# father and daughter should be allowed to marry



## Yurt (May 15, 2009)

discuss

and if you're against father marrying daughter, i will call you anti family


----------



## Luissa (May 15, 2009)

Yurt said:


> discuss
> 
> and if you're against father marrying daughter, i will call you anti family


and I will call you fucked up for being for it!


----------



## Yurt (May 15, 2009)

Luissa said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > discuss
> ...



you're anti family you family phobic racist bigot asshole bitch


----------



## Yurt (May 15, 2009)

oh come on now....this is not a bad thing, they just want a loving relationship.  you people are bunch of close minded bigot assholes....


----------



## roomy (May 15, 2009)

It's not going to work Yurt.You need to ba a believable idiot.


----------



## Yurt (May 15, 2009)

roomy said:


> It's not going to work Yurt.You need to ba a believable idiot.



can't blame a man for trying....and now it has been moved to the affective grave yard....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

Luissa said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > discuss
> ...



Are you for Gay's marrying?


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization.  Yet, people are not dominos.  Do you like freedom?  People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right?  Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana?  If not, then you are anti-freedom.  You say, &#8220;Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana&#8221;.  Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine?  If you say &#8220;No&#8221;, then you must be opposed to freedom.  

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.  Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed.  We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.


----------



## alan1 (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



You mean like a father and son?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization.  Yet, people are not dominos.  Do you like freedom?  People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right?  Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana?  If not, then you are anti-freedom.  You say, Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana.  Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine?  If you say No, then you must be opposed to freedom.
> 
> It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.  Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed.  We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.



WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members  using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.


----------



## alan1 (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization.  Yet, people are not dominos.  Do you like freedom?  People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right?  Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana?  If not, then you are anti-freedom.  You say, Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana.  Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine?  If you say No, then you must be opposed to freedom.
> ...


That's gonna leave a mark.


----------



## manu1959 (May 15, 2009)

we can't deny them the same rights as other couples that would just be wrong...after all they didn't choose that lifestyle they were born that way.....


----------



## HUGGY (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization.  Yet, people are not dominos.  Do you like freedom?  People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right?  Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana?  If not, then you are anti-freedom.  You say, Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana.  Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine?  If you say No, then you must be opposed to freedom.
> 
> It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.  Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed.  We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.



*should people be free to inhale cocaine? *

Only if its that pink peruvian ether base flake.   Now that shit will make you believe there is a dog.

When I was flyin the bud outta clombia they would tip me some of that stuff once in a while....  holy crap a line the size of a fingernail clipping would set you straight for hours.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

anybody gonna touch this?


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

I love this topic. 

I mean sure, you can bite the bullet and go along with it and be a considered a sick fuck by just about everyone, or you can man up and admit your hypocrisy. 

The Left has been trying to be smug and claim some kind of moral superiority on the topic of gay marriage for so long, but this really presents an interesting conundrum. 

So what's it going to be? Incest is a-ok or re-think that consenting adult thing? You can't be in favor of gay marriage and not be in favor of incestuous marriage without being a hypocrite. 

This topic fucking rules.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

Amanda said:


> I love this topic.
> 
> I mean sure, you can bite the bullet and go along with it and be a considered a sick fuck by just about everyone, or you can man up and admit your hypocrisy.
> 
> ...



Really, there is no logical or scientific connection between the two, it's twisting logic and reason in a perverted direction in an attempt to make something which harms no one sound bad. We can use the same logic twisting:

Do you support genocide?

If you don't then you don't support christianity. But if you do support christianity then you are vile or a hypocrite.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > I love this topic.
> ...



I disagree.  I have always thought gays should have the right to marry but this IS a monkey wrench.  
How do we constitutionally prevent a consenting adult from marrying  his adult daughter?


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization.  Yet, people are not dominos.  Do you like freedom?  People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right?  Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana?  If not, then you are anti-freedom.  You say, Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana.  Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine?  If you say No, then you must be opposed to freedom.
> ...



The polygamy issue can be avoided by making the law state that marriage is between two people.


----------



## alan1 (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > I love this topic.
> ...



So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?
It's both incest and homosexual.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization.  Yet, people are not dominos.  Do you like freedom?  People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right?  Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana?  If not, then you are anti-freedom.  You say, Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana.  Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine?  If you say No, then you must be opposed to freedom.
> ...



No.  I am not wrong about what I said.  Different people draw the line at different points.  Some gays would probably support legalizing inter-family marriage (marriage between a father and an adult daughter).  Others might not.  Some gays would probably add a disclaimer to the notion of 2 consenting adults such as We think that 2 consenting adults should be free to have sex as long as the relationship is not parent to son or parent to daughter.  Those that support gay marriage but oppose marriage between fathers and daughters are no more anti-family than those who would allow cigarette smoking but oppose legalizing cocaine being anti-freedom.   Gay marriage does not open the door to incest and polygamy any more than does alcohol or cigarettes open the door to other drugs.  These things are not dominos.  We have draw the line (and adjusted the line) at different points at different times for generations.  We tried legalizing alcohol.  Then we prohibited it.  Then we decided to legalize it again.  We put some restrictions on smoking cigarettes but we are still allowed to smoke in the privacy of our own home.  Yet, we still manage to keep marijuana illegal for the most part.  

No.  Those that want to move the line to allow gay marriage but keep incest illegal are no more hypocritical than are those who would allow cigarette smoking but prohibit marijuana smoking.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > I love this topic.
> ...



Who needs a scientific anything? The argument goes: If two people are consenting adults they should be allowed to do what they please, including getting married.

Ok, I believe that. I think that gays should have the right to a civil union. I think the term marriage should be strictly a religious term and everyone should be allowed to have a civil union. I think polygamous civil unions should be allowed. And I think consenting relatives (i.e. incest) should be allowed. Maybe I'm a sick fuck but I'm no hypocrite.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



  Uh.  No.  His shouting, gross generalization and fallacious domino theory reasoning did not leave any mark.


----------



## manu1959 (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....


----------



## alan1 (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Same question to you,
So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Why is where you want to draw the line more valid than where someone else does?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Aah, but over-simplification is the world they live in. Those so against gay marriage have nothing but "black and white" to argue with, they cannot see the rainbow after the storm.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


can you explain to me how it's illegal for a father to marry his adult daughter?


----------



## alan1 (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



The argument of "2 consenting adults" is the "black and white" without the rainbow that the proponents for gay marriage have consistently used.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



you have the same right as anyone else.  between two people.  

I know what you're going to say next.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Most states have a law preventing those who are closer than second cousins or further from marrying. Again, it's an over simplification. There are many more things that have to "break" in order for this to even come close to being a connected issue. Also, the offspring of such a union would be so in danger of mutation and disability that it's not a good idea to any intelligent person, and would run the risk of ruining that offspring's life, since gay couples cannot produce offspring that is another degree of separation. Also, you open up the world of abuse from the parent in such an instance, which is another can of worms you would have to sort out, yet even more degrees of separation. Now, if you want to live in a world of black and white, there are a few third world nations that are stuck in that mindset, luckily in the US we can see all the rainbow as a whole.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



how would it be abuse if the daughter is an adult?


----------



## manu1959 (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



lol.....

If taxpayer money isn't used to allow people to get married - then why do taxpayers get a say on whether or not poligamists marriage should be allowed or dis-allowed?

Simply put if it doesn't take a dime out of my pocket and actually could PREVENT my local city from raising sales tax revenue due to the increased revenue from poligamist marriage licenses, why should poligamist marriage be legislated or voted upon? Who am I to say you can or cannot get married? Who are YOU to say it?

This whole argument doesn't make sense.

Sure you can say "I don't morally agree with poligamist marriage" that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But to say "poligamist marriage should be against the law" well that's just silly. It doesn't make any sense.

(courtsey david s.............)


----------



## alan1 (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I'll ask again, since you seem to have missed it the first two times,
So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?
Hey, guess what, no mutated offspring to be concerned about.


----------



## Yurt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



the connection to gay marriage is absolute.  what "loophole" are you referring to?  

nice logical fallacy with the genocide, more censor logic from KK.....


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



By looking into the "possibilities" ... you people are so good at only seeing unrelated possibilities yet you cannot see the obvious ones. If it were legal then parents who wanted to do it would "prep" their offspring for it, through many of the same brainwashing methods used by parents already to push their religious beliefs into the children's minds. Duh.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



The polygamist can stand on freedom of religion. (mormons)  After all, peyote is illegal unless you are Native american, as are Eagle feathers.  Why?  freedom of religion.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

Amanda said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Why is anyones position on where to draw the line more valid than anyone elses?  Why do you think we should draw the line here instead of there  or there instead of here?  It all comes down to each persons opinion  and opinions come from experiences, thoughts, readings, research, and a wide variety of variables  perhaps some prejudices - perhaps some incorrect information, personal biases and preferences, values, etc. 

I think that civil union status for gay couples should be granted.  In my opinion it might decrease promiscuity to at least a small degree.  I think that gay couples should have just as easy access to benefits that heterosexual couples have.  There are probably some other reasons too.  I think that I understand the value that people put to the term marriage.  I think that it is undue sentiment and that if gay couples were to be allowed to get married then there would not be the societal destruction that some people might imagine.    

Im somewhat hesitant about allowing parents to wed their children  primarily due to the risks of inbreeding. I also think that we should address these issues carefully and slowly  one at a time.  Lets not make multiple changes all at once.   I think that we should first see how civil unions work out.  Then we can address gay marriage.  If there are no disastrous consequences to America as a result of gay marriage, then we can see about polygamy and other items.  

Remember how we handled alcohol.  We allowed it.  Then we tried prohibition.  Then we went back to allowing alcohol consumption.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



what "people" do I belong to?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

I still say, marriage is bullshit anyway and should have no legal connection, benefit, or protections. If you want it to be a religious thing, fine, but no laws for it, none, zero, zilch. No legal contract.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

I can't help myself, I have to say it again... I LOVE this topic.

I believe everyone draws a line on what they find morally acceptable. We all draw it in slightly different places. Why is anyone's line more correct than anyone else's? The answer is: it isn't. So, when you take the Left's argument and run with it you end up with awkward situations like this. 

So, c'mon Lefties, fess up, are you going to take the position that probably 99.9% of people oppose or admit the hypocrisy? Just answer the question so we can move on.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

Amanda said:


> I can't help myself, I have to say it again... I LOVE this topic.
> 
> I believe everyone draws a line on what they find morally acceptable. We all draw it in slightly different places. Why is anyone's line more correct than anyone else's? The answer is: it isn't. So, when you take the Left's argument and run with it you end up with awkward situations like this.
> 
> So, c'mon Lefties, fess up, are you going to take the position that probably 99.9% of people oppose or admit the hypocrisy? Just answer the question so we can move on.



thankfully most people don't enjoy your kind of love.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Right off hand, I think that it would be safe enough to allow gay brothers to get married.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Really, why?


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help myself, I have to say it again... I LOVE this topic.
> ...



What's with all the hating tonight KK? Is there something wrong with this topic that is bothering you? I think it's fun because it takes an idea a lot of people have taken for granted and used as an argument and makes them re-think their preconceived notions. How is that a bad thing?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

Amanda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



Meh, you're too simple minded to understand anyway. Since you cannot read or follow logic, the only fun you are is to make fun of.


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2009)

fwiw, any two _consenting_ adults should be able to enter into a contract that gives them the same tax benefits as a traditional marriage...whether they have sex or not.

And no, the government doesn't have the right to say that two _consenting _adults can't have sex. 

Once again, the cons love big brother if he protects them from themselves.



btw, incest isn't a big problem because it is socially frowned on and evolutionarily stupid. But don't let that stop you from making a law that saves you from yourself, Yurt.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



They cant inbreed.  Therefore, they can produce a baby that would have a heightened chance of having a genetic handicap.  Inbreeding within the first generation often produces expression of recessive traits.     Prohibition of inbreeding has been discussed as a possible way to reduce the chances of having children born deformed, or with undesirable traits.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

Ravi said:


> fwiw, any two _consenting_ adults should be able to enter into a contract that gives them the same tax benefits as a traditional marriage...whether they have sex or not.
> 
> And no, the government doesn't have the right to say that two _consenting _adults can't have sex.
> 
> ...



so are you saying it should be legal  for ANY two adults to get married, whether they are related or not?


----------



## manu1959 (May 15, 2009)

didn't woody allen marry his daughter....


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> didn't woody allen marry his daughter....



step daughter.  Mia farrow's adopted daughter before she hooked up with Woody.


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > fwiw, any two _consenting_ adults should be able to enter into a contract that gives them the same tax benefits as a traditional marriage...whether they have sex or not.
> ...


No, I'm saying that any _two_ adults should be able to enter into a contract that gives them the same benefits as a married couple. Marriage itself is a religious ceremony and has nothing to do with government.


----------



## manu1959 (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



what if they use their sister as a surrogate egg donor for their sperm....


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Aaah ... but here's the crux, it's still incest.

Anyhoo, Ravi did make one good point, seems people just want the government to babysit them even more. Soon it will be laws telling us to wipe our noses.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



BUT it is not ok to say marriage is between a man and a woman? Right?


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

Ravi said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



fixed it before you posted.   Thank you for your opinion, though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > I love this topic.
> ...



You are a blazing idiot. Those have nothing to do with one another. But hey any excuse to avoid admitting your a fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


Or one of them could screw their sister and then what? Forced abortion?


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> didn't woody allen marry his daughter....



