OT: Gay marriage

Religions > Atheism > OT: Gay marriage

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Geoff Offermann"
Date:	20 Nov 2003 11:39:21 AM
Object:	OT: Gay marriage

Sort of off topic, but it involves religion, so I thought people here would
have an opinion.
I was listening to Neil Boortz yesterday and he was pounding the theists
about the gay marriage ruling in Massachussetts.
One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's no
one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop pedophiles
and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?
Neil tanked the guy right away.
It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my head).
What would be the objective moral here?
Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?
TIA...Geoff
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 11:56:05 AM

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:39:21 GMT in alt.atheism, Geoff Offermann
("Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism

Presumably the issue being the capability to legally consent!

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my head).
What would be the objective moral here?

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

I guess so, and in principle I can't see much problem with group
marriage, except of course it'll make contract and tax lawyers richer
than they already are....
A while back I wrote a little speculative bit on this, reproduced
below for your pleasure (?).

Marriage in 2020
Written by: Therion Ware
Created: 10 January 2003

Although many religious pressure groups trace the rise of what has
become known as 'p'marriage'(polygamous/polyandrous marriage) to the
then Blairist governments' 2003 contractual partnership act (CPA), it
is clear that a complex interrelation of social and economic factors
in fact led to what has become a growing social institution and as
many argue a considerable force for social stability.
By 2008, the average price of a three bedroom semi-detached house in
any metropolitan area of the UK was in the region of EU 1,200,000;
inexpensive by today's standards but completely beyond the reach of
90% of the population even taking into account 'gg-mortgages' (great
grandfather mortgages; borrowers contract on behalf of several
generations their as yet unborn descendents).
Anthropological studies (Mulhern, Lanning, & Bray, Cambridge, UK, 2014
'p' marriage as a novel socio-evolutionary response to socio-economic
pressures,) confirm that this overriding economic factor combined with
the explosive appearance of 'fast-track AIDS,'AIDS-D in August 2007
which causes death through catastrophic failure of the immune system
in 78% of the infected within 4 to 9 months of infection, and 100%
within 13 months contributed to the rise of p'marriage: decades of
relative sexual freedom were not easily given up; p'marriage permitted
a larger pool of trusted sexual partners than exclusive marriage with
partners who were tied to the group by significant economic as well as
emotional commitments.
Ironically by the time effective preventative measures for AIDS-D were
discovered in Feb. 2017 it was commonly accepted, based on multiple
appearance of geographically widely separated 'case zeros' with no
discernable connection and later claims of responsibility backed by
the relevant DNA sequences, that AIDS-D was the result of rogue
genetic engineering by religious fundamentalists who sought biological
enforcement of 'traditional moral values' (which in fact never
existed) and that as they saw it 'sin was its own punishment'.
The 2003 contractual partnership act was originally designed to permit
next of kin and inheritance rights to members of the same sex who
chose to live together as a family. However, the EU legislation, the
Human Rights Act under which the CPA was implemented turned out to
have far broader legal implications than was originally envisaged.
Rex vs. Mulligan, Smith, Michaels, Gristoff & Ware (2011) established
that next of kin rights under the CPA could not be limited
numerically, and 'p'marriage,' was born as a legally recognised
institution, rather it appeared to the surprise of government.
Studies place the average size of a p'marriage at 7 members with a
median sex distribution of 2.3 females to 4.1 males; same-sex
p'marriages remain relatively rare currently (2020) constituting less
than 4% of total p'marriages. Perhaps surprisingly the number of
children born to such marriages is higher than exclusive marriages at
3.1 over 5 years and this is attributed to the greater availability of
resources and 'person-time' to such unions. P'marriages remain
relatively rare amongst the over 50s, though there is increasing
evidence that it rising in response to increasing economic plight of
the elderly (Xavier, 2019) with a sex distribution of 3.1 females to
1.6 males.

--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.

