12 March 2006
Who's Next?
It was bound to happen, and sure enough it is on the way? Peter, Polly & Peggy Polygamist want acceptance as well. Can you blame them? I wouldn't! It would be the logical pattern to follow the Homosexual agenda (though I thought Perky Pedophiles would have been bantering by now; actually the are! Remember NAMBLA?). So, now we are waiting on Barry Beastiality and Nancy Necrophilia to make their pleas and we'll be one big happy family!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I remember a few years ago, some woman gave up looking for a husband and married herself. The lunacy has just begun.
ReplyDeleteSad but true .... the attack on everything Christian continues ... :-(
ReplyDeletenot just everything christian, but everything our republic stands for!
ReplyDeletexfiruath, soooo are you with the same group that wants all nativity scenes banned at Christmas?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I'm too busy to watch this stuff. Thanks for the heads-up Neo.
ReplyDeleteshoprat: now that is the culmination of Jean Paul LeSarte's "freedom to be free". So self-centered, so pathetic! If the movers of the Great Excrement could see the results of their ideologies now; they'd be happy as all get out. However, rotting in Hell; many are; I do not think it's on the top of their priority.
ReplyDeleteabfreedom: So true. For what other religion speaks out so dogmatically on ANY sexual deviancy; even heterosexual deviancy like adultery, fornication, etc? With prayer and everything Christian being removed from the culture; I guess it would be the logical direction of the country.
mother jug-a-rum: true; yet our republic was founded on many of the principles of Christianity. We cannot deny the overwhelming evidence of the founding father's Christian faith entwined with their daily procedings in State and Country. So, our republic is being threatened in many ways; what are we going to do?
xfiruath: First, I'd really love to know how you learned about this site?these people aren't "attacking" anything, they are trying to live their lives the way they want to live them, and that has nothing to do with you, or me, and in no way constitutes an "attack" at all. I am going to have to disagree with you on this. Why? Because the behaviour of the deviants always gets out into the public view. It's hard not to miss. What it does is put the rest of society at risk because of the actions of a select few who are trying to live their lives the way they want. If, I decided that I wanted to go on a shopping spree (and not pay for a thing) with a loaded weapon, according to your argument, should anyone stop me? I am just trying to live my life the way I want. We as humans have the ability to do ANYTHING we want. However, ANYTHING is followed by CONSEQUENCES. Remember the guy who chose to sleep with the horse in Washington (beastiality)? Well, now he is dead due to complications of his very choice! Yet, what if a new strain of virus was developed from his deviant act? What if he was married; went home to his wife and had sex afterwards and infected her; because she did not know of his proclivities. This is a common problem in Africa, where millions of people are getting infected by their spouses because of behaviour that is not proper. So, does it still have nothing to do with us? A guy decides to have a METH Lab in his apartment. The inevitable happens and there is an explosion. It sets the whole apartment complex ablaze. People who had nothing to do with this lose many sentimental items due to someone else doing what they wanted. Is that affecting no one?
abfreedom: Possibly so. Awaiting the response....
lone pony: After a while it gets very unnerving with this stuff. But, then think of it again. We have many shows and movies desensitizing us to many of the lewd acts of man.
Neo, you know you and I agree on almost everything, but come on... a comparison between more than two consenting adults wanting to spend their lives together (why the hell one would want more than one spouse is beyond me, but OK, I'm not going to try and diagnose people's psychoses) and child RAPISTS (those who are not old enough to give consent) and those who would violate dead people (who cannot, by definition, give consent) is disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteAs long as their lifestyle doesn't drain more tax dollars out of my bank account, they support themselves and keep to their own lives without violating the rights of others, such as children for instance, who CARES!
And by the way, animals cannot give consent either. The comparison doesn't fly. Sorry. There's violating the rights of others and taking advantage of those unable to resist and then there's three or more consenting adults doing whatever it is they do.
OK -- feel free to flame on...
Nicki
Haven't seen you in a while Nicki. Glad tto have you back. I will address it in a few. Thanx for the comments...