Woody Allen married Soon-Yi Previn.  Born in South Korea, she had previously been *adopted* by Mia Farrow and her then-husband Andre Previn when Soon-Yi was about 8 years old.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



How do we legally say man and woman?  I think gay marriage is disgusting and wrong, but why force morals on everyone if no one's rights are being violated?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

Here's the HUGE flaw in this, just saying it's between a man and woman opens it up more to incest than gay people. If we continue to define it so black and white then parents could logically marry their own children, since it still fits in the "black and white" logic, a mother and son are still a man and woman, a father and daughter still man and woman. Brother and sister, still one man and one woman. So ... how again is it that allowing gay marriage somehow makes it more possible?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

So far, it seems that allowing marriage to be defined as only between one man and one woman runs a higher risk of incest and many other "perversions" than gay marriage, at least if the gay couples are related they won't be ruining the lives of any offspring.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Wow, KK, the gloves come off. Is there something I've done to offend you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



BULLSHIT. No one is making an argument that pairs those two at all. Lying dumb ass. You have claimed though that 2 CONSENTING ADULTS should be free to marry no matter their sex no matter the feelings of others. BUT now, you want to add caveats. WHY? Because it offends your sensibilities. In other words you are a HYPOCRITE. Telling those of us against Gay Marriage we have no right to be against and INSISTING that two consenting adults are legally FREE to make that choice themselves.

Well not really right? Now YOU want to ban 2 consenting adults that happen to offend YOUR personal sensibilities. Sorry, you don't get to make that distinction any more than I do.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I would allow marriage to include that between people of the same sex.  I might stop short of allowing incest marriage - particularly if a baby might be the result.  

Your turn: Is it okay to smoke tobacco but not okay to smoke marijuana?  Where do you draw the line - and why do you draw it there?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

Amanda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



A daughter can marry their father, one man and one woman, so, if you think that sexuality has anything to do with who you marry, have at it.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

Ravi said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



so you support the right of two people who are directly related to be LEGALLY married.  Why not just say that?  Afraid of how you really feel?  and I fixed the too/two before you did.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Here's the HUGE flaw in this, just saying it's between a man and woman opens it up more to incest than gay people. If we continue to define it so black and white then parents could logically marry their own children, since it still fits in the "black and white" logic, a mother and son are still a man and woman, a father and daughter still man and woman. Brother and sister, still one man and one woman. So ... how again is it that allowing gay marriage somehow makes it more possible?

I repeat, how is it illegal by that definition?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Ya? The same argument applies to this as the Gays used to justify THEIR life Style. Consenting adults, none of the Governments business what happens in private and love is all that matters.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



Father and daughter would be a straight couple, so ... one man, one woman, by your own definition they can get married.


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



yes, I see your point.  I usually agree with the consenting adults argument, but incest throws a monkey wrench in the mix.  
come to think of it, how IS incest illegal if between two consenting adults?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Yet you argue gays do not "prep" children they have, now do you? In fact you have argued they should be free to procreate and to adopt. Now you want to claim incestuous couples should not have that freedom as well.

By the way, PROVE that a single issue of a father and daughter or son and mother having children will result in mutations. It took generations for that to happen to the Royal Families in Europe and they all are pretty fine now.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



It is a little bit more dangerous - particularly if there is inbreeding.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



*eye roll* Oh yeah, every child raised by a gay person is gay, sure .... got anymore phony gems?

Again, a father and daughter is still one man and one woman, what's stopping them now?


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



being dangerous does not constitute illegality.  promiscuous sex is also dangerous.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



SAFE? I will ask you as well, provide actual evidence that a father daughter or son mother marriage with children would result in mutations. It took generations for that to happen to the Royal families of Europe and they have recovered from it for the most part as well.

What right do you have to force YOUR opinion on us? And if it is by majority, then you lose on GAY marriages, since a VAST majority of Americans are AGAINST gay Marriages. INCLUDING the current President.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Your entire argument hinges of mutation from procreation, Gays can't procreate, REMEMBER? That was your latest attempt to justify YOUR opinion.


----------



## manu1959 (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



wern't you arguing that straight parents would be "training" thier kids to marry them....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Then you agree, Incstuous relations are fine between two consenting adults. And you agree Polygamy is fine between however mutually consenting adults wish to be married? Notice though people like Matt and Kitten can not make that statement. They have argued forcefully in the past about the majority having no right to dictate to the minority on the issue of gays getting married, and NOW want to say the majority DOES have that right in THIS case.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



The same way we would prevent gays from marrying you dumb ass. BY STIPULATING that in the law. And why would we do that? Because the Majority opposed it. Good god you are as stupid as a rock. Same argument with matts idiotic smoking question.

YOU TWO want to blur the line and want to make claims that the majority have no rights. LIVE with the consequences. Or admit your entire argument was no better then those opposed to gay marriage in the first place.

HYPOCRITE.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Incest is also between one man and one woman, so by your definition it's already okay,


----------



## elvis (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



polygamists could stand on religious freedom. After all, American Indians are allowed to use peyote and possess eagle feathers for the same reason,  something I am not allowed to do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Ohh I see, you get to argue parents will prep their children to later marry them, BUT no gay couple will ever prep their children to be gay? HYPOCRITE.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



So then why not alter the law again to include gay people? It doesn't open it up anymore than having one man and one woman, since incest is still within that limit.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Already answered your ignorant claim. Come on Kitten you can do it, ADMIT your opinion is no more valid then anti gay people's opinion.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I'm basing it on the exact same logic, but with my logic the implications are far more realistic. How is it that marriage between one man and one woman stop incest, since a father and daughter is still one man and one woman. It follows your logic far more since it's a smaller step. Gay to incest, that's a huge stretch, but straight to incest is just a hop.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



WRONG you DUMB ASS. The laws already exist making it ILLEGAL. YOU are the one breaking down those laws with the idiotic excuse it is a matter between two consenting adults. YOU not I, create the situation that allows incest and polygamy to argued the EXACT same way. YOU not I , insist that the majority opinion is irrelevant on the issue of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once again you HYPOCRITE YOU create the environment that allows incestuous relationships to be made into marriages and that allows polygamy to be legal. YOUR ENTIRE line of reasoning demands it. Once gays win based on the argument their rights were violated because the Government has no business in the private affairs of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS that creates the same avenue for the two things YOU HAPPEN to oppose.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

And that's why I love this thread, the hypocrisy bubbles to the surface and just won't go away.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I didn't see anything religious in his statements. Maybe you could point them out?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

Amanda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



They certainly have no logic in them, thus the only point of view is religious.

Question, do you squawk like a parrot when you type to?


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Personal attacks? I thought you were above that. I guess nothing's too low when you're backed into a corner. Are you going to give a reference to how his statements are religious or are you going to retract your ridiculous statement? You're embarrassing yourself all over this board tonight, KK.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



WRONG AGAIN you fucking DUMB ASS. Gay Marriage was illegal too, you RETARD. It is being MADE legal with the argument that it is none of the Governments business and is somehow a right for 2 CONSENTING ADULTS of ANY sex to marry. This means, now stay with me you half wit..., that an Incestuous couple or couples could come in and make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Since the only thing keeping them from marrying is the same thing that kept Gays from marrying, the OPINION of the morals of the Majority. And you and the Judges allowing gay Marriage have DESTROYED that argument completely or nearly completely.

KEEP UP DUMB SHIT.... IF a court has ruled that Gays can marry because of the fact they are 2 CONSENTING ADULTS then guess what NUMB NUTS? An Incestuous couple can then cite that decision as an excuse for THEIR RIGHT to marry.

The other argument being that marriage laws do not stipulate man and woman. That decision of the Supreme Court everyone keeps citing does not stipulate Incest either. If Marriage of and by itself is a right, then you have no right to deny ANY people that are adults and consenting from marrying each other.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Incest fits being between "one man and one woman" better than two consenting adults.


