And now Maine is legalizing gay marriage

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The tax code could be simplified by just removing all those marriage references. The government shouldn't care whether you participate in a religous institution.

Not a trivial change. And any big change has a lot of winners, and a lot of losers. The latter make noise.

I'm not saying why these things shouldn't be done, merely why they aren't, aside from the religion issue.

[riddler 0]

Quote

If a friend of yours came up to you and admitted they were gay, you're supposed to be accepting and supportive. If that same friend admitted that their gay lover is their brother/sister, then you should also be accepting and supportive, correct?

I actually wouldn't have a problem with that, because, again, two consenting adults, and no children involved. It would be a little weird to me, but that's my issue, not theirs.

As far as sibling marriage where children are potentially involved, I still think it's a bad idea. When siblings have children, we are reasonably confident that it will cause genetic problems, so we should prevent that. Any other two people might be prone to causing genetic problems by reproducing, but that's the freedom that two people have to choose. We can't test everybody that wants to have kids, just to find the small number of people that will have problems. We can assert that children of related parents are likely to have problems, therefore we can prohibit it.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

So, why then did *you* allow an alien to take over the wheel in sunny California??

You're referring to Reagan, right? Man, you must be pretty old

No, son. I meant the actual one, governor of California Schwarzenegger, Arnie.

Boy, you must be pretty old then. I did not even remember Reagan once was the gov. of California

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

We can't test everybody that wants to have kids, just to find the small number of people that will have problems. We can assert that children of related parents are likely to have problems, therefore we can prohibit it.

Sure we can. Twenty years ago I didn't think it was possible to test the entire oil industry for drugs, now they do it in the skydiving industry.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

As far as sibling marriage where children are potentially involved, I still think it's a bad idea. When siblings have children, we are reasonably confident that it will cause genetic problems, so we should prevent that. Any other two people might be prone to causing genetic problems by reproducing, but that's the freedom that two people have to choose. We can't test everybody that wants to have kids, just to find the small number of people that will have problems. We can assert that children of related parents are likely to have problems, therefore we can prohibit it.

There are plenty of people with serious medical conditions that are absolutely known to be passed on to their children. The probability of passing on many conditions is higher than the probability that there will be an in-breeding problem from blood relative parents, especially if both parents have the same genetic condition.

You say "...likely to have problems, therefore we can prohibit it." All we really do is prohibit their marriage, that doesn't do anything to prevent them having children.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

You and I seem to see eye to eye on this issue.

Does that mean we have to get gay-married?

My wife will not be happy.

It's going to be perfectly legal soon enough to be involved in a gay-straight polygamist marriage, since everyone knows it's the natural next step once you let the gays get married. So, you're set as long as your wife's okay with sharing.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[DanG 1]

I thought the natural next step was beastiality and rape of innocent children?

I need to refresh myself on the homophobic talking point standards.

- Dan G

[Remster 30]

Quote

I thought the natural next step was beastiality and rape of innocent children....

... in a gay-straight polygamist family.

Remster

[n23x 0]

Get it right:

They'll want to marry a kid.

They'll want to marry their dog.

They'll want to marry a rock.

They won't be able to keep up the excellent marital track record that the heteros do.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

... in a gay-straight polygamist family.

So is that when your two wives go down on each other and you watch? That would be horrible.

[DARK 0]

good going maine and nh

hopefully they will push threw the decriminalisation of pot before i get back there in a few weeks :P

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

... in a gay-straight polygamist family.

So is that when your two wives go down on each other and you watch? That would be horrible.

See... The militant gay agenda already has perverted this young man's mind through its most devious propaganda tool: porn.

Remster

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I thought the natural next step was beastiality and rape of innocent children?

I need to refresh myself on the homophobic talking point standards.

I don't care if gays can marry, OK with me. If someone that doesn't support same-sex marriage is a homophobe, then perhaps you must accept that you have an irrational fear of conservatives

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DanG 1]

I didn't say that someone who doesn't support gay marriage is a homophobe. I implied that someone who puts homosexuality into the same category as beasiality and child sexual predation is a homophobe.

I am not a conservaphobe.

- Dan G

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I didn't say that someone who doesn't support gay marriage is a homophobe. I implied that someone who puts homosexuality into the same category as beasiality and child sexual predation is a homophobe.

I didn't do that, who did?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,008]

>I didn't do that, who did?

Rick Santorum was the first high profile republican to make that comparison.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Santorum replied, "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality".

That was 2003 - but I remember listening to a televangelist in the 80s that said homosexuals want to promote homosexuality, and after that, they will be promoting sexual relations with children.

I don't remember who it was It may have ben Pat Robertson. I do remember it was on the "700 club". I watched it for entertainment value

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Santorum replied, "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality.

I take it this Santorum guy has never studied any cultural anthropology.