal marriage and it being treated as a legal union more akin to a corporation with special legal status.

[fj1200]

... (when there was no inequality to begin with before the SCOTUS ruling).

Incorrect. Equal Protection was at the heart of the decision and there were/are plenty of areas where straight couples were favored.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KitchenKitten99 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649308#post649308)
... (when there was no inequality to begin with before the SCOTUS ruling).


Incorrect. Equal Protection was at the heart of the decision and there were/are plenty of areas where straight couples were favored.

Based on the logic above, now polygamy is legal and so is adult incestual marriages.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Based on the logic above, now polygamy is legal and so is adult incestual marriages.

wow... it's a wonder your head doesn't implode under the weight of your own stupidity.

[fj1200]

Based on the logic above, now polygamy is legal and so is adult incestual marriages.


wow... it's a wonder your head doesn't implode under the weight of your own stupidity.

A simple "incorrect" would have sufficed. :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

So were same sex marriages.


The Supreme Court decision only pertains to same adult sex marriages. Anything else would be another case entirely.

[red states rule]

Sullivan is a very angry and hate filled liberal.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8n_PtIl2s8




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4p4N9CTUu8



Sometimes there is someone near Sullivan who takes him to school on his insane hate



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhO9T-XXDyM

[Noir]

Polygamy seems a no-brainer, i think it will sway into legality in the years to come. Incest not so much - though the reasons themselves don't stand against objective reasoning.

[Jeff]

Polygamy and incest are still prohibited by law.
Agreed Gaby buts that is why they are so happy if ya can now have gay marriages why not have as many wives as you want , and that inst my opinion that is what these people where all cheering about , I am sure my opinion differs from yours ( as most do ) but marriage is between one man and one woman , and this type of thing is exactly what conservatives warned yall about , next it will be the poor child abusers where born that way the the poor guy really does love his horse and so on , we opened a bad can of worms here and no matter how ridicules it sounds the article provided shows which way it is headed

[Jeff]

The Supreme Court decision only pertains to same adult sex marriages. Anything else would be another case entirely.


Also agreed but to many this is the beginning of a whole new future

[hjmick]

Agreed Gaby buts that is why they are so happy if ya can now have gay marriages why not have as many wives as you want , and that inst my opinion that is what these people where all cheering about , I am sure my opinion differs from yours ( as most do ) but marriage is between one man and one woman , and this type of thing is exactly what conservatives warned yall about , next it will be the poor child abusers where born that way the the poor guy really does love his horse and so on , we opened a bad can of worms here and no matter how ridicules it sounds the article provided shows which way it is headed

Who in their right mind would want more than one wife? More than one mother-in-law?

That person should have their head examined...

[red states rule]

Who in their right mind would want more than one wife? More than one mother-in-law?

That person should have their head examined...

Well how about the extra tax deductions?

But you are right it does bring alot of additional problems

[jafar00]

Who in their right mind would want more than one wife? More than one mother-in-law?

That person should have their head examined...

My mother in law is awesome. More than one wife is a no go for me.

There is a saying in Egypt

A man needs 4 wives

1: Syrian to cook for him
2: Filipino to serve him
3: Lebanese to "enjoy" him
4: An Egyptian to annoy him and the other three!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So were same sex marriages.

This is the slippery slope people were talking about.

Now the polygamists and incestuous relationship people are going to whine about equality (when there was no inequality to begin with before the SCOTUS ruling).

The same emotional argument for same-sex marriages can be applied and used for any other perversion, as I listed above, or going further down the road, necrophilia and bestiality.

The point now comes to where does it stop? Where will the actual line of standards be now? Or is that line now gone and we're going to see 'pro-necrophilia' ads and signs up?
Actually slippery slope and barbarism is the path we are currently on. We have advanced to a culture that has been instructed just how brilliantly great they are while having been greatly dumbed down by our Education system. We have tens of millions that are adults walking around with not much more than a 4th grade education and no I am not talking about school drop outs. I am talking about high school graduates and even many college graduates. I noticed this at least two decades back when in my job I came into contact with a lot of recent college grads. About a third of them had a problem with even filling out a standard work application form! You get what you pay for would be great if we actually got what we paid for where college is concerned but we do not. It is currently the biggest rip off going on IMHO.-Tyr

[tailfins]

Polygamy and incest are still prohibited by law.

Robert's point is that still is the operative word. My response is that a fallen society will increasingly sanction sin. Things have been sliding downward since the repeal of prohibition. You champion the women's vote, but do you realize their first big political issue was prohibition? The most vivid example in my mind is the government sanctioning of gambling. Now it is sanctioning sodomy. No one should be surprised. You want to see my vision of strong women, here you go:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_473nrD5vEv8/SM4_WJX-DpI/AAAAAAAAAxI/WKM4I0Fubv4/s400/temperance-movement.jpg


Women's Christian Temperance Union

http://myweb.wyoming.com/~dgullick/wctu1908.jpg

http://www.nwhm.org/media/category/exhibits/progressiveera/temperance2a.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KitchenKitten99 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649308#post649308)
So were same sex marriages.


The Supreme Court decision only pertains to same adult sex marriages. Anything else would be another case entirely.

Where does the SC decision make that claim?

In the case vs CA, the SC stated nobody showed up in court that had standing that can defend the law of CA. A homosexual judge in CA issued a ruling that now stands.

CA passed a law then Democrats refused to defend the people's law.

In the case of DOMA, part was rejected and part stands.

I recall back in the 90s warning the public that if the homosexuals get something going their way, society will be in serious trouble.

CA due to democrats has lost so many republicans that moved to other states we may as well admit we are headed to pure socialism.

[Robert A Whit]

Polygamy seems a no-brainer, i think it will sway into legality in the years to come. Incest not so much - though the reasons themselves don't stand against objective reasoning.

If the case about homosexuals, hinges on equalify, and it appears this is the case, then any marriage, has to be legal. It is coming to pass my prediction that any form of marriage will be legal in this country. All protected by the constitution.

The crap that polygamy marriages and adult to adult incest marriages can't be included is false.

Homosexuals took down marriage and this court gave them a huge push.

Tell you this much on this. The US constitution has provisions that state we all get equal treatment. To treat polygamists and the incest marriages as different won't work. This is why I worried so much what homosexuals would cause.

We in CA legally voted to change our constitution. It seems to me that the court told us hell no, you can't get away with managing your own constitution.

