Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gondath
I love how incest, polygamy, and bestiality become exempt from the argument, making it convenient and opportunistic to compare the poor gay agenda to blacks being oppressed. I find the comparison in the two wholey different situations insulting. It is definetely selfish to hypocritically deny to even acknowledge the right to marry for other similar groups when you claim to be acting out of what's fair and just. It's a joke.
|
It's politics. It's for the same reason that anti-abortionists rarely actually call for the complete abolishment of abortion, even though that would be the most ideologically consistent thing to do. The reason they don't is simple, the majority of the american public thinks abortions should be legal in some capacity. To come out strongly in favor of the complete abolition of abortion would be to commit special interest group suicide. Politics is all about getting your way, so there's your reason. It would be similar to someone arguing against gay marriage from a traditionalist perspective. If you're going to be a traditionalist you have to acknowledge that traditionalism would have called for a continuation of slavery, segregation and white-male-only voting priveliges.
Who are you to complain about selfishness? You're selfish too, you're human aren't you? Do you think the suffrage movement was bullshit because they didn't push for the slave's right to vote?
Personally, as long as people are treated with respect and dignity i could care less if you want to fuck your sister or marry a hundred women. If they all consented than more power to you.
You make a distinction between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, yet you provide no basis for that distinction. Then you feign insult. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why the two situations are wholly different.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gondath
Incest has the highest probability of birth defects among the inner family, such as brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. However, the chance is still miniscule and brith control has been available for many years now. We don't prevent people with other proven genetic disorders from having children, so why is their situation any different.
As for being against polygamy, now who is supporting a definition of marriage? Some have pointed out that studies have not conclusively proven that gay parents make bad parents. Mutiple parents have never been proven to be bad parents either. The divorce rate even supports the notion that humans are not monogamous by nature. Yet we have people throwing up words like love and committment as if reality reflects the evidence.
Now we reach the dreaded beastiality. In some states, it is not even illegal to have sex with your own animal. I say the states preventing it are wrong. Who can be the true judge of an animal's consent? Many animals are very affectionate. If you are going to claim love exists, biologically speaking, it is not possible for only one species to have a singular emotion.
I don't see the comparisons here as any kind of slippery slope. I'm not the one arguing against their validity. They have as much right to what they do as the gays, but I don't see anyone championing their cause. I won't get started on adding underage sex and marriage here... yet.
|
You make a very compelling case for polygamy and incest(bestiality justification leaves something to be desired), perhaps it is selfish of you to not be out championing those two causes because you know that there are people who would benefit.