User: "Woden"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 09:31:54 PM

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:c%6vb.59629$Dw6.325387@attbi_s02:

I think there is something about concenting adults that doesn't apply to
pedophile and bestiaphiles.

Neil tanked the guy right away.

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my
head). What would be the objective moral here?

Do children and animals have the knowledge, maturity, and ability to give
concent?

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

As near as I can tell, yes they are. So (IMHO) any restrictions on
marriages between concenting adults should be removed. If the gov't wants
require that marriages be registered/licensed as legal contracts for
financial, taxation, child care,... reasons that is fine as long as it
doesn't restrict who marries whom.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.

User: "L. Raymond"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 12:33:35 PM

"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's no
one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop pedophiles
and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?

Neil tanked the guy right away.

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my head).
What would be the objective moral here?

Marriage is a legal contract granting specific rights to people. As
an example, the homosexual lover of a person in intensive care cannot
make any decisions about the patient, while a legal husband or wife
can. As such, it requires that both parties be able to legaly enter
into a contract. That excludes children, who are legally too young,
and animals.
Lumping pedophilia, bestiality and similar actions together with
homosexual marriage is a typical scare tactic by those rabid members
of the public who want to deny a basic human right to a segment of the
population by saying it'll open the door to these other things.

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

Provided polyandry is likewise allowed, there should be no reason to
restrain group marriages. Although the most likely result, as another
poster pointed out, would be to enrich the contract lawyers.
.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 01:22:32 PM

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

The Supreme Court case which stripped marriage rights away from consensual
polygamists (Reynolds v. United States) was, without question, religiously
motivated. The late 19th century saw exceptional hostility by the government
and much of the US population against Mormons. Various administrations saw them
as dangerous subversives and used every dirty trick in the book to get rid of
them, up to and including pogroms and forced resettlement.
The government's case was chock full of holes but the hatred of Mormons was so
prevalent that the Court bought it and handed down what, in my opinion, was the
worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott.
The text of the decision can be found here:
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mazur/courses/documents/Reynolds.html
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 12:02:15 PM

Geoff Offermann wrote:

Straight people can get married. So what is to stop female teachers from
marrying her 13 year old student? What is to stop a man from marrying a mare or
any other female animal?

Not specifically, as most religions allow polygamy or even (as in the case of
Mormonism) *require* it as necessary for salvation.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.

User: "Geoff Offermann"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 01:20:02 PM

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBD01A7.F787A7BD@serv.net...

Geoff Offermann wrote:

Sort of off topic, but it involves religion, so I thought people here

would

have an opinion.

I was listening to Neil Boortz yesterday and he was pounding the theists
about the gay marriage ruling in Massachussetts.

One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's no
one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop

pedophiles

and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?

Straight people can get married. So what is to stop female teachers from
marrying her 13 year old student? What is to stop a man from marrying a

mare or

any other female animal?

Not specifically, as most religions allow polygamy or even (as in the case

Mormonism) *require* it as necessary for salvation.

But not Christianity.
.

User: "Alun Harford"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 01:43:00 PM

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBD01A7.F787A7BD@serv.net...

Straight people can get married. So what is to stop female teachers from
marrying her 13 year old student?

Consent is required, which the 13 year old student cannot legally give.

What is to stop a man from marrying a mare or
any other female animal?

Consent is required.
Alun Harford
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 02:14:10 PM

Alun Harford wrote:

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBD01A7.F787A7BD@serv.net...

Straight people can get married. So what is to stop female teachers from
marrying her 13 year old student?

Consent is required, which the 13 year old student cannot legally give.

What is to stop a man from marrying a mare or
any other female animal?

Consent is required.

Which is my point exactly. There is no argument that can be made against equal
marriage that does not rely on either religious bigotry or the total absense
of logical thought. (Which is not to imply that these are mutually exclusive
categories.)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.

