(12-16-2013 09:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:20 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:07 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Why does anyone have a problem with this? Honestly?

To use the argument that proponents of same sex marriage use:
If they are consenting adults, no one is being coerced, and they love each other it's no one else's business. You should be able to marry whoever you love.

Legally you can make a very good argument justifying the legalization of polygamy once you've moved the needle away from 1 man and 1 woman being a marriage.

And at least polygamists CAN procreate.

Yes...but....I am concerned with opening the door for ANY consenting adult to marry and procreate. Bull makes a good point. This could open a door for sanctioned incestuous behaviors. I guess due to the this being a valid public health issue laws prohibiting it still would be supported?

The door to sanctioned illicit behavior has already been opened with the legalization of gay marriage. Unprotected gay sex is a health hazard too i.e. HIV and that hasn't stopped the push for gay marriage.

I included consenting adults so that would preclude sex/incest with minors. Minors should be protected.

Really when you look at it legally, even though it's creepy, why should the law dictate to cousins who they can marry if that is who they love?

Incest with consenting adults has gone on for ages just look at the royal families of Europe. Most of them are related genetically.

Pandora's box is already open... and the line has been crossed.

(12-16-2013 09:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

He is wrong. Conservatives are happy with traditional values and norms as well as the rule of law.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Your brand of conservatism cares deeply about traditional values as defined by the religious right. Conservatism in its original form cares far more about small government. So from that point of view, Owl is correct.

Wrong, that is not called conservatism. The term you are looking for is "classic liberalism, or Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism"

These structures were later made popular by people like Ayn Rand.

Conservatism is not in the realm.

You're welcome.

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

Yes ... and the next advancement will be to remove the "adult" from the equation.

(12-16-2013 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

Yes ... and the next advancement will be to remove the "adult" from the equation.

I would oppose that nonsense and I expect so would Owl.

(12-16-2013 10:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

Yes ... and the next advancement will be to remove the "adult" from the equation.

I would oppose that nonsense and I expect so would Owl.

I understand.

I was just pointing out the legal and societal trend.

(12-16-2013 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

Yes ... and the next advancement will be to remove the "adult" from the equation.

I would oppose that nonsense and I expect so would Owl.

I understand.

I was just pointing out the legal and societal trend.

so goes the slippery slope once the floodgate is open.

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

See what you did?. Never attempt to explain Conservatism to anyone that claims to be a Conservative.

(12-16-2013 10:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

Yes ... and the next advancement will be to remove the "adult" from the equation.

I would oppose that nonsense and I expect so would Owl.

I understand.

I was just pointing out the legal and societal trend.

so goes the slippery slope once the floodgate is open.

There is one thing universal regardless of your political leanings.......No one Fcks with kids. I refuse to believe we could ever slip down that slope.

(12-16-2013 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

See what you did?. Never attempt to explain Conservatism to anyone that claims to be a Conservative.

I quite enjoy the fact that conservatism has fragmented and that all those fragments seem to dislike each other.

(12-16-2013 10:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:54 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Yes ... and the next advancement will be to remove the "adult" from the equation.

I would oppose that nonsense and I expect so would Owl.

I understand.

I was just pointing out the legal and societal trend.

so goes the slippery slope once the floodgate is open.

There is one thing universal regardless of your political leanings.......No one Fcks with kids. I refuse to believe we could ever slip down that slope.

It's coming. Liberal groups are already working diligently to slowly desensitize the public. You really don't know what you are up against with the DNC(the portal for the progressives) This push is stronger in Europe. We are about 12 years behind.

They will use you and toss you aside. They love that you are socially liberal. You are a perfect tool.

(12-16-2013 10:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

See what you did?. Never attempt to explain Conservatism to anyone that claims to be a Conservative.

I quite enjoy the fact that conservatism has fragmented and that all those fragments seem to dislike each other.

First you better figure out what conservatism is before you start preaching to conservatives. We are not a new brand or a different variety. You simply have your ideologies crossed.

Libertarians are not conservatives. They never were.

Well, if you want to stand for traditional marriage, this is about as traditional as you can get.

(12-16-2013 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Well, if you want to stand for traditional marriage, this is about as traditional as you can get.

Not in America.

(12-16-2013 10:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Well, if you want to stand for traditional marriage, this is about as traditional as you can get.

Not in America.

It's been around with at least one group for more than 150 years. They're conservatives.

I'm missing the part of the ruling that referenced same sex marriage in the decision. Perhaps you can find it in the ruling because apparently its NOT THERE. The ruling does reference Lawrence v Texas, but only as it refers to privacy, which isn't a Gay issue.

The only thing the Utah case did was to make unmarried cohabitation between multiple adults legal in Utah. Like it was in 49 other states before the ruling and 50 states now.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your attempts to Gay bash.

(12-16-2013 10:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

See what you did?. Never attempt to explain Conservatism to anyone that claims to be a Conservative.

I quite enjoy the fact that conservatism has fragmented and that all those fragments seem to dislike each other.

First you better figure out what conservatism is before you start preaching to conservatives. We are not a new brand or a different variety. You simply have your ideologies crossed.

Libertarians are not conservatives. They never were.

They still haven't come up with a solitary issue to back up the claim that the GOP has moved "to the right". They use left wing arguments to justify strict libertarianism. I don't think most of these people are for real. I liken them to all those people that flooded every message board in 2004 claiming they were 2000 Bush voters that were now 100% in the tank with Kerry. Didn't happen, they were all leftists to begin with.

(12-17-2013 12:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm missing the part of the ruling that referenced same sex marriage in the decision. Perhaps you can find it in the ruling because apparently its NOT THERE. The ruling does reference Lawrence v Texas, but only as it refers to privacy, which isn't a Gay issue.

The only thing the Utah case did was to make unmarried cohabitation between multiple adults legal in Utah. Like it was in 49 other states before the ruling and 50 states now.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your attempts to Gay bash.

What, you need precise wording?

(12-16-2013 11:08 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Well, if you want to stand for traditional marriage, this is about as traditional as you can get.

Not in America.

It's been around with at least one group for more than 150 years. They're conservatives.

Using an separatist group as an example doesn't make it mainstream.

When these types of social issues come up, I tend to pass it through the following set of two questions: Is there a use of force involving the participants? Is it harming anyone else beyond the participants?

If both answers are "no," then I'm more susceptible to favoring it being allowed. There are many things that could harm my family whether economically or physically. Gay marriages and those engaging in polygamy around the world (as well as 'open/swinger' marriages) do not harm me, even if it's not my chosen path.

And that first question (Is there a use of force involving the participants?) bears repeating, because it should fend off any misguided comparisons to "relationships" involving children or animals, neither of which have any ability to maturally consent and accept.

(12-17-2013 09:44 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  When these types of social issues come up, I tend to pass it through the following set of two questions: Is there a use of force involving the participants? Is it harming anyone else beyond the participants?

If both answers are "no," then I'm more susceptible to favoring it being allowed. There are many things that could harm my family whether economically or physically. Gay marriages and those engaging in polygamy around the world (as well as 'open/swinger' marriages) do not harm me, even if it's not my chosen path.

And that first question (Is there a use of force involving the participants?) bears repeating, because it should fend off any misguided comparisons to "relationships" involving children or animals, neither of which have any ability to maturally consent and accept.

Not all man/boy relationships involve the use of force and they can consent. Maybe not legally, but that is just one law that can be changed. Many on here are already arguing to lower the age of consent to 14.