Ben Carson says Gay Marriage will lead to polygamy

Well, at least Ted didn't tap dance in the men's room in Minneapolis, like Larry Craig.

 

They seem to be more inclined to pedophilia

 

Nope. I don't believe a word of it. However, I sure that Westboro Babtist Church would agree. I would, however, never leave my grandson alone with a Catholic priest.

 

he was a bi-partisan....

bi-sexuals are the catchall for LGBTQQi isn't it... can bi-partisans be that for corrupt politicians?

 

then it will be the youth sport coach that gets him....

I don't leave my child in one on one situations with anyone that isn't family.... teacher, coach, priest, Harvey Milk.... why you choose to think priests are the ONLY ones, while not worrying about the rest of them is very strange.

2 adult rule.... that protects the child from attacks, it protects the adult from false accusations.

 

They are. There are homosexual and heterosexual paedophiles of course. Homosexuals make up maybe 2% of your population, but homosexual paedophiles make up around a third of all convicted abuse cases.

 

WTF is Qi?

 

lesbian gay bi trans queer questioning.... crap... I gotta look up the i part. Seems LGBT added some more letters recently

Terminology LGBTQIA =
‡ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
‡ Transgender: someone whose gender identity does not
match their anatomical sex at birth
‡ Queer (sometimes Questioning)
‡ Intersex: an individual who is born with external/internal
genitalia and/or secondary sex characteristics determined
as neither exclusively male nor female
‡ Ally: someone who doesn’t identify as, but supports
alphabet soup. (More on being an ally later&#8230


seems they added an A too

 

Hey I used to own an MGBGT

 

you're a truckophobe

 

Most of the time children are molested by family members.

Of course you would be careful who you leave your children with in your family.

 

Just because you make naked claims without support does not make those claims true.

 

So this is the list of escapees from the asylum right?

 

Actually a reasonable person would take care to distinguish between those who are open to enlightenment and those who clearly are not, and use the latter as foils for his superior understanding - which, not coincidentally, is precisely what I'm doing.

What I said needs no translation, so thanks for nothing.

More to the point, what it's not a matter of is providing the optimum environment for the rearing of children, as traditional marriage is.

Yes, and childless couples contribute nothing to the most fundamental material aspect of the maintenance of a society; but of course I understand your determination to pretend they are relevant here.

I guess no one should be surprised that you consider the murder of unborn children a legitimate act.

Actually it is, whenever those actions include copulation which may produce offspring.

That would all be very well if people who think like you couldn't be depended on to define the term so as to deny any harm to children that results from the satisfaction of their lusts.

 

I figured a little bit of common sense among the posters. Maybe I figured wrong.

 

Why the hell would a "SSM" supporter expect to find in others what he himself has abandoned?

 

It comes down to you thinking that marriages exist only for rearing children, and you are clearly incorrect. If marriage was all about children, gay adoption and gay marriage would be the exact same issue, which they are not - one could have one without the other. And while I support both, they are not the same thing. There is no requirement of fertility or becoming a parent for marriage, and there is no right to raise children let alone one that comes into existence because of marriage that didn't exist before the marriage or after the marriage. Marriage is a contract, and contracts are only meant to enforce agreements between consenting adults. Society benefits from children being well taken care of, and this goal is not undermined by polygamy being allowed.

But even if I assume for a moment that the only relevant marriages involve children: If polygamy leads to the adults involved being happier for whatever reason, whether it be because of lust or because they don't have to cook dinner every night or because pooling resources makes them financially better off or because they love more than one person, then the children stand a better chance of having a good home than if the adults are miserable.

 

It will definitely be the paedophilia that SJW's etc try to get going next.

 

No one ever stated that as no one believes it. What does being gay have to do with children other than you cant have your own? Marriage is in case you have children not so you can have them we all know that many children are born without marriage.

 

There's some kind of communication issue here. It looks like first you say that nobody ever said marriage is for rearing children, and then you say marriage is in case you have children. Let's just simplify it in that we're discussing whether or not marriage is only for the purpose of promoting the welfare of children, and if true, whether polygamy should be illegal because of this. I am convinced that marriage does not always have anything to do with children, and even where children are involved, polygamy does not inherently harm them. If you disagree, please state why.

 

common sense does not reside in the very partisan or the very ideological. Just look at the radical Muslims.

Goldwater was my political mentor and both of us take to heart the third tenet of a traditional conservative.

Small Government - A government that stays out of a citizens private business and lives.

Having government dictate who can or can't be married is not keeping government out of marriage or an individual's private life. That is a big government mantra. I am of the opinion what a person or individual does with his own life is pretty much up to him in most cases. That is as long as he is not hurting or harming others.

This is why I think marriage is between those who want to get married, no government interference. Keep government out of marriage, that is what I believe. Although today because of the income tax and a host of other government programs I realize that is impossible.

 

You have me confused with someone else.

It doesn't, but of course the egotistically inclined can be expected to believe otherwise.

 

Big thumbs up!

 

Marriage of course is not a requirement for having children only a fool would think such a thing. Marriage is in case you do have children, the normal result of joining and man and a woman , to provide property and inheritance rights and responsibility for the child. It is in the states interest to encourage this. Its best for a child to be raised by its parents all things being equal that being a mother and father. Its how nature designed it.
No one ever claimed marriage was strictly about child raising. It is however its most important function.

 

What does it have to do with my ego? It's not something I'm going to engage in even if it were made legal. I cited a few ways in addition to lust that a polygamous arrangement could be advantageous to the adults involved. Children could also benefit by having more adults around making it more likely somebody would have time for them. It's a very practical arrangement but probably wouldn't be very popular for quite some time because of how our culture thinks of relationships.