User: "Douglas Berry"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	21 Nov 2003 01:11:31 PM

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:14:10 -0800, a stranger
called by some Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism

Alun Harford wrote:

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FBD01A7.F787A7BD@serv.net...

Straight people can get married. So what is to stop female teachers from
marrying her 13 year old student?

Consent is required, which the 13 year old student cannot legally give.

What is to stop a man from marrying a mare or
any other female animal?

Consent is required.

Logic? We're talking about the law here!
Anyway, we've established ages of consent (with parental permission, a
12-year-old can get married in some states) and the requirement that
potential spouses be able to understand the obligations and importance
of marriage. This leaves the dog out of the equation.
Polyamory? Why not? Extended families are becoming more common. As
far as I'm concerned, any group of people willing to make the
commitment should be allowed the rights of marriage.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.

User: "Bill, The Avender"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 06:18:15 PM

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:39:21 GMT, "Geoff Offermann"
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

Sort of off topic, but it involves religion, so I thought people here would
have an opinion.

I was listening to Neil Boortz yesterday and he was pounding the theists
about the gay marriage ruling in Massachussetts.

One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's no
one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop pedophiles
and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?

Neil tanked the guy right away.

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my head).
What would be the objective moral here?

Any contract requires an individual capable of legally consenting to
enter into it. I believe this is true in most if not every country on
the planet that deals with legal multiparty contracts. The only
"moral" issues there should be are with the person's relationship as
viewed by either their religion or their philosophical outlook.
Plants and animals cannot give legally informed consent, though if
ever a time comes when we can communicate with them to the degree that
they can, I'd be all for legalized interspecial marriages. But that's
not even on the horizon at this point. The only issue I feel should
be a factor in limiting who can or cannot enter a marriage contract
would be the ability to give informed legal consent. Minors cannot do
this, so the issue of pedophiles marrying children is moot. Besides,
in some states, children actually _can_ marry adults if their parents
choose to let them. So it's not something that legal gay marriages
would permit - it's already here, as part of the allegedly
"respectable, 'traditional'" marriage scheme certain people are
fighting so hard to defend.

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

I see no problem against polygamy when all parties are knowing,
willing participants capable of giving legal consent. It would be
complex enough that I'd view any willing party to such an affair as
bonkers, but it would be their decision. A marriage from a legal
standpoint is nothing more than a business contract, and most business
contracts can have more than two parties.
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.

User: "Mekkala"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 12:29:40 PM

On 20 Nov 2003, "Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:c%6vb.59629$Dw6.325387@attbi_s02:

Sort of off topic, but it involves religion, so I thought people here
would have an opinion.

I was listening to Neil Boortz yesterday and he was pounding the
theists about the gay marriage ruling in Massachussetts.

One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's
no one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop
pedophiles and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?

Neil tanked the guy right away.

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my
head). What would be the objective moral here?

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

TIA...Geoff

Here's how it is -- bestiality is, IMO, morally wrong because the animal
cannot consent. You do not know whether the animal wants the sexual
relations or not, and there's recourse for the animal in a court of law.
Pedophilia, likewise, is morally wrong *in most cases*, because most
children don't really understand what sex is and are hardly mature
enough to handle sexual activity. I think there are probably extremely
precocious children here and there who *are* sufficiently mature, but
how can that be determined? Across the board, then, I think pedophilia
should not be legal (although I think the current age of consent is a
bit high) in the interest of the majority of young children, at the cost
of making those few precocious children wait a few years to lose their
virginity.
Polygamy, on the other hand, is not wrong at all. The objections to it
are primarily religious. There is also the objection that a
relationship between two people alone is more meaningful than a group
relationship, but whether that is true or not, it shouldn't be a
consideration. People should have the right to choose how meaningful
they want their relationships to be.
Incest is a tough question. It's a known fact that the offspring of
close relatives are at high risk of birth defects. However, what about
incestual gay relationships? Or incestual relationships between
sterilized people? While the average joe, myself included, would find
the idea of incest rather... icky, is there any good (nonreligious)
reason to outlaw incest, if proper precautions are taken to prevent
natural pregnancy?
These things need to be examined in a rational light, not a religious
light. From purely rational considerations, there is no good or just
reason to outlaw gay marriage.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.