ReplyDeleteNicki: True or false? Do our auto-insurance expenses go up because of drunk drivers? Do our health-care expenses rise because of smokers, alcoholics, STD patients from the sexua deviant communities?
ReplyDeleteI listed all the different sexual acts because some people aren't satisfied with just one aspect. What about the people ensnared by online porn who gravitate to needing the act fulfilled with whatever victim they come into. Some people may be able to live with this lifestyle and affect no one else; but on the norm; that's not the case. Yes, I agree that the innocent children should be protected; but what about the person leaving their office for home in the evening who just became a target for someone intrenched with Dominatrix stuff. We laugh at movies like Silence of the Lambs, but psychos like him are out there. Some develop from innocent experimentation and develop into full fledge pyschopaths. Ted Bundy confessed to James Dobson about how some of those simply "innocent" things culminated into the very monster and beast he was. And now, we are making it more legal to carry on this way?
Neo, you're beating a strawman. MY auto insurance rates are pretty low, because -- believe it or not -- I have a good driving record. Our hospital costs go up every year because of the overly-litigious society we have become. Malpractice rates are through the roof, and we're paying for it.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot legislate away psychopaths, rapists and murderers by restricting activities between consenting adults, who do not commit any crime against another. We cannot abuse people, restrict their rights and screw with their lives merely because SOME people choose to take their porn addiction to the next level. Much like we cannot punish legitimate gun owners because SOME criminals abuse the right.
We take responsibility for our own protection, as well as the protection of our loved ones. That is the way it should be. Making an act that in no way violates the right of others illegal simply because of something someone MIGHT do is tyrannical and foolish. No good can come of it.
Okay; let's get rid of my strawman arguments and look at your concession whereas you believe children shouldn't become victims of our proclivities.
ReplyDeleteJohn, Jane and Jennifer want to practice polygamy (fine, that's their choice). Jennifer can't conceive, yet Jane is like a rabbit. Some Jennifers out there would be content with this; and then there are those who won't. The ones who won't harbour bitterness and take out their actions on the kids because they feel jolted and less important because they couldn't give their mate what they were looking for. What about when the inevitable divorce or breakup comes and their are children in the mix who have developed strong ties to the all the consenting adults. Now, we place the emotional status of these innocent kids at the beckon of our hearts desire. I agree this may not happen often but it does. You know people can be very selfish and I know someone will do something. In the Old Testament, Abraham's wife Sarah said it was okay for Abraham to sleep with her hand maiden Hagar (mother of all Arabs). Well, she brought forth Ishmael (whom God said would be at war with man, and that's who were fighting today), and then Sarah got jealous and resentful and put Hagar out. Today, we are fighting Ishmael (Islam) and it's out of hand because of an agreement between consenting adults. You may not want to buy into the biblical information that I have presented but I am sure we can find many other problems because of people not thinking things all the way through....
But Neo, here's the problem again. Jennifer made the conscious choice to marry John, knowing that Jane would be part of the package as well. Her potential abuse of the children is not CAUSED by the marriage, but by her decision to enter into said marriage. She could have said no. This is her own responsibility. And if she begins abusing kids because she's bitter, the state should step in and take them away. The crime here is child abuse -- not the act of marrying two people. That's a lot like that mother who is trying to sue WalMart for selling her son a rifle with which he shot himself. Fact of the matter is he was mental. Fact of the matter is THAT is what caused him to pick up that rifle and kill himself -- NOT the fact that Wal Mart did the perfectly legitimate thing of taking his money and handing over what was then considered his property.
ReplyDeleteAgain -- there is nothing inherently wrong with three or more people deciding to spend their lives together, and you can't penalize them because some who may enter into this union are pernicious pricks.
"This is her own responsibility. And if she begins abusing kids because she's bitter, the state should step in and take them away."
ReplyDeleteSo then it becomes the taxpayers responsibility and your back to the original argument that Neo brought forward:
"True or false? Do our auto-insurance expenses go up because of drunk drivers?"
