New York's highest court OK's marriages between half-uncles and half-nieces

[jmyrlefuller]

Any current society is "more immoral" than any past society simply because societal change is viewed as immoral by moralists.

What they never see is that (proportionally) the past they are comparing to the present in order to pass judgement on today's society, was every bit as decadent when compared to the society that preexisted it.

Older people in the 1950's saw Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and their fans as signs of societal moral decay, then those fans of Elvis and Jerry Lee say Grace Slick and Jim Morrison as a sign of societal moral decay, then Jim's and Grace's fans saw Devo and Boy George and say "WTF? Things are gong to Hell in a hand basket!" and so on and so forth..

And here we are.

This is the classic example of incrementalism. You correctly note that each successive decade has not only not regressed back to the more moral times before it, but in fact become more immoral to the one before. Step by step, it looks trivial, but several decades later things flat-out got out of hand. (Could you imagine the bobby-soxers' reaction if they saw Boy George? Had they known it would happen, they might have very well scrapped the whole baby boom!) I can only recall one time in recent memory—the late 1980s—where we actually saw the error of our ways and progressed to a more moral society. So those who had gained from the immoral years started the media blitz, ridiculing religion and bringing out the sympathetic homosexual figures on the tabloid talk shows, in the 1990s, rocketing us squarely into our current state of immorality. I almost say amoral, but this society has morals, just twisted ones.

[Bigun]

I notice that no one seems to be addressing that this legal step is being taken by one of the farthest LEFT states in the Union.

It is the LEFT who is marching us, in the words of Robert Bork, toward Gomorrah......

And it is quite deliberate.

Yeah! I noticed that as well and it didn't start recently!

 

[MACVSOG68]

I'm sorry, MAC, but I stopped reading after your first absurd statement...

Trust me, you stopped reading much earlier in your life.

Your assertion that "same-sex marriage is the only equivalent to (my) definition of morality" is a blatant attempt to completely disregard practically every statement I've made regarding morality, and the myriad of other moral problems we have now that I have discussed.

Recollect it started with your slippery slope issue, which was about same-sex marriage.  That you didn't like the way the "morality" discussion was going isn't my problem.

This discussion is therefore, done, as you have continued to distort what I've said beyond recognition.

You've been convinced by the left that homosexual 'marriage' is harmless and somehow akin to a civil right (a completely different animal), and that those of us who stand by marriage between a man and a woman only, and stand for the traditional definition of morality, are somehow misinformed and/or homophobic  (another absurdity).

So be it.   You have the right to think whatever you think and believe whatever you believe, as have I.

Then I suggest you quit trying to read my mind.  You used the word homophobic, not me.  Isn't that what they call projecting?

I have tried in our discussions to address the actual words you've said, but I don't believe you've given me the same courtesy.

Again, so be it.

Consider me wiser now than I was this morning regarding your methods.

Have a great evening.

You too.   ^-^

[musiclady]

Yeah! I noticed that as well and it didn't start recently!

 

It certainly didn't.

Those of us who were paying attention decades ago saw this incremental corruption of morals begin and snowball over the years.

Again, the left has been VERY successful in convincing far too many people that none of this matters to the well being of the country, or worse, that it's making the country better....... and has convinced some, even on the right, that what is, in reality, license and bondage, is liberty.

Another thing I've noticed in the argumentation, is that somehow standing for morality isn't nice.  Or fair.

One doesn't even have to go beyond a conservative forum to read the talking points the left has been pounding for decades.

It's sad.

[musiclady]

Trust me, you stopped reading much earlier in your life.

Recollect it started with your slippery slope issue, which was about same-sex marriage.  That you didn't like the way the "morality" discussion was going isn't my problem.

Then I suggest you quit trying to read my mind.  You used the word homophobic, not me.  Isn't that what they call projecting?

You too.   ^-^

Hmmm........... interesting that, once you realized you'd  lost the arguments, you began ad hominems.


(Shall I give you my reading list for the past few decades?  Or will you just come up with something more insulting if I do?)

At any rate, I'll take your 'debate' for what it's worth........ and stick to principles that don't bend or break with cultural whims.

(Edited to add:  I'm sorry you felt the need to go this route, MAC.  Up until your last few posts, I thought quite highly of you).

[truth_seeker]

All the rantings about "morality" brought to mind, William Jennings Bryan, that democrat of times past.

He supported prohibition, in his quest to rid society of moral behavior.

