Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

No. It's just a fact. Society is becoming more liberal as time goes on. I'm not so much liberal as ahead of the curve.

The morals you grew up with are deteriorating, yes. I consider this a good thing.

It could, but there is no reason to expect that it did. I think that what is being referred to is a shift in society rather than individuals. As society becomes more liberal, the former liberals become conservative in comparison.

I don't see much evidence that conservatism is a sign of wisdom. I also don't see a lot of evidence that all left wing beliefs are foolishness. There have been many old, and brilliant left-wing thinkers. In fact, most academics who study society are left-wing, and even though that could very easily be due to personal biases, it is hard to call the experts to be incompletely informed or misinformed or anything like tat.

Well, no. Class war liberalism would argue that if someone has too little money then this is due to the unfair class based biases of our system, and that justice demands addressing this. Not all liberalism believes in class war. Many just want for less inequality to exist. Frankly, laziness can be a part of poverty, but also can a number of other factors. I think it is empirically true that poor folks make decisions that are more self-destructive than the average population, however, to say that all poor people are poor because they choose this poverty is harder to say.

Well, the poor in one given year are different than the poor in later years. There are issues with mobility perhaps, but income is less fixed than many people seem to think.

Not rewards for not working, protects from the damages of not working. Working is its own reward and not working is its own punishment. The government is basically providing a mercy.

Well, ok? So? The government is in the business of mercy. A business that your church is supposed to take up anyway. You can criticize it for being ineffective or foolish in its efforts, but to attack giving to the poor as evil in and of itself seems to be an evil in and of itself. In fact, it reminds me of something I was reading from theologian Jacques Ellul:
"On all levels and in every aspect of our society, the poor are rejected, mistreated, and forced more deeply into their poverty. Christianity should have taken up the cause of the poor; better yet, it should have identified with the poor. Instead, during almost the entire course of its history, the Church has served as a prop of the powerful and has been on the side of exploiters and states. The Church is numbered among the "Powers"; it has sanctified the situation of the poverty-stricken. It provided theological justification for political regimes and tried to persuade the poor to accept their oppressed condition, all the while legitimizing their exploitation. The Church has truly functioned as the opium of the people. By so doing, it not only participated in the evil done to people, but above all it betrayed the teaching and the very person of Jesus."
This is not to say that one cannot be a conservative and a Christian, however, to criticize giving to the poor as such inherently evil seems quite questionable.

That is why everyone recognizes that welfare reform is a smart idea. A good welfare system does not provide incentive to be laziness but only ameliorates the worst pains of poverty. Frankly though, this entire notion that welfare is "funded by the working man" seems to ignore that the rich pay the taxes. What the "working man" pays is rather paltry with the top 10% paying like 60+% of all of our income taxes and the top 40% paying over 90%. I mean, non-income based taxes will alter that somewhat, but it still ends up being a government funded by the rich.

Right.

So they're happy with France, and therefore they riot against policemen and torch white French citizens' cars?
Oh, that makes sense.



Culture, bombs, airplanes loaded with civilians, whatever...

Look around the globe. Third-world dictatorships are their "culture".
Would you like the full list of such nations, or have I made my point?

Last edited by Ragtime on 17 Apr 2008, 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, clearly. All liberals consider moral detoriation a good thing.

Not true, liberals promote liberal morality. If they didn't then they wouldn't promote anything.

I wouldn't say that - I'd say that each generation has more radical ideas than the one before it, and those with radical ideas from one generation disagree with the even more radical ideas of the next.

Exactly. I rest my case. "Liberal morality" is immorality and amorality combined under a more altruistic label.



Now you're getting it! Finally! Liberalism is only about controlling others through false-premised guilt.
It has never been about actual improvement, but merely operates under that guise.

Liberalism breaks everything it tries to improve, and it always has, because it's a
simplistic view of how the world works. It places feelings above facts,
and ranks relieving discomfort above truth. That's why teachers in England can no
longer use the terms "mother", "father", "boyfriend", and "girlfriend", because it might
offend a gay student. So, a gay person might be in discomfort because of the truth of the
existence of mothers, fathers, boyfriends, and girlfriends, so these truths must be changed
to relieve the discomfort. They must all be called "partners" instead.
To liberals, discomfort is the ultimate evil. To them, truth is worthless, and
can be tossed by the wayside if doing so will bring them temporary comfort.
It'll bite everyone in the ass later, but hey, that's not their problem!
They're in the business of short fixes.

Last edited by Ragtime on 17 Apr 2008, 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Nope, not so at all. Frankly, it must be a moral system, and the moral traits it carries are tolerance, and egalitarianism. Most liberals are against massive inequality, and they dislike having people judged or discriminated against for their choices. Both of those indicate that liberalism has moral traits and not bad ones either.


Umm.... sure.

