Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:29:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2794 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have
ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered.
It is frankly startling to me that you’re using this bit of false pragmatism
to justify essentially arbitrary restrictions on the way in which people
associate. For what good cause?
|
As I noted to Frank, if the system is set up to handle polygamy in a balanced
way, then I’m all for it. My goal isn’t to restrict marriage in any way, but
more to prevent people from abusing it as a legal loophole.
| |
I grew up in a family that bred animals for fun and profit. I have
personally managed the breeding of show cats, rats and fish. Backbreeding,
the process of securing desirable traits by breeding offspring to parent is
very, very common. Too much of it over too long a period can
isolate/concentrate unpleasant genetic traits -- if they were there anyway.
And hybrid vigor is very real -- I have rejected the cat fancy specifically
because I think immoral breeding is strongly encouraged by the rules. But
the effects a few generations of incestuous breeding are simply trivial. The
stereotypical Kentuky holler’ inhabited by an extended family inter-breeding
for a dozen generations would be bad (for them), but that’s a pretty extreme
and rare case.
|
Again, the only reason I bring it up is because I’m led to believe that
inbreeding is damaging to the children produced by it, not to the participants
(which is why I said sex without the procreation bit would be ok in my book, if
not insanely difficult to enforce!). If you could show me that inbreeding isn’t
any more harmful the resulting children, then, fine!
Of course I think that’s starting to get off the point. Point is I’m still fine
with close relations getting *married*, just not procreating. (“Oh, please won’t
somebody think of the children!”)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIopJ.12np@lugnet.com... (...) participants (...) book, if (...) isn't (...) Hmm, but there are genetic conditions that are far more predictable in damaging children. Should we not allow (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Does it? Why must marriage be a special case of contract? (...) I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered. It is frankly startling to me that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