Thus the reason society made the laws in the first place, so the electorate would not be supporting the bad, and what was deemed criminal at one time, lifestyles of a few.
So, if I may ask hypothetically, what right do you have to abuse the system and force the results of that abuse on me the taxpayer? ... not to mention the lifetime burden of infected victims or kids resulting from your actions?
By your logic, anyone who abuses their right to keep and bear arms and is arrested becomes the problem of the state and the problem of the taxpayers and therefore, we should prevent people from keeping and bearing arms.
ReplyDeleteUnless you can somehow prove that every polygamist abuses children -- that it's somehow endemic to polygamy, you cannot claim that polygamists all hurt children, and therefore based on that prevent polygamists from marrying.
Oh, and by the way -- society made laws to codify penalties for unacceptable behavior. Originally speaking, man formed societies to help protect him from violence and infringement upon his rights by others. Polygamy in and of itself does not infringe on anyone's right. For that matter, neither does two guys shacking up and calling themselves husband and wife.
ReplyDeleteFirst:
ReplyDelete"By your logic, anyone who abuses their right to keep and bear arms and is arrested becomes the problem of the state and the problem of the taxpayers and therefore"
Correct, but only for abuse, it's only LIEberals that want to ban everything, and there are resultant actions for abuse.
Second:
Every time this argument comes up, the people arguing are very careful never to bring the term marriage into the picture, which is a religious definition. That being one man and one women with the exclusion of all others to protect and preserve the family unit and instill these morals and values to preserve society as a whole.
Now, you want to unite with another women, or six guys want to be together, or you want 15 men, I don't really care, but don't ask the majority who accept the term "Marriage" for these actions specifically for the reasons above.
Yes, the tax payers would have to pick up the pieces of what you advocate, but unlike guns, you have no consequences for failed actions. So your motives are only to try and force other people accept what you deem to be appropriate behavior, which the *majority* has deemed to be inappropriate.
Yes, exactly for abuse. I don't see how a threesome, foursome or otherwise setting up a household constitutes "abuse." I could see it if they set up a household, had 100 kids, and couldn't afford to sustain them, forcing society to pick up the tab. That's abuse, and I'm completely against that. However, the act in and of itself is not abusive and not infringing upon anyone's rights.
ReplyDeleteAs for the term "marriage," to me it's semantics. Call it a union. Call it a household. Call it a relationship. Whatever makes you feel better. The nature of the thing is two (and in this case or more) people setting up a household and a family. *shrug* Call it what you will... It's really no skin off my back one way or another.
As for taxpayers "picking up the pieces of what I advocate," what exactly is that? A bunch of folks living together in a marriage/union/family/relationship/household, perhaps loving one another and raising their children together? I don't find anything inherently wrong with the idea. It's none of my business with whom anyone chooses to live their lives. It becomes my business when it affects me and my rights, and the only time it does that is when the situation is abused.
Again, no one here has shown me that the mere act of setting up a household with more than two person is endemic to abuse of children, tax dollars or otherwise.
And CERTAINLY the abuse perpetrated by pedophiles, necrophiliacs and scumbag animal rapists cannot possibly be compared to two or more consenting adults making a commitment to one another.
THAT is what I advocate, in a nutshell.
Oh, and by the way -- before anyone makes any assumptions...
ReplyDeleteI'm a female married to a man, have three kids, am in the US military and am perfectly straight.
It amazes me that any women in their right minds would want to share their men with another too. But that's their choice... Crazy though it may be. Yeah, I'd probably avoid them too, but that is our choice as free people.
ReplyDelete:-)
Well, Neo -- I had to clarify lest someone assume I'm some kind of polygamist or homosexual trying to impose my agenda... LOL
ReplyDeleteLook, my view on this wholly depends on the "I'm not my brother's keeper" principle. Remember, I'm a libertarian. I'm absolutely pro-legalization of drugs, even though I've never in my life even touched a joint, let alone smoke one. But my views are also predicated on a society that doesn't force taxpayers to pony up everytime someone makes a bad decision. But again, that's beside the point. Until we get rid of this welfare society, we aren't going to be able to have a truly free society either.
