If a man has the right to marry a man...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Based on what? What scientific evidence is there that gay marriage is bad for society (in comparison to heterosexual marriage)? Consanguinous relations can scientifically be shown to result in genetic defects in offspring.

Non-consanguinous relations have also been shown to result in genetic defects in offspring. I'm sure you've encountered these yourself among your family, friends, and acquaintances.

I bet I can prove to you that gay couples are less fertile than heterosexual couples.

[ute4ever]

I can see it now, in the year 2350 the UN Supreme Court of Nations finds that it violates the United Constitution to prevent Sven Bjorg's lesbian Greyhound from marrying its life partner, a non-fertile Pygmy Horse (and a Canaanite!) and receiving the same rights and privileges that have been enjoyed by orangutans and chimpanzees for nearly 40 years....

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Based on what? What scientific evidence is there that gay marriage is bad for society (in comparison to heterosexual marriage)? Consanguinous relations can scientifically be shown to result in genetic defects in offspring.

Homosexual relations can be scientifically shown to result in no offspring. How in the hell is that not bad for society?

[OrangeUte]

gay marriage advocates are more organized then advocates for plural marriage. it is also easier for gays and lesbians to lobby b/c they don't have to drag through the history of the not-mainstream mormon religion as part of their argument. plus, gays and lesbians aren't living in compounds and blindly following prophet-type leaders.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Marriage already changes to make its constituencies happy. In some states, marriage with a second cousin is ok. In some, first cousin marriages are alright. In others, they aren't. The age of consent for marriage varies from state to state.

The state already defines marriage. If your opinion is that any state action defining marriage opens the door to further state action defining marriage, then you should be opposed to all state action in that arena, right? I doubt very much that you are.

If the reasons for prohibiting certain forms of marriage are simply public policy reasons, then isn't there a reasonable argument that in the past marriage was only between a man and a woman based on antiquated ideas of the "good" of public policy and those ideas are subject to revision to include a man and a woman? Certainly a state could also determine that polygamy was appropriate (they also have in the past), but it doesn't necessarily follow that they must accept polygamy if they accept gay marriage.

Sure it does. The same arguments legitimizing gay marriage can be applied to polygamy, and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. There's no way to avoid this.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sure it does. The same arguments legitimizing gay marriage can be applied to polygamy, and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. There's no way to avoid this.

Maybe this is a sign of how the media and public awareness changes opinion. To call gays sexual deviants would have been very acceptable in my vocabulary a few years back. Deviant to me is a very degrading term. It not only means "deviate from norm", but to me labels the person as degenerate or less human being, like for instance, a child molester.

While I find the homo-sexual act repulsive, at least as far as men are concerned, I no longer consider them deviants.

For instance. I might see a guy pick and eat his own buger. That would be repulsive and yet I wouldn't consider the person a deviant.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Maybe this is a sign of how the media and public awareness changes opinion. To call gays sexual deviants would have been very acceptable in my vocabulary a few years back. Deviant to me is a very degrading term. It not only means "deviate from norm", but to me labels the person as degenerate or less human being, like for instance, a child molester.

While I find the homo-sexual act repulsive, at least as far as men are concerned, I no longer consider them deviants.

For instance. I might see a guy pick and eat his own buger. That would be repulsive and yet I wouldn't consider the person a deviant.

Speaking of which, we did we not discuss this more often during the BYU/TAMU game week?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Speaking of which, we did we not discuss this more often during the BYU/TAMU game week?

Dang, I am sure it is good. My company blocks youtube.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Non-consanguinous relations have also been shown to result in genetic defects in offspring. I'm sure you've encountered these yourself among your family, friends, and acquaintances.

Yes, and on this website, in fact.

[BYU71]

This country has to get back to basic religious values. God married Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.