Texas is... progressive?Follow

You are ******* awesome. That's exactly what I wanted to say, I just couldn't think of how to say it in an understandable way.

Congratulations, Varus, glad to see that you're finally accepting yourself and growing to be comfortable with your sexuality. We all knew you could do it someday.

Drift,



Morality is a code of conduct put forward by a society. Our society determines what is and isn't moral. If we don't have societal rules that govern our actions then our society will fall into decadent behaviour that will destroy us. Of course Democrats hate modern society as it is so they think nothing of the consequences of their behaviour. They also don't believe in God so they don't have to concern themselves with the eternal consequences of their actions.

This issue is bigger than the vanilla "you hate **** if you don't support gay marriage" arguement the liberal democrats espouse.

What would you say if your children decided they were going to consort with one another? Would you support their decision? Why not?

First off, it is not the government's concern if I'm going to go to Hell, seeing as church and state are supposed to be separate. You don't say how this so-called decadent behavior will actually destroy us. Moral panics concerning the next generation are about as old as civilization itself and, somehow, we manage not to destroy ourselves and society lives on.

This is, of course, all the funnier because it's coming from some wannabe ladykiller. I suppose sexual mores are to be disregarded once they become inconvenient.
It's highly unlikely, bordering on impossible, that incest will become endemic because of a documented psychological effect that causes people to find those they grew up with sexually unappealing. Children are also not consenting adults, you self-hating ******.


Edited, Oct 7th 2009 2:55pm by Sweetums

And what society sees as moral changes almost constantly as time goes on. The way the world is now was what was considered immoral 50 years ago, and the way they were then would have been seen as immoral 50 years before that, and so on.



Actually I never said you hated homosexuals. I'm also not a liberal, or a democrat.



You got me there, Varus. I can't say that that's a very good argument, but I don't think I'd like that scenario one bit.

I don't want to see my kid "going at it" with anyone, really.

The nuclear family didn't even become prevalent until the 17th or 18th century. Somehow, we survived the countless millenia before then. This is, of course, assuming that homosexuality is even related to human family structures. The viability and stability of the nuclear family is a moot point unless you can point to anything providing a substantive link between homosexuality and the dissolution of the nuclear family.

Edited, Oct 7th 2009 3:17pm by Sweetums

Not really, it wasn't economically viable until the Industrial Revolution. Up until that point, historical records indicate the extended family was the norm.

Of course, before it can be connected with homosexuality you have to prove that homosexuality and the nuclear family are mutually exclusive. So far, studies point to the fact that there are no deleterious effects when children are raised by a homosexual couple versus a heterosexual one. You've got quite a hill to climb little buddy.


Edited, Oct 7th 2009 3:26pm by Sweetums

code for: I have no evidence.