Bevin (R) suggests gay marriage could lead to parents marrying children

[TheOldSchool]

Remember these people are for little or no government outside of protecting children.

They're for little or no government except for a whole lot of things matthew

 

[Katzndogz]

John Phillips would have married his daughter Mackenzie. He treated her as his wife in all respects. Libs are okay with it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

John Phillips would have married his daughter Mackenzie. He treated her as his wife in all respects. Libs are okay with it.

Not as hate-filled as the majority of your comments. Way to go

 

[ScienceRocks]

John Phillips would have married his daughter Mackenzie. He treated her as his wife in all respects. Libs are okay with it.

They're adults, right?

 

[Kondor3]

"Bevin (R) suggests gay marriage could lead to parents marrying children"

One perversion leads to another, so, what the hell... who knows...

Homosexuality is definitely a perversion and an aberration...

 

[TheOldSchool]

John Phillips would have married his daughter Mackenzie. He treated her as his wife in all respects. Libs are okay with it.

They're adults, right?

They were adults. Now they're dead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the parent and child are "consenting adults in love", what would we point to in order to deny them after LGBT marriage? That it's "icky"?

No, I mean really, what would we select legally as a disqualifier? Harvey Milk was having sex with a minor teen that he was officiating as a father/guardian to so? He's already set the standard along with yes, Woody Allen...

Sil, let's stay in the boundaries of honesty, eh.

The 'minor teen' was seventeen: there is not doubt about that.

Mile was 33.

There is no logical connection between marriage equality and incestuous marriage.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If the parent and child are "consenting adults in love", what would we point to in order to deny them after LGBT marriage? That it's "icky"?

No, I mean really, what would we select legally as a disqualifier? Harvey Milk was having sex with a minor teen that he was officiating as a father/guardian to so? He's already set the standard along with yes, Woody Allen...

Sil, let's stay in the boundaries of honesty, eh.

The 'minor teen' was seventeen: there is not doubt about that.

Mile was 33.

There is no logical connection between marriage equality and incestuous marriage.

Equality means everyone of adult age should be able. Right?

 

[Katzndogz]

John Phillips would have married his daughter Mackenzie. He treated her as his wife in all respects. Libs are okay with it.

They're adults, right?

Not The Whole time. She was quite young when they started their relationship.

The culture is simply becoming degenerate. Incest is just a small part.

 

[TheOldSchool]

If the parent and child are "consenting adults in love", what would we point to in order to deny them after LGBT marriage? That it's "icky"?

No, I mean really, what would we select legally as a disqualifier? Harvey Milk was having sex with a minor teen that he was officiating as a father/guardian to so? He's already set the standard along with yes, Woody Allen...

Sil, let's stay in the boundaries of honesty, eh.

The 'minor teen' was seventeen: there is not doubt about that.

Mile was 33.

There is no logical connection between marriage equality and incestuous marriage.

Equality means everyone of adult age should be able. Right?

I'm amused by how trivially you're treating the idea of equality

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sil, let's stay in the boundaries of honesty, eh.

The 'minor teen' was seventeen: there is not doubt about that.

Mile was 33.

There is no logical connection between marriage equality and incestuous marriage.

Equality means everyone of adult age should be able. Right?

I'm amused by how trivially you're treating the idea of equality

You are the one claiming that the criteria for equality is that an adult be able to marry any other consenting adult. That means Incest as well. Or do you now have a different definition that you would care to explain and then defend?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Equality means everyone of adult age should be able. Right?

I'm amused by how trivially you're treating the idea of equality

You are the one claiming that the criteria for equality is that an adult be able to marry any other consenting adult. That means Incest as well. Or do you now have a different definition that you would care to explain and then defend?

Not once in this thread have you posited an argument as to why gay marriage should be banned by the command of government.

Instead you propose hypothetical scenario's that haven't been a part of the argument because you'd rather argue talking points. Incest and Polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage. If you want to argue about those start a thread about them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm amused by how trivially you're treating the idea of equality

You are the one claiming that the criteria for equality is that an adult be able to marry any other consenting adult. That means Incest as well. Or do you now have a different definition that you would care to explain and then defend?

Not once in this thread have you posited an argument as to why gay marriage should be banned by the command of government.

Instead you propose hypothetical scenario's that haven't been a part of the argument because you'd rather argue talking points. Incest and Polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage. If you want to argue about those start a thread about them.