----------



## Amanda (May 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Um... not if it is in fact 2 consenting adults. You're flailing here, KK. 

Myself, I wonder why anyone that doesn't have any interest in sex even has an opinion on what others that are interested in sex want to do. 

It's so much fun when that 1 is thrown at me, I'm curious how you will respond and what your stake in all of this is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2009)

Amanda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



She vocally and forcefully has argued the premise that " 2 consenting adults" was the only criteria for marriage. Now when faced with some of the realities of that argument she wants to do what she berated US for doing. Use her morals to deny 2 consenting adults their supposed personal right to engage in sex and be legally married.


----------



## mattskramer (May 15, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



The notion that inbreeding increases the chance of there being weaknesses in offspring is a commonly understood simple genetic principle.  Read high-school level book on genetics.  Here is a good book on the subject.  Page 80 of &#8220;From Instinct to Identity&#8221; is a good source.

From Instinct to Identity: The ... - Google Book Search

Now, if I am wrong &#8211; if there is no increase in the chance of an offspring from incest having such a handicap - then it stands to reason that I would not be opposed to incest marriage (unless I learn of some other significant disadvantage that I think would outweigh any benefit).  I do not mean to be unnecessarily prejudicial or discriminatory this area. 



> What right do you have to force YOUR opinion on us? And if it is by majority, then you lose on GAY marriages, since a VAST majority of Americans are AGAINST gay Marriages. INCLUDING the current President.



I am not *forcing* my opinion on anyone.  I am practicing my freedom of speech.  You are not required to listen to me.  You can communicate your opinion too.  I don&#8217;t have to pay attention to you. In our republic, the most popular bill or candidate usually gets enacted into legislation or wins elections respectively.  That does not necessarily mean that the most popular view or candidate was the right one.  If most people oppose gay marriage and if gay marriage never becomes the law of the land, it does not follow that gay marriage is wrong or right &#8211; just that it was not popular.  Bill Clinton won the popular vote twice.  I guess that it means that he was the right person to lead America for 8 years.  Read about the bandwagon effect.  Anyway, all political systems considered I do prefer the republic.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (May 15, 2009)

Lefties and homosexuals are hypocrites and a father marrying a daughter is wrong and once again like gay marriage violates the institution of what a family is. Some liberals are just so damn out of hand limits must be created and enforced because without them our country would be in utter chaos and the Bass doesn't want to live in a place where everything goes.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (May 15, 2009)

As the Bass has stated in another thread and will state again, *ALL* Americans have the right to marriage, thus gays have no argument that they are denied the "right" to marriage, however, their fight for "rights" is not one for marriage but for a special marriage that suits their sexual lifestyle and that request for a special marriage that fits their lifestyle is what they are fighting for, not the right to marriage itself. If gays are allowed to have a special marriage that suits their lifestyle by that logic all people should have special marriages that suit their sexual lifestyle, that includes incestuous marriages, polygamy, the right to marry two people of opposite sexes if one is so called bisexual, etc. Gays are hypocrites is they are against this, of course using their own logic.


----------



## Amanda (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Yup, I see it too.


----------



## elvis (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



your only point of view is religious.  You may not consider yourself religious, but the only reason relatives cannot marry is because of morals. No one's rights are being violated in either scenario.  same as gays.  The Gunny is correct in this thread.  You can't have it both ways.  The only reason you see a difference between the two is because you are willing to tolerate one and not the other.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Okay, so then, since we will only keep it as a union between one man and one woman, incest is now legal, gotcha.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



Her morals are against it. BUT she made the argument again and again, over and over, that Gays should be allowed to legally marry because, A) they are CONSENTING ADULTS and B) they love each other. BOTH those criteria apply to Incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

Now she wants to argue that there is a danger in that type of love. Sorry doesn't wash, you see Homosexual love is inherently more dangerous then straight love. Especial man and man sex and woman on woman with inanimate objects. Safety was never her concern before.

Nor was brain washing. She als argued there was absolutely no reason gay couples should be denied the right to adopt and raise children. YET now she wants to claim parents would actually brain wash their children on a matter she disagrees with.

Further as to genetic problems, she or Matt should find me a law that prevents KNOWN carries of genetic defects from procreating.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Father = one man
Daughter = one woman

Fits perfectly, let's make it legal since it will be easy.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

I agree with Billy Basset.

Way to go Yurt, it flew.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Hey, straight people want it defined as between "one man and one woman" so ... that does not rule out incest at all. Sounds perfectly logical, and even okay in the christian bible, so I say let's make it legal.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Father = one man
> Daughter = one woman
> 
> Fits perfectly, let's make it legal since it will be easy.



False argument. You see you dumb fuck, it is already illegal to have incestuous relationships in most States even with the one man one woman rule. Your ignorant demands that LOVE and CONSENTING ADULTS is the only criteria is what makes that law be put in jeopardy. NOT the inclusion of one man one woman.

But then you either know this and are trying to obfuscate the issue or you really are an ignorant dumb ass.

So tell us again why our morals are not good enough, BUT YOURS are?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Father = one man
> ...



According to the christian bible incest is perfectly okay, as a matter of fact it's encouraged in many places. One man, one woman, incest does not break the biblical morals.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Who here is arguing christian morals? Didn't you insist this country is NOT a Christian Nation? 

I am arguing the rule of the Majority. The Majority are against Gay Marriages. INCLUDING the President and most of Congress. And in fact NO State has authorized gay marriage by popular demand or opinion, they have all been acts of either a Court or a Governor.

And in the end the ONLY thing you have to base your dissent on Incestuous relationships on is....wait for it...... wait for it..... MAJORITY OPINION.

Once YOU took that off the table and INSISTED that CONSENTING ADULTS and Love were all that mattered YOU provided the avenue for Incestuous relationships being made legal. YOU see dumb ass, Incestuous relationships between 2 consenting adults that LOVE one another completely meet YOUR Criteria for why the State should sanction a marriage.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Neat, you responded twice to my post. 

I thought I did say that. Any two consenting adults means just that...any two. That would cover people that are related.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Point to one spot in the christian bible (supposedly the law to the christians) that states incest is wrong, and I can find a dozen that support or encourage it. Easy breezy. But, if you think homosexual marriage will lead to incest, then why hasn't straight marriage lead to it, since it is still one man and one woman with incest? Fewer changes have to be made from straight marriage to incest than from gay marriage.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

RGS has really gone off the deep end.

Incest is already illegal, though I doubt seldom if ever prosecuted. You can't make a law to "allow" a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is already illegal.

First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then _you_ can marry your sibling of choice.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> 
> Incest is already illegal, though I doubt seldom if ever prosecuted. You can't make a law to "allow" a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is already illegal.
> 
> First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then _you_ can marry your sibling of choice.



I think those who want to force this strange connection for some reason do want it legal, they know gay marriage will be allowed soon, so if they make the argument now and somehow actually convince enough people it's logical they think that people will cave once it's done so they can live their perversions.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> ...