[revelarts]

I believe the line is firm at consenting adults; which would exclude the dead and animals. As for polygamy and incest. I believe the far more likely result would be the end of legal marriage and it being treated as a legal union more akin to a corporation with special legal status.


Polygamy seems a no-brainer, i think it will sway into legality in the years to come. Incest not so much - though the reasons themselves don't stand against objective reasoning.

Incest, Polygamy are next. Noir you say the "reasons" against don't stand.

Here a point that people often dismiss but i think both of you guys comments bare this out.

the reason Incest, polygamy and homosexual marriage have been ILLEGAL in the west is because of the the west's Christian foundation.
period paragraph end of story.
Noir you your self have said on a occasion that America is not founded on the the Bible but here we can clearly see that it's moral base was indeed Christian. it's Ideas of LAWFUL MORAL marriage were Christian. This among other things were foundational. Ideas of right and wrong come from somewhere. Many people don't think about it but float along with the crowd or trends.
But western cultures ideas of right, wrong and law for the past 1000+ years have been based on the Bible.

Here we just have one glaring example of Western culture formally saying goodbye to God's standards.

By current standards there is NO "reason" at this point to deny ANY type of marriage. NONE.
whos to say that marriage of any kind is wrong?

Incestuous marriage, Who said that's immoral? or should be illegal?
IF there's a problem with children , kill them .. I mean abort, them anyway.
Why Not marry your cousin, your sister your mom, your Uncle
Heck all of them at the same time.
Why should the state get to say no? If they love each other? or are simply "consenting adults".

Marry a dog? why not? Can you prove the dog is harmed? Who are you to say it's wrong? the Animal is loved.
'It's none of your business whats in the neighbors bed.
As a matter a fact, you should acknowledge it as good and "celebrate it" ... or else.
humans have been having sex with animals since.. well... a long time. marraige is a logical next step.
Beast-a-phobe!'

There's No "reason" why any or all of that and more should not be allowed by the current culture and law if it's consistent with it's assertions that sexual freedom and choice trump ANY cultural, historical norms and pragmatic social negative implications.(religious consideration don't even get a vote, they MUST CONFORM or else.)

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KitchenKitten99 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649308#post649308)
So were same sex marriages.

This is the slippery slope people were talking about.

Now the polygamists and incestuous relationship people are going to whine about equality (when there was no inequality to begin with before the SCOTUS ruling).

The same emotional argument for same-sex marriages can be applied and used for any other perversion, as I listed above, or going further down the road, necrophilia and bestiality.

The point now comes to where does it stop? Where will the actual line of standards be now? Or is that line now gone and we're going to see 'pro-necrophilia' ads and signs up?


Actually slippery slope and barbarism is the path we are currently on. We have advanced to a culture that has been instructed just how brilliantly great they are while having been greatly dumbed down by our Education system. We have tens of millions that are adults walking around with not much more than a 4th grade education and no I am not talking about school drop outs. I am talking about high school graduates and even many college graduates. I noticed this at least two decades back when in my job I came into contact with a lot of recent college grads. About a third of them had a problem with even filling out a standard work application form! You get what you pay for would be great if we actually got what we paid for where college is concerned but we do not. It is currently the biggest rip off going on IMHO.-Tyr

Kitten99 is correct in the analysis.

Tyr points out the true problem. Kimmel and Leno include interviews with so called well educated people who prove time after time they simply are not well educated.

But on marriage, as Kitten says, this spells the doom to marriages.

We in CA evey tried to help them with civil unions. But they wanted one thing, the right to say they got married.

We can't stop polygamists nor the class, admittedly few today, who will marry a close blood relative.

Society once was much more cohesive than it is today.

It is now the city standing against the rural parts. The red map/blue map proves this is true.

[revelarts]

Most lgbt advocates people keep mentioning the consenting adults angle.
But why is that a standard? Who made that up?
Why is it now becoming law? Homosexuals advocate often point to ancient cultures where Homosexuality was just part of "normal" life.
The argument says
See see they did it, why can't we, as a matter of fact, we should have it as normal as well and your morally wrong to stop it!"

But there are other ancient cultures where arranged marriages and young girls and boys being married off was the NORM as well.
Why not now?

Homosexual marriage being legal in the U.S. was UNTHINKABLE 60 years ago.
Heck homosexuality itself was considered deviant and abnormal by the psychological profession as many years ago as well.
times change... "science" changes, some say the psychologist were mistaken now they know better.
OK maybe.

But a few years ago Pedophilia was consider deviant, abnormal and psych disorder. But today a growing number of mainstream psychologist are changing their views on that.
why? oh? well , it's science. you know, studies and stuff.

Some of these studies, SHOCKINGLY, even bring into question if pre-pubescent sex is really harmful to children.

Pedo advocates are pressing for recognition of their desires for pre-pubescent sex as natural, something they are born with. Some learned Dr.s are beginning to agree.
Who are you to say different?
Pedo-phobe.
Welcome to post Christian western culture.
Your know the Greeks and Romans had pedophilia art all over the place it was 'normal' and 'celebrated'.


"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

.............................................


NEW RESEARCH...calls Pedophilia just another sexual orientation...
Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

the new Pysch Bible has softened it's few on it.
I cannot find full DSM definition upgrading certain forms of Pedophilia but
here is commentary on the definition from
Journal of the American Academy Psychiatry and Law 39:2:242-244 (April 2011)
Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
Commentary on Pedophilia Diagnostic Criteria in DSM-5
Commentary on Pedophilia Diagnostic Criteria in DSM-5 (http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/2/242.full)
It quotes and references the defintions and it's nuance.
here's another that makes refecencs to the portion about "causing the perp emotional or social discomfort" basiclly a pdeo only has a psych problem if they feel bad about it.
The DSM diagnostic criteria for p... preview & related info | Mendeley (http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/dsm-diagnostic-criteria-pedophilia/#)


Pedophilia getting protection under portions of Hate crimes bill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niu3_5bbZrE

Pedophilia gets lesser sentences today because dr.s say...
http://sanityandsocialjustice.net/?p=416
Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles (1/6) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=htAUysRPvNs)

[aboutime]

Most lgbt advocates people keep mentioning the consenting adults angle.
But why is that a standard? Who made that up?
Why is it now becoming law? Homosexuals advocate often point to ancient cultures where Homosexuality was just part of "normal" life.
The argument says
See see they did it, why can't we, as a matter of fact, we should have it as normal as well and your morally wrong to stop it!"

