Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.
No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.
No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.
I don’t care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.
My cat’s name is Mittens.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
SSM will be legal because it is the right thing to do, because gays have PROVEN to be normal couples who happen to be the same sex. Many of us know them personally and they are just like you and I. Why this sham that they may not be recognized as such? Do you think polygamy and incest have the same standing in the community? No not hardly. That's why they are strawmen and have no bearing on SSM.
No one but the homophobic sees this as a sea change in the concept of marriage in any way. Just the opposite, gays have fought to be married and that can only strengthen the entire institution which is having a rocky time with heteros for a long time. They have been more interested in getting UN-married in record numbers.
Last edited by iguanaman; 06-26-13 at 11:26 PM.
This is the type of arrangements that one would typically find in a Heinlein novel. I have to agree that to set any kind of limit invited the question of why not 2? Again I would have to simply say look at the community. We are not likely to form such large groups looking to be a single family in that manner.In the one huge happy blanket marriage scenario we would have all current individuals under one umbrella marriage who would have to come to a consensus as to whether or not to take on a new spouse into this arrangement (contract). This would at least serve to encourage limits to the size of the marriages, but what is to stop one group, one organization, or one community to decide to have one monstrosity of a marriage that covers thousands of individuals? If there were to be multiple individuals allowed under one blanket marriage it would have to be unlimited as to how many this could be - how is it that it could be legally argued to instate some arbitrary upper limit on this without also encountering the counterpoint that if this is to be the case that the arbitrary upper limit should be set to 2 people?
Saw them. I'll admit that I've only scanned through them so far, but they still support what I said; that the taboo is a learned trait and not an automatic repulsion. Here's a couple of example:You go back to post #351 (I think). Roguenuke posted a very informative article about it. There is scientific evidence that even when people grow up separately, there is "something" that turns them off in a normal situation.
So what happens when one's mom is a wet nurse? Or for that matter when one's mother is caring for an adopted child. There is no blood relation but that taboo still arises. It's not a blood thing, but because of the nature of how most kids grow up, the likelyhood of their developing the taboo towards a blood related individual is higher than towards the non blood related individual. Again I point back to the India example.As mammals, human mothers nurse and care for their newborn infants, so seeing your own mother care for a newborn is a reliable cue that this baby is your sibling. Our data show that if you are older, and are present in the home when your biological mother is caring for a new baby, the mind tags that baby as a sibling—leading to high levels of altruism and sexual aversion toward that particular younger sibling, regardless of how long the two of you subsequently co-reside in the same household.
Exactly what I just said. They weren't blood relatives but they still develop the taboo because they were raised together.Pioneering archival studies by Arthur Wolf and others provided support for this view, by showing that the fertility rates were lower and divorce rates higher among Chinese marriages involving non-siblings raised together from childhood.
You completely disregarded the first part of that statement. Incest stories are quite popular among porn stories. They make movies about it even though the actors are not usually actually related, at least by blood.Perhaps, but if they found out? They would most likely be immediately disgusted. Because some things are just WRONG.
We're still at correlation is not causation. Why is child sex abuse more prevalent by a family member? Maybe because the opportunities are easier and the power they hold over a relative is stronger than a non-related child. It's easier to commit their crime and cover it up. What you fail to show is whether the individual would or would not sexually assault a non-related child if there were no related children available to them. In other words, you cannot claim that the blood bond is the problem when the problem is actually that the individual is a pedophile and is simply taking the easiest route. When a dog chases a cat, is it because "dogs hate cats" or because the dog would actually chase any small animal but cats are the only ones around to chase?Child sex abuse is more common to happen by a child's own family member. THAT is a fact. I also mentioned the grooming idea. When abuse has happened for a child's whole life, this would carry over into adulthood too. They would be messed up people by then.
The birth defect argument is the weak argument. Aside from the fact that you would still ban couples who could not produce a child you would also allow a non-related couple who would have a 30% chance of creating a child with birth defects while denying a related couple who would have a 20% chance of creating a child with birth defects (Disclaimer: numbers are for example sake only and are not intended to reflect the actual chances). For the birth defect argument to be valid, then the line has to be set a a certain risk level (say 25% chance or higher) and applied to everyone.Straight, gay and any couples can be sterile. That is a pretty WEAK argument.
Look again. I pointed out your hypocritical statement on supporting the right of consenting adults to make choices by noting that you had made arguments counter to that statement. You said:YOU brought it up.
On top of that there is not one statement in the entire quote post you responded to that shows ANY opposition to SSM.
And I can guarantee you sir that polygamy and polyamory do indeed hold standing within the LBGT communities because many of us polys are, surprise, LBGT. And both LBGT and polys also have a large overlap in the BDSM community also.
Homosexuality never has and never will be normal. We may “accept” it as a society, but it will always remain a sickness and an evil.
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.