More EXAMPLES of Liberal LIES in the media

[jcb]

You could make the same argument about interracial marriage, which used to be illegal. If you cannot discriminate based on race, how can you discriminate based on number? I'm sorry, the logic just isn't there. Those who are seeking the right to marry are obviously interested in monogamy, so how does it follow that if you allow them to marry, you then have to allow polygamy? Spell that out for me, if you can.


Nobody is disputing that there has to be a line. All we are saying is that the line is currently drawn in the wrong place, and should be re-drawn. Those things happen as we as a society evolve. And I still maintain that trying to link gay marriage and polygamy amounts to create a false issue where none exists.

Roadtoad, in the first paragraph, did you mean "gender" instead of "number" in the second sentence? If not, I'm confused, unless you're advocating polygamy.

My point is NOT that gay marriage will necessarily lead to polygamy (nor was Santorum's). My point is, how in the world can we say to gay marriage advocates, "OK, we'll remove gender from the equation", and then tell polygamists "Sorry, we can't remove number from the equation"? What basis do we have to tell them that, that couldn't also be used to deny gay marriage?

THAT is the logic that just isn't there.

[RoadToad]

Roadtoad, in the first paragraph, did you mean "gender" instead of "number" in the second sentence? If not, I'm confused, unless you're advocating polygamy.

My point is NOT that gay marriage will necessarily lead to polygamy (nor was Santorum's). My point is, how in the world can we say to gay marriage advocates, "OK, we'll remove gender from the equation", and then tell polygamists "Sorry, we can't remove number from the equation"? What basis do we have to tell them that, that couldn't also be used to deny gay marriage?

THAT is the logic that just isn't there.

No, I meant "number" and what I'm saying is that removing gender from the equation does NOT mean we have to remove number from the equation, any more than removing race from the equation means we have to remove number from the equation. If it does, then why does it? Please explain that to me. Santorum never does. All he does is keep asking, "If it's okay for 2, why isn't it ok for 3?" and other such drivel. But like a great politician, he never gives a straight answer to anything he's asked (in this video), all he's doing is answering questions with questions, trying to steer the discussion to where he can give his little prepared position making a link between gay marriage and polygamy where none really exists.

[jcb]

No, I meant "number" and what I'm saying is that removing gender from the equation does NOT mean we have to remove number from the equation, any more than removing race from the equation means we have to remove number from the equation. If it does, then why does it? Please explain that to me. Santorum never does. All he does is keep asking, "If it's okay for 2, why isn't it ok for 3?" and other such drivel. But like a great politician, he never gives a straight answer to anything he's asked (in this video), all he's doing is answering questions with questions, trying to steer the discussion to where he can give his little prepared position making a link between gay marriage and polygamy where none really exists.

I don't see it as drivel at all.

There are two basic components to marriage: number and gender. Number--two people; gender--male and female. Okay, you want to remove the gender component--fine, why? Because gay people deserve to be happy? So do polygamists. Because gay people just want the rights straight people have? Polygamists want the rights monogamists have. Because "God made me this way"? Polygamists have made that claim also.

It's not avoiding the question, its exposing the error in the argument. It's not slick politician speak, it's the most keen of arguments. It is reducing the issue to its most basic question: what is your rationale for advocating this?

[Hlleonard]

I don't see why it should be a problem to any of us as far as who is married to whom, if it is a morals issue then they have to deal with their morals and the others the same but before we pass/change legislation that will add to the tax burden or insurance provider burden we might be better advised to concentrate our efforts on improving the mess we are in already.

[GeoFisher]

I don't see why it should be a problem to any of us as far as who is married to whom, if it is a morals issue then they have to deal with their morals and the others the same but before we pass/change legislation that will add to the tax burden or insurance provider burden we might be better advised to concentrate our efforts on improving the mess we are in already.

Fine, but answer this question...........Why is it not OK to marry your horse, or marry your dog?

Later,

Geo

[Hlleonard]

Fine, but answer this question...........Why is it not OK to marry your horse, or marry your dog?

Later,

Geo

--
lol.....well..... I'm not sure but if somebody wants to do that and it doesn't affect me then its not my business.... I would probably object if he wanted to move in next door... I don't believe we should spend a lot of tax dollars legislating morality.... Hmmm..it might not be illegal to marry your horse but consummating the marriage is I believe.

[jcb]

--
I don't believe we should spend a lot of tax dollars legislating morality....

"We shouldn't legislate morality" is one of the most common sentiments expressed on this topic, and others, but it is nonsensical. Our government has, is, and always will be in the business of legislating morality.

We have to legislate morality. The only question is, what morality?

[RoadToad]

Fine, but answer this question...........Why is it not OK to marry your horse, or marry your dog?

Later,

Geo

Because, even if you don't find bestiality morally repugnant, as most of us do, it's cruelty to animals. And while I'm not a doctor (nor do I even play one on TV) I'll go out on a limb and say that someone who actually falls in love with an animal is most likely mentally ill.

[RoadToad]

I don't see it as drivel at all.

There are two basic components to marriage: number and gender. Number--two people; gender--male and female. Okay, you want to remove the gender component--fine, why? Because gay people deserve to be happy? So do polygamists. Because gay people just want the rights straight people have? Polygamists want the rights monogamists have. Because "God made me this way"? Polygamists have made that claim also.

It's not avoiding the question, its exposing the error in the argument. It's not slick politician speak, it's the most keen of arguments. It is reducing the issue to its most basic question: what is your rationale for advocating this?

No, it's throwing up a straw man, unless what you're saying is that if gays are given the right to marry, then polygamists will have some legal basis to challenge laws banning multiple marriages. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think Santorum's point amounts to something that would hold up in court. No, if polygamists want the law changed in their favor, they'll have to do the same thing the gays are doing - lobby for changes in legislation. I don't think they're likely to get them.

[Hlleonard]

Well...I'm not sure the reason we pay legislators is to keep us morally upright, I guess it's debatable if penalizing someone for robbing our banks and breaking in our houses is in the realm of morality or not and I do agree a lot of the laws we have deal with such things as abortion but I believe for the most part morality is an individual's decision on how he/she wishes to live their lives and as long as that doesn't harm anybody else in any way it's no business of mine,yours or the states.