But there are other ancient cultures where arranged marriages and young girls and boys being married off was the NORM as well.
Why not now?

Homosexual marriage being legal in the U.S. was UNTHINKABLE 60 years ago.
Heck homosexuality itself was considered deviant and abnormal by the psychological profession as many years ago as well.
times change... "science" changes, some say the psychologist were mistaken now they know better.
OK maybe.

But a few years ago Pedophilia was consider deviant, abnormal and psych disorder. But today a growing number of mainstream psychologist are changing their views on that.
why? oh? well , it's science. you know, studies and stuff.

Some of these studies, SHOCKINGLY, even bring into question if pre-pubescent sex is really harmful to children.

Pedo advocates are pressing for recognition of their desires for pre-pubescent sex as natural, something they are born with. Some learned Dr.s are beginning to agree.
Who are you to say different?
Pedo-phobe.
Welcome to post Christian western culture.
Your know the Greeks and Romans had pedophilia art all over the place it was 'normal' and 'celebrated'.


"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

.............................................


NEW RESEARCH...calls Pedophilia just another sexual orientation...
Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

the new Pysch Bible has softened it's few on it.
I cannot find full DSM definition upgrading certain forms of Pedophilia but
here is commentary on the definition from
Journal of the American Academy Psychiatry and Law 39:2:242-244 (April 2011)
Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
Commentary on Pedophilia Diagnostic Criteria in DSM-5
Commentary on Pedophilia Diagnostic Criteria in DSM-5 (http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/2/242.full)
It quotes and references the defintions and it's nuance.
here's another that makes refecencs to the portion about "causing the perp emotional or social discomfort" basiclly a pdeo only has a psych problem if they feel bad about it.
The DSM diagnostic criteria for p... preview & related info | Mendeley (http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/dsm-diagnostic-criteria-pedophilia/#)


Pedophilia getting protection under portions of Hate crimes bill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niu3_5bbZrE

Pedophilia gets lesser sentences today because dr.s say...
http://sanityandsocialjustice.net/?p=416
Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles (1/6) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=htAUysRPvNs)



Has anyone here ever read "The Rise, and Fall of the Roman Empire"???

Those who have should remember how openly supported homosexuality, almost as an accepted, normal way of life.
Became one of the most important aspects leading to the immorality, carelessness, and lawlessness that
helped to destroy the Empire from within.
But it seems. That old adage about "Failing to remember History, eventually dooms you.."
Is about to Ring True. But...as long as everybody is having fun, and nobody cares.
"What's the big deal?"

[fj1200]

Has anyone here ever read "The Rise, and Fall of the Roman Empire"???

Those who have should remember how openly supported homosexuality, almost as an accepted, normal way of life.

Is it your contention that homosexuality is the sole reason for the fall of the Roman Empire?


Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire (http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-empire/causes-for-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire.htm)The major causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire are detailed in the following list:

The Major Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire

Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor
Decline in Morals
Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
Fast expansion of the Empire
Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics
Failing Economy
Unemployment of the Working Classes (The Plebs)
The 'Mob' and the cost of the 'Games'
Decline in Ethics and Values
Slave Labor
Natural Disasters
Christianity
Barbarian Invasion
The major causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire



Personally I would blame socialism... but that's me.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Most lgbt advocates people keep mentioning the consenting adults angle.
But why is that a standard? Who made that up?
Why is it now becoming law? Homosexuals advocate often point to ancient cultures where Homosexuality was just part of "normal" life.
The argument says
See see they did it, why can't we, as a matter of fact, we should have it as normal as well and your morally wrong to stop it!"

But there are other ancient cultures where arranged marriages and young girls and boys being married off was the NORM as well.
Why not now?

Homosexual marriage being legal in the U.S. was UNTHINKABLE 60 years ago.
Heck homosexuality itself was considered deviant and abnormal by the psychological profession as many years ago as well.
times change... "science" changes, some say the psychologist were mistaken now they know better.
OK maybe.

But a few years ago Pedophilia was consider deviant, abnormal and psych disorder. But today a growing number of mainstream psychologist are changing their views on that.
why? oh? well , it's science. you know, studies and stuff.

Some of these studies, SHOCKINGLY, even bring into question if pre-pubescent sex is really harmful to children.

Pedo advocates are pressing for recognition of their desires for pre-pubescent sex as natural, something they are born with. Some learned Dr.s are beginning to agree.
Who are you to say different?
Pedo-phobe.
Welcome to post Christian western culture.
Your know the Greeks and Romans had pedophilia art all over the place it was 'normal' and 'celebrated'.


"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

.............................................


NEW RESEARCH...calls Pedophilia just another sexual orientation...
Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

the new Pysch Bible has softened it's few on it.
I cannot find full DSM definition upgrading certain forms of Pedophilia but
here is commentary on the definition from
Journal of the American Academy Psychiatry and Law 39:2:242-244 (April 2011)
Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
Commentary on Pedophilia Diagnostic Criteria in DSM-5
Commentary on Pedophilia Diagnostic Criteria in DSM-5 (http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/2/242.full)
It quotes and references the defintions and it's nuance.
here's another that makes refecencs to the portion about "causing the perp emotional or social discomfort" basiclly a pdeo only has a psych problem if they feel bad about it.
The DSM diagnostic criteria for p... preview & related info | Mendeley (http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/dsm-diagnostic-criteria-pedophilia/#)


Pedophilia getting protection under portions of Hate crimes bill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niu3_5bbZrE

Pedophilia gets lesser sentences today because dr.s say...
http://sanityandsocialjustice.net/?p=416
Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles (1/6) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=htAUysRPvNs) Homosexuality has never been considered the norm in all of mankind's history. IT IS A SEXUAL PERVERSION END OF STORY. Ok so not really the end of story because now the leftists and other assorted dumbasses are behind not only promoting that its normal but that it is a civil right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! Which is insanity.. .

[aboutime]

Is it your contention that homosexuality is the sole reason for the fall of the Roman Empire?



Personally I would blame socialism... but that's me.


Nope. Never said it was the sole reason. I didn't write the book.

[KitchenKitten99]

I can't wait to see the 'legalize necrophilia' ads and protests...

