02-02-2005, 02:47 AM
Quote:I would never be so petty and ridiculous as to claim “people will end up marrying their dogs” and no, I will not make the argument that homosexuality or lesbianism is related to or comparable with child molestation. I am however using the “where does it end” argument when it comes to polygamy. What do you say to the wife who’s husband comes home to his family of three that he cannot support and says, “Hey honey, guess what. I got married, again”. Where does that leave the wife? She can’t divorce on the grounds of adultery because his other marriage is legal. What would this do to healthcare costs? How many families will be covered? Bottom line is this. We are a country that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. We will not discriminate against those who choose and alternative lifestyle, BUT, we will not change our laws to accommodate the you. We are a nation of toleration, not adaptation to anything and everything.
"It's a slippery slope. If black men are allowed to vote, then eventually maybe women will be allowed to vote. And if you're going to allow them to vote, why not children, or dogs"
--Hoon, 1867
It's not a slippery slope. It's a bullshit claim by closeminded, bigoted, merely lazy "pro status quo" fools. You claim this clear line of marriage for two, previously unmarried adult, heterosexual, men and women, if moved will destroy the institution of marriage and corrupt the way things run. I say move the line, just a smidge to two adults. That's it. That's the only thing that changes. There is no difference between preventing women or blacks or jews the right to marriage because of how they were born. If jailed felons and retards can get married then certainly having gays get married isn't going to sully the pristine institution more than what already exists.
And the fact that the country DIDN'T define marriage as a man and a woman is the reason why all these gays are getting married. States, and now the federal government want to go and change the law to specifically exclude gays from getting married now that many state supreme courts (correctly) interpreted laws currently on the books. The country IS descriminating and IS adapting their laws SPECIFICALLY TO EXCLUDE AND DESCRIMINATE
Quote:No one is saying they need to be there for guidance. They’re there for symbolism. Judges and juries do not refer to the 10 commandments statue to help them make their decisions.The only "symbolism" is Christian God. Just because the symbols have been so pervasive to have lost meaning to most of the populace, doesn't mean that the symbol has changed. The 10 commandmants certainly have some laws which align with our moral code (don't kill, don't steal) and laws of the country, but it doesn't matter. It also has some that are completely at odds with the moral code of many individuals that doesn't conflict with the laws of the country. There is no place for any religion anywhere on public property. No 10 Commandments. No minorahs, no crosses. No Christmas trees. If individuals who work there wish to decorate, then they can decorate in any manner they want (no matter how religious), but the state itself shouldn't either directly or indirectly support any religion (which is exactly what a Ten commandments does)
It’s just another exercise in extreme political correctness to throw a hissy fit over a statue.
Edited By Galt on 1107312647