Holy Disney World! Polls show Romney surging

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

Marriage is a cultural creation. If the masses want to expand it to 3, they will. I don't see it happening. Most of the enlightened populace has realized that discriminating against those who want to marry an individual of the same sex should be able to. Those who don't want them to be able to have yet to provide any intelligent argument. They appeal to tradition, or they appeal to nonsense like yours where once you change something once, the floodgates are open and it's bound to be changed repeatedly and before long all the liberals will be marrying their turtles. This is not sound logic.

So in other words, you don't have a logical answer to that question.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

So in other words, you don't have a logical answer to that question.

If you find illogic, point it out. Otherwise just admit that the slippery slope line of argumentation is flawed and that Santorum and Huckabee are peas in the same retarded pod.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

If you find illogic, point it out. Otherwise just admit that the slippery slope line of argumentation is flawed and that Santorum and Huckabee are peas in the same retarded pod.

*Sigh*

Marriage is a cultural creation. If the masses want to expand it to 3, they will. I don't see it happening.

Hmm, don't see any logical argument about "2 is ok, but 3 is not" there. But I'll keep looking.

Most of the enlightened populace has realized that discriminating against those who want to marry an individual of the same sex should be able to.

Nope, don't see it yet.

Those who don't want them to be able to have yet to provide any intelligent argument. They appeal to tradition, or they appeal to nonsense like yours where once you change something once, the floodgates are open and it's bound to be changed repeatedly and before long all the liberals will be marrying their turtles. This is not sound logic.

Has nothing to do with this discussion. (Remember: you're arguing 2 (same-sex) is ok, but 3 is not.) Calling it "nonsense" is not an argument.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

*Sigh*



Hmm, don't see any logical argument about "2 is ok, but 3 is not" there. But I'll keep looking.



Nope, don't see it yet.



Has nothing to do with this discussion. (Remember: you're arguing 2 (same-sex) is ok, but 3 is not.) Calling it "nonsense" is not an argument.

I see where your confusion is. You are under the impression that whether something is "ok" or not is decided by something other than the moral zeitgeist of a society.

Something becomes "ok" when a society decides it is. This is scary to the Bible thumpers, as it's possible that a culture might decide that Biblical morality is wrong. In fact, our culture has already decided that the vast majority of Biblical morality is wrong.

If you think that recognizing the actual source of morality instead of pretending it comes from iron-age literature is illogical, then I guess I'm guilty.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I trust you but by my observation it just seems a little sluggish to react. For example, Florida is finally turning Romney's way today, but in the overall race, nothing's changed with McCain almost double Romney's chances. And the California race which has some trading volume also, hasn't reacted. Certainly a Florida loss for McCain would affect his overall chances.

California reacted today. Romney up 10 to 40. McCain remains at 60.

Florida totally switched today. Romney up 11 to 51 and McCain down 5.5 to 40. What is behind this. Is Gov. Crist planning to play kingmaker?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

Marriage is a cultural creation. If the masses want to expand it to 3, they will. I don't see it happening. Most of the enlightened populace has realized that discriminating against those who want to marry an individual of the same sex should be able to. Those who don't want them to be able to have yet to provide any intelligent argument. They appeal to tradition, or they appeal to nonsense like yours where once you change something once, the floodgates are open and it's bound to be changed repeatedly and before long all the liberals will be marrying their turtles. This is not sound logic.

How about this as a reason:

I don't want it to happen because it will raise my taxes.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

I see where your confusion is. You are under the impression that whether something is "ok" or not is decided by something other than the moral zeitgeist of a society.

Something becomes "ok" when a society decides it is. This is scary to the Bible thumpers, as it's possible that a culture might decide that Biblical morality is wrong. In fact, our culture has already decided that the vast majority of Biblical morality is wrong.

If you think that recognizing the actual source of morality instead of pretending it comes from iron-age literature is illogical, then I guess I'm guilty.

No. I'm saying if society agrees to loosen one centuries- or even millenia-old standard on the basis of the arguments presented by the homosexual community, they should not be surprised to find advocates of other forms of sexual deviancy using those same arguments to effect further loosening.

Anyway, we're straying a little from the point: that being, Huckabee was not equating all forms of sexual deviancy.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

No. I'm saying if society agrees to loosen one centuries- or even millenia-old standard on the basis of the arguments presented by the homosexual community, they should not be surprised to find advocates of other forms of sexual deviancy using those same arguments to effect further loosening.

Anyway, we're straying a little from the point: that being, Huckabee was not equating all forms of sexual deviancy.

These arguments are coming from enlightened people of all varieties, not just the gay community. That you insist on terming homosexuality "sexual deviancy" demonstrates that you are not among the enlightened crowd.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

These arguments are coming from enlightened people of all varieties, not just the gay community. That you insist on terming homosexuality "sexual deviancy" demonstrates that you are not among the enlightened crowd.

And again, you are responding by attacking me, rather than making a cogent argument.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

And again, you are responding by attacking me, rather than making a cogent argument.

I did both, actually. Feel free to ignore the insults if they hit too close to home.