[KitchenKitten99]

I believe the line is firm at consenting adults; which would exclude the dead ...
why is that? I've never heard a corpse complain! What happens in the privacy of the crypt is no one else's business.

Don't be such a necro-phobe!!

Necrophiliac-PRIDE!!!!

[revelarts]

why is that? I've never heard a corpse complain! What happens in the privacy of the crypt is no one else's business.

Don't be such a necro-phobe!!

Necrophiliac-PRIDE!!!!

It'll probably start with premortem agreements.

But that won't be good enough. it should be EQUAL TO living marriages in every way... including adoption.
Dead parents are just as good of parents as the living.. studies show. Many have more money!

[KitchenKitten99]

It'll probably start with premortem agreements.

But that won't be good enough. it should be EQUAL TO living marriages in every way... including adoption.
Dead parents are just as good of parents as the living.. studies show. Many have more money!


Think of all the monetary benefits that can continue after death!

Social security benefits can go on forever and pass to the family's next of kin until the end of time. Why should the dead be so under-paid??

The dead get paid 100% less than the living!! Equal rights for the dead!!!

[Jeff]

Who in their right mind would want more than one wife? More than one mother-in-law?

That person should have their head examined...


:laugh: I have to agree with ya here :laugh:

[jafar00]

:laugh: I have to agree with ya here :laugh:

If you married sisters, there would only be one Mother in Law ;)

[Noir]

why is that? I've never heard a corpse complain! What happens in the privacy of the crypt is no one else's business. Don't be such a necro-phobe!! Necrophiliac-PRIDE!!!!

Consent means saying yes, not 'not saying no'.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c11036720130629120100.jpg

[revelarts]

Consent means saying yes, not 'not saying no'.

premortem agreements.
And the old Puritanical area of necrophiliac law needs to be changed anyway, so called consent is just a social convention anyway. Especially in the cases of the dead who are in part now technically inanimate objects.

you see the way they could work it is to take the inanimate object tack, (people have sex with inanimate object riiiight?) legally and rhetorically at 1st.
Then switch positions after that gets traction and start talking about rights of the dead person/living person marriage being EQUAL to living persons. Forgetting all the inanimate arguments that got their feet in the door.
Only the backwards and unenlightened hate filled necro-phobes don't see the clear logic of it all. Some people are born nercrophiles. Did you hear they think they've found the necrophiliac gene? And even if they haven't yet, it's a life/death style choice, who are you to control them?!

[KitchenKitten99]

Consent means saying yes, not 'not saying no'.

Sign language. ;)

[KitchenKitten99]

Anyone who objects to necrophilia is an enemy to the pre-zombie-human decency!!

[revelarts]

Anyone who objects to necrophilia is an enemy to the pre-zombie-human decency!!
yeah!
And the only reason... the REAL reason... they are against it is because they are closet Necropilies.
And what about world PEACE! Intolerant neanderthal bigots!

[Abbey Marie]

wow... it's a wonder your head doesn't implode under the weight of your own stupidity.

Note: This is the exact point where this thread would have turned from topical to poster insult-directed if anyone had replied in kind. Luckily, it stayed on topic for a change. :clap:

[Robert A Whit]

Note: This is the exact point where this thread would have turned from topical to poster insult-directed if anyone replied in kind. Luckily, it stayed on topic for a change. :clap:

Thank you Abbey for the kind words. I knew of the insult and noticed no admin action happened, leading me on another thread to reply to said poster with no insults nor taunts.

I admire your catch of this issue. Again, thank you.

[Jeff]

If you married sisters, there would only be one Mother in Law ;)


You have a point there but imagine marrying two women that think alike , the nagging would be double :laugh:

[revelarts]

double post--

[revelarts]

If you married sisters, there would only be one Mother in Law http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/wink.png

You have a point there but imagine marrying two women that think alike , the nagging would be double :laugh:

why not marry the sisters AND the mother? complete the a set.
what family of woman think alike? let them fight among themselves.

[tailfins]

double post--

You made a Freudian slip!

[revelarts]

You made a Freudian slip!

you want to see Freud in a slip?

[pete311]

Homosexuality has never been considered the norm in all of mankind's history. IT IS A SEXUAL PERVERSION END OF STORY. Ok so not really the end of story because now the leftists and other assorted dumbasses are behind not only promoting that its normal but that it is a civil right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! Which is insanity.. .

We should also ban oral and anal sex. These are not natural. These are sexual perversions. I don't see monkeys fucking each others mouths and buttholes. The people who have oral and anal sex should not have rights either. They are unnatural. We should also ban sex anywhere but on the bed. Anywhere else is unnatural and against norms. People who have sex outside of the bedroom should not get rights. They are perverse. People should have sex only in doggie style which is natural. Anything else is perverse and against nature. People who have sex in any position other than doggie style should not have rights. People who masturbate should also not have rights. Masturbation is perverse and unnatural. I don't see dogs jacking themselves off behind a tree looking at a dirty magazine.


furthermore, 99% of human history is filled with cavemen midget mentalities. You really want to use their midget mental capabilities as a defense? maybe we should have slaves and think the sun revolves around the earth too.

[Marcus Aurelius]

you want to see Freud in a slip?

I thought Freudian slips were something cross-dressing psychoanalysts wore?

[KitchenKitten99]

We should also ban oral and anal sex. These are not natural. These are sexual perversions. I don't see monkeys fucking each others mouths and buttholes. The people who have oral and anal sex should not have rights either. They are unnatural. We should also ban sex anywhere but on the bed. Anywhere else is unnatural and against norms. People who have sex outside of the bedroom should not get rights. They are perverse. People should have sex only in doggie style which is natural. Anything else is perverse and against nature. People who have sex in any position other than doggie style should not have rights. People who masturbate should also not have rights. Masturbation is perverse and unnatural. I don't see dogs jacking themselves off behind a tree looking at a dirty magazine.


furthermore, 99% of human history is filled with cavemen midget mentalities. You really want to use their midget mental capabilities as a defense? maybe we should have slaves and think the sun revolves around the earth too.

:wtf:You do realize the acts above have nothing to do with this thread topic?

[fj1200]

:wtf:You do realize the acts above have nothing to do with this thread topic?

I thought it was pretty much in line especially given all the excitement over necrophilia. :slap:

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KitchenKitten99 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649927#post649927)
:wtf:You do realize the acts above have nothing to do with this thread topic?