Frankly, all ideologies taken in their basic form are simplistic views of the world. All ideologies in some form or fashion place feelings above facts and ignore the truth. That is just their nature and it applies to conservatism too. I think you are working with a way oversimplified idea of liberalism and then stripping it away of its moral assumptions for your own. The teachers are trying to avoid too much bluntness, sort of like not calling an illegitimate child a bastard. Does not calling somebody a bastard change their origins? No. But it certainly prevents hurt from hitting the sensitivity of the situation so bluntly. Now, I don't agree with what those teachers are doing, and I think that political expressions of an ideology tend to be very corrupted, but I can understand that there is an underlying logic. Well, frankly nobody out there thinks that discomfort is good anyway, and it is not even as if conservatives could be labeled as principled fighters against this! The entire thrust of intelligent design into schools is based upon this "liberal logic". Finally, to many liberals, the moral truth lay within removing the pains of society and improving it to make it better. I have not seen an ideology that really pursues truth with a good epistemology for doing so, so I really just think that you make a strawman of a broad ideology to make your own thoughts seem better than it. Frankly though, I would not call liberals only concerned with the short term either, if it were so then there would be no conservation movement found in it, or concern with social progress. Your entire argument is a huge STRAWMAN. Simply a dressing down of real liberals to make some ridiculous creature without thought.

It's true. You don't believe me, but this really is a big problem in Old Europe, my man. It's gotten to be a symbol. Hey, you can doubt me all you like. I'm cool. I've had my say, and you can take it in whatever way you like, bud.

You really are paranoid! Raggy, I don't have any praise for Muslims, but you, sir, are a bigot. I don't like bigots, either, so you and the Muslims go somewhere and hash it out where I don't have to see you, killa. You were made for each other, the way I see it.

I couldn't be less impressed, captain. You're telling me a mix of stuff I already know and a really wrong-headed and messed-up perspective on it. The ignorance I've seen come out of your typeface is just abominable.

Which, the way they apply those two, amount to reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Liberalism says America should not be the most successful nation in the world, and that such is wrong,
since it means the other nations will be less successful than us. It's not very "egalitarian" of us to succeed.

And it's also "intolerant" of us to pray to our God in school, and to carry our Bible under our arms on school property.
Oh, how rude of us! How dare we wear a cross around our necks! (This is our Constitutional right, but still, "How rude!")
Oh, how insensitive to those who don't wear crosses around their necks!
Yes, yes, blah, blah, blah, but when a student of a different religion expresses it in equally mild ways, they are "tolerated", and even outwardly encouraged by teachers.

So, again, as with egalitarianism, liberals practice a twisted form of tolerance: tolerance for the non-Christians. Tolerance for the non-whites. This one-sided tolerance is the opposite of egalitarianism, and it in fact becomes intolerance.

No, liberalism does not seek to turn everyone into ret*d psychopaths. Not only that, but looking at application is misleading, are conservatives necessarily fans of massive deficit spending? No, but their politicians do this.

Where does liberalism say that we should out and out sabotage ourselves? Liberalism says that we should not lord our power over that of other nations and help them rise up to our level. It also considers growth to be less important than inequality.


I don't think that liberalism's arguments against that would be "intolerance" but rather a stricter separation of church and state than found in the US. At least, that is france's reason in many cases. Frankly though, it is legal to pray in schools and what is being argued against is having teacher led prayer and having school authorities carry the bible into the public sphere.

I have not heard anything about crosses being banned either. You might be thinking of a different nation with different ideas of church and state separation.

You see more inconsistency with stupid liberals, just as you see a lot of bs from stupid conservatives or stupid people of any ideology. I think that part of this "one-sided" tolerance is a dislike of tradition and an association between our traditions and the bad things done in the name of that tradition.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 17 Apr 2008, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nah, man. You've missed the point altogether. That's okay, man. I understand. You don't know any better, so let me straighten you out, kay, bro?

Your "morality" was making everybody's life suck, so we decided to try being nice and helping each other instead. In spite of some growing pains, it's working out reasonably well so far. Thanks for your concern, but shove it up your ass.

I can't believe you people are still feeding the troll...

Oh, so we should let you as*holes run roughshod over everyone else, right? You're just like the Muslims: you won't be satisfied until you've forced everyone else into your screwed-up, dysfunctional culture. As soon as you get an inch, you'll whine and pound your fists until no one is allowed to do anything else. You're like ret*d toddlers. You can't share. You can't play nicely with the other kids. You had your chance, and you ruined it. Sit in the corner for a while, and decide when you're ready to act like adults.

No. Johnnie is a troll. I don't always get along with Ragtime, but I think he's a serious poster. Sort of.

This topic isn't about marriage, it's about sex.

There are all sorts of marriages but in this instance it's the kind based on sexual reproduction.

According to the 'good' book(s) y'all should "go forth, and multiply" and all manner of nonsense regarding pairings that judeo-christian-muslin power hungry elite use to control their less enlightened followers.

Followers of the more ridgid belief systems are only allowed sex in order to produce children, and certainly not for pleasure. How does one explain genital mutilation like circumcision and clitoral removal so accepted in those cultures if they have a healthy view on sex?

So that means man/woman couples who can't produce children, or use any form of birth control or for that matter fertility drugs, are going against the wishes of their god and therefore their marriages were hopeless shams to begin with and they were living in sin.


Not gettin' any, Ragtime?