User: "Graham Kennedy"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 03:59:54 PM

Mekkala wrote:

On 20 Nov 2003, "Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:c%6vb.59629$Dw6.325387@attbi_s02:

Sort of off topic, but it involves religion, so I thought people here
would have an opinion.

I was listening to Neil Boortz yesterday and he was pounding the
theists about the gay marriage ruling in Massachussetts.

One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's
no one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop
pedophiles and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?

Neil tanked the guy right away.

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my
head). What would be the objective moral here?

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

TIA...Geoff

Personally I always thought this was a silly basis for that
taboo. If two people carry a known genetic defect that gives
them a very high chance of producing defective offspring,
we don't stop them from marrying and having children. So
why does the exact same risk suddenly justify over-riding
people's personal freedom if they happen to be related?

However, what about
incestual gay relationships? Or incestual relationships between
sterilized people? While the average joe, myself included, would find
the idea of incest rather... icky, is there any good (nonreligious)
reason to outlaw incest, if proper precautions are taken to prevent
natural pregnancy?

There are no good reasons for incest to be illegal, period.
It is illegal now purely because that ick factor you mentioned
is so ground into us. We aren't rational about it.

These things need to be examined in a rational light, not a religious
light. From purely rational considerations, there is no good or just
reason to outlaw gay marriage.

Agreed.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.

User: "Reverend Lovejoy"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 05:51:31 PM

Incest is a tough question. It's a known fact that the offspring of
close relatives are at high risk of birth defects.

There are no good reasons for incest to be illegal, period.
It is illegal now purely because that ick factor you mentioned
is so ground into us. We aren't rational about it.

These things need to be examined in a rational light, not a religious
light. From purely rational considerations, there is no good or just
reason to outlaw gay marriage.

Agreed.

Without making any judgements, the incest taboo can pretty easily be
explained by evolutionary psychology. People who didn't have that
instinctual deterrance from sexual relations among close family would have
breeded, and eventually produced unviable offspring. Hence, the incest taboo
was evolutionarily advantageous, which explains why the taboo can be
observed in all cultures and in most of the animal kingdom.
Does this make it "wrong"? It's a tough one to call. Certainly in all cases
where it overlaps with pedophilia it should be agressively prosecuted, but
if two consenting adults who happened to be close relatives wanted to engage
in sexual relations, is there any real reason they shouldn't? Does this near
universal instinctual incest taboo mean we should codify it into law? It's a
tough one to call.
--
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra
terestrial. I loved that little guy."
- Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
.

User: "Bill, The Avender"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 10:41:11 PM

In alt.atheism on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:51:31 GMT, "Reverend Lovejoy"
<papare@remove-these-words.rpi.edu> wrote:

Incest is a tough question. It's a known fact that the offspring of
close relatives are at high risk of birth defects.

Virtually all of us harbor some of the most horrendous genes you can
imagine. However, they are recessive to more common genes, and so are
not expressed fully (or even partially, depending). The closer two
people are genetically, the more "bad genes" they are likely to have
in common. If it were an issue of just one genetic defect, incest
would probably be as healthy as any other union. Brothers & sisters,
fathers/mothers and daughters/sons share many many MANY more than just
one recessive genetic trait.
<snip>

There are no good reasons for incest to be illegal, period.
It is illegal now purely because that ick factor you mentioned
is so ground into us. We aren't rational about it.

