catco57:

"Opologies" for what? Just because you are on the right, doesn't make you right.

For being called a right wing fear monger on this exact site for pointing out that the arguments for gay marriage, if consistently applied, would require you to accept polygamy, incest, and any other consentual sexual pairing anyone wished to engage in.

Please explain what an "opology is.

You ARE a right wing fear monger. You are also ignorant hate monger. Those kind of people are usually closet homosexuals.

catco57:

Please explain what an "opology is.

You ARE a right wing fear monger. You are also ignorant hate monger. Those kind of people are usually closet homosexuals.

You can be as big a smart-ass as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that I was right all along.

You are not right.

You only think you're right.

And you're obviously in the closet.

catco57:

You are not right.

You only think you're right.

And you're obviously in the closet.

Ummmm . . . I've said repeatedly that the arguments used to justify gay marriage would equally apply to any other sexual arrangement that anyone wanted to enter into. Now, that is beginning to be recognized and acted on. Which demonstrates that I was right all along.

So how, exactly, are claiming that I am not right?

Equating gay marriage with incest and polygamy is ignorant.

So, guess what that means?

You are right only in your mind.

I would never in a million years apologize to a hateful, closed minded person like you.

Like I said before, people like you are usually in the closet.

"Ye who protest ...

catco57:

Equating gay marriage with incest and polygamy is ignorant.

So, guess what that means?

You are right only in your mind.

I would never in a million years apologize to a hateful, closed minded person like you.

Like I said before, people like you are usually in the closet.

"Ye who protest ...

Did you read the article I posted to? I wasn't the one making that claim this time. I was reacting to it.

"For being called a right wing fear monger on this exact site for pointing out that the arguments for gay marriage, if consistently applied, would require you to accept polygamy, incest, and any other consentual sexual pairing anyone wished to engage in."

I'll readily grant you were right for seeing the connection between arguments. I can't grant being wrong for the simple reason that I don't remember if I even read the thread you're referring to, much less participated in it and I don't recall personally arguing that there isn't a logical connection at some point.

Now I'll ask you to ponder the more important question: How important is that logical connection, really? The way I see it, if consentuality leads to legalized polygamy, fine: that doesn't change the non-consentual nature of many polygamous marriages in practice, but I have no problem with consentual. Likewise, consentual incest is fine by me so long as the risk of genetic defects (which could be considered child abuse if carelessly ignored) is addressed in some way--the rest is science. And yes, I know that leads to the possibility of requiring genetic regulations for non-incestual marriages; that might be a good thing.

So, what's wrong with consentuality aside from leading to possibilities you or I personally may not agree to?

[So, what's wrong with consentuality aside from leading to possibilities you or I personally may not agree to?]

Plenty of things. We all understand this concept in less hot-button issues.

Every state has statutory rape laws that set a lower limit below which a person cannot give consent. If an adult has sex with a minor, it is rape. Even if the kid tells you he or she wants to do it. Most people also understand that it is just good policy to forbid the president of the firm from having casual sex with the interns.

Why is that? Because the power differential is so great that the whole concept of "consent" gets skewed.

It is also illegal to engage is sexual practices that endanger the life of one of the participants, even if the one put in danger consents. If someone gets rushed to the emergency room with a dildo lodged in his throat and a knife stuck up his ass, telling the cops that "he wanted me to do that" isn't going to get you off.

It is clear that consent, in and of itself, is not the beginning and end of acceptable sexual behavior. Other factors also must be taken into account.

So with gay marriage, polygamy, or what have you. A person can argue that these practices should be tolerated by society, and maybe they should. But just because all the participants consent to them does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that it is the case.

The laws already establish that teens under a certain age cannot legally consent to sexual activities (at least with someone above the legal age) or sign contracts, so the rules on that would be unchanged. Likewise, while the President of a company can already legally marry one of his interns, that doesn't necessarily contradict corporate rules governing fraternisation--it just means that one or both of them would have to quit for the marriage to work.

That's the approach I'm taking to consent in the case of gay marriage and polygamy. A man doesn't have the right to marry 5 teenage girls or even 1 teenage boy. I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to marry 5 grown women or 1 grown man IF they legally consent.