I don't see where you've asked any questions. And I provided multiple answers to those who ask. I see you still dancing around failing to answer my charge to explain how Rs care about the working poor.
Do you agree with Trump building a Wall ?
- Thread starter RockEyeState
- Start date
Yes, you assert that is a myth that there are mormon polygamists. That is absurd.
Of course it is overstated, but that isn't a myth. Big Foot is a myth. Being overstated isn't a myth.
You don't seem to "bristle" when you make the same claim about Muslims, even though the VAST majority of Muslims, especially in the US, don't practice polygamy.
I get it, these aren't "actual Mormons" (your words), because some Mormons disagree with them. That is my point (and some of Natural's): You/they don't get to determine that everyone else "isn't Mormon", they don't have that authority.
No, it is because THE ONES YOU ARE CHOOSING TO LEAD THE COUNTRY are clamoring to remove MILLIONS of people from the country, no matter how nonsensical and unrealistic that plan is. The R's who said that was absurd have been entirely pushed aside.
It is easy to call someone anti-immigrant when their stance is to remove every single last one of them ... even if they are the ones we would want to be here anyways. Trump's "plan" is that they should form some form of line to get back in.
Who said anything about single-parent households? We're talking about polygamy... so that means multiple-parent households.
Oh, and claiming "the state" has an interest in raising children is a horrifying idea. Society might have an interest in this and should promote it, but not through force of government.
When Leftists run into their obvious Losing logic, they often distract, obfuscate, try to change the narrative. Apparently, that is taught in looney journo school for leftists. Kind of sad...........
A wall on the Southern border should and I believe will be built. There will be a very Nice Door, (a Gate) just like at the White House. Where, if you stand in line and agree to security searches, then you can enter. It's quite simple........ever been to the White House?
Of course, there will be some folks, like at the White House, who try to jump the fence and run in. We will have to decide if they're rounded up and never allowed near America, again, like is done with someone who scales the wall at the White House.
A wall on the Southern border should and I believe will be built. There will be a very Nice Door, (a Gate) just like at the White House. Where, if you stand in line and agree to security searches, then you can enter. It's quite simple........ever been to the White House?
Of course, there will be some folks, like at the White House, who try to jump the fence and run in. We will have to decide if they're rounded up and never allowed near America, again, like is done with someone who scales the wall at the White House.
Boldly doubling down on the crazy comparison I see. Just another tax and spend, big government con.
Your latter part may be true, but the former certainly isn't. Why would a government which seeks sustainability be "horrifying" to say they have an interest in raising children? Governments without population control are extremely troubled, see Japan and India for opposite concerns.
Nobody in government, that I'm aware of, is "forcing" children (well, arguably the anti-aborters).
Also, since when is "society" and "the state" competing entities?
What a terrible analogy. How much would you be willing to spend of government tax money on the White House fence and gate? Would you be ok spending $10Billion?
If this was free do you really think people would be complaining?
The state is supposed to make sure that the majority's interests don't walk all over the interests of the minority. Society doesn't get everything society wants, if it infringes up the rights of others.
Else we get bans on Muslims, dancing, demon liquor, and crap like that.
Don't you agree?
I'm not sure that is the state's purpose, but it can be. I agree with the rest of it, but I'm not sure how you think it applies to any of this thread.
"Society" and "The State" are not competing entities, the state represents society and its interests. Of course the state has an interest in the birthing and raising of children. Of course that should be checked by individuals' rights.
So, if the state decided we have too many children, the state could rightfully ban childbirth?
Or if the state decided we need more children, the state could require women to get pregnant?
I don't want the state controlling personal decisions.
Or if the state decided we need more children, the state could require women to get pregnant?
I don't want the state controlling personal decisions.
Do you even read my posts? I wrote: "Of course the state has an interest in the birthing and raising of children. Of course that should be checked by individuals' rights."
So, no of course I don't think the state could or should do that, it would infringe on individual's rights. As always (and where I think you are trying to lead this) it is a balance of societal needs vs. individual rights. It has always been a balance and always will be, there simply is no unequivocal rights, seen throughout Constitutional interpretation.
Weird strawmen to toss in here.
It's not a strawman at all.
People who are opposed to same-sex marriage claim that it would "harm" children to not have a mother and a father.
People who are opposed to polygamy claim that it would "harm" children to have one father and multiple mothers (or any other combination you like).
We rightfully said that such an argument against gay marriage is not going to fly. I'm now arguing the same for polygamy.
That is the point you are missing. The harm to the children has been discussed and debunked by the courts (and science). That is the due diligence I spoke of.
That same hasn't happened for polygamy.
You keep saying that argument against SSM "won't fly" which ignores the fact that it was the argument against gay marriage.
You need to re-read my initial post. I said pretty much exactly what I said in the post to which you responded, minus the longer explanation. You're arguing about your characterization of what I said, not what I actually said.
I believe that such an argument would prove to be wrong about polyamorous relationships as well. There's nothing inherently harmful about more than two people who love each other.
The difference is, lefty social scientists have done the research on gay parents. I don't believe any such research has been done by anyone who doesn't have a bias against polygamous parents.
I get that you believe that, and that is fine, I'm sure there are many people who believe that. According to our historical approach to rights it will go through a phase of diligence, something that hasn't occurred yet.
You claim there isn't anything inherently harmful, others claim there is. That is the stalemate. "Lefty social scientists"? Bullshit. The courts that rules in favor of ssm, such as the Iowa Supreme Court were far from "lefty" were mostly appointed by the republican governor, and decided unanimously. It wasn't some lefty conspiracy.
There is bias against polygamy, of course, that doesn't automatically mean it is unwarranted.
Whatever you say boss, it has become clear that you don't actually think polygamy amongst Mormons (or fundamentalists as you demand) is a myth. Good for you.