Wrong, You and your ilk have claimed several things. One is that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not the Governments business and that equality means that any two consenting adults should be free to marry one another. Those are the arguments used to justify Gay marriage.

So under those standards how do you support preventing two adults that happen to be siblings or parent and child from marrying? How do you, under those standards propose laws that make incest between consenting adults in the privacy of their home illegal?

 

[Avatar4321]

If you redefine marriage for same sex relationships, what moral reasoning do you have for not redefining it again?

Answer: Legal precedence.

Children do not have legal standing to sign off on marriage. Animals do not have legal standing to sign off on marriage. Polygamists? Good luck working through all the rights attributed to the different mothers, fathers, and children. Incest? That involves genetic malformities and dual familial relationships. I have no idea what the law would decide about that.

The "slippery slope" is a poorly made up and sensationalist cop-out for this argument.

And many states, 15 year olds can be married with their parents permission. If they are legal age, what is the reasoning for denying this?

Genetic malformities vs, unable to reproduce at all...

Not really seeing how thats much better.

 

[Avatar4321]

What about adults?

Should there be limits on any marriage between adults?

I thought I answered that in my post. Polygamous marriage has an impossible number of hurdles. And incestuous marriage is something that may very well exist in the future though genetic malformities and dual familial relationships will present some perhaps insurmountable legal issues.

What hurdles does polygamy have that won't have been overcome if gay marriage is legal?

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm amused by how trivially you're treating the idea of equality

You are the one claiming that the criteria for equality is that an adult be able to marry any other consenting adult. That means Incest as well. Or do you now have a different definition that you would care to explain and then defend?

Not once in this thread have you posited an argument as to why gay marriage should be banned by the command of government.

Instead you propose hypothetical scenario's that haven't been a part of the argument because you'd rather argue talking points. Incest and Polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage. If you want to argue about those start a thread about them.

That's because no one has suggested banning gay marriage. It's an oxymoron. The argument is over whether we should recognize same sex relationships and redefine marriage. And there is no reason to do so. Especially when it's just going to be used as a weapon against people with moral standards.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You are the one claiming that the criteria for equality is that an adult be able to marry any other consenting adult. That means Incest as well. Or do you now have a different definition that you would care to explain and then defend?

Not once in this thread have you posited an argument as to why gay marriage should be banned by the command of government.

Instead you propose hypothetical scenario's that haven't been a part of the argument because you'd rather argue talking points. Incest and Polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage. If you want to argue about those start a thread about them.

Wrong, You and your ilk have claimed several things. One is that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not the Governments business and that equality means that any two consenting adults should be free to marry one another. Those are the arguments used to justify Gay marriage.

So under those standards how do you support preventing two adults that happen to be siblings or parent and child from marrying? How do you, under those standards propose laws that make incest between consenting adults in the privacy of their home illegal?

Okay RGS let me try to break it down for you. Between 2 random gay or lesbian people in this country, there are ZERO laws connecting them together or tying them together in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

A parent and a child, or two siblings, ARE BOUND TOGETHER BY LAW BY THEIR ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP.

Therefore you are trying to use a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT legal relationship to justify government intervention into something that you don't like.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You are the one claiming that the criteria for equality is that an adult be able to marry any other consenting adult. That means Incest as well. Or do you now have a different definition that you would care to explain and then defend?

Not once in this thread have you posited an argument as to why gay marriage should be banned by the command of government.

Instead you propose hypothetical scenario's that haven't been a part of the argument because you'd rather argue talking points. Incest and Polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage. If you want to argue about those start a thread about them.

That's because no one has suggested banning gay marriage. It's an oxymoron. The argument is over whether we should recognize same sex relationships and redefine marriage. And there is no reason to do so. Especially when it's just going to be used as a weapon against people with moral standards.

Here's a question. Would you be opposed to the government having no say whatsoever in declaring marriages and having only the power to declare civil unions? So that straight and gay couples only recognition by the government can be as civil unions?

That way if they want to be considered "married" they have to find a church to perform the ceremony. Would you be okay with that?

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

They also said that faggots would be allowed to marry once mixed marriages were approved...guess they were right there as well...beastiality,polygamy,pedophilia ALL is coming soon...

 

[TheOldSchool]

They also said that faggots would be allowed to marry once mixed marriages were approved...guess they were right there as well...beastiality,polygamy,pedophilia ALL is coming soon...

There you go guys. Someone who supports your arguments.

Are you sure you're allowed up this late O?