Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[70Chip]

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

You do not believe that you are over reacting a little bit? Those statements remind me of Quagmire playing golf. You went off the deep end.

The age of consent will not be lowered unless they lower the "Legal" age all around.

Legal Polygamy will not be allowed because the government will never go for joint tax returns involving more than 2 people.

I would say that the majority of people on this Earth would not consider marrying an animal.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Angry

You do not believe that you are over reacting a little bit? Those statements remind me of Quagmire playing golf. You went off the deep end.

The age of consent will not be lowered unless they lower the "Legal" age all around.

Legal Polygamy will not be allowed because the government will never go for joint tax returns involving more than 2 people.

I would say that the majority of people on this Earth would not consider marrying an animal.

These statements are true today.
That may not be the case in years to come as "the more our society does the wrong thing, the more right it becomes". That condition is promoting (IMO) an escalating degradation of the moral climate in our society.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Angry

You do not believe that you are over reacting a little bit? Those statements remind me of Quagmire playing golf. You went off the deep end.

The age of consent will not be lowered unless they lower the "Legal" age all around.

Legal Polygamy will not be allowed because the government will never go for joint tax returns involving more than 2 people.

I would say that the majority of people on this Earth would not consider marrying an animal.

I don't get the Quagmire reference.

Age of consent and legal age are largely the same thing, I think.

The tax angle is interesting.

The majority of men would not consider marrying another man either.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I don't get the Quagmire reference.

Age of consent and legal age are largely the same thing, I think.

The tax angle is interesting.

The majority of men would not consider marrying another man either.

Quagmire is a character from Family Guy who went competatively overboard during a golf game. Family Guy - For the Love of Golf - AOL Video

Age of consent and legal age are two different ages. One allows you to vote, the other allows you to have consensual sex. In most states the ages are one and the same. In states like Georgia a 16 year old can consent to a 18 year old or something like that, and its ok. In my opinion the ages should both be the same, and they should remain 18. Going back to my original point, for the most part across this country, 18 is the Legal age for everything except alcohol, and with the exception of places like Georgia you cannot change one without the other. In other words the nation would never allow for 16 Year olds to vote, so the age for consensual sex will also remain in tact.

There are a larger population of men who would marry another man than those who would perform beastiality. At least man on man (as much as it weirds me out) is a union of the same species. A man and a man, if legally permitted, could fill out a joint tax return, because they both could work in the human work force. An animal could not because their is a very defined difference between Animal Rights and Civil Rights.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

aren't you the same guy that thinks that the less government intervention into peoples every day lives, the better?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

aren't you the same guy that thinks that the less government intervention into peoples every day lives, the better?

I'm not a Libertarian. I am a Burkean conservative. The government certainly has a role.

In this case, however, I would suggest that it is the other side that is seeking governmental sanction for their cause. This is an interesting tactic by the left. They alter a standard that is as old as civilization (abortion, gay marriage) and then pretend their opponents are the radicals.

I think the concerns that homosexuals claim to be trying to address with this movement could be dealt with with much less problematic laws. The hospital visitation thing, taxes, etc. The reason I talk about the slippery slope and worry that this process is neverending is that it seems like they are seeking approval or fulfillment that the political process can't provide. I don't think any law will make homosexuality seem normal or satisfy whatever need these folks are seeking to satiate.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

See, this is called changing the aspects of the issue at hand, then arguing against something completely different. It's like debating an advocate of gun control, when they inevitably assume that since you want to own a handgun or a semi-automatic rifle, then that also means you should be able to own an M-1 Abrahms tank, or a Pershing ICBM.

By the way, age of consent varies greatly all across the country. And keep in mind, we're talking about consent here, and last time I checked, animals cannot consent to anything.

For the record, I also think prostitution and plural marriage are fine since they too are actions which do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, this is called changing the aspects of the issue at hand, then arguing against something completely different. It's like debating an advocate of gun control, when they inevitably assume that since you want to own a handgun or a semi-automatic rifle, then that also means you should be able to own an M-1 Abrahms tank, or a Pershing ICBM.

By the way, age of consent varies greatly all across the country. And keep in mind, we're talking about consent here, and last time I checked, animals cannot consent to anything.

For the record, I also think prostitution and plural marriage are fine since they too are actions which do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

Slippery slopes are real. Read the history of the German race laws in the 1930s.

As to consent laws, I'm not talking about 17 or 16. I'm talking about 12 and younger, and believe me it's coming.

As to your last sentence, I'm actually glad you have the courage to express those views because you prove my point. Most people who hold such views take a much stealthier approach.