1 - 4
In response to:

Marriage: A Supreme Test of Rights

smarsden Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 5:05 PM
It's called the slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuals will find your comment as confusing as you would if they say that if we write the law to prohibit one group from marriage, then what is to prevent further prohibitions. We know that the KKK will, and probably already is asking for racial distinctions for marriage. But what if anyone gets it into their head that appropriate nationality should be a qualifying point, or perhaps wealth? The fear of more than two participants being involved in marriage is made more illogical by the fact that nations which advocate marriages of more than two people are among those with the harshest penalties for homosexuality, up to and in some cases, including death.
In response to:

Marriage: A Supreme Test of Rights

smarsden Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:54 PM
"The term "marriage" is religious in origin." And the United States of America are British in origin. Does that mean the 13 colonies should have bent over and took whatever the king gave them? Just because something has an origin in one place does not mean it should never go beyond it's founding boundaries. To prohibit something to it's origins would demand all but 13 states of the Union dissove their own existence, and every single amendment to the constitution be wholly unwritten. And, to say nothing of technology. Get a British passport and sail your way back!
Lively gave speeches in the country about how nasty the gays were, interacting with senior religious and political figures, and within months the government of that country penned legislation that initially included the death penalty. Though that particular punishment was eventually reconsidered, the association was enough for Lively to have his day in a courthouse. Matt Barber was arguing on Lively's behalf, claiming that regardless of what he said, he is in no way responsible for what another person is inspired to do based on his words. Matt Barber is now arguing that the SPLC, unlike Lively, IS responsible for what another person is inspired to do based on their words. Is there one rule for christians, and another rule for 'liberals'?
The SPLC is about as responsible for the actions of Floyd Corkins as Scott Lively is for the death penalty being included in the original wording of the "kill the gays" bill that was proposed to the Ugandan Parliament. While Matt Barber has, in the past claimed Scott Lively was not ultimately responsible for what the Ugandan Government was inspired to do after hearing his lectures on homosexuals. The same Matt barber now says that the SPLC is entirely responsible for the actions of a gunman who took inspiration for something the group said, even though there is as much proof of them ordering the attack as there is of Scott Lively actively telling the Ugandans to pen the "kill the gays" bill.
1 - 4