[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As for paedophilia, I don't think you made the argument that children can consent. I'm not going there -- unless you make the argument.

Consentual incest between a brother and a sister is not paedophilia.

As for polygamy, I've got no problem with it philosophically. In reality, the polygamistic families I've seen tend to be scary patriarchal enclaves, where fathers do marry their daughters, etc. And, they exist in places other than Utah, FYI. There are quite a number of polygamist societies all over the American west. Anyway, what do I care -- why is it my place to tell a man he can't put up with 2 women if that's what he wants?

For the same reason you'd tell him it's not o.k. to steal a car: Because in a democracy you are able to influence the direction your society takes. You have a right to have an opinion on, how your society will be and what shape it is, whether that is communist, democratic, tolerant of homosexuality, intolerant of nose picking or mandatory arse wiping.

Now, this does present a problem because marriage is not just moral or religious, but also legal. And, with multiple people benefitting from the same legal protection, we could have a problem. All the more reason to do away with legal marriage altogether and make it purely a religious thing...

The legality is the whole point. Economic encouragement. Who do you want your taxes to benefit. As a taxpayer you have the right to express who you wish to favour, be that everyone, no-one, or particular couples only.

Anyway, with all due respect, I still see your take on who can adopt as ludricrously illogical:

No worries. Offense taken. Try and understand that just because a viewpoint does not match yours, it does not mean it is devoid of reason or logic. I have shown cause, effect and attampted to contruct illumination of the process of my opinion. Declaring it "illogical" is simply stupid, and could mean you don't actually grasp what logic is. Illogical is devoid of reason. Mad. Though you may disagree with my outcomes you cannot suggest there is no logic in them.

Only couples who could procreate, if they were in perfectly working order as nature intended, may adopt. Well, that's just silly, man. In fact, it targets couples who generally don't need to or want to adopt.

Yet emphasises the best environment for the child.

Would you let single people adopt?

It would depend on the circumstances.

Anyway, I'll say it again, two fathers is way better than none.

Two abusive fathers is worse than none.

For all your "love is everything" message you spout, on this issue you're as guilty as drawing an arbitrary line as any of us are.

But I am not condemning people for drawing a line. I am in fact point out the hypocrisy of criticising people for simply excercising judgement about what they want in a society, when everyone here is doing exactly the same thing. People have as much right to express problems with homosexual activity as they do to express the joys of it.

Oh, and while we're at it, you keep referring to nature, and every mammal in nature exhibits homosexual tendancies. So, you're barking up the wrong tree there, too.

I used that as MY argument Timber. Pointing out that homosexuality, bestiality and incest are all occuring in nature. My issue with homosexual behaviour has nothing to do with whether it occurs in nature or not. There are plenty of things in nature that we don't incorperate into society. I was asking Illumina what his reasoning for being so vehemently derisive of incest and bestiality were. You've kept ignoring consentual incest might I add.