Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:39:41 PM
@patchgrabber: This is where you went wrong - "Lastly, if you think about why laws are made, it is assumed they are meant to represent the prevailing attitudes in that society." Our framers did not have this belief.
"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." – Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:21:04 PM
@patchgrabber: So it's fine to limit liberties as long as we do it to minority groups? So, race and gender discrimination was fine in the past, because, at that time, it was deemed appropriate by the majority?
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government`s purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." – Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928
@Lillian: "Free speech is not the same as the right to say anything you want without disagreement or consequence (and no, I don`t mean legal consequence)" + "I`m not a libertarian" ... How are both of these statements simultaneously possible? Hehe, I couldn`t help myself =P.
Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:20:09 PM
I'm not surprised that McGovern is one of the people who fail to realize that it`s possible to exercise your right to free speech to counter what someone else has said, without wanting to restrict their right to free speech. Free speech is not the same as the right to say anything you want without disagreement or consequence (and no, I don`t mean legal consequence).
Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:17:02 PM
patchgrabber, the vast amount of discussed poly relationships are polygamous, 1 man many women marriages, but other types of poly relationships exist and are becoming increasingly popular and more common as people's views of loving relationships are changing, whether or not they are discussed as often. I cannot justify banning or demonizing poly relationships just because a few may be harmful to women, when there are many that aren`t harmful to anyone involved. Three people loving each other isn`t any different from two people loving each other imo, but you`re lumping the three people loving each other into the same group as 1 man with many women who "love" and are married him and are in a possibly harmful relationship. There are harmful 2-person marriages too, but that`s not a reason to ban 2-person marriages. You can`t just ignore the perfectly healthy and loving poly relationships or justify denying them rights for things they haven`t done.