[musiclady]

This is the classic example of incrementalism. You correctly note that each successive decade has not only not regressed back to the more moral times before it, but in fact become more immoral to the one before. Step by step, it looks trivial, but several decades later things flat-out got out of hand. (Could you imagine the bobby-soxers' reaction if they saw Boy George? Had they known it would happen, they might have very well scrapped the whole baby boom!) I can only recall one time in recent memory—the late 1980s—where we actually saw the error of our ways and progressed to a more moral society. So those who had gained from the immoral years started the media blitz, ridiculing religion and bringing out the sympathetic homosexual figures on the tabloid talk shows, in the 1990s, rocketing us squarely into our current state of immorality. I almost say amoral, but this society has morals, just twisted ones.

Good post.

Your words call to mind the surreal nature of being castigated simply for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's almost like being in the Twilight Zone, isn't it?

[MACVSOG68]

Hmmm........... interesting that, once you realized you'd  lost the arguments, you began ad hominems.


(Shall I give you my reading list for the past few decades?  Or will you just come up with something more insulting if I do?)

At any rate, I'll take your 'debate' for what it's worth........ and stick to principles that don't bend or break with cultural whims.

(Edited to add:  I'm sorry you felt the need to go this route, MAC.  Up until your last few posts, I thought quite highly of you).

I'm not going to go tit for tat on your ad hominem other than to suggest you read what you wrote.  My only other suggestion is that you stick  to the "me too" threads. 

BTW, these little debates rarely change my opinions of someone, as I don't take them too seriously.  Take care. 

[Cyber Liberty]

BTW, these little debates rarely change my opinions of someone, as I don't take them too seriously.  Take care.

I don't even take myself seriously, most days.  But, sometimes during odd weather, I'll say something worth hearing.  Usually, though, I just marvel at my own ability to form words.

OK, I'll go shut up now....

[musiclady]

I'm not going to go tit for tat on your ad hominem other than to suggest you read what you wrote.  My only other suggestion is that you stick  to the "me too" threads. 

BTW, these little debates rarely change my opinions of someone, as I don't take them too seriously.  Take care.

Don't worry, MAC.  I don't read.......... remember?  (You told me so).  After all, anyone who still believes in traditional morality can't possibly debate someone as evolved as you are and be well informed about the issue.............right?

btw, you're pretty good at the 'tit for tat' stuff.  Almost like you've practiced it on other forums......

I've debated honorably and intelligently, insults about my values, thoughts and reading habits notwithstanding.  But I will remember that you couldn't debate this particular issue without getting personal.

Perhaps on another issue, you can lower yourself enough to take me seriously.  Maybe if we stay away from morals?? 

[Bigun]

WATCH THE MEDIA IGNORE WHAT POPE FRANCIS JUST SAID ABOUT MARRIAGE
BY JOHN WHITE
pope frankSome Catholic blogs and news outlets are reporting this, but we’ll see about the mainstream media and the “progressive” Catholics.

They certainly seemed to think the Synod on the Family was front page news, but of course Pope Francis didn’t publicly say anything during the synod and the secularists and progressive Catholics could fabricate whatever image of Pope Francis they wanted to – and we all know what that was.

But now Pope Francis is talking about marriage, and newsflash – it’s definitely not what the New York Times and the National Catholic Reporter were hoping for.  It will be interesting to see how studiously preoccupied with other events they manage to be in order to avoid reporting it.

So what are they ignoring?  What did Pope Francis say that they can’t bear to allow into their carefully crafted fairytale?

His words came at an international Marian conference.  As reported by CNA:

He warned against the common view in society that “you can call everything family, right?”

“What is being proposed is not marriage, it’s an association. But it’s not marriage! It’s necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it!” Pope Francis stressed.

He lamented that there are so many “new forms” of unions which are “totally destructive and limiting the greatness of the love of marriage.”

And…wow.

…”it’s not marriage!”…”we have to say it!”…”totally destructive”

Not mincing words, are we Your Holiness?

And gosh, this is a little problematic for the whole “Pope Francis wants to change marriage but he’s being thwarted by evil conservatives” storyline, don’t you think?

Which is why the media took a field trip today.  Or maybe they panicked and quarantined themselves.

After all, the truth can be contagious.

http://www.catholicvote.org/watch-the-media-ignore-what-pope-francis-just-said-about-marriage/

Hummmm! Well he IS only the Pope!

[musiclady]

WATCH THE MEDIA IGNORE WHAT POPE FRANCIS JUST SAID ABOUT MARRIAGE
BY JOHN WHITE
pope frankSome Catholic blogs and news outlets are reporting this, but we’ll see about the mainstream media and the “progressive” Catholics.

They certainly seemed to think the Synod on the Family was front page news, but of course Pope Francis didn’t publicly say anything during the synod and the secularists and progressive Catholics could fabricate whatever image of Pope Francis they wanted to – and we all know what that was.

But now Pope Francis is talking about marriage, and newsflash – it’s definitely not what the New York Times and the National Catholic Reporter were hoping for.  It will be interesting to see how studiously preoccupied with other events they manage to be in order to avoid reporting it.

