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?
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?
You ask these questions as though they genuinely concern you. And as if you genuinely are open to some explanation which would cause you to re-think your position on same-sex marriages.
But we both know that is NOT the case. This is merely a rhetorical device on your part. Or, to use a term from other messages, it is MISDIRECTION.
However, if we took your questions seriously, we could propose via law that only persons NOT RELATED BY BLOOD could marry each other. We could further stipulate in law, that ONLY single couples (i.e. 2 people) could be married. That would address both of your immediate concerns.
But we both know that neither stipulation makes any difference because neither addresses your primary objection which is your ultimate "deal-breaker".
So raising these objections yet again does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to either clarify the dispute or help to move the discussion forward. Consequently, I do not see the value of discussing extreme hypotheticals---except, perhaps, as an intellectual exercise to hone debating skills.
You obviously have a hangup about what you often describe as "logical conclusion" of a position or the "natural progression" of an argument.
Human beings try to be consistent and make decisions based upon fixed principles and values. But we all confront circumstances in our lives that force us to choose between a rigid idea versus how that idea should be applied to flesh-and-blood beings in circumstances we may not have anticipated. [I am acquainted with someone, for example, whose life-long political views have been "extreme right". He previously told me that most contemporary government functions are unConstitutional and he opposed much of what the Federal Government spends in our name. After he got married, he and his wife had a child who has Down Syndrome. Suddenly, his politics changed because he doesn't see political ideas when he looks into the eyes of his baby nor does he want to engage in abstract philosophical arguments when he needs to comfort his wife. Consequently, now he sees a role for Government that never was apparent or thinkable before.]
Now please DON'T read into this next comment more than what is intended. We have a word in the English language for persons who NEVER make exceptions. Who NEVER compromise their beliefs or positions. Who ALWAYS insist on strict adherence to a particular set of principles or ideas. That word is "fanatic".
My position derives from two "first principles":
(1) I want minimum government intervention in the lives of my fellow citizens. I choose that principle because I do NOT believe that government has the wisdom or restraint to always make the best judgments about personal and private behavior. I arrive at that conclusion from my reading of history.
(2) I believe that whenever and wherever possible we should strive to be inclusive---i.e. not search for entire categories of people to exclude from the benefits and responsibilities of being a member of the American Family. I choose that principle because I think EVERYONE has value and I think my country will be stronger when all of its sons and daughters know they are valued members and have something to contribute.
I understand and respect those who have different views--especially when based upon their religious beliefs. But this issue has other dimensions. And just like we do not preclude atheists from getting married, we cannot always apply particular religious conventions to all of our public policy questions.
Finally, I'd like to briefly address previous messages which refer to me "promoting an agenda".
We ALL have "agendas". Want lower taxes or tax simplication? That's an agenda. Want to limit abortion and make it extremely rare? That's an agenda! Want your kids to go to good schools and have opportunities to be whatever they can be in life? That's an agenda!
Are you folks so convinced of your goodness and righteousness that you block out even the remotest self-awareness of YOUR OWN AGENDA? Do you honestly believe you and you alone represent everything that is good and decent, fair and just in this world?