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.
The flaw in your approach yet remains. You make a false comparison. You abuse the idea of “tax cuts” by comparing them to homosexuality. Tax cuts themselves are not innately “bad” even when taken to extremes. Such cuts simply allow people to keep their money (if government defaults on an obligation due to a lack of funds, then THIS is the “bad” thing). Homosexuality is “bad” in itself because it is foreign to human identity.
Thus, a lot of good ideas may seem bad by employing the 'domino argument'.
It is a false comparison. Homosexuality is a thing of direct moral import (it is innately “bad” because it is not us), whereas tax cuts are not.
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).
Even if the result is no taxes, tax cuts are not necessarily bad in and of themselves. You see, government revenue may come from some other source, like tariffs. Indeed, the American government was once funded precisely in this way. You’ve clearly made a bad comparison.
With child abuse, you do not have a consenting adult; children must be protected until they are of age to make their own decisions.
This says nothing because there is no certain time when a child becomes an adult. Adulthood is arbitrarily chosen. That is why in some cultures 40 year old men can and do marry 12 year-old girls, while in other cultures doing such a thing is criminal. Homosexuality is not made morally correct simply because two guys agree to practice it. One guy may be 40 and another may be 17, and both may be capable of agreeing to sex. So obviously you have a problem here.
Beastiality is animal abuse. The difference is in the consent, and the harm.
The problem here should be most obvious to you. A woman may have sex with a dog and you are just in no position to declare that the woman has harmed the dog. If you insist (with no evidence) that she does, then surely you must also claim she harms the dog by having him sterilized. Surely, if having sex with a cow requires consent and harms the cow, then actually killing cows must be an egregious error.
No. You are obviously in error here, and no doubt you feel it in your bones (grin). You cannot escape the flaw in your thinking. No one can. Homosexuality succeeds today only because the flaw we see here in you is an ever increasing flaw in society. Nevertheless, homosexuality is doomed because it is foreign to the society that now ignorantly accepts it.
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.
Essentially, polygamy is no different than homosexuality or bestiality. It too is foreign to human nature. But with the acceptance of homosexuality it too must logically be accepted. Based on the privacy argument, Polygamy is already legal in America (it truly is), and it will find greater affirmation because now there is no logic against it.
I personally do not advocate polygamy, but I know that my 'moral line' may be different from others.
Hehe. You don’t advocate it, but reason demands you affirm it because you’ve already affirmed that which is objectively foreign to your fundamental structure and character in nature.
Bestiality and polygamy are indeed on the road to decay with homosexuality. You cannot possibly deny them, with reason, the affirmation you give to homosexuality. |