It's no secret that RGS wants the mormon lifestyle.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> discuss
> 
> and if you're against father marrying daughter, i will call you anti family


  "anti-family" is a catch all slur which means nothing much at all.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > It's not going to work Yurt.You need to ba a believable idiot.
> ...


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)




----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> 
> Incest is already illegal, though I doubt seldom if ever prosecuted. You can't make a law to "allow" a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is already illegal.
> 
> First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then _you_ can marry your sibling of choice.



BULLSHIT DUMBASS, Gay sex used to be illegal as well. Or have you forgotten that and in fact RETARD on a lot of States books it STILL IS ILLEGAL. It is called Sodomy.

And as usual your RETARDO ASS hasn't a FUCKING CLUE what is going on. Maybe if instead of a head full of Methane you actually had function brain cells you could keep up with arguments that last more then a couple responses.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> ...



Really ... it wasn't illegal before that though, as a matter of fact the strongest empires in history practiced it a lot, most of their soldier were bi. They conquered thousands of cities, at least the ones who embraced gay practices, they were unstoppable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> ...



You are now trying to cover your failed arguments with lies, and attacking the messenger. Just admit you dumb fucking BITCH, that your entire argument for why Gays should wed applies completely to why Incestuous relationships should be made legal.

Ohh and once again for you IGNORANT INTOLERANT Haters of Religion, the Mormon Church has not condoned Polygamy since 1896, well over 100 years has passed you idiots. And they NEVER condoned incest.

But hey keep spinning, maybe some schmuck reading this will fall for your attempts to divert attention from your ignorant positions and the consequences of them.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Amanda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



Maybe you should re-think your own preconceived notions before you go attributing preconceived notions to others.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



SO unstoppable they ALL DIED OUT after short rules. But then you wouldn't want to admit that part.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> ...


pssst....maybe you don't know this but gays aren't the only ones that engage in sodomy. FAIL!


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Hmm ... prove it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



MORON, it does not change the fact it is ILLEGAL. NOW DOES IT? Yet States are through the courts approving Gay Marriage. Your entire argument about it being illegal so it can't be done is a house of flaming cards. The ONLY failure here is YOURS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Prove what? The fact the Mormon Church BANNED Polygamy in 1896? The fact the Mormon Church NEVER supported incest?  Already done that numerous times on this board for loons like you, you don't read it and then make the claim again later.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



All empires fade over time, but before these ones did, they ruled everything.

Okay, so let's take your "it was illegal once" point again, you know what else was illegal once:

Interracial marriages - want to make those illegal again.

Black marriages - yeah, try that one.

Alcohol - which should be illegal again, since it was once illegal perhaps we shouldn't have ever made it legal.

Women voting - hmm ... just try it, dare you.

etc. etc. etc..

Want to go back to the old laws, have at it, but I promise your life will be hell to.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Well, the only reason you would want to make an illogical attempt to connect two unrelated aspects to human relationships would be if you want it to come to pass. So you must want incest legal, since it is in no way connected to homosexuality and therefore could not possibly lead to incest being made legal unless people like you want it bad enough to keep twisting the logic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Your attempts to divert are not going to work you DUMB FUCK. Ravi made the claim that because something was illegal it could not then become legal. Are you even reading the thread? No, you are just trying to get us off the subject and the fact that YOU COMPLAINED over and over that all that matters in a marriage is that it is between two consenting Adults and that they love each other.

That has come home to roost with you. Because RETARD that criteria applies to Incestuous couples.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Your lies will not work, THEY are connected DIRECTLY by YOU and your INSISTENCE that all that matters for a legal marriage is that it be two consenting Adults in love.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

You're just being silly, RGS. 

Incest isn't legal. Sodomy is...except perhaps in a few states where old laws are left on the books but not enforced.

Either way, I believe that any two people should be allowed to enter into a legal contract that gives them the same benefits as a traditionally married couple.

You just can't get past the sex aspect.

The government has no business regulating sex between two consenting adults.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You are the one changing the goal posts, I just keep kicking field goals anyway. Consenting adults also implies it is a legal act as well, incest is illegal, therefore it does not fall into that category. Care to try again, perhaps sometime you will actually think instead of just rant.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Once again DUMB ASS GAY SEX IS ILLEGAL ALSO. Or are you to dense to understand the written word. You may be kicking footballs but they are sailing into windows and barn doors.

YOU set the criteria, now live with it.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Every time your stupidity reaches a new level I tell myself, thats it, he surely can't attain new levels of stupidity but here you go again.I am in awe of your capabilities.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Do you know how many straight couples would be locked up if anal sex was illegal? Several thousand, so yeah, go ahead, make it illegal again. It's not though, and homosexual relationships are also not illegal, nor have those ever been illegal (homosexual means of the same sex, the definition of which in this particular instance meaning gender).

So no, that twist also fails miserably. Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on. No matter how you attempt to twist reality and logic the two are completely unrelated. Unless you want to really go back to the time when America sucked the most, when our culture was bland, boring, and everything was crumbling, in which case say goodbye to alcohol and anything else you enjoy today.


----------



## jillian (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again DUMB ASS GAY SEX IS ILLEGAL ALSO. Or are you to dense to understand the written word. You may be kicking footballs but they are sailing into windows and barn doors.
> 
> YOU set the criteria, now live with it.



gay sex isn't illegal anymore... and it wasn't just gay sex... it was specific acts...whether performed by people of the opposite or same sex. you think oral sex should be illegal?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

roomy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



You may want to check your facts. Sodomy is illegal in a hell of a lot of States. Sodomy includes any "unnatural" sex act. Oral sex being one and taking one up the poop shoot being another.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

jillian said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Once again DUMB ASS GAY SEX IS ILLEGAL ALSO. Or are you to dense to understand the written word. You may be kicking footballs but they are sailing into windows and barn doors.
> ...



Sodomy most definitely is still on the books and YOU damn well know it.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Where?


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then _you_ can marry your sibling of choice.



When RGS moved away from home he was sorry to have to leave his little brothers/'s behind.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Sodomy is anal sex, not gay sex. Lesbians do not perform sodomy, and many straight couples do.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

Here you go, RGS. Looks like sodomy is legal for gays but not straights. 



> Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision _Lawrence v. Texas_ (see above). It is not clear whether or how sodomy laws that apply to both homosexual and heterosexual sex are affected by _Lawrence_


Sodomy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, you FAIL!


----------



## jillian (May 16, 2009)

Thank you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

SODOMYLAWS.ORG

14 States and the Military. And while the 2003 decision says it is unconstitutional States still have the laws and some still enforce it. 

But THIS just proves MY point Ravi. YOU claimed because something was illegal then it could not ever be legal nor have laws written making it legal.

YOU LOSE you idiot.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

jillian said:


> Thank you.



I suggest you actually READ the argument I have with Ravi. SHE claimed that because something is illegal it can not have any laws changing it to legal.

And this proves MY point, not hers.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> SODOMYLAWS.ORG
> 
> 14 States and the Military. And while the 2003 decision says it is unconstitutional States still have the laws and some still enforce it.
> 
> ...



It says there, one fucking state ... LOL now it's an EPIC fail.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you.
> ...