<snip>
I think there's one _very_ good reason for incest to be illegal -
because in families where it's practiced, it's quite often practiced
on children. Other than that, there is the increased possibility of
having sickly, handicapped and/or mentally impaired children. I
suppose that could be left to the individual to decide if they want to
risk it, but then more often than not everyone else has to pick up the
tab to help pay for the care of sickly, handicapped and/or mentally
impaired children. However, almost like you stated above, suppose two
unrelated people wanted to have kids and they could be shown to have a
higher than normal probability of having impaired or mutated offspring
of some sort - should they not be allowed to try? I suppose society
has about as much reason to attempt forbidding reproduction in that
instance as they do in incestual relationships.

Bred.

...and eventually produced unviable offspring. Hence, the incest taboo
was evolutionarily advantageous, which explains why the taboo can be
observed in all cultures and in most of the animal kingdom.

Does this make it "wrong"? It's a tough one to call. Certainly in all cases
where it overlaps with pedophilia it should be agressively prosecuted, but
if two consenting adults who happened to be close relatives wanted to engage
in sexual relations, is there any real reason they shouldn't? Does this near
universal instinctual incest taboo mean we should codify it into law? It's a
tough one to call.

I suppose I do have to agree with you, here. I'm not sure how much
"taboo" it is, either. Ever read V.C. Andrews? Her "Dresden Dolls"
series (Flowers in the Attic, Petals in the Wind, Seeds of Yesterday &
If There Be Thorns) almost all glorify incestuous relationships, and
these books were quite popular for a time. Several of her other books
also bring incest into play, and I don't recall it ever being
portrayed in a bad light. I assumed from their popularity that it's a
subject a lot of people must give some thought to, even if only a
little.
Either way, it's not for me. It's certainly not for lack of handsome
relatives, but the "ick" factor is about as high as it can be with me
in that regard. I don't start feeling comfortable having "ideations"
until around my 2nd or 3rd cousins. And I have even less reason to
avoid it than most - I'm gay, none of my relationships would risk
producing any genetically unhealthy children. But... "ewww". No.
However, if an adult brother/sister or parent/child want to "get it
on", well... I still feel society should perhaps have _some_ say due
to the increased risk of producing children who are burdens to
society. Regardless, I could be convinced that while society might
have "a say", they don't actually need to make it illegal. I'm not
sure what other form "society's say" might take, but I'm open to
consideration. However, if such people take precautions to not
produce children (or if they for some reason wouldn't be able to
anyway), I don't suppose I can honestly think of _any_ legitimate
reason to consider their sex as illegal. I still think it's gross,
but if it's hurting no one then to each their own. I'm all for
maximizing personal freedoms, even the icky ones, as long as they're
not dangerous, unreasonable or impractical impositions upon others.
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.

User: "Graham Kennedy"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	21 Nov 2003 01:42:20 PM

Reverend Lovejoy wrote:

Incest is a tough question. It's a known fact that the offspring of
close relatives are at high risk of birth defects.

There are no good reasons for incest to be illegal, period.
It is illegal now purely because that ick factor you mentioned
is so ground into us. We aren't rational about it.

These things need to be examined in a rational light, not a religious
light. From purely rational considerations, there is no good or just
reason to outlaw gay marriage.

Agreed.

Right. No problem with that.

Does this make it "wrong"? It's a tough one to call. Certainly in all cases
where it overlaps with pedophilia it should be agressively prosecuted,

Oh, absolutely. ANY pedophile should be aggressively prosecuted
to the full limit of preferably very wide ranging and draconian
laws, whether they pick on relatives or not.

but
if two consenting adults who happened to be close relatives wanted to engage
in sexual relations, is there any real reason they shouldn't? Does this near
universal instinctual incest taboo mean we should codify it into law? It's a
tough one to call.

I find it a very easy one to call. The law is deeply hypocritical,
and should be abolished.
OR, we should require everybody to get all sorts of DNA testing
done before a wedding and bar anybody from marrying if they have
a good chance of producing "defective" children.
I could live with either, but to do one and not the other is absurd.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.

