I don't think brothers and sisters should "marry." Am I prejudiced against brothers and sisters? I don't think you should be able to marry more than one persson at a time. Am I prejudiced against crowds? I don't care what kind of relationship in which consenting adults engage. I think the term marriage describes a specific one, or at least it did, which I thought was good, which makes me a bigot, I suppose in the eyes of the ITPK.
There is a valid reason keeping brothers and sisters from marrying. It's increasing rare genetic disorders. Same for keeping brothers and sisters from having sex, as pregnancy can occur. Sans "morals," which change with time and culture, there isn't a valid reason for disallowing polygamy. Maybe I should say a non-moral based reason. So to some, that'd be a prejudice. But it isn't a prejudice against crowds; it's a prejudice against polygamy. Which is a socially acceptable prejudice--until it isn't anymore.
That unnecessarily defines marriage as a sexual relationship. Maybe siblings just want to spend all their time together and not get it on.
I would ask what the difference is between polygamous sibling platonic marriage, and just living in the same home with your sisters, though.
Wasn't it VolDad who called Moore the bigot? I don't see anyone else throwing out this term. Are you just searching for reasons to muddy the waters on the matter in order to create some sort of false equivalency in regards to incest, bigamy and homosexuality? You seem very sensitive to the idea that you may hold prejudiced views towards a group of people that you seem to refuse to entertain the possibility to be prejudiced in any way. Nobody's maintaining that you're Fred Phelps or Bob Chambliss. So, why do you not want gay people to get married? The only two reasons I've seen you offer, including here, was "that's the way we've always done it", which is the worst reason to justify anything, and when "hunter-gatherers" did it for procreation, which makes this about sexual relationships and can be used against your examples listed here. So, why not for gay people?
Uni, I said the North Carolina law regarding transgendered people was bigoted. As far as I recall, this is what began Cotton's objection to the use of the word. Don't put that evil on Voldad. I'll take it.
OK, but it was Dad's comment on Moore that began this exchange, for which I wholeheartedly agree with him, so I wasn't trying to turn this on VolDad, surely. You can take credit for the NC law, too, but you aren't the only one to come to that conclusion regarding that law, either. So, I don't know why you've become the focal point.
I'm bigoted and prejudiced about a many thing. I have never met anyone that wasn't. I accept my bigotry and prejudice, and might or might not change my view, depending on the arguments presented. Let he without prejudice kick the first soccer ball.
I do not think I am the one who has muddied the waters. Marriage is an example, but certainly not the only one, where anyone who disagrees with current fashion is labeled as a bigot. Voldad said the judge was bigoted bc he held this view, which I questioned. I asked you if the view made someone a bigot and you declined to answer. I reminded ip that he is bigotry-master and he suggested I commit a marital act with myself. It is the tactic of the progressive left to snuff out opposition by labeling anyone with disaentibg views as bigoted, motivated by hate and ignorance. It is n effective tactic. It is also, in itself, both ignorant and hateful. This very tactic is why I despise ip and it is why I sometimes drw attention to its use. I do not hate gay people. I do not care if they live together in a loving/committed/sexual relationship. I do not believe this is a marriage, as it does not meet the definition of marriage I know in every tradition, eastern, western, free, feudal, demicratic, socialist, modern or out of date of which I am aware. And if saying so makes me a bigot in the opinion of the modern faddists, then **** em. They are no more than elitist thought Nazis anyway.
Meets the legal definition, and the dictionary definition of marriage, in this country, and in our language, for over a year now. Which modern definition are you seeing that doesn't include same sex?
Pretty sure ****ing is not a marital act, by definition. Isn't it defined as fornication, which is defined as sex out of wedlock?