No, it proves neither point really. It still needs a majority either way.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> SODOMYLAWS.ORG
> 
> 14 States and the Military. And while the 2003 decision says it is unconstitutional States still have the laws and some still enforce it.
> 
> ...


Retard. A state cannot enforce a law that violates the federal constitution. FAIL.

You cannot legalize marriage for two people that are engaged in an illegal relationship. First you have to legalize the relationship. And that is just not going to happen in this case. You can pretend all you want that just because homosexuality has become acceptable then too will incest but that doesn't make it so.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you.
> ...


That's not what I said, silly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > SODOMYLAWS.ORG
> ...



WRONG AGAIN RETARD. There were 14 States and the US Military.  And again you dumb ass RAVI claimed because something was illegal it could not then be made legal. Well this proves her entire claim to be false. By a simple decision of the Supreme Court her point was completely, totally destroyed.

Further it States the US Military still enforces its laws and at least 3 States continue to try enforce theirs.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you.
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> 
> Incest is already illegal, though I doubt seldom if ever prosecuted. You can't make a law to "allow" a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is already illegal.
> 
> First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then _you_ can marry your sibling of choice.



Ravi said this. Read it careful now.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RGS has really gone off the deep end.
> ...


You should read it more carefully, dimbulb.

You cannot make a law to allow a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is illegal.

There are two different laws in play here, maybe it is just to subtle a distinction for your thick head. But I've already explained it to you above.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Look you DUMB ASS. One can now argue that Incest should not be illegal between consenting adults BECAUSE the argument was used for gays that all that mattered was CONSENTING ADULTS and love.

The only DIM BULB here is your ignorant ass. Until just a few years ago Gay sex was completely illegal now we have States allowing Gay marriage.

Now I realize since you have just one function brain cell it is hard to grasp any concept past what you want to eat later, BUT you ignorant idiot, the ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that because the excuse is used that two consenting adults should be free to do as they please, Incestuous relationships could now MAKE the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT.

I mean I am sorry that I assumed that you were capable of rational thought and actually able to follow an argument. I forgot just how fucking stupid you are.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

RGS, take a deep breath of methane and calm yourself down.


----------



## WillowTree (May 16, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

Anguille said:


> RGS, take a deep breath of methane and calm yourself down.


heh...RGS's problem is that he is illogical.

Here's how his reasoning goes.

"If gays can legally have sex then by golly it should be legal for me to have sex with my sister or my dog!"

He can't see there is a valid reason to not make incest legal (narrowing of the gene pool, high incidence of mental retardation). He can't see that there is a valid reason not to make bestiality legal (animals cannot consent).

There's no valid reason to make homosexuality illegal.


----------



## Montrovant (May 16, 2009)

I just wanted to bring up a quick point about the incest argument.

At least as far as parent/child relationships go, an argument might be made that the child cannot be considered able to give informed consent.  The reason for this is that parents have such a strong influence and are such a controlling figure in a child's life. 

Not asking anyone to agree with the argument, just bringing up something other than the inbreeding point.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > RGS, take a deep breath of methane and calm yourself down.
> ...


I don't think it's the government's business to regulate incest between consenting adults. Between an underage child and an adult it would fall under the category of sexual abuse.

Is the risk of mental retardation high? My understanding that incest does not lead to birth defects as frequently as people assume. If risk of birth defects is the reasoning for making incest illegal then sex between any two heterosexual carriers of genes that can put people at risk for genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, would then have to be illegal too.


----------



## nia588 (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> discuss
> 
> and if you're against father marrying daughter, i will call you anti family



people like you need to be banned from breeding.


----------



## HUGGY (May 16, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I knew there was a little something about you that was odd.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


There's no valid reason to make incest legal was my point. I don't even think it needs to be illegal...but you know some people need the government to protect them from themselves. If it weren't illegal more than likely RGS wouldn't be able to control himself. But most people don't need that help.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Yes they do.


----------



## alan1 (May 16, 2009)

roomy said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Aww, you just ruined her illusion.


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



thats the biggest ASSumption you could make...you talk about no connections...your logic never connects

do gay parents "prep" their children to be gay?


----------



## auditor0007 (May 16, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization.  Yet, people are not dominos.  Do you like freedom?  People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right?  Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana?  If not, then you are anti-freedom.  You say, Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana.  Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine?  If you say No, then you must be opposed to freedom.
> 
> It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.  Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed.  We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.



If the birthrate was two to one, either way, not only would polygamy be accepted, it would be encouraged.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Yes they do, whether they knowit/like it or not.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Does that mean straight parents with gay children prepped them that way?


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

I should qualify my answer by adding I believe they allow a more lax attitude toward sexuality which in turn sets in motion sexual experimentation leading usually to the conclusion that they may be bisexual, which is allowed in such families because some gayness is better than none.


----------



## alan1 (May 16, 2009)

roomy said:


> I should qualify my answer by adding I believe they allow a more lax attitude toward sexuality which in turn sets in motion sexual experimentation leading usually to the conclusion that they may be bisexual, which is allowed in such families *because some gayness is better than none*.



I can't wait to take that (partial) statement out of context.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

roomy said:


> I should qualify my answer by adding I believe they allow a more lax attitude toward sexuality which in turn sets in motion sexual experimentation leading usually to the conclusion that they may be bisexual, which is allowed in such families because some gayness is better than none.



Have you observed evidence that your theory might be true?


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > I should qualify my answer by adding I believe they allow a more lax attitude toward sexuality which in turn sets in motion sexual experimentation leading usually to the conclusion that they may be bisexual, which is allowed in such families *because some gayness is better than none*.
> ...



That was my whistling avatar piece, the rest was meant, and you know it.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

Anguille said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > I should qualify my answer by adding I believe they allow a more lax attitude toward sexuality which in turn sets in motion sexual experimentation leading usually to the conclusion that they may be bisexual, which is allowed in such families because some gayness is better than none.
> ...



Yes I have, if you have a big enough family you see the lot.


----------



## alan1 (May 16, 2009)

roomy said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > roomy said:
> ...



But it's so much better to take crap out of context if you want to ridicule somebody.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



I know, it is my forte.


----------



## Valerie (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> discuss
> 
> and if you're against father marrying daughter, i will call you anti family



Maybe you should start a coalition and gather signatures for a petition to the state court?  


Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> History
> 
> For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couples declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows  even without witnesses  the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
> 
> State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage[1]. Marriage licence application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-1800s with many available dating from the 1600s in colonial America.[2] Marriage licences from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved licence.[1] At least 32 nations establish significant prohibitions on same-sex marriage.[3]





> Every state in the United States has a requirement for marriage licences to be obtained. A marriage is not valid if the marriage ceremony is performed without a marriage licence being previously obtained.
> 
> The requirements for obtaining a marriage licence vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the licence is obtained; be of marriageable age (i.e. over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's licence, state ID card, birth certificate or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required, by someone who had been previously married in some states).
> 
> ...





> *Controversy*
> 
> Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.
> 
> ...


----------



## Amanda (May 16, 2009)

roomy said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



You'll smoke a turd in hell for that comment.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

Amanda said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



It's only funny cos it's true.


