Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 221953)

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.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 221953)

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.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 221897)

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.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 221990)

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.

Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 221997)

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.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 222000)

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

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 221959)

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.