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

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

And you are missing the point either on purpose or because you are to stupid to grasp it.

The entire argument to legalize gay sex and gay marriage, yes you see we had laws against them too, is that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not the Governments business. So on that point explain why laws against Incest between two consenting adults IS the Governments business?

The entire argument for legalizing Gay marriage is that equality means the Government does not intrude on what two consenting adults want in regards marriage. So on that point why is it not equality for incestuous partners both consenting adults to be married?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More Republican duct tape fail!!!!

"If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage -- because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with this -- so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they could then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise?

WOW!! If you're male, and your kid is female, wouldn't this be already happening?

Want to point out which states allow a parent to marry a child, even if they are different sexes? Want to explain why it would still be legal to do that if the only thing a state can do is issue a marriage license to anyone who wants it?

 

[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...

There you go guys. Someone who supports your arguments.

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

Its coming...that's the entire reason for this garbage of homosexual "marriage" to pave the way for more types of "marriage".

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

And you are missing the point either on purpose or because you are to stupid to grasp it.

The entire argument to legalize gay sex and gay marriage, yes you see we had laws against them too, is that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not the Governments business. So on that point explain why laws against Incest between two consenting adults IS the Governments business?

The entire argument for legalizing Gay marriage is that equality means the Government does not intrude on what two consenting adults want in regards marriage. So on that point why is it not equality for incestuous partners both consenting adults to be married?

How many times must I say that those are 2 completely different arguments? You're arguing against gay marriage by using unprecedented hypothetical's about a completely different type of relationship!

It's the same as if I said interracial marriage should be illegal because it will lead to homosexual marriage! How can you not see that?

 

[whitehall]

Was he wrong?

 

[Noomi]

More Republican duct tape fail!!!!

"If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage -- because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with this -- so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they could then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise?

WOW!! If you're male, and your kid is female, wouldn't this be already happening?

A lot of Republicans are so afraid of gay marriage they will say anything to try and change people's minds.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

And you are missing the point either on purpose or because you are to stupid to grasp it.

The entire argument to legalize gay sex and gay marriage, yes you see we had laws against them too, is that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not the Governments business. So on that point explain why laws against Incest between two consenting adults IS the Governments business?

The entire argument for legalizing Gay marriage is that equality means the Government does not intrude on what two consenting adults want in regards marriage. So on that point why is it not equality for incestuous partners both consenting adults to be married?

How many times must I say that those are 2 completely different arguments? You're arguing against gay marriage by using unprecedented hypothetical's about a completely different type of relationship!

It's the same as if I said interracial marriage should be illegal because it will lead to homosexual marriage! How can you not see that?

Wrong again, THE LEGAL underpinning for gay sex being legal and Gay marriage being legal is that the Government has no compelling interest in what two consenting adults do between themselves. So how is it that two consenting siblings that are adults are excluded from the consenting adult underpinning of the legal argument?

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

There is no such thing as gay "marriage" Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Oh and a spokesman for Bevin has said he never said this...not like it matters shockingly he was getting his ass kicked against McConnell anyways.

 

[rdean]

More Republican duct tape fail!!!!

"If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage -- because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with this -- so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they could then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise?

WOW!! If you're male, and your kid is female, wouldn't this be already happening?

They get pretty upset when you discuss inbreeding.

 

[TheOldSchool]

And you are missing the point either on purpose or because you are to stupid to grasp it.

The entire argument to legalize gay sex and gay marriage, yes you see we had laws against them too, is that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not the Governments business. So on that point explain why laws against Incest between two consenting adults IS the Governments business?

The entire argument for legalizing Gay marriage is that equality means the Government does not intrude on what two consenting adults want in regards marriage. So on that point why is it not equality for incestuous partners both consenting adults to be married?

How many times must I say that those are 2 completely different arguments? You're arguing against gay marriage by using unprecedented hypothetical's about a completely different type of relationship!

It's the same as if I said interracial marriage should be illegal because it will lead to homosexual marriage! How can you not see that?

Wrong again, THE LEGAL underpinning for gay sex being legal and Gay marriage being legal is that the Government has no compelling interest in what two consenting adults do between themselves. So how is it that two consenting siblings that are adults are excluded from the consenting adult underpinning of the legal argument?

Well there's really no point in repeating myself at this point because you'll just repeat yourself.

In a few years when gay marriage is widely accepted; maybe then we can debate the crazy hypotheticals you keep ranting about

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How many times must I say that those are 2 completely different arguments? You're arguing against gay marriage by using unprecedented hypothetical's about a completely different type of relationship!

It's the same as if I said interracial marriage should be illegal because it will lead to homosexual marriage! How can you not see that?

Wrong again, THE LEGAL underpinning for gay sex being legal and Gay marriage being legal is that the Government has no compelling interest in what two consenting adults do between themselves. So how is it that two consenting siblings that are adults are excluded from the consenting adult underpinning of the legal argument?

Well there's really no point in repeating myself at this point because you'll just repeat yourself.

In a few years when gay marriage is widely accepted; maybe then we can debate the crazy hypotheticals you keep ranting about

It is neither crazy nor hypothetical. The reason gay sex laws were overturned was because the Government had no compelling interest in what CONSENTING adults do in the privacy of their home. So please be so kind as to explain the compelling interest in regulating incest between consenting adults?

The entire argument for gay marriage is that the Government has no compelling interest in regulating when two consenting adults wish to marry. So again explain why two consenting adults that happen to be related should be discriminated against?

