Slope sliding saddness

[catocom]

Founded as such though it seems that some more liberal ideals have pulled through as the years went on. The laws of the land are going to change with the times. Also laws replace older laws and such

yep
Democracy used to mean Majority rules. Apparently not since PC has taken over.

 

[catocom]

In a sane world, you'd be right. There have been two documented cases this year of someone marrying a corpse. Marrying children? The legal age of consent in Quebec is 14. Younger than that is perfectly acceptable with the consent of the legal guardian. That's TODAY!!!.

yep, you can marry a 14yr old, but you can't smoke in public.
That's nice ain't it.

 

[Winky]

no

It has everything to do with morality, my bet is you are an amoral person!
Yep I can guess that you are one of those who bends the rules to fit whatever you think is right, is OK

Because any change to any existing law sets a legal precedent for the law to be challenged by anyone else who chooses to.

That's the truth behind this whole attack on morality. It is the desire of people to make their immoral behavior OK.

It is the fudge packers and carpet munchers wanting society to acknowledge that their abby-normal behavior is normal.

That normal people are the ones that are wrong for calling a spade a spade.

Marriage is for raising kids, not providing societal sanction for aberrant behavior.

Hey it is a short slide down the slope, if I wanted to marry a 14 year old gurl to make babies what’s wrong with that?
The plookers can't reproduce while packin' fudge
Butt I can inpreggers your teenage daughter and make a wee tot, so it should be OK Right?

So whuts the problema with a middle-aged man rammin’ it up the poop chute
of an under age boi? Wouldn’t that be discrimination against a protected
sub-class (sub-human in my book)?
------------------------
no - Leslie

 

[Winky]

Once again, the point is missed, and flavio continues his indignation unchecked.

 

[flavio]

Psst...your slippery slope is going backwards!

Heheh! Is it still a slippery slope then? Or some other type of incline, perhaps an escalator.

 

[flavio]

yeah I don't even read the first line of any of Flav's posts so why should
he bother to read anymore than the first lines of ours,
before spouting off his commie crap?

Why would I read your pre-pubescent haxor spew? Learn to spell.

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Marriage is for raising kids, not providing societal sanction for aberrant behavior.

Most of that is illiterate, bigoted drivel, however should people who are physically unable to have children be allowed to marry (if marriage is strictly for having kids)?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Most of that is illiterate, bigoted drivel, however should people who are physically unable to have children be allowed to marry (if marriage is strictly for having kids)?

I was waiting for this one...It's the fallback everybody uses when they run out of good arguments. Too bad it doesn't apply. All things being equal, a woman can still carry a child. A man cannot. A man can still impregnate a woman. A woman cannot. Everything else is just plain, unadulterated

 

[rrfield]

Do you ever answer a question?

 

[A.B.Normal]

however should people who are physically unable to have children be allowed to marry (if marriage is strictly for having kids)?

Marriage is also "until death do us part" not "until you can't have kids anymore" or "until the kids have grown and moved away"

 

[A.B.Normal]

Marriage is for raising kids,

{cough}bullshit[/cough}

Gn.2:18, "let us make him a help like unto himself": So the purpose of marriage is the mutual completion and personal perfection of the marriage partners, or their mutual love and unity. St. Thomas Aquinas mentions this purpose as the "primary one", so a marriage without children can be also a perfect marriage.

http://biblia.com/sex/marriage.htm#Marriage

 

[Inkara1]

I'm just wondering if Sodomy is still against the law?

Why do you want to know?

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Because any change to any existing law sets a legal precedent for the law to be challenged by anyone else who chooses to. The moment there's a legal precedent (valid or not) that can be applied, the motion must be accepted into hearing by a court. And I think it's been abundantly well shown that the courts today are more interested in their book deals than the well being of the people they serve.

If a judge can award (again, I repeat it) a million dollar settlement for someone spilling coffee in their lap because it was too hot, they can allow a man to marry his dead 5 year old daughter.

Again, I think this is nothing more than a "straw man" argument against same-sex marriage. The issue of legal consent is an important one: where the challenge falls down for someone who wants to marry their dead 5 year old daughter or their 6 year old dog is that neither of those parties are able to give legal consent to be married, or even, in the eyes of the law, the consent to have sexual intercourse.

 

[Winky]

So Abby that means God is a homo?

 

[Winky]

Oh no
duh spellin' errors R all intentional[cough]no - Leslie[/cough]

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Jesus Christ's views on same-sex marriage and homosexuals in general were not documented, so I don't know about this whole Christian morality thing.

Chances are at least one of the disciples liked the bum.

 

[A.B.Normal]

So Abby that means God is a homo?

Most straight men couldn't tell you their wifes dress size and since God is supposedly all knowing ,God could.

makes as much sense as your drivel.

 

[Winky]

Yep I readed it right thar in duh bible
God like's homo's, yep rats thar in
Sodom rat next too Gomorrah.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Founded as such though it seems that some more liberal ideals have pulled through as the years went on. The laws of the land are going to change with the times.

Which, oddly enough, is in the Bible...

 

[Professur]

Again, I think this is nothing more than a "straw man" argument against same-sex marriage. The issue of legal consent is an important one: where the challenge falls down for someone who wants to marry their dead 5 year old daughter or their 6 year old dog is that neither of those parties are able to give legal consent to be married, or even, in the eyes of the law, the consent to have sexual intercourse.

No, they cannot. But their legal guardian can.