Results 13 to 24 of 46
Thread: Ted Cruz
-
10-31-2013, 02:24 PM #13
Re: Ted Cruz
It comes from the position that gay marriage itself is an abomination, thus allowing it will open the door to other abominations -- like marrying multiple people, your dog, your toaster, etc.
You are attacking my argument as unsound by using reductio ad absurdum and including all kinds of ridiculous scenarios I never mentioned. Perhaps we should just stick with the actual points made.
I have no issue with Greg or anyone from a religious perspective having those feelings, though I am encouraged by the Pope and his recent stances on the issue. I do, however, have an issue with meaningless debate points that are wrapped in old school thinking of scaring people.
I am not trying to scare anybody. I made a valid point.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
If that's your thing, what the hell do I care? Why should anyone care? If you can convince 10 different women to marry you, then have at it.
Those are personal choices.
I like beer. If I want to drink 10 beers in one sitting and get plastered, I can. I don't want the government telling me that I can't sit down in my own house and have 10 beers.
In a lot of states (some up until very recently) oral sex, anal sex and other forms of doing the "naughty" were illegal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04...t-plain-silly/
What business is it of the government (state or fed) to tell me what I can and cannot do with my significant other in the privacy of my own house?Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
10-31-2013, 03:49 PM #15
Re: Ted Cruz
I actually don't have an issue with any of that. I don't have an issue with gays marrying except that as a Christian it will become an issue. Actually it already has, Christian businesses that do not want to be involved in gay marriage are forced to, such as Christian photographers being forced to take wedding pictures. Yeah, I know, churches are excluded, etc. It won't be long before Christian churches are required to marry gay couples.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
Christians are really who had/have the biggest issue with same-sex marriages. Because Christians make up a majority of the population in America (votes! votes! votes!) politicians pander to the Christian right and this is one of the topics that they constantly beat the drum on hoping that it will get them votes. It doesn't have anything to do with the law. It has everything to do with them letting their religion (right or wrong) get in the way and steer their philosophy/thoughts. My mother in-law is a devout Catholic and she has no problem with gay couples or same sex marriages. However, she has a HUGE problem with calling them marriages. I mean, it is just such a silly thing to get upset about and it is even sillier to let it be a root cause for voting one way or the other (not that you are/have).
That's why I said what I said. I have a hard time respecting politicians who pander to a specific group of people in order to win votes. Ted Cruz's background is one that does not support or believe in same sex marriages and now it isn't anywhere mentioned on his website. Because Cruz is Libertarian in a lot of ways, I would have a lot more respect for him if he just came out and said something along the lines of he doesn't believe in it because of his religion, but he thinks that it isn't any of the government's business. That's all.
The basic definition of "marrying" is to take two separate things and joining them together. I can marry two pieces of wood with nails and glue. I can marry multiple thoughts together with a well formulated sentence.Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
Last I checked it is a free market and businesses have the right to refuse business. It may cause the Christian photographer to lose some business and be looked upon poorly by other folks, but that is their right as a business.
Just like Chic-Fil-A isn't open on Sundays when practically every other store in the nation is. Are they losing business on those Sundays? Sure, but that is their right to have that kind of a policy.
To get back on topic, as a Libertarian, I don't want government involved in defining personal things for us. They're already much too large as it is and they've spread themselves far too thin by overstepping their bounds and involving themselves in too much.
The Federal Government needs to go on a diet and re-examine their actual scope.Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
10-31-2013, 04:08 PM #18Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Ted Cruz
You opened the polygamy door, not me. Hence, there's no attack. Just a defense. If you don't have an issue with polygamy, why bring it up in the context in which you did? Sounds to me that your earlier post was a slippery slope argument that marriage could devolve into polygamy.
And I suggest you read some more religious based sites and they're stances on the issue. I got my examples of marrying your dog, toaster, et all from one of them, claiming this same slippery slope argument you intimated earlier.
I am not sure what point you've made. And since BOTH parties rely on scare tactics, calling me out as doing something "Liberals" do is fallacy ad hominem since your use of "liberal" in this context is a pejorative.
I never said YOU were trying to scare anyone. I said, very clearly, the argument of same sex marriages opens Pandora's Box comes from a time / place where the object was to scare their side into thinking that if you allow same sex marriages, you open the door for other issues like polygamy, bestiality, etc.
It's the exact same argument groups like the KKK used when trying to ban interracial marriages. It was 100% wrong then and it's 100% wrong now.
-
11-01-2013, 01:52 PM #19
Re: Ted Cruz
I fail to see how CHANGING the current law from a consenting man + a consenting women, to 2 consenting adults is very different from changing it to "consenting adults".
I do see a major difference when removing the word "adults" or even humans.
So I guess I'm on Greg's side on this one. IF we are already going to change it, might as well allow plural marriage as well. I don't see any more harm in that, so long as it is between consenting adults.
But what I really HATE about this issue, is that we are "brainwashed" into thinking this is an issue of enough importance that we should be choosing presidential candidates about this issue. In this current political/economic climate, anything besides Economic Policy is window dressing at this point. If we keep choosing candidates based on social policy we will eventually have a socially progressive nation that collapses under it's own weight. That "eventually" will be during most of our lifetimes.
-
11-01-2013, 02:12 PM #20Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Ted Cruz
So anything between consenting adults is cool then? Two consenting adults can have a murder / suicide pact? Two consenting adults can shoot each other up with heroin?
The problem is your standard is missing a part. Marriage isn't just something two consenting adults do. The other aspect of marriage is to raise a family, something gay couples do as well. And dropping the "two" from the equation is laughable and unrealistic. You really think there's a legislative body in this country that will pass a marriage standard that allows polygamy? You really think there's a court in this country would allow such a move?
People getting denied their rights are issues this country was founded upon.
Pretty sure we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time by making sure the economy is the best it can be AND making sure everyone is treated equally under the law.
This issue of gay rights is not a progressive issue any more.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
:word
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDisclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
Which is exactly why I'm totally against government even really having a say in social/personal issues like this.
If ten girls want to marry Greg and Greg is willing to deal with that much constant bickering and headaches, more power to him.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDisclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
11-01-2013, 02:27 PM #23
Re: Ted Cruz
wow you like to twist peoples arguments like Galen....
We are talking about marriage, what does murder/suicide and heroin have to do with marriage? What makes 2 gay men more able to start a family then man and 7 women? In fact, it is quite exactly the opposite. Biology.
20 years ago removing Man and women would have been laughable as well.
well, WE HAVE NOT been able to "chew bubble gum and walk at the same time" so far, so not sure how that will change in the future. ]
For the record, I don't care one way or the other if gay people want to get married. I really couldn't possibly care less if there was a law one way or the other. I feel the same way about Polygamy, and I see very little difference between them as far as the law should be concerned. Gay people's rights are no more infringed then polygamists, so why don't you stand up for them. Right now ALL are treated equally under the law, one man can marry one woman. Why are gay people's rights more important to you then polygamists? They are both being denied the ability to marry whom they choose.
-
Re: Ted Cruz
as long as its acknowledged polygamy like the Mormons have and not some guy with multiple wives thats always "away on business" and the others are unaware. I dont really see issue with it either I guess. Problem is Religious Right sees that as a really bad thing equal to marrying animals or inanimate objects when they debate the issue, which i think is totally off base to consider Gays the same as a goat or toaster. If thats not proof of discrimination I dont know what is.
-JAB
Bookmarks