Obviously we do, as you have consistently misrepresented my position as if you're ignoring everything I've said. Also, you've consistently and quite incorrectly presumed my position, and you use words like hate and revulsion.
Now you define a nightmare scenario as one without any evidence. That's an interesting term to describe the situation.
If you're arguing for same-sex marriage, why would you want to pass laws to prevent brothers from marrying each other?
I presume you have some ulterior motive for this question.
It's merely a question based on the title of your thread here. Did you have an ulterior motive when you posted this thread?
To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?
Sorry, Scripter, you have totally lost me. You posed several questions in your message regarding so-called "nightmare scenarios" -- i.e. what limitations (if any) there should be on same-sex marriages. I then specifically answered those questions. Now you say I am "ignoring everything" you have said. To the contrary, I specifically addressed what you said. How have I "misrepresented" your position?
You also say that I have "consistently and quite incorrectly presumed" your position. But you don't specify to what you are referring.
I have said that YOUR position is that YOU OPPOSE same-sex marriage under ANY circumstances. If I am wrong, then please correct me now and do so in clear, precise language---i.e. under what circumstances would you agree to legalize same-sex marriage?
If you're arguing for same-sex marriage, why would you want to pass laws to prevent brothers from marrying each other?
Because I am willing to listen to and address the concerns which you and others have raised in this forum. You seem to be simultaneously criticizing me for both (a) responding appropriately to your stated concerns and (b) not responding to your concerns. Which is it?
Now you define a nightmare scenario as one without any evidence. That's an interesting term to describe the situation.
Apparently, from the intensity of the comments made in this thread, many opponents believe that huge numbers of siblings (or fathers-sons; grandfather and grandson, et al) are going to rush out and attempt to get married. Furthermore, numerous three-somes and four-somes etc. want to be married. Where is the evidence to suggest that is true?. What experience have European countries had in this regard? Or how about domestic partnerships in the United States?
Many critics of gays have said that domestic partnerships is merely "step 1" on the "gay agenda" toward marriage.
OK, if that is true, then let's hear about your evidence regarding siblings that have sought to register as domestic partners. What other evidence do you have re: domestic partners registrations that illustrate the other "nightmare" scenarios that have been predicted in this thread?
After I posted my last message, I went back to review all of your comments and questions to me since message #618 on January 5th. Here is a summary of what I found:
Questions and concerns you indicated you wanted addressed:
621: Why stop at a marriage of two? Why not between
brothers, sisters, fathers and sons, etc -- as long
as they are adults?
My answer to you appeared in #628 which essentially repeated my answer to Squid in #626. I stated that I had no problem limiting marriage to two persons not related by blood.
627: You describe "nightmare scenarios" as "taking
your worldview to its logical conclusion."
I responded by pointing out that "nightmare scenarios" can be posed as "logical conclusions" but, nevertheless, be TOTALLY FALSE or GROSS EXAGGERATIONS. I gave an example of how that false reasoning worked with respect to 9/11.
I suggested that we should concentrate on "first principles" instead of hypothetical extreme examples which cannot even be quantified as a prediction of what MIGHT happen.
634: You repeat your concern that I already answered in
message #626 re: allowing siblings or others to
marry. You ask "why are they extreme examples?"
I responded in message #635 by repeating that we could limit marriage to two persons unrelated by blood.
I then answered your question about why such examples should be considered "extreme", i.e. because they do "nothing whatsoever to either clarify the dispute or help to move the discussion forward."
In message #623 to Squid and #626 to you I discussed the same topic. I pointed out that raising such concerns is just a debating strategy to raise the scariest possible scenarios in order to prevent discussion of the most likely scenarios.
I asked for evidence you had concerning other countries which would confirm that such "nightmare scenarios" ACTUALLY OCCUR after gay marriage or legal recognition of other same-sex couples arrangements have been approved. You PROVIDED NOTHING.
636: You repeat YET AGAIN your concern about siblings
being allowed to marry. You ask, AGAIN, why is it
an extreme example?
I replied YET AGAIN in #637. This time I deliberately arranged my answers in a specific format which I thought would end the repeated inquiries. I said:
"You ask: 'Why is it an extreme example'?"
and I replied: "The answer is because we have no evidence from our own country or anywhere else that siblings seek to marry one another. So proposing that example as deserving our immediate attention in order to resolve the larger issue is phony argumentation."
"You ask: 'To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?'
and I replied: "...to all of the folks in this thread who constantly use these extreme hypothetical examples" because they "see them as 'a threat' to their monopoly on marriage."
Now, don't you think we pretty much exhausted that topic?
Nope!
Because in #638 you AGAIN REPEAT THE SAME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED 4 TIMES!