I thought it was pretty much in line especially given all the excitement over necrophilia. :slap:

How does it relate to polygamy and adult incest marriages now open to the public?

[fj1200]

How does it relate to polygamy and adult incest marriages now open to the public?

You're arguing FOR the natural order correct?

[pete311]

:wtf:You do realize the acts above have nothing to do with this thread topic?

I'm making a sarcastic example in reference of the post I quoted.

[revelarts]

You're arguing FOR the natural order correct?

I'm arguing for the generally Christian order.
which , surprise surprise, seems to be the natural.

As far as excitment over necrophilia. why not?
what about any of the statements on that above are out of line with a consistent view of the assertion that individual SEXUAL CHOICES/PREFERENCES of any kind should legally and morally trump any societal standards; traditional, health/medical, cultural, economic, or --gasp-- religious?

[fj1200]

I'm arguing for the generally Christian order.
which , surprise surprise, seems to be the natural.

As far as excitment over necrophilia. why not?
what about any of the statements on that above are out of line with a consistent view of the assertion that individual SEXUAL CHOICES/PREFERENCES of any kind should legally and morally trump any societal standards; traditional, health/medical, cultural, economic, or --gasp-- religious?

It's one thing to argue for the Christian order, it's another to demand that the State legislate based on that without a compelling interest. As the satire pointed out there are many things that aren't natural. What is the State's compelling interest in "straight" marriage?

Necrophilia? It's a property rights argument isn't it? :poke:












:laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649938#post649938)
How does it relate to polygamy and adult incest marriages now open to the public?


You're arguing FOR the natural order correct?

Actually I am only commenting that by declaring homosexuals are married, the barriers to any form of marriage are gone.

When a person wants a thing, they need to be reminded that they must look at all consequences rather than their personal but narrow view.

I believe that the natural order no longer applies.

[pete311]

I believe that the natural order no longer applies.

What makes you an expert in what is natural?

Speaking of natural polygamy. Lions and Gorillas all have multiple "wives".

The problem with polygamy is not the concept. If three people want to get married. Who the hell cares. The problem is that those people who do practice it are usually unhealthy cults. Which we do not want to promote.

[Abbey Marie]

What makes you an expert in what is natural?

Speaking of natural polygamy. Lions and Gorillas all have multiple "wives".

The problem with polygamy is not the concept. If three people want to get married. Who the hell cares. The problem is that those people who do practice it are usually unhealthy cults. Which we do not want to promote.

Hope you all enjoy your "who cares" society as it crumbles. I suspect ancient Romans once thought much as you do.

[pete311]

Hope you all enjoy your "who cares" society as it crumbles. I suspect ancient Romans once thought much as you do.

Every generation thinks the next generation is going to hell. Marriage is not sacred, get over it. We got 50% divorce rates. Millions in prisons. Bad education systems. That is what is crumbling our society. Not two men signing a legal document for shared benefits.

[revelarts]

It's one thing to argue for the Christian order, it's another to demand that the State legislate based on that without a compelling interest. As the satire pointed out there are many things that aren't natural. What is the State's compelling interest in "straight" marriage?

Necrophilia? It's a property rights argument isn't it? :poke:

:laugh:


"a compelling interest."
The social and physical health of the community.

Marriage, as traditionally defined for 1000 years or so, has been the cornerstone of western civilization. the nuclear family is the basis of our social structure. It's promotion and maintenance is vital to our cultural well being.
Where families are broke, busted and perverted you have more broke, busted and perverted people, crime, poverty and death. (please don't misrepresent me as promoting "perfect" families. I am promoting traditional families as the ideal to be aimed at, promoted and legal maintained.)

we can Laugh it off if we like.

Look if homosexual people want lifelong relations let them have at it. Just don't call it marriage, we all need that to stay as it is.
And don't ask me to support homosexual relationships... or else you'll fine or jail me. I believe they are destructive. Both self-destructive and culturally destructive. Does Freedom of religion mean anything to homosexual advocates or must i change my religion to suit them on this issue too?
I'm not trying to kill anyone or stop anyone from getting a job. But don't expect me to just throw my faith and common sense in the trash and agree that homosexual marriage is "the same" as traditional marriages. Or to treat it as if it is.

A man is not a woman, a child is not an adult, dead is not the same as living. Different states of being rate different treatment and different rights and privileges at times. Men are not wet nurses and women aren't sperm donors. Claiming "the right" to be won't make it happen.
homosexual committed relationship is not marriage. A mule is not a horse, despite the similarities. Mules are generally sterile for 1. Not something you build a future on.
Not bigotry just fact.



I'm still waiting for a response to why polygamy, incestuous , necrophilic and even pedophilic marriage should be illegal?
Whats the compelling state interest there, if there's no compulsion to maintain traditional marriage?
Fine to try to poke fun at traditional marriage or natural relations. But where's the line in the sand for others types of marriage.
Doesn't the whole institution become a debased when anyone can claim the rights and privileges?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649958#post649958)
I believe that the natural order no longer applies.


What makes you an expert in what is natural?

Speaking of natural polygamy. Lions and Gorillas all have multiple "wives".

The problem with polygamy is not the concept. If three people want to get married. Who the hell cares. The problem is that those people who do practice it are usually unhealthy cults. Which we do not want to promote.


Or you for that matter?!?!

Rather than to act as if you are the expert on cults, why not say you don't like it. Same thing many don't like about homosexuals.

The law of the USA drove Polygamy to small towns.

As I said, now the door opens back up for polygamy to thrive.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Abbey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649964#post649964)
Hope you all enjoy your "who cares" society as it crumbles. I suspect ancient Romans once thought much as you do.



Every generation thinks the next generation is going to hell. Marriage is not sacred, get over it. We got 50% divorce rates. Millions in prisons. Bad education systems. That is what is crumbling our society. Not two men signing a legal document for shared benefits.

​I wonder if you will make that claim when adult incest marriages and polygamy are put into action? I see no bars now that homosexuals busted down the doors.

I hear that Abbey is a lawyer. I would be grateful to her for her legal view on this matter.

So Abbey, since states can't ban homosexual marriages, can they ban any marriage?

[fj1200]

Actually I am only commenting that by declaring homosexuals are married, the barriers to any form of marriage are gone.

When a person wants a thing, they need to be reminded that they must look at all consequences rather than their personal but narrow view.

