I felt my CONservative friends here are in need of watching this

[Troglodyte]

That is a terrible analogy.

How so? Both are spending that tend to beget more spending.

 

[diver]

How do you all feel about polygamy?

In Thailand it looks like 3 guys have married each other. And LOOK! Love is love, after all.



"Some people may not agree and are probably amazed by our decision, but we believe many people do understand and accept our choice. Love is love, after all.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html#ixzz3TcxkKjlC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[oneforthebus]

How do you all feel about polygamy?

In Thailand it looks like 3 guys have married each other. And LOOK! Love is love, after all.



"Some people may not agree and are probably amazed by our decision, but we believe many people do understand and accept our choice. Love is love, after all.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html#ixzz3TcxkKjlC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

In terms of legal rights and benefits, you have to limit number of "spouses" from a purely practical and cost perspective. In terms of three people who all have sex and want to have a non-legally binding ceremony and call themselves married, that's their business, not mine and not the government's.

 

[oneforthebus]

How so? Both are spending that tend to beget more spending.

I would argue defense spending prevents more wars than it causes, but there isn't really a way to measure that.

Of course your entire premise is wrong. Defense spending as a percentage of either GDP or federal outlays is at historic lows. Even at it's recent peak during the War on Terror it was rather low, historically, at 24.5% of federal spending. Certainly nowhere near WWII levels, when it reached about 88% of federal spending.

 

[diver]

In terms of legal rights and benefits, you have to limit number of "spouses" from a purely practical and cost perspective. In terms of three people who all have sex and want to have a non-legally binding ceremony and call themselves married, that's their business, not mine and not the government's.

I guess I am not getting my point across. At the end of the day, I will lose no sleep over this stuff. I just take issue with the initial quote that started this thread. Love should never be questioned. Again, if that is the case, be prepared for people pushing the envelope and then using "love" as an excuse.

 

[Supersteeler]

I guess I am not getting my point across. At the end of the day, I will lose no sleep over this stuff. I just take issue with the initial quote that started this thread. Love should never be questioned. Again, if that is the case, be prepared for people pushing the envelope and then using "love" as an excuse.

Although you apparently aren't able to see any difference as you have already shown, at least they aren't pedophiles right? Who are they hurting in reality besides your sensibilities?

 

[diver]

Although you apparently aren't able to see any difference as you have already shown, at least they aren't pedophiles right? Who are they hurting in reality besides your sensibilities?

“It matters not who you love, where you love, why you love, when you love or how you love, it matters only that you love”

Again, read the quote. It does not add the caveat of only heterosexual love, or homosexual love, or love between two consenting adults or whatever. It says that it doesn't matter who, where, why, when or how you love. So, it should not be taken literally?

What would hurt your sensibilities? Anything? Again, believe it or not, I lose no sleep, but now we have 3 guys getting married, or in essence, polygamy. So that is OK now as long as there is "love?" So you would have no problem with a Mormon out in Utah having a bunch of wives, as long as there is "love?" We shouldn't question it? What if one of the three was 17, let say. Would that make it offensive? Help me to understand the rule book. What is it that we should be offended by and what should we not be offended by?

I find it hard to believe that unless you have been living under a rock you don't see that as time goes on we get offended by less and less. So, being that is the case, why is it such a leap to think that things now we might never consider would be acceptable could be in 50 years.

 

[Steelerfan]

 

[Supersteeler]

“
Again, read the quote. It does not add the caveat of only heterosexual love, or homosexual love, or love between two consenting adults or whatever. It says that it doesn't matter who, where, why, when or how you love. So, it should not be taken literally?

Believe it or not, some people actually have common sense which is helpful in determining the difference between what ADULTS choose to do with EACH OTHER other and an ADULT preying on a CHILD \and taking advantage of their vulnerabilities and naivety . Apparently you were not gifted with that particular trait.

 

[Supersteeler]

So you would have no problem with a Mormon out in Utah having a bunch of wives, as long as there is "love?"

Of course not, why would I? How does a Mormon out in Utah being married to a bunch of women in ANY way shape or form, affect me negatively? He could marry 75 women for all I care as long as they are willing to marry him and he isn't running some bizarre slave ring or hurting them in any way. That's their business, not mine. I feel quite confident that my marriage will remain every bit as strong even after knowing that a guy in Utah has 75 wives. Since it's such a problem for you, how does it affect your quality of life?

 

[diver]

Believe it or not, some people actually have common sense which is helpful in determining the difference between what ADULTS choose to do with EACH OTHER other and an ADULT preying on a CHILD \and taking advantage of their vulnerabilities and naivety . Apparently you were not gifted with that particular trait.

The quote made no such distinction. I don't like the quote. I have heard the term "love" being used to justify certain things. I have plenty of common sense. I know damn well if "love" becomes the only perquisite, we are opening ourselves up to many possibilities. I was not the one that used the word "love" to justify anything. Others have, like the daughter with her father. I just can't get over that, as the father of a daughter. Are you as upset with them as you seem to be with me? Do I have the right to have my own opinions, or is this some dictatorial state as it pertains to homosexuality? Again, as long as I treat people with respect, which I assure you I do, why do you care what I think?

 

[diver]

Of course not, why would I? How does a Mormon out in Utah being married to a bunch of women in ANY way shape or form, affect me negatively? He could marry 75 women for all I care as long as they are willing to marry him and he isn't running some bizarre slave ring or hurting them in any way. That's their business, not mine. I feel quite confident that my marriage will remain every bit as strong even after knowing that a guy in Utah has 75 wives. Since it's such a problem for you, how does it affect your quality of life?

How did what Jerry Sandusky do affect you negatively in any way?

You think being married to 75 women wouldn't have some negative impacts on them in some way? Can you truly "love" 75 women?

So if we are not affected negatively, or affects our quality of life, it shouldn't concern us?

 

[Supersteeler]

How did what Jerry Sandusky do affect you negatively in any way?

You think being married to 75 women wouldn't have some negative impacts on them in some way? Can you truly "love" 75 women?

So if we are not affected negatively, or affects our quality of life, it shouldn't concern us?

You really don't get it at all. Not one little bit. And I love that you are turning it around like I am the one that doesn't understand it. Ok, let's try and see if you are capable of following this line of thinking at all. Let's test your common sense abilities. Jerry Sandusky molested children. Ok, with me so far? It does affect me alot as it should anyone with any morality at all, BUT however it might affect me, the important thing is how affects THEM. THE CHILDREN that are scarred for life because of what a monster of a pedophile did to them for his own sick twisted needs. They were not able to defend themselves and were victimized.

Ok, now stay with me. Let's compare what Jerry Sandusky did to children, with the hypothetical 75 ADULT women CHOOSING to enter into a marriage knowing FULL WELL that they are one of many wives this man has but they CHOOSE to do it anyway for WHATEVER reason they have.

You really don't get how they are VASTLY different and in no way can be construed by any human being with an ounce of common sense as the same degree of liberties taken with the word "love". These are the same degree to you and one is no worse than the other morally speaking? That seems to be the point you keep hammering at without actually coming out and saying it.

I am legitimately getting more alarmed every time you post. You pose the question of whether I am as angry at child molesters as I am getting with you, which is absurd in itself. Of course the answer is that child molesters make me sick to my stomach so yes it's way more of an issue that in internet message board conversation lol. However I must say the connections you are making on this topic are getting quite disturbing. To not even be willing to concede that one is so much worse than the other. Wow.

To answer your last question. What if the 75 women are happy with their quality of life? I mean, if it's something they choose to enter into freely, maybe they are happy as hell. I would hope that you won't counter that with asking if it's possible that a molested child might say that their molestation improve their quality of life. I really, really hope.

 

[oneforthebus]

“It matters not who you love, where you love, why you love, when you love or how you love, it matters only that you love”

Again, read the quote. It does not add the caveat of only heterosexual love, or homosexual love, or love between two consenting adults or whatever. It says that it doesn't matter who, where, why, when or how you love. So, it should not be taken literally?

Well I will say this...the quote is hogwash. No, it doesn't matter only that you love. I love ice cream, does it matter? Not a bit.

It matters what you do, how you treat people, and how you provide for and care for those who depend on you. Sorry John Lennon, love is not all you need.

 

[diver]

You really don't get it at all. Not one little bit. And I love that you are turning it around like I am the one that doesn't understand it. Ok, let's try and see if you are capable of following this line of thinking at all. Let's test your common sense abilities. Jerry Sandusky molested children. Ok, with me so far? It does affect me alot as it should anyone with any morality at all, BUT however it might affect me, the important thing is how affects THEM. THE CHILDREN that are scarred for life because of what a monster of a pedophile did to them for his own sick twisted needs. They were not able to defend themselves and were victimized.

Ok, now stay with me. Let's compare what Jerry Sandusky did to children, with the hypothetical 75 ADULT women CHOOSING to enter into a marriage knowing FULL WELL that they are one of many wives this man has but they CHOOSE to do it anyway for WHATEVER reason they have.

You really don't get how they are VASTLY different and in no way can be construed by any human being with an ounce of common sense as the same degree of liberties taken with the word "love". These are the same degree to you and one is no worse than the other morally speaking? That seems to be the point you keep hammering at without actually coming out and saying it.

I am legitimately getting more alarmed every time you post. You pose the question of whether I am as angry at child molesters as I am getting with you, which is absurd in itself. Of course the answer is that child molesters make me sick to my stomach so yes it's way more of an issue that in internet message board conversation lol. However I must say the connections you are making on this topic are getting quite disturbing. To not even be willing to concede that one is so much worse than the other. Wow.

To answer your last question. What if the 75 women are happy with their quality of life? I mean, if it's something they choose to enter into freely, maybe they are happy as hell. I would hope that you won't counter that with asking if it's possible that a molested child might say that their molestation improve their quality of life. I really, really hope.

I am fully aware of the distinction. I guess I am just surprised that you or anybody else can be so confident that, if "love" is the only requirement, people will not then use that as an excuse when doing deviant things. People have already. Perhaps my method of getting that across has not been the best. I just feel the term "love" has been used to justify things.

Without going into detail, I have spent a career working with at risk kids. I have seen the word "love" used to justify a lot of things. I am damn sensitive to that.

I too really do not care what two consenting adults do with their time. I have a right to say, "I just don't know about that", though. I will not and have not done anything to discriminate against people who have a different sexual preference. I treat people with respect, just as I have you here.

 

[Supersteeler]

I am fully aware of the distinction. I guess I am just surprised that you or anybody else can be so confident that, if "love" is the only requirement, people will not then use that as an excuse when doing deviant things. People have already. Perhaps my method of getting that across has not been the best. I just feel the term "love" has been used to justify things.

Without going into detail, I have spent a career working with at risk kids. I have seen the word "love" used to justify a lot of things. I am damn sensitive to that.

I too really do not care what two consenting adults do with their time. I have a right to say, "I just don't know about that", though. I will not and have not done anything to discriminate against people who have a different sexual preference. I treat people with respect, just as I have you here.

Fair enough. You and I share a similar career. Before I worked in the school system I worked in group homes as a counselor. I'm sure you can attest to this also, but in 3 years of working in that environment, I think there were about 3 or 4 kids who were residents there who were NOT physically or sexually abused in their homes before they were removed and placed in the group home...out of 50 or 60 that went through there. If that isn't enough to piss you off, nothing is. We would get the files of each kid's history from the Social Workers when the kid would arrive. Reading those reports of what was done to those kids from the time they were toddlers until they got removed is enough to make you go nuts.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It does affect me alot as it should anyone with any morality at all...

Sorry but this is where you are failing in this argument. You say that people with any morality can draw a distinction between these events.

Morality is subjective. There are those who believe pedophilia is immoral. Those who feel homosexuality is immoral. Or bestiality, or adultery. Or wearing open toed shoes. Or exposing a woman's face in public. But not all feel this way. We all have different sets of morals. You are failing by assuming we all share a common moral base. We do not.

His point is simply this...per the OP, one could use "love" to justify whatever they feel to be moral, that to many/most/some of us may be immoral.

This is the slippery slope he is exposing. And he is correct.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Believe it or not, some people actually have common sense which is helpful in determining the difference between what ADULTS choose to do with EACH OTHER other and an ADULT preying on a CHILD \and taking advantage of their vulnerabilities and naivety . Apparently you were not gifted with that particular trait.

If only Common sense were truly common the world would be much better place. It should be labeled Uncommon sense.

 

[Supersteeler]

Sorry but this is where you are failing in this argument. You say that people with any morality can draw a distinction between these events.

Morality is subjective. There are those who believe pedophilia is immoral. Those who feel homosexuality is immoral. Or bestiality, or adultery. Or wearing open toed shoes. Or exposing a woman's face in public. But not all feel this way. We all have different sets of morals. You are failing by assuming we all share a common moral base. We do not.

