Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:38:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2853 times
|
| |
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:HzIopJ.12np@lugnet.com...
> 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!
Hmm, but there are genetic conditions that are far more predictable in
damaging children. Should we not allow people with disease X from marrying?
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Good point. Hmm.. I'm not sure. Certainly as I mentioned, marriage isn't the issue in that case-- I'm still fine with brothers & sisters and people with disease X marrying. Procreation? Hmm. I guess it seems sort of cruel to me to have a child (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) 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. (...) Again, the only reason (...) (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
|
|
|
|
