Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:53:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2855 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> "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?
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 who's guaranteed to have disease X. But I suppose by the same
token, you could take it to the next level and argue various other types of
deformities and handicaps like blindness, etc. IE that if your child were 50%
likely to be blind, should you still have the child? Hmm.. Alright, I think I'm
convinced. Procreation all around!
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