User: "Martin Thomas"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	21 Nov 2003 11:04:58 PM

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:39:21 GMT, "Geoff Offermann"
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

Sort of off topic, but it involves religion, so I thought people here would
have an opinion.

I was listening to Neil Boortz yesterday and he was pounding the theists
about the gay marriage ruling in Massachussetts.

One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's no
one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop pedophiles
and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?

Neil tanked the guy right away.

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my head).
What would be the objective moral here?

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

It is no doubt politically correct to claim that gays should have
the same right to marriage as straights, and I bet that in a few
decades polygamy and androgeny will be legal in many places, but
I think this is all moving in the wrong direction.
Why the Hell should the state have any thing to do with it?
If people want to marry, fine. If they have a nice party
afterwards, invite me along!
It has been legal for a long time to leave the priests out of the
procedings, why not kick out the state as well?
In the UK - and many other places - there are divorce laws that
encorage people to fight. That is what happens when polititions
and lwayers take over.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.

User: "Douglas Berry"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	22 Nov 2003 11:22:23 AM

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:04:58 +0000, a stranger
called by some Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

Why the Hell should the state have any thing to do with it?

If people want to marry, fine. If they have a nice party
afterwards, invite me along!

It has been legal for a long time to leave the priests out of the
procedings, why not kick out the state as well?

Because there are legal benefits and obligations that come with
marriage that aren't given to unmarried couples and groups. Such as
automatic assumption of net-of-kin status by the spouse. As long as
those benefits are granted, the state does have a say.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.

User: "Martin Thomas"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	22 Nov 2003 12:05:42 PM

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:22:23 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:04:58 +0000, a stranger
called by some Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

So the state should be involved because the state is involved?
It could easilly be shoved into the back seat. How about allowing
any competent adult to nominate their next of kin?
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.

User: "Douglas Berry"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	22 Nov 2003 05:58:39 PM

Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:05:42 +0000, a stranger
called by some Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism

So the state should be involved because the state is involved?
It could easilly be shoved into the back seat. How about allowing
any competent adult to nominate their next of kin?

The problem there is when people die suddenly without clear a will, or
become critically ill and cannot make medical decisions. Under the
current law, a spouse is the first line of resort in making such
decisions. After that, adult children parents, siblings, or other
relations.
Imagine the chaos. A person is left in a persistent vegetative state
after a car wreck. He leaves an estate worth millions. But, alas, he
never wrote down his final wishes in any form. Worse, he was
something of a playboy. Suddenly, there are a few women all claiming
to be in the legal position to remove life-support, or keep it on, and
a massive fight develops over his assets.
Better to have a clear, cheap, legal joining under the law that states
clearly that these two (or four, or twelve) people are a family, and
get all the rights of a family member in regards to children,
inheritance, protection for forced testimony, favorable consideration
on credit applications (married people are considered better risks)
and other aspects of life.
In essence, a civil marriage is a contract between you, your spouse,
and the state.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.

User: "Gregory Gadow"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	24 Nov 2003 08:50:44 AM

Martin Thomas wrote:

With over 4000 rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges defined in
federal and state law in the US, the state most definitely has a legitimate need
to be involved in marriage.

If people want to marry, fine. If they have a nice party
afterwards, invite me along!

It has been legal for a long time to leave the priests out of the
procedings, why not kick out the state as well?

In the UK - and many other places - there are divorce laws that
encorage people to fight. That is what happens when polititions
and lwayers take over.

The principle reason for marriage is financial protection, specifically
financial protection for the "underemployed" spouse who is often (even nowadays)
a stay-at-home mom. Divorce laws are designed to enforce that financial
protection.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.

User: "Bill, The Avender"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	24 Nov 2003 04:42:37 PM

<piggybacking>
Martin Thomas wrote:

Androgeny is illegal? Isn't criminializing the state of being a
hermaphrodite just a tad unreasonable?
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	24 Nov 2003 06:16:53 PM

"Bill, The Avender" <Avender@SpamMeNot.com> wrote

Androgeny is illegal? Isn't criminializing the state of being a
hermaphrodite just a tad unreasonable?