His point is simply this...per the OP, one could use "love" to justify whatever they feel to be moral, that to many/most/some of us may be immoral.

This is the slippery slope he is exposing. And he is correct.

So you're point is that from a moral standpoint it's perfectly justifiable that some people will believe that homosexualiy and wearing open toed shoes are as equally unacceptable as molesting children. Yeah, you're right, I'm failing the hell out of this debate. Let me further clarify my failing argument. If there is anybody out there that believes that those two things are akin to pedophilia, they are ******* lowlife scumbag pieces of **** . That clarify my feelings?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

So you're point is that from a moral standpoint it's perfectly justifiable that some people will believe that homosexualiy and wearing open toed shoes are as equally unacceptable as molesting children. Yeah, you're right, I'm failing the hell out of this debate. Let me further clarify my failing argument. If there is anybody out there that believes that those two things are akin to pedophilia, they are ******* lowlife scumbag pieces of **** . That clarify my feelings?

The world is full of people that are lowlife scumbag pieces of **** who would willingly use "love" to justify their behaviors.

That is the point.

 

[Elfiero]

Again, I am not confusing anything. I did not try to hide some type of deviant behavior by calling it "love." The daughter with the father did that. Richard Chamberlain did that. I am simple trying to caution that it is conceivable that the 'love" excuse could be used to justify certain things. Believe me, I would have never connected the two either if someone else hadn't done it.

I wasn't implying that you were hiding anything. I said that from what I can tell about Lennon he wasn't one(a deviant).

The comment about Christians and conflation of love and sex was just that, a comment and an observation. You jumped from love to sex right away and I understand that, because it's a natural aversion for us It's also taught to us by religion and we need to forget that and just open our minds enough to not tread on other people's happiness.

 

[Elfiero]

According to you. That is such a arrogant view. The type of view you attribute to right wingers. You make blanket statements claiming infallibility but use facts that's are not facts but theories or are outright lies. I am not one to attribute infallibility to either sides dogma, and am not blindly loyal to Science or Religon. YOu just completely discount one side and don't leave any room to be wrong in your beliefs. Isn't that what you criticize about the Right?

The facts as pertaining to social programs are just that, facts. They have helped millions in their rise out of poverty, to deny it displays your ignorance or your dislike of decency.

I have not claimed infallibility nor blind loyalty to science. Science does not work with loyalty, but rather evidence.

 

[diver]

Fair enough. You and I share a similar career. Before I worked in the school system I worked in group homes as a counselor. I'm sure you can attest to this also, but in 3 years of working in that environment, I think there were about 3 or 4 kids who were residents there who were NOT physically or sexually abused in their homes before they were removed and placed in the group home...out of 50 or 60 that went through there. If that isn't enough to piss you off, nothing is. We would get the files of each kid's history from the Social Workers when the kid would arrive. Reading those reports of what was done to those kids from the time they were toddlers until they got removed is enough to make you go nuts.

Snow day? I'm never on here during the day, but have posted quite a bit over the last few days. Damn snow.

 

[Elfiero]

Because one man's success story doesn't make the programs mentioned a winner. There are thousands of "bootstrap" stories out there, but I'm sure you'd dismiss them as anectdotal. Our bloated government wastes and robs. Dr. Carson just might be able to look past his story to see the overall effect of government reliance on the rest of his race. Just a thought.

You're going to really attempt to excuse the mans hypocrisy with a straight face? Really?

Just because a few minority members overcome the huge odds against them to have success in life while never taking a dime from social programs does not invalidate the idea of social justice. It's the equivalent of a financial advisors advice to you being; 'play the lottery'...... yeah somebody wins it.

Does your bloated government waste and rob when it's illegally and unnecessarily invading countries and spending trillions making defense contractors rich?

Funny how that never bothers you guys, in fact from the posts I've read on here it's actually fun stuff.

 

[diver]

The facts as pertaining to social programs are just that, facts. They have helped millions in their rise out of poverty, to deny it displays your ignorance or your dislike of decency.

I have not claimed infallibility nor blind loyalty to science. Science does not work with loyalty, but rather evidence.

I think what Ben Carson is trying the say is that without his mother forcing him to study and read, for example, all of the government programs would not have mattered. If my assumption is correct, I agree with him. I have worked with at-risk kids for a good portion of my career, and they all received government assistance. The kids who had a good parent or parents without question were more successful overall than those who did not, even with the government assistance.