03-19-2014, 05:06 PM
(03-19-2014, 02:32 PM)milo Wrote: It would have been nice if you had addressed the ugly, the socially awkward and the surprisingly large group of individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all as none of them are protected classes in our new equal rights and marriage for all scenario.ugly: already represented equally across all spectra
Ah, hell with it, lump them together with the bestials, incestuals, killers and dissidents on the unapproved list.
(How do we feel about polygamy, btw?)
I thought I had read somewhere that smoking increases birth defects more than incest, BTW which is why it is illegal for smokers to marry. Oh, wait. It's not? Any chance of adding smokers to the unapproved list, I don't like them much anyway?
socially awkward: just a phase
individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all:
evolution will weed these out eventually (i.e. we
still have a little time left).
Polygamy:
The easy answer is: "Polygamy is fine by me as long as it's
consensual." But what constitutes consent and how in the world
do you determine it? I know 15-year-olds who are perfectly
capable of informed consent and 30-years-olds that will
probably never be capable of it. Determining coercion's
even worse. But that holds true for standard marriage
(whatever that is) and a zillion other types of contracts
(college loans come to mind). So, what the hell, make it
legal and let polygamists take their chances like everybody
else (except the wealthy).
Smokers are protected by at least 31 multinational conglomerates
and vast numbers of governmental bodies who depend on their $$.
Legislating meteor strikes would produce better results.
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions

