…

How can there be “incest” when there can be no biological result of the sex involved?

Heliotrope, I’m not sure what you mean here. In any case, my understanding of incest is sex between two closely related persons regardless of the ages, and regardless of whether a child can result or not.

My point is that opening the marriage door for one same sex person and one other same sex person is THE huge cultural shift. Polygamy, child brides and incest can be found around the world today and throughout history. Those points pale by comparison.

Actually, the huge cultural shift is the increased acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexuality, as well as polygamy, child brides, and incest can be found around the world today and throughout history, as you say. My belief is that the latter three are unacceptable behaviors, and as such, encourage marriage under those circumstances is not a good thing.

The concept of accommodating gay marriage while maintaining as subset of regulations is what you are trying to pass off as “logical.”

I made the argument why I believe same sex marriage should be allowed and encouraged, while other “marriages” should not be allowed. IMO, my reasoning is sound and logical. If you disagree, that’s certainly your prerogative.

Now, as a part of the 95%+ of society that is not gay, please tell me again what benefits to all of society will accrue from gay marriage.

I am sure that you have a characteristic (ethnic group, race, religion, or something else that is morally neutral) in which only 5% or less of the population share. What benefit to society is there to not ban marriage for this characteristic? Chances are they are the same And if marriage was banned for persons with this characteristic, would you feel that is okay, and patiently wait for the legislature to approve it, like many of us are? Even if you would, I am sure that you would feel such a ban was completely unfair.

How can there be “incest” when there can be no biological result of the sex involved?

Your point is that the marriage door be opened to include one same sex person and one other same sex person who are of legal age and not closely related.

My point is that opening the marriage door for one same sex person and one other same sex person is THE huge cultural shift. Polygamy, child brides and incest can be found around the world today and throughout history. Those points pale by comparison.

The concept of accommodating gay marriage while maintaining as subset of regulations is what you are trying to pass off as “logical.”

Now, as a part of the 95%+ of society that is not gay, please tell me again what benefits to all of society will accrue from gay marriage.

I was confused by your reply, then it hit me. “Twisting words into madness” = adDave for “Quoting what I said, you mean person.”

Aside, hope Sarah Jane is going well, I’m waiting for Sci-Fi to pick up Series 2

It seems we agree on the ends (establisment of a legal recognition of monogamous partnership for same sex couples) Just not the means (I believe it -must- come from the Legislature/Referrendum process, you feel the courts can establish it). I think we also disagree in that you feel it should be a expansion of the state recognized definition of marriage, and I feel it should be a ‘seperate but equal’ institution. I’m calling it ‘Fred’ until someone can give me a better name.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Heliotrope, it would only be logical if you viewed pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality as valid as a relationship between two adult nonrelated men or women. If you find them all equally valid and good for society, then it would be logical for you to petition government and allow marriage for these individuals. If you view homosexuality as bad as pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality, I would disagree with you, but would understand your reasoning for opposing same sex marriage.

Livewire, I accept that government can limit marriage to certain groups of people because that is reality. And, of course, I don’t feel that I should be one of those people that can’t have it, like most straight people.

So what’s the difference between same sex marriage, and the laundry list of other examples, such as marriage in which one or both is a child, one is a nonhuman being or object, close family members, or multiple members? Very simple. I view a monogamous relationship between two men or two women to be as valid and healthy as an opposite sex couple. As such, I believe it is a benefit, not just for the couple, but to society as a whole, to encourage such persons to get married, exactly as we would for a straight couple.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that relationships between family members, in which one is a child and the other is an adult, between a human and honhuman being or object, or multiple members are good for society, and should not be encouraged to be married. Relationships between teens of similar age are fine and should be encouraged, but not sex between them, and certainly not marriage until both are adults.

That’s why you have a right to redress and petition the government for change. You also have the right to move to where things are more to your liking.

Thanks. I’m well aware of those rights though. I do support petitioning the government for change. And it’s better that it’s done through the legislature than the courts and all that. Thankfully, I probably wouldn’t have to move to be married. At this point, I can have a civil union and call it marriage, and have the same rights as those in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and even California.