----------



## mattskramer (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> roomy said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



As far as I can tell, based on what I read, sodomy is legal in each and every state.  There might be an exception in the Armed Forces.  Here is how I came to that conclusion.  Please show how I may be mistaken.

Sodomy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. *The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas*.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I must assume that several of you did not rad this.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

I must admit I have never been fucked up the arse nor been allowed to fuck my wifes arsehole, am I normal?


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


He certainly can't seem to stop obsessing about it!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You dumb asses can try all you want to paint me anyway you want. Your insistence on TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is going to open a can of worms.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


one eyed worms?


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Have at it.See you on Operah.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (May 16, 2009)

Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,


Gay marriage victory in Albany stirs valid fears that incest and polygamy could come next

Now the logic of you jackasses has been proven to be a slippery slope indeed.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,
> 
> 
> Gay marriage victory in Albany stirs valid fears that incest and polygamy could come next
> ...


The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out. The worms play pinochle on your snout ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Where is Kittenkodder and her buddies now?



> A number of mainstream columnists, academics and the American Civil Liberties Union have voiced support for polygamy, using the same arguments that support gay marriage: that what loving, responsible, consenting adults do is their own business and none of the government's.



and



> In Ohio, a former sheriff's deputy named Paul Lowe has been fighting a fierce legal battle to overturn the state's anti-incest law. Lowe, who pleaded no contest to having sex with his adult stepdaughter, spent 120 days in jail and was designated a sexual offender.
> 
> The sentence was upheld by Ohio's highest court, but Lowe is planning an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Time magazine - and he's planning to make an argument based on Lawrence vs. Texas, a key gay-friendly legal precedent that struck down state anti-sodomy laws. In Lawrence, the high court ruled in 2003 that state laws banning gay sex in private were unconstitutional, citing "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex."



Gay marriage victory in Albany stirs valid fears that incest and polygamy could come next


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (May 16, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,
> ...



Whats the matter, trolling because your logic has been proven to be faulty? The incest marriage fighters and polygamists want the same thing and they're using the logic that gays use.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

Am I normal?


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

roomy said:


> Am I normal?


No matter what you have or have not done in the bedroom, you will never be entirely normal.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



Are you calling me an opponent of incestuous marriage and polygamy? I am not. I've said before that I oppose ALL marriage. We should not have legal distinctions between single and married people, but seeing as eliminating civil marriage altogether is hardly going to happen, my second choice is to make it available to each and all.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

I think I am normal.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

It's normal to feel that way.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

I am normal.


----------



## Anguille (May 16, 2009)

I thought you were Andy?


----------



## Valerie (May 16, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Right, why are we even asking our states to sanction our lives in the first place?  And we actually pay them a fee to do it!  

It is the activist "Defenders of Marriage" who have brought these issues to the political and legal forefront by writing exclusions into existing law with the DOMA, just because some gay couples wanted to have the legal benefits of marriage equality, they felt compelled to petition the state to stop them.  In so doing, it is DOM who have created the opportunity for this slippery slope argument in the courts.  I hadn't heard of anyone asking permission to marry their daughters except maybe those religious cults who brainwash and abuse women and children.

Charlie who are these incest marriage fighters you speak of?  Do you actually know of men who have petitioned the state for a license to marry their daughters?





> Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.
> 
> *Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral.* The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that *all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state*.[4] Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so that no authorization from the state is required; in some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract [5] which is seen by some as an infringement.[6]
> 
> ... *laws and restrictions were repealed, but the requirement to obtain a license has persisted, along with the associated fee. The institution of the marriage license often goes unquestioned by citizens today*.


----------



## roomy (May 16, 2009)

I cannot comprehend because I am normal/Andy.

I have two daughters, two sons and four Grandkids/five step Grandkids.

I would put some of you to death if I thought for one minute you meant some of the shit you post.


----------



## Valerie (May 16, 2009)

Montrovant said:


> I just wanted to bring up a quick point about the incest argument.
> 
> At least as far as parent/child relationships go, an argument might be made that the child cannot be considered able to give informed consent.  The reason for this is that parents have such a strong influence and are such a controlling figure in a child's life.
> 
> Not asking anyone to agree with the argument, just bringing up something other than the inbreeding point.




You make a good point and Kitten said the same thing...There is a whole other potential predatory element to it.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

There are many, many, many young girls in this country who are molested from a young age by their fathers.  Fathers have a natural, and indeed legally proscribed, power relationship over their children.  The child never consents to this relationship, in fact the child is born into it without a say at all.

Nice try analogizing it to gay marriage.  But fail.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Valerie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to bring up a quick point about the incest argument.
> ...



Well ya, except none of you will bring up the EXACT same point about Gay couples raising children to be gay, now will you? That just isn't politically correct.

Once again after the age of Consent the "child' is legally no longer a CHILD. NOW you guys are arguing the Government should forever ban them from being able to make decisions in regards their families.


----------



## Valerie (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Who's raising a child to be gay?   Straight parents have gay children and vice versa. 

You really can't see that raising them to have sex with you when they reach the age of consent is whole other can of worms? 

I agree about the legalities of two consenting adults and I would never support a legal restriction on any consenting adults who are otherwise law abiding citizens, I am just acknowledging that there is a different predatory element related to the parent child relationship, even a young adult child, that would concern me for reasons of wanting to protect victims of sexual abuse.  This goes for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> There are many, many, many young girls in this country who are molested from a young age by their fathers.  Fathers have a natural, and indeed legally proscribed, power relationship over their children.  The child never consents to this relationship, in fact the child is born into it without a say at all.
> 
> Nice try analogizing it to gay marriage.  But fail.



sure it is.  once they become adults they are no longer bound by said relationship...you're ASSumption is that the relationship necessarily makes it impossible for offspring to have free will after 18.  it is a logical fail.  kids, everyday, disrespect and do not listen to their parents, long before they turn 18.  

further, there is no proof that outlawing incest has decreased child molestation.  in fact, child molestation was NEVER even considered as a reason to outlaw incet.  you guys just can't handle that your logic fails when applied universally.  you want to put your hands over your ears and somehow convince yourselves that your logic ONLY applies to homosexuality and it doesn't.


----------



## Montrovant (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



My point wasn't simply about age of consent.  I see it as similar to banning teachers from sex with their students, even if the student is an adult.  It has to do with the position of power one person has over the other.  There are few people who hold a stronger position than a parent.  

And again, I just brought it up as a matter of discussion, not to promote the idea.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,
> 
> 
> Gay marriage victory in Albany stirs valid fears that incest and polygamy could come next
> ...




Fears are what you trade in. Just because you are afraid doesn't make it so.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Are you saying the Cheneys raised their daughter to be gay?


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Gay parents don't raise their kids to be gay.  Many polygamous parents do raise their kids to be polygamous.  Also, polygamous societies are often very hostile towards women.

But remove those barriers, and there is nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

I've always wanted more than one husband, myself.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > There are many, many, many young girls in this country who are molested from a young age by their fathers.  Fathers have a natural, and indeed legally proscribed, power relationship over their children.  The child never consents to this relationship, in fact the child is born into it without a say at all.
> ...