As for sanctioning a world of hurt... Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. The act of smoking causes damage to your lungs. It is a well established fact. The act of living with two or more people does not, in and of itself, mean that someone will necessarily get hurt or abused. I actually know several such arrangements. They seem happy enough. Their kids seem stable enough. Now, I'm not in that home, so I don't know the details. I can only report what I see as an outside observer. Are we, as a society, really willing to punish these people for the misdeeds of others?
I would hope not.
The following should be before NICKI's last comment. I had to clean it up
ReplyDelete"I'm a female married to a man, have three kids, am in the US military and am perfectly straight." LOL, Nicki! I don't think anyone is arguing here that people can't. The problem is when we do; we're sanctioning a world of hurt. Why do we have laws against drugs? It's not only to protect our chldren but even the potential addicts themselves. We warn against smoking for years and still people FREELY CHOOSE to do it. Look at even the abortion issue. Women are allowed but they never report in the mainstream about the physical and psychological effects it has on the individual. Which incur changes for the rest of humanity because now we need to erect clinics to solve problems that never should have been there in the first place. Yes, the person has the choice to live the life they choose; however, until our society as a whole can man up to the decisions they made; we'll always be paying for someones bad decisions. Look at our jail systems; "LIfe in prison"? And they say it's cheaper to go that route than kill the person. WHATEVER! So, we then go back to why the walls were erected? Since the creation of time, man had erected laws or their consciences bore them witness to what was right and wrong. When Cain slew Abel; he knew he was wrong. Even Brutus killing Caesar. The same laws applied even in the realm of sex. They were instituted not to keep us from having the fun; but to protect us from experience of the drawbacks of such pleasures. As much as I wanted a harem when I was younger; my failed marriage was enough to convince me one woman at a time is enough. And with half the heterosexual "one man" "one woman" marriages resulting in divorce because of selfishness or abuse; how can we say "go for it" in a situation where we have increased the odds of divorce and failure.
The problem with society is they try to make sex as solely a physical thing which it is not. When a man and a woman have sex with each other, it is a spiritual bond. In Christianiy, we call it the one-flesh concept. It it really acts that way. Why do you think it's so hard for people to pull away from people they had sex with? Whether plutonic or more; an unseveable link has been created. So, now people will deal with the psychological ramifications of handling sex outside the confines of marrriage. It took me 8 years to move on from my first even though I had a few other relationships (not all sexual) afterwards.
Neo, look above. I replied to your first post, which was similar anyway. LOL
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but I'm not going to get into a debate with anyone here. I only came by to see what you are up to, Neo.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you, Neo. This is morally and spiritually wrong. I don't intend to get into a debate about it with anyone. I know the difference between what is right and what is wrong when I see it.
In Texas the ACLU is now attempting to keep our schools from observing a moment of silence before classes begin for the day. That's observing a moment of silence! They've made it illegal to pray and now they don't even want to give children the right to a moment of silence where they can pray to whoever they believe in, or not pray at all, their choice. But that's too much leniancy for the ACLU. Everyone has rights except Christians these days; and if it means taking the right away for Jews, Muslims, etc., to silently pray too, then so be it. As long as it stops the Christians from praying, it's worth it.
Darkness does indeed cover this land!
This isn't an "attack" per se, yet it is an attempt to "mainstream" things no one would possibly have wanted, much less thought to, mainstream 10 years ago. One must constantly do what I call the "logical extension," as you quite rightly did, NeoSoc -- and one must wonder: NAMBLA really doesn't seem that far off, does it? That German Shepard down the street is looking pretty good to some folks, too.
ReplyDeleteBZ
polygamy...why not? I think it's against the Bible, but I'm not sure.
ReplyDeletePedophilia and Beastiality...awww hell nah
Man, I've been trying to push this new reality show
ReplyDelete"Niggas and the Fuzz" and everybody looks at me like I'm crazy. Ok, I may have to change the title but the concept is a good one and could probably do some good to help relationships between blacks and the popo.
If Paris Hilton can get one and they can put this on TV, I might just have a shot.
Neo and Bloviating Zeppelin hit it bang on ... glad my kids didn't grow up and have desires for a union with a zebra. Must be because of the morals they were rasied with ... what a concept.
ReplyDeleteDidn't some chick marry a dolphin last year? I totally called this when the gay marriage thing Massachusetts thing came up; I wish I knew where the post was.
ReplyDeleteMake take on it is that people can feel free to whatever they like as long as
A) It doesn't infringe upon my rights, or upon anyone else's.
B) They are willing to deal with the consequences.
The Constitution is not designed to protect everybody's personal perversions, however, nor should it be redesigned for such a purpose. I don't see the need for more elaborate and weird laws that say that Joe American has to tolerate more and wierder weirdness from everybody else.
It's not enough to be gay for some, they want to really make sure you know they're and they are absolutely totally not ashamed of being gay. It's not enough to be polyamourous, you have to tell everyone you are and make them accept it. I'm looking forward to the day when my wife and I can marry our cats. More tax deductions!
I honestly don't care who you love or how. If you can keep it to yourself and within the limits of the law, good for you.
Let the States figure out if they want to protect polygamy.
Neo, I thought you might find this interesting in relation to the topic.
ReplyDeleteFrom Dan Henninger's column in today's OpinionJournal:
"Our political culture's preoccupation with sexual boundaries has smothered the more important ability of religious or ethical formation to function in the U.S. Currently the most rigorous whole-person moral system resides among evangelical right--at least in terms of keeping one's earthly life in perspective. But because the religious right has "positions" on abortion and homosexuality, politics seeks to undermine its entire function in the life of the nation."
I came back and read the entire comment section of this post. Wow! I learned a lot. For instance, ABF has kids... They aren't polygamous either.
ReplyDeleteThe dialogue between you, ABF and Nicki is very interesting. Nicki is obviously into the "live and let live" theory. And I think she is a good person and well intentioned. The problem I see with that is everyone seems to have the right to do just about anything they want, and if they don't they can get the ACLU to go to war for them and browbeat the courts until they are given that right. Everyone but Christians, that is.
I can see down the road several years from now if polygamy is made legal in this country: You are living in a city and have neighbors on both sides of you. Your five-year-old makes friends with the kid next door. He comes running in the house to inform you, "Mommy. Mikey has two mothers! How come I don't have two mothers?" How do you explain this state of affairs to a five-year-old? "Uh... Mikey only has one mommy, hon. The one that gave birth to him."
"But mommy... he calls both of them 'mommy!' There's no way you can explain this, but your son is going to feel cheated because he only has one mom, and is also going to run into many other kids who have two moms, or two dads, and will grow up thinking it's normal. This is just one scenario. How about the affect of people marrying animals, as we all know it will lead to that. The old "slippery slope" rule.
I don't want to live in a world like that. No arguement will ever possibly convince me it's a good thing.
Socioeconomic factors and hypothetical child-rearing difficulties aside, the fact of the matter is that it is just plain wrong.
ReplyDeleteNicki, you can say what you like about how polygamy and homosexuality should be permissable so long as it is between two consenting adults, but that just doesn't fly. Inherent in your argument is a subjective attempt at a moral code. You stated that children, animals, and corpses cannot give consent. I'll grant you that corpses cannot give consent, but why should necrophiliacs be denied the satisfaction that you would grant to homosexuals? They aren't hurting anyone, and they certainly aren't raising your taxes. By the criteria of your own argument, then, necrophiliacs should be allowed to do as they please. Nasty, isn't it? Hey, personally, I wouldn't be caught dead with a necrophiliac, but if you are going to assent to the legitimacy of polygamists and queers, you can hardly stop there. It wouldn't be fair.
And what was that about children and animals not being able to give consent? Can you speak equine? If not, how do you know that the horse is not giving consent? What if a child did give consent? Would it then be OK?
You know as well as I do that it would not, but the only reason that you can give is a subjective standard--a judgment based upon personal preference and bias. Why should your standard be the paradigm? Who died and left you Queen of the Universe that your personal feelings become the standard for who does and doesn't get the stamp of approval?
Without an objective moral standard, any judgment or decision that you make is going to be no more than your own personal preference; and for someone who is so all-fired gung-ho about liberty and the individual, to attempt to impose your personal standards on someone else is a pretty freaking selfish and hypocritical position.
"Inherent in your argument is a subjective attempt at a moral code." -- No. Inherent in my argument is the only objective moral code that can apply here - the right of a person to their own body and the principle of not bringing harm to another.
ReplyDelete"I'll grant you that corpses cannot give consent, but why should necrophiliacs be denied the satisfaction that you would grant to homosexuals? They aren't hurting anyone, and they certainly aren't raising your taxes." -- Wrong. Necrophiliacs are violating the body of someone who cannot give consent. Period.
"And what was that about children and animals not being able to give consent? Can you speak equine? If not, how do you know that the horse is not giving consent? What if a child did give consent? Would it then be OK?" -- The horse argument is just completely ridiculous, since there is no way in hell anyone could ever speak equine, no matter how hard they try to prove otherwise. And as for children, they are simply not old enough, mature enough or developed enough to give informed consent. That is why we have consent laws.
"You know as well as I do that it would not, but the only reason that you can give is a subjective standard--a judgment based upon personal preference and bias. Why should your standard be the paradigm? Who died and left you Queen of the Universe that your personal feelings become the standard for who does and doesn't get the stamp of approval?" -- Your contentious rant nonewithstanding, the right to your own body IS an objective moral standard, much like the right to your own property is. You, on the other hand, are obviously basing YOUR judgment on your religious beliefs and trying to impose said beliefs on others.
Now, who is playing "Queen of the Universe," the person who wants to leave consenting adults be to live their lives as they see fit as long as they do no harm to others, or the person who is trying to pass off what obviously are his religious beliefs as objective moral standars that everyone should follow?
I think you know the answer to that.
They aren't my moral standards; they're God's. If they were mine, they wouldn't have any more weight than anyone else's. Since God, however, has created us, He alone is in a position to declare morals--which He has done.
ReplyDeleteInherent in my argument is the only objective moral code that can apply here - the right of a person to their own body and the principle of not bringing harm to another.
How is that objective, Nicki? Upon what are you basing your principle? Again, it comes down to what you want or think is best. Because you think it is best, highest, or "most moral" to let each person do as they wish with their own body and without "bringing harm to another" doesn't make it true. Or right.
What makes it objective is that it's a tangible, verifiable, fundamental right that belongs to every person.
ReplyDeleteAnd what happens if someone doesn't believe in your God? I, for one, am not Christian. But I'm also not conceited enough to claim that mine is the universal truth while trying to make everyone else conform to the standards of MY beliefs. I respect Christians and Christianity, but I am not one, and you cannot tell me objectively that YOUR God is the only objective standard. He is to YOU, and I respect that. But you don't seem to want to respect that your God is not mine.
And that's just not fair, just or respectful. Sorry. I'm out of this conversation. The moment the conversation turns to "It is so, because it's my faith," you can no longer debate logically or rationally.
Bye.
What makes it objective is that it's a tangible, verifiable, fundamental right that belongs to every person
ReplyDeleteAnd, again, I ask, by what authority do you declare this to be right?
The point here is not allowing it, the point is making it recognized by the state.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is, by definition, the union between one man and one woman. Nobody else has a "right" to it.
Nice site!
ReplyDelete[url=http://wjuzobnz.com/zahl/tgdr.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://uswjagbr.com/gsqt/jkxq.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
ReplyDeleteMy homepage | Please visit
Well done!
ReplyDeletehttp://wjuzobnz.com/zahl/tgdr.html | http://aixgtfdj.com/ggec/sohg.html