Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Sam Spade, Sep 25, 2012.
I have one question: How does this affect you?
While I don't have a dog avatar your arguments in this thread are definitely rational.
Still waiting on Sam's reply.
I know he's been around GT for a while, and even though him and I have had disagreements, I really thought he was a more sensible man than this.....I guess not.
Because as of now having more then one wife is illegal! Now this doesn't prevent one from having many GF's and many children with them. But other laws can an do impact that. But what is being suggested in this thread is as was predicted with the forcing the Gay agenda on society that everything will become the norm- gay marriage will beget polygomy, will beget no marriage, will beget not having any responsibilty for any actions one wishes to take. It's call the breakdown of moral society. You do know about Sodom right? You do know laws are based on the morals of a society right? With out morals there is no basis for the laws ! Therefore you have a lawless society!
It's called common sense, and it seems to be lacking on both sides of the political spectrum.
Morals are subjective, and often times irrelevant. If you're for a free society, then you'd be against any law or government intervention (good or bad) legislating your view or my view of what's immoral or moral.
The government's role (in a free society) is there to protect us, and our liberties. Therefore if someone's actions carry a victim, then we have punishments to keep them from repeating the deed. If one's actions do not carry a victim, IE banging multiple partners, smoking pot, etc etc. Then no harm no fowl.
Before you go on your rant saying it LEADS to something that carries a victim, such as theft or robbery for druggies, or rape/pedophilia for homosexuals and polygamous ones, we have laws in place for that very reason! That carries a victim! So the law plays into what the government's role is there for, to preserve our liberty.
Your argument pertaining to "decay of morals" is sincerely flawed. Let's say for one second the gov't allows rape, murder, etc. to happen without justice, people would naturally become more prone to defending themselves (sort of how we already do it in the USA with our guns/view on firearms ownership).
By your way of thinking, you would also advocate an all out gun ban, arguing that it's some of those who own guns that do go violent and hurt others. You can even compare micro to macro, like a lot of DEA zealots/cops here do and say "hey, every time I see someone smoking pot, I'm arresting them!". You can say the same about firearms too - "Hey! Every time I see a gun on the news, it's in bad light!" Anyway, since you're so concerned with taking care of the majority, and deciding what's moral and what isn't, I think you should reconsider your position on firearms as well. Start beating the brady drum around here letting us know that they CAN potentially hurt people so we need to have laws against it.
Concluding, you're probably not for a free society, and would like to live in more of a fascist society with the illusion of freedom.
Politicians love it when you guys debate this kind of stuff. It makes their job so much easier.
Do you honestly believe that the government refusing to legally recognize gay and polygamous marriages is the only thing keeping people in traditional marriages?
What you, Sam, and others who make these silly arguments about preserving traditional marriage seem to be failing to grasp is that people are already free to live, love and marry as they wish. Your refusal to recognize the marriage of two men or three women and a man does not prevent them from living their lives and raising their families and neither does the lack of an official government document. This means your arguments don't really make sense when we are discussing an equal protection issue like the recognition of marriages and not laws banning homosexual or polygamous acts (although something tells me you'd fully support those as well).
I would also submit that the proper roll of government and the laws they pass is not to enforce morality but rather to preserve freedom.
But I don't want my kids to be expose to those kind of immoral behaviors! If the government bans gay marriages, gay people will cease to exist!
Think of the children!
I don't give a crap if a person is gay or a poly, it's not immoral.
Stealing, swindeling, ripping people off, murdering. Those things are immoral. And since I personally know gay people and poly people I already know that one does not cause the other. Incredibly average people with a different personal life.
If you want to say that the only thing keeping your family moral is the laws and rules, I believe it.
In my family everybody is expected to be moral, or there will be trouble, from the rest of the family, not from the law.
This is one of the most relevant posts in the thread. Despite what they'll tell you, many people vote on these issues, and there's more vigorous debate about this than there is about tax payers footing the bill for banking shenanigans.
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
No my arguement goes right to the heart of this thread.
"Morals are subjective, and often times irrelevant. If you're for a free society, then you'd be against any law or government intervention (good or bad) legislating your view or my view of what's immoral or moral."