You don’t have the right to force your viewpoints on the majority. You also don’t have a right to the government doing what you want.

And right now, that includes changing the privilege of marriage to include your definition.

I’m not sure what you mean by “force,” but I most certainly do have the right to express my opinion. And I realize that in most states, even in California, that most believe that marriage should, for now, remain as one man, one woman. And the majority has the right to say and vote as much. They have this right even if the basis of their view is arbitrary, flawed, out of irrationality, or selfishness.

PS- Take your comparison of gay sex with Jim Crow laws, slavery and de facto and de jure segregation and shove it. Only a coward or an idiot tries to hitch a ride on the misery of other people. If I seem harsh, it is because I am trying mightily to hold back my real feelings.

–bans on pedophile marriage, or incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage– would be grounds for nullifying any marriage.

Huh? Gays can bang away on one another until the cows come home and no pregnancy will result. So what’s up with incest? Is there something inherently yucky about cousins, mothers and daughters, or brothers being sexually involved with one another? Please explain. Also, I don’t get the pedophile stuff. If a seven year old girl gets satisfaction from sex with a 35 year old woman and upon the age of 14 decides she will go for a pimply faced male, what is the big deal? Why can’t a gay handle multiple mates? No family of children needs to be “protected.” It would seem that being a libertine should be made of looser stuff.

Sorry, but if it is s-o-o-o-o logical that gays should marry, it is equally logical that gays should enjoy close family lovers, multiple lovers and little boys and girls as lovers.

And can anyone read this with a straight face? “The gov’t has no right or reason to define marriage. It’s purely a legal issue and should be free of religious constraints.”

So in the United States of adDave, apparently the goverment has no reason to be involved in legal issues.

Add adDave to the pro-polygamy/beastiality group.

Number 1: Two people seeking to get married apply for a license to get married, provide the appropriate documentation and take any required blood tests. . .if necessary.

Number 2: Wedding application is set for review, and then if approved, granted. Meeting the necessary legal requirements, the wedding party is now able to have a ceremony.

Number 3: The ceremony, whether large or small, must have two witnesses.

–bans on pedophile marriage, or incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage– would be grounds for nullifying any marriage.

and just tidbit of information on Mildred Loving: Mildred passed away on May 2, 2008. I am sure those who like to disparage those who have departed, you will be given some forgiveness.

different Dave, communication requires generalizations. If we had to preface every statement by addressing every possible exception, every nuance then we would not be able to communicate at all. Of course people broadly condemn, but the important points are whether there is a satisfactory implication that exceptions to the condemnation exist and whether there is sufficient reason for the condemnation. Stereotypes don’t just miraculously appear out of nothingness. The fact that a well-known gay male stereotype of promiscuity exists should suffice to raise significant objections to the sincerity of any marital claims, whichever side of the issue you stand. Of course there are committed gay relationships. Don’t pretend you’re offended by the mention of the elephant in the middle of the room and give your blogmates a bit more credit.

And right now, that includes changing the privilege of marriage to include your definition.”

The gov’t has no right or reason to define marriage. It’s purely a legal issue and should be free of religious constraints. The issue of marriage within the religious communities is a totally different thing and they should be left alone. I realize that some will never be happy until they force religious folk to accept us but this is still the USA and they need to shut up.

You accept that the Government can limit Marriage to certain groups of people. You just don’t feel that you should be one of those people that can’t have it the way you want it.

That’s why you have a right to redress and petition the government for change. You also have the right to move to where things are more to your liking.

You don’t have the right to force your viewpoints on the majority. You also don’t have a right to the government doing what you want.

And right now, that includes changing the privilege of marriage to include your definition.

NDT your statements are a broad condemnation of millions of people who do not participate in the offensive behaviors you describe. That is wrong – period. You can rant and rave about what you think I support and believe (as usual totally wrong) but you can NEVER justify your pure hate lies. I have clearly stated my opposition to the things you claim I support but that’s not good enough for you. If you would be rational enough to clarify that it is ONLY a minority that lives at the extreme edge then you would have a valid point. LaBarbera AND you have nothing good to say about homosexuals – that is what makes you the same. He has an excuse, you don’t.