I believe that the natural order no longer applies.

I recognize your opinion.

[fj1200]

"a compelling interest."
The social and physical health of the community.

Marriage, as traditionally defined for 1000 years or so, has been the cornerstone of western civilization. the nuclear family is the basis of our social structure. It's promotion and maintenance is vital to our cultural well being.
Where families are broke, busted and perverted you have more broke, busted and perverted people, crime, poverty and death. (please don't misrepresent me as promoting "perfect" families. I am promoting traditional families as the ideal to be aimed at, promoted and legal maintained.)

we can Laugh it off if we like.

Look if homosexual people want lifelong relations let them have at it. Just don't call it marriage, we all need that to stay as it is.
And don't ask me to support homosexual relationships... or else you'll fine or jail me. I believe they are destructive. Both self-destructive and culturally destructive. Does Freedom of religion mean anything to homosexual advocates or must i change my religion to suit them on this issue too?
I'm not trying to kill anyone or stop anyone from getting a job. But don't expect me to just throw my faith and common sense in the trash and agree that homosexual marriage is "the same" as traditional marriages. Or to treat it as if it is.

A man is not a woman, a child is not an adult, dead is not the same as living. Different states of being rate different treatment and different rights and privileges at times. Men are not wet nurses and women aren't sperm donors. Claiming "the right" to be won't make it happen.
homosexual committed relationship is not marriage. A mule is not a horse, despite the similarities. Mules are generally sterile for 1. Not something you build a future on.
Not bigotry just fact.



I'm still waiting for a response to why polygamy, incestuous , necrophilic and even pedophilic marriage should be illegal?
Whats the compelling state interest there, if there's no compulsion to maintain traditional marriage?
Fine to try to poke fun at traditional marriage or natural relations. But where's the line in the sand for others types of marriage.
Doesn't the whole institution become a debased when anyone can claim the rights and privileges?

Traditional marriage has been a cornerstone because if a man and a woman didn't get together and have kids they would likely be consigned to poverty and early death because they didn't have kids to work the farm or support them in their old age. That is a sign of the times that two people can get together and not need to have kids to live. I live in a neighborhood that has countless, mostly lesbian, couples with kids who have started families regardless that the State of Georgia doesn't recognize that they live together. Maybe you don't want it to be called "traditional" but it's a reality that is out there and that will not be fading... ever. I'd be perfectly happy if the government decided that any two non-related individuals, of majority... and breathing, :rolleyes: wanted to come together that it would be called a civil union. If you believe in traditional marriage and want to get married in a church, have at it.

Honestly I thought you would state the the compelling interest is kids but you did say families and it's clear that families these days, with plenty of kids, includes gay couples.

Also, I completely disagree that there is any marriage "right," but there are plenty of privileges that have been granted that probably shouldn't have but it creates the scenario where some are more equal than others on the marriage front.

[revelarts]

Traditional marriage has been a cornerstone because if a man and a woman didn't get together and have kids they would likely be consigned to poverty and early death because they didn't have kids to work the farm or support them in their old age. That is a sign of the times that two people can get together and not need to have kids to live. I live in a neighborhood that has countless, mostly lesbian, couples with kids who have started families regardless that the State of Georgia doesn't recognize that they live together. Maybe you don't want it to be called "traditional" but it's a reality that is out there and that will not be fading... ever. I'd be perfectly happy if the government decided that any two non-related individuals, of majority... and breathing, :rolleyes: wanted to come together that it would be called a civil union. If you believe in traditional marriage and want to get married in a church, have at it.

Honestly I thought you would state the the compelling interest is kids but you did say families and it's clear that families these days, with plenty of kids, includes gay couples.

Also, I completely disagree that there is any marriage "right," but there are plenty of privileges that have been granted that probably shouldn't have but it creates the scenario where some are more equal than others on the marriage front.

i don't have time for a long rebutal. but tell the florist that, the one who didn't want to supply flowers to her homosexual "friend's" marriage. that there's no "rights" associate with marriage. Why is she being sued... boil it down... because of a "marriage". Or a Business in state that recognizes it, can they not provide benefits, or any number of other issues.

the state compels people to conform to the rights afforded married couples FJ.

[Robert A Whit]

marriage between one man and one woman, in the CONUS, and in much of the world, has long been for reasons other than government benefits.

Married twice, at no time was my marriages about some so called rights handed out by the feds nor the states.

But marriage is a much more basic event than some supporting the homosexuals will admit in my view.

IT has long been a stigma to have children and not be in a contract relationship with the opposite sex.

I pin this current move for homosexuals to the unintended consequence of the BC pill. Those of us who were aware as adults how it was pre pill saw the radical change post pill.

It is one of those things one has to live or put in many hours of study, to appreciate.

But in the beginning, marriage had more to do with trying to allow a form of social contract to exist in order to protect the children and the spouses to a lesser degree is what i believe.

Look at the nature of marriage globally. In many areas, even right now, the spouses receive property from those not in the marriage so to the new married cou0ple, it is a gain in property for them and perhaps a gain in social standing.

Say she is of modest means and she marries a wealthy man. The children she produces will have more wealth than say she married the local cashier.

[logroller]

i don't have time for a long rebutal. but tell the florist that, the one who didn't want to supply flowers to her homosexual "friend's" marriage. that there's no "rights" associate with marriage. Why is she being sued... boil it down... because of a "marriage". Or a Business in state that recognizes it, can they not provide benefits, or any number of other issues.

the state compels people to conform to the rights afforded married couples FJ.
Assuming youre talking about the case in Washington, It is worthy of note that the florist had been selling flowers to the gay couple for a decade. So if lady's relationship with Jesus prevents her from selling flowers for the marriage, does that mean He's indifferent to their valentines day expressions?

[Abbey Marie]

Every generation thinks the next generation is going to hell. Marriage is not sacred, get over it. We got 50% divorce rates. Millions in prisons. Bad education systems. That is what is crumbling our society. Not two men signing a legal document for shared benefits.

Get over it? Now that's a compelling rebuttal. I see you are a black and white thinker. We have other problems, so this one isn't worth worrying about. Many of us actually have the capacity to be concerned about several things at once. Imagine that! And I will further posit that the problems you mentioned are linked to the breakdown of the very institution of marriage that you scorn.