But thats what we do as a society- legistlate our morals into law! This is what the Gay activists are trying to do! They are triying to change the moral norm of marriage to conform to there moral imparitives! The moral norm has been - one man one woman as the definition of a marriage for thousands of years! Therefore the legal definition of marriage has been one man ,one woman. Especially in this country. I'm fine with taking marriage out of the Governments hands. Lets put it back where it belongs -the CHURCH! Where it started and always resides. Oops then what will the gays do now no Government to protect them!! Cause the Major religions do not and will not except it!
Cause regardless marriage is not a right! No one has the right to be married.
Gunnut, I didn't think I'd say this to you, at least in this debate but.... I agree with you! Keep the government OUT of marriage and the churches!
This isn't a matter of gay rights, it's a matter of civil rights. Civil rights apply to everyone (churches included). If a church won't marry a poly or gay couple - the gov't shouldn't step into that either...... BUT!!!! There is a BUT to this, if gays or polygamous couples/threes/fours/etc DO find a church that WILL marry them; more power to them, and you shouldn't sick a gov't on their civil liberties, just like I'd fight for you bible thumpers tooth and nail if the gov't stepped in and tried bullying you guys.
It's a safe assumption, since the all religions are protected under the 1st amendment of our BOR, there will be some church, somewhere that will marry poly and gay couples, and rightfully so, since it's the churches right to do or deny those who come in and seek their services.
See?! Us Atheists aren't so bad, some of us even stand up for your churches rights and keeping the gov't out of them, just as I want the gov't to stay out of homosexuals and polygamous couples bedrooms.
I'm with you guys. The govt has no business deciding who can get married. Let the thousands of denominations decide that individually.
HarlDane and Woofie,
How does Zach Wahls relate to MEN? How does his sister relate to MEN? I think he would be an even BETTER person if he had a mom and a dad.
I've been noticing a trend here lately, and I'd like someone to honestly explain this to me without all the cliché and childish trash talking.
We are all individuals, understood. We are a society, check. Are there some of you who think that what individuals do doesn't affect society in some form or fashion? No, what ONE or TWO people do doesn't really make a difference in the big picture, but, when endorsed by society, doesn't it take a different turn? I mean, what does ONE drunk in society do to it versus what 3/4s of the population being drunks would lead this society to do? Are there some of you who think that everything is everything and screw society, our country, versus those those who believe that we all belong to a group (society) that should be protected and preserved? I'm curious to know.
Depends on how you define civil liberties. If you're more for freedom on an individual level (sort of like how the SCOTUS ruled the 2nd amendment) then yes you wouldn't mind this.
If you're the kind that views liberties as being a collective, then no, you may or may not argue for this.
The problem with many who claim one or two turns into everyone doing it when it comes to a sexual orientation, or even drug use, simply doesn't have any factual evidence to their claim. It's sort of like drug prohibition. I find it hard to believe if the gov't legalized EVERY drug today, that the majority, or even half the population would go out and try it. Evidence that may back this theory up would be alcohol prohibition - When we ended that, did everyone become an alcoholic?.......
It usually seems those who claim to be for the "collective" run off fear mongering and hype.
All we have are individual rights, being part of a collective doesn't give us more rights than an individual, at least, it shouldn't. This is the very foundation of our government and a key element in how we view life.
The implication made by the above poster is that allowing other people to live a different lifestyle is an endoresment of it. It isn't. This mentality is one that seems to be common in thinking that being gay is a choice or that gays are confused... As though they'd be gay if everyone around them was.
To honestly state that toleration of gays being gay would screw up society because allowing it makes it OK is beyond reaching. It is OK because they're not infringing on you. You are the one that wants to tell them how to live, because you know better.
It all comes back to how small minded people can't stop themselves from pushing their views on others.
Not EVERYBODY became an alcoholic, but now there are definitely more alcoholics than during the Prohibition because it is legal. Florida's homicides increased dramatically from the inception of the Stand Your Ground law enacted in 2005. Many people actually believe that if something is legal it must be good. Dangerous. Not hype, but there is reason to fear.
I have to ask you, then, would you endorse a "civil liberty" if it endangered society as a whole? Or do you believe in balance?
Another +1 here!
Polygamy? Now we're talking. I'd love to be able to periodically add a younger wife without having to give up the others. This just has win written all over it.