Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

"Why not X" isn't an argument about "why not Y."

Ah, but it is relevant because Icedog's logic also applies perfectly well to polygamy.

If you accept the logic of this: "I also have the opinion that what makes two consenting adults live a happy, peaceful life and does not interfere with anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is none of my nor anyone else's business and should not be infringed upon by any legislation."

... Then you must also accept this: "I also have the opinion that what makes multiple consenting adults live a happy, peaceful life and does not interfere with anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is none of my nor anyone else's business and should not be infringed upon by any legislation."

My point being that once you adopt a liberal approach to redefining the legal definition of marriage, you should be prepared to take it to its logical conclusion.

And once you broaden the scope of marriage to an absurd degree (marrying all your best friends maybe?) it becomes watered down so much it ceases to have any importance.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

And once you broaden the scope of marriage to an absurd degree (marrying all your best friends maybe?) it becomes watered down so much it ceases to have any importance.

Who will be defining "absurd" and "importance"?

Originally Posted by icedog

Who will be defining "absurd" and "importance"?

Tha's my point. You can't define any option as absurd once you adopt such a liberal attitude.

Nothing is absurd. Perfect! As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, perfect!

Originally Posted by icedog

Nothing is absurd. Perfect! As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, perfect!

Mate, it's your logic, don't be so sarcastic towards yourself!

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Mate, it's your logic, don't be so sarcastic towards yourself!

That's not sarcasm. I firmly believe if it floats your boat and doesn't rock mine, sail on.

What if it turns out that legal recognition of homosexual arrangements is harmful to society in the long run?

Originally Posted by Rajagra

And once you broaden the scope of marriage to an absurd degree (marrying all your best friends maybe?) it becomes watered down so much it ceases to have any importance.

is that really so bad? i guess i'm in the minority, but i don't think it has any special importance already. it's just a way for two friends to dodge some taxes by signing a paper in a courthouse. no biggie.

Originally Posted by jockeys

is that really so bad? i guess i'm in the minority, but i don't think it has any special importance already. it's just a way for two friends to dodge some taxes by signing a paper in a courthouse. no biggie.

Again, that is also my point. The institution of marriage has already been reduced to having much less importance than it used to, by access to easy weddings, easy divorces, and people simply opting not to do it. Watering it down further will kill it off soon I think.