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!
I stated that I had no problem limiting marriage to two persons not related by blood.
But why would you (just you) want to prevent two consenting adults related by blood from marrying? Why just "a monopoly" (your words) of two unrelated consenting adults? What about three, four and five consenting adults. Your only repsonse is to post the concerns of others. What is your concern with limiting marriage?
The title of your thread is Same-Sex Marraige - A Threat To Whom?. So, for consenting adults related by blood that want to marry, for any number of consenting adults, related by blood or not that want to marry, I'm asking you your own question: to whom is it a threat? Why do you insist on limiting marriage to only two?
You really need to get to know former homosexuals and hear what they have to say.