DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Forum
HTML https://thewiforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: National topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19708--------------------------------------------------
Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: Mr.steve
Date: June 26, 2015, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.waow.com/story/29416206/2015/06/26/breaking-supreme-court-extends-same-sex-marriage-nationwide
With everything that has been happening lately, I find myself
drawn to these 1980s lyrics:
Take the children and yourself
And hide out in the cellar
By now the fighting will be close at hand
Don't believe the church and state
And everything they tell you
Believe in me, I'm with the high command
There's a gun and ammunition
Just inside the doorway
Use it only in emergency
Better you should pray to God
The Father and the Spirit
Will guide you and protect from up here
Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still
#Post#: 19711--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: June 28, 2015, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Supreme court did the right thing here. In fact the only thing
they could do without running afoul of the 1st amendment, among
others.
While churches and religions may define marriage as they please,
there is no compelling reason for the state to define it as one
man/one woman.
The reasons for that definition were rooted in religious
belief, something our government is not supposed to favor.
Since you are worried about a "slippery slope", If they had
allowed this to stand, what then prevents Muslims from demanding
a law that protects their long-standing religious beliefs?
Bring on the state-mandated burkas? Women must have a male
chaperone? Why are their beliefs being trampled on?
#Post#: 19716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: Mr.steve
Date: June 28, 2015, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Since you are worried about a "slippery slope", If they had
allowed this to stand, what then prevents Muslims from demanding
a law that protects their long-standing religious beliefs?
Bring on the state-mandated burkas? Women must have a male
chaperone? Why are their beliefs being trampled on?
--- End Quote ---
The argument can be made that islam is NOT a religion so your
"what if...." fails.
#Post#: 19718--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: June 28, 2015, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mr.steve link ---
>
> The argument can be made that islam is NOT a religion so your
"what if...." fails.
>
--- End Quote ---
No, that argument really cannot be made.
Islam is one of the largest religions on the planet and it's
growing so quickly it will eclipse Christianity within 50 years.
(PEW Research).
With that in mind, do you really want the Supreme Court setting
precedent to enforce religious doctrine?
#Post#: 19719--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: Mr.steve
Date: June 28, 2015, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> With that in mind, do you really want the Supreme Court
setting precedent to enforce religious doctrine?
--- End Quote ---
You must have missed the memo... THEY ALREADY ARE! ;D
#Post#: 19721--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: 12cows
Date: June 28, 2015, 8:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> Supreme court did the right thing here. In fact the only thing
they could do without running afoul of the 1st amendment, among
others.
> While churches and religions may define marriage as they
please, there is no compelling reason for the state to define it
as one man/one woman.
> The reasons for that definition were rooted in religious
belief, something our government is not supposed to favor.
>
--- End Quote ---
A man marries a man, or a dog, or a group of people can marry,
or relatives marry I don't care, whatever. I just don't want
them in my house.
With that said, there is a woman in central Wisconsin who with
her brother, live as man and wife. She works as a bartender so
don't talk too loud. If in time she wants to marry her brother,
then what? Would that be okay?
#Post#: 19722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: June 28, 2015, 11:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 12cows link ---
>
> If in time she wants to marry her brother, then what? Would
that be okay?
>
--- End Quote ---
We've already been over these "what-if's" way back when blacks
and whites wanted to intermarry. People didn't marry their
ferrets after that SC ruling, they won't after this one either
:D
Blood relatives may not marry (except cousins in Wisconsin and
certain southern states) because there is a significant chance
their offspring will suffer birth defects. There is a
legitimate reason to deny those marriages.
#Post#: 19723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: 12cows
Date: June 28, 2015, 11:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> We've already been over these "what-if's" way back when blacks
and whites wanted to intermarry. People didn't marry their
ferrets after that SC ruling, they won't after this one either
:D
> Blood relatives may not marry (except cousins in Wisconsin and
certain southern states) because there is a significant chance
their offspring will suffer birth defects. There is a
legitimate reason to deny those marriages.
>
--- End Quote ---
The brother and sister are in their 50's so there is no chance
of pregnancy happening. Would it be okay now?
#Post#: 19732--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: June 29, 2015, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 12cows link ---
>
> The brother and sister are in their 50's so there is no chance
of pregnancy happening. Would it be okay now?
>
--- End Quote ---
This state allows first cousins to marry as long as they are
infertile or the woman is over 55. That doesn't pass my ewwww
test either, but i'm hard pressed to come up with an example of
how it damages anyone else.
It was very common in the middle ages for cousins and in some
cases siblings to marry to preserve wealth and bloodlines.
Aside from the fact Cain may have married his own sister, the
prohibition against it in our laws originated with Christian
dogma. Once again we shouldn't be legislating based on
religious belief. There needs to be some form of harm to society
for the state to step in.
So I'm going to go with my standard answer: " If they are
consenting adults and their behavior does not harm anyone I
really don't care and it probably isn't the state's business".
Even though the ewww factor is pretty darn big.
#Post#: 19733--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pandors box, slippery slope and the nasty liberal mindset
DIR By: 12cows
Date: June 29, 2015, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cain might of married his sister? Where did you get that idea,
not that it matters in this thread.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page