[revelarts]

Assuming youre talking about the case in Washington, It is worthy of note that the florist had been selling flowers to the gay couple for a decade. So if lady's relationship with Jesus prevents her from selling flowers for the marriage, does that mean He's indifferent to their valentines day expressions?

Not indifferent, but valentine day expressions are one thing and marriage is another.
There's room for tolerance. What line any particular Christian is willing to cross in kindness is one thing. But they drew the line at a very clear point.
Any woman will make it clear that getting flowers as a expression for valentines and getting flowers for a wedding are a VERY different matter. by orders of magnitude.

[KitchenKitten99]

I thought it was pretty much in line especially given all the excitement over necrophilia. :slap:

What you posted about are specific sexual acts not sexual preferences. There is a difference.

[KitchenKitten99]

Every generation thinks the next generation is going to hell. Marriage is not sacred, get over it. We got 50% divorce rates. Millions in prisons. Bad education systems. That is what is crumbling our society. Not two men signing a legal document for shared benefits.

It never used to be that way even 50 years ago...

Progressive/communist/socialist movements = the country is going to Hell, one decade at a time.

Each new decade and generation says the stuff they're doing 'isn't that bad'. Remember the "if it feels good, do it" motto? What did that get us? HIV and other STD's going rampant.

Morals and common decency has been replaced with "It's all about me" and I want a trophy for participation.

This new generation cannot handle the word "NO" because they have never been taught that life sucks sometimes and you don't always get what you want.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by pete311 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649966#post649966)
Every generation thinks the next generation is going to hell. Marriage is not sacred, get over it. We got 50% divorce rates. Millions in prisons. Bad education systems. That is what is crumbling our society. Not two men signing a legal document for shared benefits.


It never used to be that way even 50 years ago...

Progressive/communist/socialist movements = the country is going to Hell, one decade at a time.

Each new decade and generation says the stuff they're doing 'isn't that bad'. Remember the "if it feels good, do it" motto? What did that get us? HIV and other STD's going rampant.

Morals and common decency has been replaced with "It's all about me" and I want a trophy for participation.

This new generation cannot handle the word "NO" because they have never been taught that life sucks sometimes and you don't always get what you want.

Brilliantly stated Kitten.

While things have never been remotely perfect, we can see by many signs what happens now.

From the top, such as the federal deficits, to the federal debt, to consumer debt, to consumer lost incomes to the vast pool of those who would work if only jobs were to be had, to this anger we see posted by some posters, to the rise of crime in the cities, that all is not well.

And what is to stop polygamy now? What is to stop any various forms of collection of humans from reverting back to former systems that proved harmful, such as adults incest marriages? That was once legal.

[fj1200]

i don't have time for a long rebutal. but tell the florist that, the one who didn't want to supply flowers to her homosexual "friend's" marriage. that there's no "rights" associate with marriage. Why is she being sued... boil it down... because of a "marriage". Or a Business in state that recognizes it, can they not provide benefits, or any number of other issues.

the state compels people to conform to the rights afforded married couples FJ.

I'm not quite sure if you think I agree with compelling private individuals commerce activities, because I do not. The State compels people who engage in commerce but they've been doing that for decades.

[fj1200]

What you posted about are specific sexual acts not sexual preferences. There is a difference.

A. I didn't post them, and 2. Comparing gay marriage and necrophilia is ridiculous.

[logroller]

Not indifferent, but valentine day expressions are one thing and marriage is another.
There's room for tolerance. What line any particular Christian is willing to cross in kindness is one thing. But they drew the line at a very clear point.
Any woman will make it clear that getting flowers as a expression for valentines and getting flowers for a wedding are a VERY different matter. by orders of magnitude.
Flowers don't make it a marriage, despite what bridezilla any woman might make clear. It's not even a question of magnitude, flowers are irrevelent to the bonds of matrimony in the eyes of God. Same goes for cakes, rings, dresses and tuxedos. I would think that conducting the ceremony in a church, a "line", as it were, could be justified from a religious pov. Commercial establishments, however, are NOT afforded the same religious protections.

Side note: Would you support store owned by a Jehovah's Witness would be justified in refusing to sell an item intended as birthday present?

[revelarts]

I'm not quite sure if you think I agree with compelling private individuals commerce activities, because I do not. The State compels people who engage in commerce but they've been doing that for decades.

not for homosexual weddings

[fj1200]

not for homosexual weddings

For protected classes. They've been on the list in many states before last week.

[revelarts]

Flowers don't make it a marriage, despite what bridezilla any woman might make clear. It's not even a question of magnitude, flowers are irrevelent to the bonds of matrimony in the eyes of God. Same goes for cakes, rings, dresses and tuxedos. I would think that conducting the ceremony in a church, a "line", as it were, could be justified from a religious pov. Commercial establishments, however, are NOT afforded the same religious protections.

Side note: Would you support store owned by a Jehovah's Witness would be justified in refusing to sell an item intended as birthday present?

If a Khoser deli doesn't sell pork barbecue are we going to sue?
Never heard of a JW shop keeper doing what you suggest but, Yes.
But i'd suspect they might not sell birthday party items and would have a don't ask don't tell policy concerning birthday gifts.

But Log, if your not a part of the faith in question your welcome to your opinion of what they should or shouldn't think is important. But the fact is homosexuality is considererd a serious sin. what any christian does in a loving and balanced response to people who insist on the practice is between them and God.

I'm sure if she had a friend who was in a strait but adulterous relationship she'd have an issue selling flowers to the guy for his mistress as well. He might be mad and would probably GET why she won't. But he wouldn't sue over it . Why? Because what he's doing is a sin and a SHAME. As most out of wedlock sexual relationship were considered, not to long ago.

[Robert A Whit]

Since homosexuals call me straight .... is it ok for me to call them crooked?

[pete311]

It never used to be that way even 50 years ago...

Progressive/communist/socialist movements = the country is going to Hell, one decade at a time.

Morals and common decency has been replaced with "It's all about me" and I want a trophy for participation.

This new generation cannot handle the word "NO" because they have never been taught that life sucks sometimes and you don't always get what you want.

Really... tell that to blacks and women. Maybe blacks should still be slaves and women shouldn't be able to vote. After all life sucks. We should tell them to stop being selfish and think about proper morals...

If you had studied any history you'd see America as a whole is becoming more and more well, civilized. Go through the first 200 or so years of our history and you'll find some truly sad stories.

[pete311]

And what is to stop polygamy now? What is to stop any various forms of collection of humans from reverting back to former systems that proved harmful, such as adults incest marriages? That was once legal.

It's hilarious how scared you guys are of polygamy. lol, it's like a boogy man under your little childish bed. The movement for polygamy is not even close to being large enough. I don't see polygamists having parades. You can rest easy. The polygamy boogyman will stay safely under your bed for a very long time.

[logroller]

If a Khoser deli doesn't sell pork barbecue are we going to sue?
depends, do they sell it to some people and not others? That's really the crux of the issue. If the lady simply didn't sell flower arrangements for weddings, its not a discrimination issue.



Never heard of a JW shop keeper doing what you suggest but, Yes.
I would too, so long as nobody was sold a that item. But if they choose to sell to an item to one person, I don't find the argument that religion precludes birthday gift sales to another persuasive-- that's discriminatory. Say it was a candle with a saint on it; should I be required to prove that I'm catholic to some such? Or is it, oh sorry, you're damned-- no candle for you. Ditto on flowers. Same way if a convenience store owner refuses to sell condoms; if they don't sell them at all, that's fine by me; but if they refuse to sell condoms to gays, unmarried people, Catholics or blacks etc-- that's discriminatory.



But i'd suspect they might not sell birthday party items and would have a don't ask don't tell policy concerning birthday gifts.
Aka, its none of my business what the item is for, and its not quite frankly. Whether one sells coffee makers or flowers, there's an exchange of money for an item. Not sure where a simple commercial transaction got so complex. person sells product to other person in exchange for money.



But Log, if your not a part of the faith in question your welcome to your opinion of what they should or shouldn't think is important. But the fact is homosexuality is considererd a serious sin.
Pray tell, which sins aren't serious?



what any christian does in a loving and balanced response to people who insist on the practice is between them and God.
So is being homosexual, no? No offense rev, if refusing to sell somebody flowers because you believe their lifestyle is a despicable sin is what you consider to be loving and balanced, you're running dangerously close to casting stones.



I'm sure if she had a friend who was in a strait but adulterous relationship she'd have an issue selling flowers to the guy for his mistress as well. He might be mad and would probably GET why she won't. But he wouldn't sue over it . Why? Because what he's doing is a sin and a SHAME. As most out of wedlock sexual relationship were considered, not to long ago.
by your logic, so too would sending flowers to the man's gay lover be an issue; yet its reasonable apparent that she did so. If adulterers were a protected class, he could sue. Of course, he may not want to if his relationship were clandestine, but thats on him. The issue here is whether an entity is allowed to discrimate against those based on their sexual orientation. Government/business etc. Morality enforcement/protection is not government's purpose. Businesses are commercial establishments: they sell things.As I mentioned, churches should be allowed to do so; as I believe those are institutions that are intended to instruct others on moral values.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650112#post650112)
And what is to stop polygamy now? What is to stop any various forms of collection of humans from reverting back to former systems that proved harmful, such as adults incest marriages? That was once legal.


It's hilarious how scared you guys are of polygamy. lol, it's like a boogy man under your little childish bed. The movement for polygamy is not even close to being large enough. I don't see polygamists having parades. You can rest easy. The polygamy boogyman will stay safely under your bed for a very long time.

That is called assuming a message says something it does not say. There is no fear. Who knows, I might like half a dozen wives myself. I believe that polygamists got just what they have long wanted. Be prepared for multiple wives.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KitchenKitten99 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650111#post650111)
It never used to be that way even 50 years ago...

Progressive/communist/socialist movements = the country is going to Hell, one decade at a time.

Morals and common decency has been replaced with "It's all about me" and I want a trophy for participation.

This new generation cannot handle the word "NO" because they have never been taught that life sucks sometimes and you don't always get what you want.



Really... tell that to blacks and women. Maybe blacks should still be slaves and women shouldn't be able to vote. After all life sucks. We should tell them to stop being selfish and think about proper morals...

If you had studied any history you'd see America as a whole is becoming more and more well, civilized. Go through the first 200 or so years of our history and you'll find some truly sad stories.

Reductio ad absurdum

[logroller]

Reductio ad absurdum
a stand alone comment in this thread IMO.

[pete311]

Reductio ad absurdum

whatever, the country is moving on, and there is nothing you can do about it but watch and squirm. game set match

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650207#post650207)
Reductio ad absurdum


whatever, the country is moving on, and there is nothing you can do about it but watch and squirm. game set match

is there a post in your future somewhere that makes sense?

[revelarts]

Pray tell, which sins aren't serious?

In the broadest sense, sin is sin. Sealing paper clips is as bad as Mass murder, yes.
On a practical level however, i think you'd acknowledge that some sins are more serious than others.




So is being homosexual, no?
No offense rev, if refusing to sell somebody flowers because you believe their lifestyle is a despicable sin is what you consider to be loving and balanced, you're running dangerously close to casting stones. .
Whatever a person does is between them and God. However God has clearly said somethings are morally wrong.
Read all of the thowing stones passage. It talking about coporal punishment for aldutery. At the end of that encounter Jesus says to the adultous woman "Go, and don't sin anymore."
Should Jesus and the disciples rent her a hotel room to commit her adultery Log?



by your logic, so too would sending flowers to the man's gay lover be an issue; yet its reasonable apparent that she did so. If adulterers were a protected class, he could sue. Of course, he may not want to if his relationship were clandestine, but thats on him. The issue here is whether an entity is allowed to discrimate against those based on their sexual orientation. Government/business etc. Morality enforcement/protection is not government's purpose. Businesses are commercial establishments: they sell things.As I mentioned, churches should be allowed to do so; as I believe those are institutions that are intended to instruct others on moral values.

'"a protected class"
that's the problem. a morally bad activity has become a protected class.

A commercial Business sells things, right they do.

But liquor stores don't sell to everyone. Age limits are one area but try this,
If you were a liquor store owner and had a customer who you knew was a deaths door because of his liver and he had money to buy your products. Would it be morally right for you to sell him a case of Bourbon? Even if in years past you had sold to him often.
It's commercial biz and all that, but morals do come into play with what you sell and who you sell it to. You and others frame it as discrimination.
But we can't just keep our morals framework locked away in the Church Log.

Unless you want to fine or send people to jail for not having the same view of the issue as you.