clampdaddy wrote: SpinnerMan wrote: clampdaddy wrote: SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:Why hasn't polygamy been legalized?
Incest has got to go. Clearly it hasn't stopped what was feared. This quote proves it clearly......
Do I think the government should recognize marriage between any two people that wish to call themselves married? Of course not.
Agreed, but why would you insinuate that my sarchastic question about polygamy pointed in a direction that I am inbred?
I implied no one was inbred. At least I don't think that is slow's problem.
My point was that slow's ridiculous statement proves that the prohibition on incest has failed to protect us from inbred intellect becoming common because it is ideology over biology that leads to such recalcitrant ignorance based on attacking fictional strawmen that we stereotype as an inbred intellect.
The truth must withstand every
counter argument. The left only addresses the most foolish ones and often ones that they just made up in their crazy little brains. For examples that h8 is the best argument for government only recognizing non-incestuous so-called traditional marriage. This is the kind of thing that passes for enlightenment when you have an inbred intellect.
Incest is the next step and not polygamy. Partially because it hasn't protected us from the inbred intellect. But primarily even someone with an inbred intellect can see that there is no logical argument for the government banning incestuous marriages as most if not all states currently do, particularly same-sex incestuous marriage. Even liberals know the difference between 2 and 3, but apparently they can't tell any pairs apart.http://www.today.com/entertainment/jeremy-irons-voices-incest-concerns-over-gay-marriage-1B9229241
"Could a father not marry his son?" Irons asked during an interview with The Huffington Post. He said this technically would not be incest if it were between men, because "incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don't breed.”
They should have just argued in court that marriage is just affirmative action for the breeders. Affirmative action is good, but breeders are bad, so it would have confound the liberal inbred intellect.
slowshooter wrote:I guess it begs the question... Why the heck would you care? It's not your life.
What was the argument for Obamacare? Oh yeah, your behavior effects me because of the way government works today so we have the right to force you to do what I want or some such nonsense. If you want to ban the government from recognizing all marriages, I can and would support that fully. But you pick and choose. The ONLY reason for the government to recognize any marriage is because the FAMILY is the smallest unit of an ordered society. Two guys will NEVER make a baby and neither will a single person without divine intervention. Single people adopt children all the time, but we don't call them married and we don't argue for calling an individual married.
The ONLY relevant societal interest is that we need a next generation and that next generation is produced by one man and one woman, granted there are almost infinite paths for one man and one woman to make a baby as well as the eventual course of that child's life or premature death if it is for example aborted.
The IDEAL conditions for raising the next generation is unquestionably a large stable family which includes not just one father and one mother, but siblings, 4 grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, ... all related in the traditional biological way. You want lots of redundancy. Also adoption in any form is necessary in reality but it is clearly not ideal. Granted adoption is vastly superior to being executed, but many adopted kids have a sense of abandonment, confusion, wonder, whatever it is that is not dissimilar to kids that are abandoned by their father or mother and it is far from ideal whatever form it takes. Recognizing the ideal does not mean deny what is real and I have no doubt that in this vast nation that there are some cases where a gay couple was the best available option for some particular child nor should we preclude it by law when it is not.
The only reason government should care is 100% about the children and subsidizing and encourage as close to the ideal circumstance as possible for children being born and raised in that environment. Our social welfare system creates an environment that destroys that. It's not gay marriage and those that think it is have the same inbred intellect that you are afflicted with, granted a very different ideological inbreeding. It's welfare that is orders of magnitude more destructive. The "tolerance" of gay marriage is but a minor symptom of that social decay. Two men living together and calling themselves married should not be crime, but it should not be subsidized by government. But I can't counter the argument that no marriages should be, however subsidizing the baby makers is not that dissimilar to the argument for public education, child and youth services organizations, and the many other things that are supposed to ensure the next generation thrives, supposed to even though they fail miserably all too often and arguably the good they do is exceeded by the unanticipated harm that results in the real world.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.