You people created the argument. Not me. Now you completely agree on arbitrary exceptions because you don't like the idea. You have no legal leg to stand on if gay marriage is a right.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wrong again, THE LEGAL underpinning for gay sex being legal and Gay marriage being legal is that the Government has no compelling interest in what two consenting adults do between themselves. So how is it that two consenting siblings that are adults are excluded from the consenting adult underpinning of the legal argument?

Well there's really no point in repeating myself at this point because you'll just repeat yourself.

In a few years when gay marriage is widely accepted; maybe then we can debate the crazy hypotheticals you keep ranting about

It is neither crazy nor hypothetical. The reason gay sex laws were overturned was because the Government had no compelling interest in what CONSENTING adults do in the privacy of their home. So please be so kind as to explain the compelling interest in regulating incest between consenting adults?

The entire argument for gay marriage is that the Government has no compelling interest in regulating when two consenting adults wish to marry. So again explain why two consenting adults that happen to be related should be discriminated against?

You people created the argument. Not me. Now you completely agree on arbitrary exceptions because you don't like the idea. You have no legal leg to stand on if gay marriage is a right.

You completely ignored what I said. You're intent on equating gay marriage with incestuous marriage. They are only the same in the fanciful context in which you are presenting them.

I also find it interesting that you are suddenly in favor of the government exercising power. It's interesting that you support the government's "compelling interest" as long as it's also your "compelling interest."

 

[Kondor3]

At this rate, in another 50 years, half the population will be screwing barnyard animals...

Glad I won't live to see it...

Frigging perverts...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many times must I say that those are 2 completely different arguments? You're arguing against gay marriage by using unprecedented hypothetical's about a completely different type of relationship!

It's the same as if I said interracial marriage should be illegal because it will lead to homosexual marriage! How can you not see that?

Wrong again, THE LEGAL underpinning for gay sex being legal and Gay marriage being legal is that the Government has no compelling interest in what two consenting adults do between themselves. So how is it that two consenting siblings that are adults are excluded from the consenting adult underpinning of the legal argument?

Well there's really no point in repeating myself at this point because you'll just repeat yourself.

In a few years when gay marriage is widely accepted; maybe then we can debate the crazy hypotheticals you keep ranting about

I remember when people said I was crazy for saying that this would lead to polygamy.

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

Was that only last year?

 

[TheOldSchool]

At this rate, in another 50 years, half the population will be screwing barnyard animals...

Glad I won't live to see it...

Frigging perverts...

ditto

 

[Silhouette]

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.

What about ADULT children and their parent?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wrong again, THE LEGAL underpinning for gay sex being legal and Gay marriage being legal is that the Government has no compelling interest in what two consenting adults do between themselves. So how is it that two consenting siblings that are adults are excluded from the consenting adult underpinning of the legal argument?

Well there's really no point in repeating myself at this point because you'll just repeat yourself.

In a few years when gay marriage is widely accepted; maybe then we can debate the crazy hypotheticals you keep ranting about

I remember when people said I was crazy for saying that this would lead to polygamy.

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

Was that only last year?

Hey I think that decision actually puts you and other religious objectors on the hot seat. They won that victory on the grounds of religious expression. So how can you try to prohibit gays from their rights based on your religious views while condemning the "sister wives" based on their religious views?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well there's really no point in repeating myself at this point because you'll just repeat yourself.

In a few years when gay marriage is widely accepted; maybe then we can debate the crazy hypotheticals you keep ranting about

It is neither crazy nor hypothetical. The reason gay sex laws were overturned was because the Government had no compelling interest in what CONSENTING adults do in the privacy of their home. So please be so kind as to explain the compelling interest in regulating incest between consenting adults?

The entire argument for gay marriage is that the Government has no compelling interest in regulating when two consenting adults wish to marry. So again explain why two consenting adults that happen to be related should be discriminated against?

You people created the argument. Not me. Now you completely agree on arbitrary exceptions because you don't like the idea. You have no legal leg to stand on if gay marriage is a right.

You completely ignored what I said. You're intent on equating gay marriage with incestuous marriage. They are only the same in the fanciful context in which you are presenting them.

I also find it interesting that you are suddenly in favor of the government exercising power. It's interesting that you support the government's "compelling interest" as long as it's also your "compelling interest."

Actually, you are the one doing that. He is simply pointing out the inevitable truth that, if it is illegal to oppose same sex marriage based issues of equality how is it legal to oppose inscestual relationships? Especially when you factor in the fact that different states have different rules for who can, and cannot marry, and that there is no scientific basis for opposing them?

Yes, I got that right about the science, it is actually more likely that to completely unrelated people that carry a genetic defect like Tay Sachs will end up with a child that has medical problems than it is that a normal brother and sister having children will produce a child with a congenital disease.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well there's really no point in repeating myself at this point because you'll just repeat yourself.

In a few years when gay marriage is widely accepted; maybe then we can debate the crazy hypotheticals you keep ranting about

I remember when people said I was crazy for saying that this would lead to polygamy.

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

Was that only last year?

Hey I think that decision actually puts you and other religious objectors on the hot seat. They won that victory on the grounds of religious expression. So how can you try to prohibit gays from their rights based on your religious views while condemning the "sister wives" based on their religious views?

You must have me confused with the guy in your mirror.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Actually, you are the one doing that. He is simply pointing out the inevitable truth that, if it is illegal to oppose same sex marriage based issues of equality how is it legal to oppose inscestual relationships?

They are two completely different things. Again I could compare your opposition to same sex marriage to opposition for interracial marriage. They are COMPLETELY different.

I don't know why you people can't get it