Robert it is obviously harmful don’t make mistakes by mixing too much together. It is impossible to regulate breeding but adoption is carefully regulated and adopted children should be protected. The problems we have now in not a reason to make more.

The children issue is important as it has to happen with gay marriage. Can you seriously suggest that if marriage was changed to include homos that it would be legal to say that the benefits of a mother and father are better then a homo couple?

It is great to see you thinking for yourself for the relevance of Philos comments. You should have done that originally. Now you have to rationalise your mistakes but it is a good start.

Obviously what Philo said is relevant amd Jw2040 knows it but he wants to win the argument by having the argument keeping it to things he can win. He is in the wrong so most relevant arguments he will lose and the more he stops people pointing out the truth the more his wrong sounds right.

Philo and Jack I don’t want to turn your stomach but you won’t do as well with your chimp argument as you should because homos lick each others anus so it doesn’t sound so bad to them.

Philo, obviously what chimpanzees do has little if any relevance to what should be considered acceptable behaviour among humans.
However chimpanzees would have every right to feel offended at being compared to Jack the Lad, especially in the context of tolerance of the consensual, private behaviour of others.

J Bennett, thanks mate, I was just eating lunch :), but you do have a point there.

wizofaus thinks 'chimpanzees would have every right to feel offended at being compared to Jack the Lad' yet he also stated 'my children may well live to see humans and robots allowed to marry'.
Talk about simian intelligence eh.

Jack, you go argue with some of the most intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/

Even I hope to be around by 2050, but my 2yo son standards a moderate chance of surviving to the end of the century - if human-like robots aren't commmonplace by then it could pretty much only be because industrial civilisation has largely collapsed.

Wizofaus,

"Jack, you go argue with some of the most intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics."

You opened possibilities that Jack hadn't considered namely that the curious comment wasn't your idea. Nevertheless, isn't the above quoted comment rather generous to the creative student at a University in the Netherlands who did that as a Phd topic? You have multiplied him to plural and decided he is one of the most intelligent minds in the planet without knowing that for sure.

Clearly there is no reason to think that the standard expectation among people working in robotics is impending robot human marriage. In the same article the roboticist commented that he didn't think it was going to happen albeit qualifying with an "anything's possible". Indeed you would have to wonder if the student was having a bit of fun with his extravagant predictions and getting a PhD in the process. He couldn't be blamed for that.

Further, aren't you in favour of marriage between people with same sex attractions? Could not the idea that it will pave the way to people marrying inanimate objects scare people off?

You just can't help yourself, can you mjpb?

"Further, aren't you in favour of marriage between people with same sex attractions? Could not the idea that it will pave the way to people marrying inanimate objects scare people off?"

I would bet that you know perfectly well that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and that there could not possibly be a connection between same-sex relationships and the types of unions you are referring to.

Rather than make a direct claim about these things, you're at it again - planting an idea in an indirect question.

If you have something to say, say it (and maybe you could keep it on topic too). Just spare us the dark irrelevant musings.