Being a neo-con means nothing is unreasonable.
.

User: "Martin Thomas"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	25 Nov 2003 05:44:33 AM

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:42:37 GMT,

(Bill,
The Avender) wrote:

<piggybacking>
Martin Thomas wrote:

Androgeny is illegal? Isn't criminializing the state of being a
hermaphrodite just a tad unreasonable?

Oh Dear - another victory for the spell checker. I swear that
program has an artificial intelligence core that tries as hard as
it can to sneak bizarre substitutions past anyone who never
learned to spell properly. :)
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.

User: "socode"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	24 Nov 2003 09:33:56 AM

Martin Thomas wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:39:21 GMT, "Geoff Offermann"
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

Sort of off topic, but it involves religion, so I thought people here would
have an opinion.

I was listening to Neil Boortz yesterday and he was pounding the theists
about the gay marriage ruling in Massachussetts.

One guy got on and said if this is allowed on the principle that it's no
one's business but the people being married, then what's to stop pedophiles
and bestiaphiles (?) from wanting the same rights too?

Neil tanked the guy right away.

It does seem absurd, but then my own personal devil's advocate started
talking (the voices, the voices....someone stop the voice's in my head).
What would be the objective moral here?

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

The state _should_ have something to do with it since it
_does_ have something to do with it. If any & all statutory
recogniition and dispensations for marriage were removed,
then the state would have no reason to regulate it, and it
wouldn't matter who called their relationship a marriage.
Marriage is essentially only a legal status for the relationship
between two people, that they enter into freely, and leave wilfully.
People can go about their lives and relationships without getting
married at all, doing it once, or getting married multiple times. The
state doesn't choose their partners, it doesn't force them to get
married, it doesn't force them to have children, and it doesn't
even force them to stay together, as they originally vowed to.
So if gay people want to call their relationship a marriage, and
are prepared to go through the same legal rigmarole in order to
attach a legal status to their relationship, for what particular
reason should it be denied, other than personal discomfort of
people who have nothing to do with the relationship in question?
socode
.

User: "Jos Flachs"
Title: Re: OT: Gay marriage	20 Nov 2003 10:32:27 PM

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:39:21 GMT, "Geoff Offermann"
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

zoophiles, I think it is.
The keyword is 'mutual consent'. That can only be given by consenting
adults, not children, sheep or great Danes.

Being equal for the law? A marriage is a legal contract, with
benefits. Such as inheritance, the right to visit your partner in
hospital, sharing retirement benefits, etc. These rights are
consistently withheld from gays.
Those that don't like the idea of M/M and F/F marriages try to muddle
the issue by looking at completely different situations.
Personally, I don't see any problem if you want to hump a sheep. But
marrying one? Can't do that. A sheep cannot give legal consent.

Even moreso, what about polygamists? Aren't laws against polygamy
religiously based?

They most certainly are.
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

OT: Bush tries to mollify right by backing gay marriage ban and outlawing flag burning
Gay Marriage Is Good For Your Health
Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage
In the News: Transplant targets gay marriage
Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage to be part of Republican Platform?
Massachusetts town votes to issue marriage licenses to gay out-of-staters,
Hate cult says gay marriage is "war against family"
Gay marriage poses risk to children, warn experts

Judge voids Georgia gay marriage ban
Gay marriage celebrant available in Portland
Google search for gay marriage and this is what you get
Re: A question for the opponents of gay marriage
Kathleen Porker talks out of her ***** on gay marriage
So God Punishes Gay Marriage in MA... By Sending Another Hurricane to Texas?
First Gay 'Marriage' Legalized, Now Spain Bans Terms 'Mother' and 'Father'

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER