What? Why?Originally Posted by JuBru
|
|
|
|
|
What? Why?
Moral absolutes don't matter?
Since you are okay with non-monogamy, I can only imagine what the next step might be.
Because we all know marriage between one man and one woman is synonymous with monogamy.Moral absolutes don't matter?
Since you are okay with non-monogamy, I can only imagine what the next step might be.
Not sure how that makes gay, lesbian, non-monogamous, or those sure to come later okay, but like I said, no moral absolutes are sure to help.Because we all know marriage between one man and one woman is synonymous with monogamy.
For me, that's the point though. The moral absolute is not so moral.
Got to have a set of moral standards to go by. It's not a moving target.
As long as they are all consenting adults. Why should the state interfere in their right to enter into any contract they want? Are you turning into a liberal now?
If that broad statement is true, then the doctrine must be applicable to all areas, and its not. For example, I have no right whatsoever to walk into a women's restroom. I have no right whatsoever to receive positive discrimination when applying for a job or for college. I have no right to receive welfare in my current state of affluence. This can be a long list if we think about it.
Oh but they want it to be a moving target so bad depending upon their latest kinky idea and perversion.Got to have a set of moral standards to go by. It's not a moving target.
There are already those on the left that desire it to be legal to have sex with basically children and/or their own kids. And of course they want homosexuality laws changed in states. Hum.... the timing of those "desires" by the left coincides somewhat with each other doesn't it? And the lefty judges are basically letting women off that have sex with underage children now. It's rampant! The same for men will not be far behind. We are quickly becoming an "anything goes" society if close to the majority ignores the particular issue or the minority wanting it screams loud enough.
Last edited by TYLERTECHSAS; 01-21-2014 at 10:23 AM.
Wow. What a dumbass thing to say.
The State is not the moral authority. That is not their responsibility.Moral absolutes don't matter?
Since you are okay with non-monogamy, I can only imagine what the next step might be.
You're claiming rights that are not rights. I include welfare in that, but The State doesn't. However, you do have the "right" to welfare once you are not as affluent as you are now. There are going to be stipulations for every right and my "broad" comment does not rule that out.
This has me as speechless as the crap about killing all conservatives just for being lefties talk about every day.
Yup.
Guisslapp may disagree, but traditional marriage is a negative right. Anything outside of traditional marriage is a positive right.
Y'all have fun sorting this out.
huh? According to this all my examples are rights: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Perhaps you mean legally acknowledged? Rights are only legally acknowledge after the have become a source of persecution, etc. just because it's not stated in a law doesn't mean it isn't a right. Let's pretend for a moment I'm gay and either am contemplating or have gotten a sex change. The question of my right to access a women's restroom or locker room is being hotly debated already. This may some day be pushed to the point of a court decision and who knows...maybe a law in some crazy state. As for welfare, I can argue, why does someone who chooses not to educate themselves and not to work hard have a right to government subsidies and I don't? I am being discriminated against because of my education, hard work, and success.
.
Joseph Smith had 33 wives and Brigham Young had 57 wives. They justified polygamy by starting their own religion. Smith also said God punished people by turning them black. So, if you don't like the rules, start your own religion like these two clowns did.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