No, I did not assume that a relationship necessarily makes it impossible for offspring to have free will after 18.  You make the same mistake here as you did in the other thread, you are pretty bad at logic.

That it happens sometimes, and could happen, and is a danger, does not mean it will always happen.  When people drive drunk they don't always kill someone.  That doesn't mean we should allow it.  Comprende?  



> further, there is no proof that outlawing incest has decreased child molestation.  in fact, child molestation was NEVER even considered as a reason to outlaw incet.  you guys just can't handle that your logic fails when applied universally.  you want to put your hands over your ears and somehow convince yourselves that your logic ONLY applies to homosexuality and it doesn't.



It doesn't only apply to homosexuality.  You are just too stupid to pick relationships that people find intuitively objectionable that are actually analagous to homosexuality.    Try polyamory, you'll likely do better with that one.


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



you should really explain yourself more fully.  you make a post that talks about how the child never consents to the relationship....and somehow that makes the analogy a fail...what exactly are you talking about then?  if my point is correct, it matters not one wit that a child has no consent to that relationship.  for the relationship i speak of...occurs after the age of consent.  it irrelevent that a child has no choice being born into the family or do you like parroting the obvious because it makes you feel smart?  

polygamy has been argued ad nauseum, this train of thought is new and exciting and clearly is making people like you squirm and poop their pants.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



*sigh*.  There is a natural power relationship between a parent and a child.  This is legally enforced when one is under the age of consent.  It usually doesn't just go pop and go away when one hits 18.  

Are you an orphan or something?  Do I really need to explain to you how familial ties usually work?


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



do you date strawmen?  

i suggest you reread my post and then reply.


----------



## Amanda (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,
> ...



So when Valerie talks about her fear of a "predatory element related to the parent child relationship" she's wrong, her fear doesn't make it so?


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,
> ...



the economy is fine, don't worry, even if obama's spendulus plan doesn't pass, our economy will be fine....


----------



## Amanda (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The part of this thread that is completely ironic is the libs that are trying to convince the cons that there actually is something wrong with adult incest. Hmmm... ya think? 

I guess it's a lot easier to address that non-issue (as probably 99.9% of everyone would agree it's not right) as if it needed debating than face the hypocrisy of the "consenting adult" argument.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...


It's hyperbole. There is an element in a parent child relationship that would make a child vulnerable to a predatory parent no matter what the age of the child.

If we need to worry about it is a different story. I'd say nine hundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand we would not. When it happens, there are already laws that cover such abuse.

I've really no idea what point you are trying to make.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...


Obviously you haven't read the thread and have let your preconceived ideas rule your thinking.


----------



## Valerie (May 16, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



  Yeah, let's start with showing me where I mentioned fear?


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Nope.  My reply isn't a strawman.  If you believe it is, feel free to attempt to prove so.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



And yet no one questions gay parents about their relationship and their children, that is just too Anti PC.

You can not have it both ways. Which is exactly what you are trying to do along with the others in this thread that refuse to see common logic and fac ts because of their own bias.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



Adult incest isn't the same thing as parent/child incest.  One is a subset of the other.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Nobody questions gay parents about their relationship and their children?

So gays can adopt now in Florida, and its not a problem?  Wait, no they can't.  Thats cause you are talking out of your ass.

I surely hope you understand the difference between raising ones child and fucking ones child.


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



you're clueless dude....its like you miss the point and saying by a mile would be a generous gift


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



psssssssssssssst....moron.....we are talking about the "child" who is now an adult according to USA law

do keep up


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Like I said you want to argue parent control for incest but none for gays raising their children to be gay, epic fail on your part. Both are possible and according to you only one should be legislated against. Why is that?


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Amanda said:
> ...



I wasn't responding to her point.  Her point was moronic at best.  I was responding to an inaccurate statement in her response.  Do you find some fault with me pointing out an inaccuracy?


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



ONE INVOLVES HAVING SEX WITH ONES CHILD.  ONE DOES NOT.  

I surely hope you understand the difference.  And if not, I really, really, hope you never go near any kids.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



And?  You are still somebodies child even if US law considers you no longer a minor.  Next.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



The argument is that CONSENTING ADULTS should be free to make their own choices, that is the whole argument for Gay rights. Now you want to deny a segment of the population that VERY right you have so far claimed is a RIGHT encased in the Constitution?


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Yes, and I explained the difference.  Just as we don't let 12 year olds fuck 50 year olds because we are worried about consent, we don't want 20 year olds fucking their dads, because we are also worried about consent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



But we don't have to worry that an 18 year old gay person from a GAY family was trained to be gay, RIGHT? And you JUST admitted you want the Government to restrict legal adults from making informed decisions YOU disagree with.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Trained to be gay?  What the fuck?  Have you ever heard of this happening, ever?  How would this even work?


----------



## Yurt (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



you believe incest is bad because parents could "train" their children to "love" them....remember the power....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Well that is just different. And it is different cause the leftoids say so, of course.


----------



## Nik (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Oy.

There is a national problem with people fucking kids.  Some reports say that as many as 1/3 of women are molested.  Many of those molested are abused by family members, some of which are fathers.  

Care to report on a similar epidemic of gays raising their parents to be gay?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

Yurt said:


> discuss
> 
> and if you're against father marrying daughter, i will call you anti family



Whatever turns you on.


----------



## Amanda (May 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



The incest being discussed in this thread is between adults. No one, I guess other than you, is talking about anything but incest between consenting adults.


----------



## mattskramer (May 16, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,
> 
> 
> Gay marriage victory in Albany stirs valid fears that incest and polygamy could come next
> ...



I dont see a problem with these issues coming up.  They will be addressed in due course.  People will argue and debate the legalities and constitutionality of them.  People will discuss the likely positives and negatives of legalizing them.


----------



## Amanda (May 16, 2009)

mattskramer said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Actually RGS is correct because that can of worms have already been opened,
> ...



But what's your opinion?


----------



## Yurt (May 17, 2009)

Amanda said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



awesome....


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2009)

Amanda said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



I have not researched much about it.  I would tentatively allow incest but Im concerned about the likelihood of a child being born with defects.  With regard to polygamy, I would be inclined to allow it on a case-by-case basis.  Jealousies might develop in some polygamous families.  Again, I have not read or thought that much about it.  Im open to changing my mind if bad information comes to light.


----------



## jgbkab (May 17, 2009)

I don't think that children born with defects from incest is as common as most people think. It was done commonly here in the south in the 18th and 19th centuries. It wasn't father-daughter but it was mostly first cousins on down. But hell, I say allow it all. If they can consent, then they can marry. I don't agree with it and I won't participate, but it's not my business.


----------



## GHook93 (May 17, 2009)

That a thread this stupid can make it 17 pages!


----------



## jgbkab (May 17, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> That a thread this stupid can make it 17 pages!



Check this out.


----------



## Anguille (May 17, 2009)

jgbkab said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > That a thread this stupid can make it 17 pages!
> ...



 Like I need more competition!!


----------



## jgbkab (May 17, 2009)

Anguille said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



ok, it's fixed.


----------



## Yurt (May 17, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> That a thread this stupid can make it 17 pages!



so you have nothing intelligent to add....why you had to post that is stupid


----------

