If you are in favor of homosexual marriages...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sincerely , I am not trying to be a smart aleck or insulting, but how do you feel about...

What about polygamy?

What about marriages between siblings or other close relations?

[lordsnooty]

What possible relevance does either thing have to homosexuality? The issues are entirely seperate.

Paul

[Ryokan]

Couple reasons why not.
1. Close relatives/siblings= a. With close relatives/siblings there is the potential for seriously screwed up children. It isn't fair to those children to do that sort of thing, so the government shouldn't support it. b. I think its really gross, and too far beyond societal norms. Thats being hypocritical, but I wouldn't make it illegal, just not supported. Also, if they start before the age of consent, neither can really decide, you know.
2. The idea of gay marriage is to provide incentive for homosexuals to have safe, supportive monogamous relationships similair to the ones heterosexuals have so that they can better live in and support our society. Polygamy doesn't do that, so we shouldn't have the state support it.

[spl_cadet]

What I've noted is that all a homosexual marriage would be perverting marriage. They say that they have a loving relationship, fine let them live together and do their thing. But they don't understand the point of marriage. Whether a person realizes it or not, marriage is about children. That's one of the reasons tht the government still recognizes marriage (other being that we'd lynch whoever didn't) is to afford protections to the children engendered in marriage. And think about it, what marriage goes and purposely doesn't have children the entire time?

[Ryokan]

Spl Cadet, marriage isn't just about children, otherwise sterile couples couldn't be legally marries. Pow!
And I hope if I am married I never have children, although something tells me I won't be so lucky.:cry: :brow:

[yxboom]

Today @ 05:59 AM post located here
lordsnooty:

What possible relevance does either thing have to homosexuality? The issues are entirely seperate.

Paul

How is this "entirely seperate" [sic] ?

The foundational argument for homosexual marriages (by homosexuals) is that they are 2 consenting adults who love each other. Now, the same argument can be made for other "alternative" marriages like a woman and her daughter, a man and dog. You can't arbitrarily draw a cut off point saying man and woman, man and man and woman and woman are the only acceptable marriages. Based on what do you interpret the matters entirely separate and how do you justify that the marriages between homosexuals is acceptable but marriage between mother and daughter is not?

[Zakath]

What about polygamy?

History demonstates that polygamy has been practiced by any number of cultures throughout human history. It was of particular survival value when the number of men had been reduced due to war or other factors.

In such a circumstance polygamy produces some benefits for society and individuals...

• Genetically it enlarges the gene pool allowing women who would not be able to reproduce to do so.
  
• Emotionally, it provides more women with the access to the benefits of marriage (emotional, legal, etc.)
  
• Socially, it provides legitimacy to more children, allowing them to inherit and forcing their parents to care for them.

Remember that many of these benefits are reduced or eliminated in stable economic conditions when gender ratios are close to 50:50.

Why allow polygamy if the above benefits are no longer applicable? Perhaps because people derive emotional benefits from it, but I am a monogamist and cannot speak from first-hand experience. There are any number of groups and websites that have in-depth discussions of "polys".

Hit google or alta vista and search for "polygamy", "polyandry", or "group marriage".

What about marriages between siblings or other close relations?

Most of the prohiitions on this have been either religious or based on observation of increased risk of damaging mutations in the children of such unions.

Again, a number of societies in the past have allowed, or even encouraged, close (closer than first cousin) marriages. This is appearst to be particularly true among royalty from old Egypt through some European dynasties. Even in the Bible Abram is described as marrying his half-sister.

Nowadays, with pre-birth genetic testing available, youngsters carrying birth defects can be identified and treated (if possible) at a very young age, even intrauterine...

The religious proscriptions still exist, but the genetic ones are questionable at best. In fact, a type of close breeding, line breeding, has been practiced in agriculture (plant and animal) for thousands of years with generally useful results. Many of the current breeds of dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, corn, soybeans, fruit trees, etc. result from forms of linebreeding.

With people there is the issue of emotional health as well as physical heath to consider. Since humans are generally greatly influenced by society, as long as society is against close marriages, they'll not likely be done (at least publicly.)

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 03:32 PM post located here
yxboom:
How is this "entirely seperate" [sic] ?

Sorry for not meeting your high standards of competence in spelling .

The foundational argument for homosexual marriages (by homosexuals) is that they are 2 consenting adults who love each other. Now, the same argument can be made for other "alternative" marriages like a woman and her daughter, a man and dog.

Both of which would appear to be relationships formed as a result of mental illness.

You can't arbitrarily draw a cut off point saying man and woman, man and man and woman and woman are the only acceptable marriages. Based on what do you interpret the matters entirely separate and how do you justify that the marriages between homosexuals is acceptable but marriage between mother and daughter is not?

Incest is illegal for a reason. For one thing, it has been shown to be psychologically damaging, and many combinations could end up in genetic abnormalities.

Paul

[Ryokan]

mental illnesses are only such if they harm the victim or others. If the victim isn't being harmed, is it a mental illness?

[yxboom]

Today @ 08:28 AM post located here
lordsnooty:



Sorry for not meeting your high standards of competence in spelling .

Man you need to ease up. It was a joke.

Both of which would appear to be relationships formed as a result of mental illness.

And how many studies have proven this?

Incest is illegal for a reason.

So was homosexuality until recent.

For one thing, it has been shown to be psychologically damaging, and many combinations could end up in genetic abnormalities.

A woman and daughter can't breed no more than a man and man. There are no risk of genetic abnormalities trust me on this one.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:38 PM post located here
yxboom:
And how many studies have proven this?

Plenty of studies have proven that incest leads to mental illness. I've not seen any studies indicating that it would need to be there to begin with, but you would have to assume that it would be. Wouldn't you? Do think normal people do that sort of thing?

So was homosexuality until recent.

Yes, but that was purely out of bigotry.

A woman and daughter can't breed no more than a man and man. There are no risk of genetic abnormalities trust me on this one.

I said many combinations. Not mother/daugter. Obviously! But I'd ask you, how many relationships of this type are there, where there is no coercion and no mental illness involved?

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here
Ryokan:
mental illnesses are only such if they harm the victim or others. If the victim isn't being harmed, is it a mental illness?

Demends on your definition of 'harm'.

Paul

[yxboom]

Today @ 08:50 AM post located here
lordsnooty:

Plenty of studies have proven that incest leads to mental illness. I've not seen any studies indicating that it would need to be there to begin with, but you would have to assume that it would be. Wouldn't you? Do think normal people do that sort of thing?

Now had the studies shown that homosexuality is a mental illness is that in line with your second reply, that the studies would be purely bigoted?

Yes, but that was purely out of bigotry.

Exactly.

I said many combinations. Not mother/daugter. Obviously! But I'd ask you, how many relationships of this type are there, where there is no coercion and no mental illness involved?

Is it ever a wonder how the vast majority of homosexuals were molested as children? Would you say that molestation "leads to" a mental illness and involved co-ercion?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:59 PM post located here
yxboom:
Is it ever a wonder how the vast majority of homosexuals were molested as children? Would you say that molestation "leads to" a mental illness and involved co-ercion?

You think that most homosexuals were molested as children? Am I reading that right?

Paul

[yxboom]

In the case of boys, yes. Many evidences have shown this to be the matter of fact. You still obfuscate from the reply I offered.