Replies

Nightmare scenarios is a good description. As I've said many times now, it's merely taking your worldview to it's logical conclusion. Either you don't want to recognize where your worldview leads or your worldview prevents you from realizing where it leads. If you think that's a nightmare then perhaps you should rethink your position.

"Nightmare scenarios" can be "logical conclusions" but totally false or gross exaggerations. I recall, for example, on 9/11/01 that CNN reporters and (ABC News I think it was) were reporting that, typically, the World Trade Towers would have 12,000-15,000 workers and visitors at the time the planes hit. So there was speculation that we should prepare ourselves for 5-digit death tolls as a "logical" scenario.

But you danced around my question. Why raise the "nightmare scenarios" at all? Shouldn't we focus on what I describe as "first principles" instead and not be diverted into pointless arguments about extreme hypotheticals?

As I sit here writing this to you, a Boeing 747 might crash into my home. I live fairly close to our airport. But I don't organize my thoughts and everyday behavior or decisions around that "nightmare scenario".

You repeat the same questions that I previously addressed, i.e. your concern about limiting the number of people who can be "married" to each other. But, your real problem is NOT the "number" of people. It is the TYPE of person.

Whether the marriage is between only 2 people or 100 is irrelevant because your FIRST PRINCIPLE is that no same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Period! End of discussion. Correct?

Nor is your real concern what their blood relationship might be: Father and son; brothers, sisters, etc. Again, you simply are opposed to SAME-SEX marriages. Period.

Incidentally, I've never thought about this before, but it just occurred to me that Adam and Eve had children. Whom did THEY marry -- if not their own siblings?

To whom are these nightmare scenarios a threat?

But you danced around my question. Why raise the "nightmare scenarios" at all?

I did no such thing. If same-sex marriage is not an issue for you, what about brothers marrying their own brothers, fathers marrying their sons? That's a logical conclusion given your interest in same-sex marriage.

And since same-sex marriage, by definition, is completely redefining the word marriage, which by definition means a man and a woman, why stop at same-sex marriage? Why stop there and block brothers from marrying each other?

Why are they extreme examples?

To whom are these nightmare scenarios a threat?