--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > The "box turtle" statement above is really making the > > > > case against gay marriage by not making the case: It > > > > is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage, > > > > but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then > > > > you will have to allow something else you might not like." > > > > > > > > Read more... > > > > http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452 > > > > http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm > > > > > > That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say > > > that those that support gay marriage and not other > > > kinds of marriage are hypocrites. > > > > Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to > > opposite-sex marriage than it is to these "other > > kinds of marriage," which it obviously is. > > > > If there were a movement in favor of incestuous > > marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as > > substantial as there is in favor of same-sex > > marriage, you might have a point (although there > > would still be good arguments against it), but > > there isn't. > > I don't know what you mean by "substantial" but I > suspect you mean "significant numbers". Certainly, > there are WAY more gays than any of the other members > of groups mentioned. > > But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon > "numbers"; that is, simply because of the power of > voting or influence given by substantial numbers > should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights.
And the civil rights arguments in favor of polygamy, incestuous marriage, and box-turtle marriage are...?
