Hi Johannes:
Sorry, I did not mean to argue a tax cut or hike argument, simply showing that something that is a good idea in moderation may be a bad one taken to the extreme. Thus, a lot of good ideas may seem bad by employing the 'domino argument'.
Btw: I would argue that, as a practical matter, a 'no taxes' argument IS bad. Yes, I could envision a utopia where there was no need for government, that people all got along, that everyone had what they wanted, no need for armies, hunger, etc, etc. So, tax cuts are bad if the result is no taxes, because a significantly sized group of people cannot survive without some form of government subsidized by taxes (at least, there has never been such an example in all of human history).
"Your comments are seriously flawed because you incorrectly portray homosexuality as a 'moderate change’ in humanity while portraying child abuse and bestiality as extremes"
Well, we're back to the same argument. I maintain that a relationship between consenting adult homosexuals is not an 'extreme', and is nowhere near as 'bad' as child abuse or beastiality. With child abuse, you do not have a consenting adult; children must be protected until they are of age to make their own decisions. Beastiality is animal abuse. The difference is in the consent, and the harm.
Polygamy is a different matter. I believe that if a sufficiently sized group with their own organized church were to make a serious stand on this issue, it would be interesting to see the outcome. I personally do not advocate polygamy, but I know that my 'moral line' may be different from others. |
