What do birth defects have to do with anything? Someone can make the argument that a much higher level of AIDS infections occur in homosexual relationships (yeah I know the argument is marriage, but it was simply accepting gay sex 20 years ago). Also, birth defects and severe mental and physical retardation are linked to genetic history (even in non-incestuous scenarios) as well. We are not stopping people who continue to have high rates of ratarded children from having babies. The brother / sister or father / daughter, etc. example fits the argument perfectly. Either accept the freedom to do as consenting adults want or don't. That also means youthenasia when consenting, etc.

As for the "eyes of god", we have laws being crafted today based upon the old argument that some races were not as talened as others. Since we all know that all races are equal, even black and white (add any other race you want) and the civil rights war was fought and won in the 1960's, can we stop creating laws around affirmitive action and race based policy? That fairy tale should not be driving policy today.

Not saying that it will cause people to something terrible.

I'm just wondering if a steady diet of something like that would change our reaction to a real-life situation...i.e., we see something similar in real-life and our reaction is not shock and revulsion, but more of a blase, shrug-your-shoulders, sh*t happens kind of response. It's all about the slippery slope. :)

And, if some kid has never thought about robbing, or killing someone...and plays a game like Grand Theft Auto...where the violence is more gritty and realistic...and not over-the-top and cartoony like other games...it certainly opens a whole new range emotions and experiences for that kid. And sometimes all it takes is a nudge or push to cause some people to start going in the wrong direction.

The term fairy tale was probably over-the-line. But I am not the one that brought up the issue of religion. He said it's bad in "God's eyes". This argument is used by social conservatives as well.

If you're going to use a particular religion for the basis of a legal argument, then their religion is fair game. If a Scientologist believes psychology should be outlawed based on their religious beliefs, isn't their religious beliefs now part of the argument? If your basis for outlawing something is based on the word of a particular God, I believe it is only fair to argue whether such God exists.

Hey, looks like you fellas have this whole thing just about ironed out - just let us know, k thx.

You'll be the first to get a PM, sir. ;)

I understand what you're saying, and I personally don't care if a brother and sister want to marry. I'm just saying that one of the arguments is that incestous children are at a much higher rate for fatal defects. There marriage in affect may hurt others in this scenario, while a gay marriage hurts no one.

I agree with you though, just saying that comparing incest to gay marriage seems flawed in my eyes.


I agree with you here too. Although I don't feel that these policies are based on saying that one race is better than the other, and instead based on trying to root out racism and helping minorities catch up to the majority race. That has nothing to do with biology or genetics either, it has to do with the fact a particular race was opressed for hundreds of years in this country and need a hand catching up.

I don't really want to get drawn into this, but my personal point of view is that there is an ideology behind gay marriage which insists that men and women are completely interchangeable, that they simply have different genitals, and that is the extent of their differences. I believe this is completely incorrect.

Well, when that "ideology" is, you know, the Constitution, I think you kind have to accept it as true in this debate.

Where in the Constitution does it say men and women differ only in respect to their genitals?

Constitution doesn't even go that far. We're all equals under the law, regardless of your genitals.

Oh, my genitals are more than equal, and I want that recognized.

"Equals under the law" is not the same thing as interchangeable for all purposes.

When you're deciding wether something is legal/constitutional (e.g., gay marriage), it pretty much is or, if not, certainly should be.

From the Federalist Papers:

They ducked the question of whether the law was constitutional the last time around. What they ruled on was whether the marriage licenses that had been granted were legal under the law.

And, by the way, the constitutional amendment the anti-gay-marriage groups are putting together would also ban civil unions.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars"

That's a bad thing if you're on a spaceship with just enough supplies to get to the moon and back.

Gambia has a solution:


I think "eccentric" is perhaps a little too light a term to throw at a country's leader who has just said he'll decapitate around ~10% of his population.

No controversies over same-sex marriages there....

Hey, if the U.S. gets too liberal for you, SFL Cat....

I've got the perfect solution for all of this madness. Let's just roll back the clock 50 years and it will be solved. The inevitable slide began when segregation was thrown out, despite a majority of people in the south wanting it to stay that way. The Loving v Virginia decision also needs to be undone. Very similar arguments were used against interracial marriage as the ones used today against gay marriage, so we've got to fix that as well.

Hell, for that matter, let's just go back 150 years so women cannot vote and we can still have slaves. Conservatism will rise again! Tyranny of the majority is a great thing! There shouldn't be any rights that are not subject to the vote of the majority! Let's put everything up for a vote and majority rules! That's DEMOCRACY after all!