So what are they ignoring?  What did Pope Francis say that they can’t bear to allow into their carefully crafted fairytale?

His words came at an international Marian conference.  As reported by CNA:

He warned against the common view in society that “you can call everything family, right?”

“What is being proposed is not marriage, it’s an association. But it’s not marriage! It’s necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it!” Pope Francis stressed.

He lamented that there are so many “new forms” of unions which are “totally destructive and limiting the greatness of the love of marriage.”

And…wow.

…”it’s not marriage!”…”we have to say it!”…”totally destructive”

Not mincing words, are we Your Holiness?

And gosh, this is a little problematic for the whole “Pope Francis wants to change marriage but he’s being thwarted by evil conservatives” storyline, don’t you think?

Which is why the media took a field trip today.  Or maybe they panicked and quarantined themselves.

After all, the truth can be contagious.

http://www.catholicvote.org/watch-the-media-ignore-what-pope-francis-just-said-about-marriage/

Hummmm! Well he IS only the Pope!

That's OK, Bigun.  Pope Francis clearly doesn't read either.......   

[MACVSOG68]

Don't worry, MAC.  I don't read.......... remember?  (You told me so).  After all, anyone who still believes in traditional morality can't possibly debate someone as evolved as you are and be well informed about the issue.............right?

btw, you're pretty good at the 'tit for tat' stuff.  Almost like you've practiced it on other forums......

I've debated honorably and intelligently, insults about my values, thoughts and reading habits notwithstanding.  But I will remember that you couldn't debate this particular issue without getting personal.

Perhaps on another issue, you can lower yourself enough to take me seriously.  Maybe if we stay away from morals?? 

Suggestion.  When a poster turns the issue into defining another poster, which frequently starts with "you", it can very quickly devolve.  Look back at your earlier posts on this thread.  And yes, I've gone toe to toe with some of the best.  I don't like it, it hurts the thread and the forum, but I refused to be defined as part of your arguments.   

As for your "traditional morality", that's exactly what we were talking about.  My opinion is just that and nothing more. I'm no smarter than anyone else.  As for "lowering myself", I really can't take you seriously, if by "seriously" you  mean I can't disagree with you.  As I said earlier, I think you'd be happier on the "me too" threads.

Have a good evening.   

[musiclady]

Suggestion.  When a poster turns the issue into defining another poster, which frequently starts with "you", it can very quickly devolve.  Look back at your earlier posts on this thread.  And yes, I've gone toe to toe with some of the best.  I don't like it, it hurts the thread and the forum, but I refused to be defined as part of your arguments.   

As for your "traditional morality", that's exactly what we were talking about.  My opinion is just that and nothing more.  I'm no smarter than anyone else.  As for "lowering myself", I really can't take you seriously, if by "seriously" you  mean I can't disagree with you.  As I said earlier, I think you'd be happier on the "me too" threads.

Have a good evening.   

Coulda fooled me...........and others as well.  I can disagree with others, and you know it.  I can discuss things rationally, and you know it.  It's already happened between you and me.   What bothers you is that I point out that the ideas you espouse come directly from the political left, and you won't admit it.

As for "me too" threads..... that's pretty funny.  I've been told privately that many others avoid these threads because they don't like to debate with folks who espouse values other than traditional moral values, and have commented that I do it well.  There are even those who have stopped posting because of threads like this one where people espousing homosexual 'marriage' mock the majority of us who know it's harmful to American society.

Don't worry about me, though.  I'm not as weak as you think, and I'll do fine, even if you should choose to mock my reading ability on a future thread. 

[musiclady]

I've decided this whole thing is silly, so I won't be posting on this thread, or at least responding to MAC any more (nor anyone else who is here for sport, and not for serious discussion).  None of this is a game, whether they're playing one here or not.  In this case, winning is losing because the morality of the country is at stake, and they'd rather play games than discuss the issues seriously.

Nonetheless, I don't want to be responsible in any way for sinking a thread, and apologize for any part I've played in diverting it from its purpose.  Even though I was arguing against the absurdity of MAC's arguments, and not him personally, it's clear he had problems making that distinction and began his ad hominems because his feelings were hurt).

To the point of the thread......leftist New York is loosening further the definition of marriage.  Pandora's Box may have been opened in the Garden of Eden, but legally speaking in America, it's opening RIGHT NOW.

And I'll not let that happen without a fight.  Not even here......

[Luis Gonzalez]

And yes, I've gone toe to toe with some of the best. 

 

[MACVSOG68]

Heh...yeah,  I've lost a few rounds too,  but not every single one...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Heh...yeah,  I've lost a few rounds too,  but not every single one...

You've won more than you've lost.