View Single Post
Old 05-04-2004, 10:14 AM   #9
Troubleshooter
The urban Jane Goodall
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,012
Quote:
Originally posted by Slartibartfast
No, but I like to carry arguments to absurd limits.
Sometimes that is all the fun that is to be had with some topics...

Quote:
Originally posted by Slartibartfast
Troubleshooter has a good approach. Maybe government has no place setting marriage laws at all. Maybe people should write up their own nuptial agreements that detail exactly what the partnership will entail for all inolved parties.
The gov't does have a stake in how people choose to partner themselves, but the religious standard isn't the one to go by anymore.

Maybe if someone came up with a new religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slartibartfast
but they are consenting adults... would you stop two non-related adults that have serious genetic defects from trying to have children? How is this different? And again, I'm being intentionally obtuse, but there is a point floating around here somewhere.
I do have a concern with genetic defectives breeding. That being said, I don't know what to do about it though. From the strictly species-centric viewpoint it's bad, very bad. It's reintroducing weakness into the genepool. From the humanity standpoint it's still bad but to stop them would arguably infringe upon their liberties.

Edit: forgot to reply to the third not-point
__________________
I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

Last edited by Troubleshooter; 05-04-2004 at 10:17 AM.
Troubleshooter is offline   Reply With Quote