To: What is the bottom line
If we go down that road, what prevents brother-sister marriages. What prevents polygamy? What prevents adult-child marriages. If we allow non-traditional marriages, how do we draw a line that says "this is non-traditional, but it's OK -- that is non-traditional and sick and disgusting"?
The entire problem with liberalism today is there's no posts, no guidelines and no certainty. When the ground shifts and the bottom falls under you, what do you fall back upon? A conservative can state he can fall upon tradition, stated principles, and acceptance of moral absolutes to avoid being swept downstream to the next political and social cataract. The liberal can only go along with vaguely articulated feelings and has to accept whatever's fashionable or trendy at the moment as the standard of the day. So thus liberalism is ever evolving and standardless. This brings us to the results of the past election and the reason why the Gore's new book flopped. Its not that liberalism had no message, its that liberalism doesn't leave people feeling very safe about the permanence of its beliefs. Its fitting that Algore the man with no personality, no soul, and a convenient set of circumstantial commitments, should be the embodiment of what passes for present day liberalism. No wonder people duck and run for cover every time his next announcenent is in the offing; you just don't know if his views are the same as the views you heard him state before.
If we go down that road, what prevents brother-sister marriages. What prevents polygamy? What prevents adult-child marriages.
And can a man drive a young boy across the state line to "marry" him, then come back and demand his home state recognize the relationship? Ugh..
If we go down that road, what prevents brother-sister marriages. What prevents polygamy?
This is no time for rational questions. Just get on board the "tolerance" bandwagon.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson