[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?

Because your arguments don't express the actual reasons you opopse this. Is 'tradition' really your main reason? If so, it's a shallow one.

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man.

Except for the one we're talking about, which you would deny.

Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.

No, it is my explanation for the origin of the taboo, not why I think it should exist.

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?

I'm ambivalent on the subject. You brought it up as a comparison, and a bad one.

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage".

I don't term it as "gay marriage". I merely state that I see no reason why gay should be prevented from marrying each other.

But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest?

You, not "we", introduced incest in an attempt to divert the argument to something I supposedly couldn't answer. I had nothing to with it. It's a classical attack method, even used by the Pharisees with the coin trick. Please stick to the subject.

Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?

Because you would then have to disallow any childless marriage.

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.

Again you attempt to divert this to the personal. So far all of your objections have been based on tradition. Is there any single real reason why this is a bad thing?

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?

Why is that even a question? Give a real reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and we'll have something to discuss. As I've said, I'm personally against it, but I support it because all the arguments against seem to be based on moral judgement, and that's not a valid reason for any legislation.

"Why shouldn't they take a lesser alternative and like it?" isn't an argument at all.