Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[RetiredGySgt]

We'll put the slippery slope fallacy aside and continue: Would there be anything wrong with making incest legal?

IS IT A CIVIL RIGHT OR NOT? I have no need to answer your question other then to say if as you claim it is a civil right you MUST also agree to incest relationships between consenting adults.

And IF that is the ruling, then the absolute right thing to do LEGALLY and according to the Constitution, would be to make them legal.

It is illogical to claim one must make a harmful practice legal because a harmless one has been made legal. That would be the slippery slope fallacy.

Thus the corner you have painted yourself into. Since you insist incest must be made legal if gay marriage is made legal, and you don't want to be illogical, they must either both be harmeless or both be harmful. So which is it?

Would there be anything wrong with making incest legal?

You are the one arguing that what two consenting adults do is no ones business and further that because of that it is a Civil Right.

So explain again how it is harmful? The incident rate of 1st Generation incest is almost ZERO. We allow people with defects that have a 50 percent chance to occur to reproduce. The argument has been made that a same sex couple will have no effect on the sexual identity of any children in the home. Why would you assume that an Incestuous couple would effect the chances of their offspring marrying one another?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hey Libertarian......read your Constitution

I keep one in my back pocket...

Very good...

Now, look for the amendment that starts......... Congress shall pass no laws...

Like Amendments XI-XXVII???

Yeah read the end of those amendments...

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, be careful, progressives would call that the "slippery slope."

It's the slippery slope logical fallacy.

It's not a fallacy...

Not when there are crazy people who want to marry their cars, pets, trees etc...

The basis is there and there is evidence to support the notion "individuals" would marry just about anything....

It's NOT a fallacy...

Calling that a fallacy is just a convenient argument - its like calling those who oppose Obamafuck a racist..

You REALLY need to look up the definition of consent (especially before some farmer shoots you for screwing with his sheep).

 

[gallantwarrior]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

thats the horrid majority taking it to the minority rescue team in action again.....


of course when the gov. tells religious orgs who they have to treat thats an entirely different thing becasue, well, thats "good"....as usual, rights for some, are more important than the rights of others......see how that works?

You make an excellent point. In Cali, the electorate has voted down Prop 8 multiple times, signaling that the majority of the people are not in favor of the proposition, many citing moral objections to homosexual "marriage". While the dictate has issued from "on high" from government that religious organizations that hold a moral objection to prevention of conception, or even the outright killing of a fetus, MUST provide funding for those activities.
It would appear that some flavors of "morality" are more desirable to government than others and government WILL enforce one group's "morality" over all others.
The homosexual community has other legal options available to ensure that couples have the same privileges as hetero couples. And if you really, truly love another person, why must you go begging for government permission to form a loving union with them?

 

[bodecea]

It became a civil right when they voted to deny homosexuals the right to marry the person they love

So if Ralph , an adult, Loves Mary, his adult Sister, and she loves him, and they are denied the right to marry, IS THAT ALSO a Civil Right issue?

How about if John , an adult, loves Mary, Sybil and Rachael, all 3 adults and they love him, if they can not get married is that too a Civil Right?

Or do you ADMIT that the State has a compelling interest in defining what is marriage and who can legally do so?

What if abdul wants to marry his goat, is that a civil right? I guess so in Californacation.

You're a day late and a dollar short....someone already jumped the beastiality shark here.

 

[Stephanie]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What the hell is wrong with that woman's face?!

 

[bodecea]

Marriage has nothing to do with love...

Legal documents can't love one another....

That is some of the dumbest shit ever...

Marriage is a legal document and idea - in the US at least.

In that case, Marriage has nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with having children. It is a legal contract between two consenting adults

So, why shouldn't it apply to adults of the same sex?

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

Ah...so we are to dictate CIVIL LAW by the majority religion now?

 

[Seawytch]

Geez, some people will feign incredible levels of stupidty and ignorance to defend their logical fallacies.






Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenty of scientific publication cites at the bottom of the link.

And if you are worried about the health of a society why would you allow gays to marry? They can NOT BREED at all.

Once again as a society and as a Government we do not test for nor prevent people with KNOWN defects from marrying or breeding, why suddenly is a little in family breeding a problem? I mean after all what would the percentage of siblings marrying be? And what are the chances their offspring would marry and breed with each other?

You have no argument.

Let me go tell our daughter she doesn't exist. Let me go tell all the children of gay couples they don't exist.

You have spoken.

Yeah, I can't wait to tell the five babies I had that they don't exist. I can anticipate my son's response..."does that mean I don't have to go to school?"

 

[Mr.Nick]

In that case, Marriage has nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with having children. It is a legal contract between two consenting adults

So, why shouldn't it apply to adults of the same sex?

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

How very Taliban if you...

Once again - that is the answer...

 

[Seawytch]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So if CA voted to ban handguns, you'd be okay with that?

 

[Mr.Nick]

It's the slippery slope logical fallacy.

It's not a fallacy...

Not when there are crazy people who want to marry their cars, pets, trees etc...

The basis is there and there is evidence to support the notion "individuals" would marry just about anything....

It's NOT a fallacy...

Calling that a fallacy is just a convenient argument - its like calling those who oppose Obamafuck a racist..

You REALLY need to look up the definition of consent (especially before some farmer shoots you for screwing with his sheep).

And in what universe do you speak for pets???

Maybe pets want to marry their masters...

Who says they don't and who the fuck are you to impede them.

 

[Seawytch]

Here's the deal, kids. In order to keep marriage equality from becoming the law of the land, you must provide an overriding societal harm in allowing them. Good luck.

 

[g5000]

It's the slippery slope logical fallacy.

It's not a fallacy...

Not when there are crazy people who want to marry their cars, pets, trees etc...

The basis is there and there is evidence to support the notion "individuals" would marry just about anything....

It's NOT a fallacy...

Calling that a fallacy is just a convenient argument - its like calling those who oppose Obamafuck a racist..

You REALLY need to look up the definition of consent (especially before some farmer shoots you for screwing with his sheep).

Informed consent.

Neither a child nor an animal are capable of giving informed consent.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not a fallacy...

Not when there are crazy people who want to marry their cars, pets, trees etc...

The basis is there and there is evidence to support the notion "individuals" would marry just about anything....

It's NOT a fallacy...

Calling that a fallacy is just a convenient argument - its like calling those who oppose Obamafuck a racist..

You REALLY need to look up the definition of consent (especially before some farmer shoots you for screwing with his sheep).

And in what universe do you speak for pets???

Maybe pets want to marry their masters...

Who says they don't and who the fuck are you to impede them.

They cannot LEGALLY consent...but thanks for playing "illogical fallacies" today.

 

[bodecea]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

thats the horrid majority taking it to the minority rescue team in action again.....


of course when the gov. tells religious orgs who they have to treat thats an entirely different thing becasue, well, thats "good"....as usual, rights for some, are more important than the rights of others......see how that works?

You make an excellent point. In Cali, the electorate has voted down Prop 8 multiple times, signaling that the majority of the people are not in favor of the proposition, many citing moral objections to homosexual "marriage". While the dictate has issued from "on high" from government that religious organizations that hold a moral objection to prevention of conception, or even the outright killing of a fetus, MUST provide funding for those activities.
It would appear that some flavors of "morality" are more desirable to government than others and government WILL enforce one group's "morality" over all others.
The homosexual community has other legal options available to ensure that couples have the same privileges as hetero couples. And if you really, truly love another person, why must you go begging for government permission to form a loving union with them?

Well, right there you've proven you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Thanks for playing.

 

[Stephanie]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So if CA voted to ban handguns, you'd be okay with that?

they can try I guess. too bad for you and them, it's our Constitutional right..Homosexual marriage isn't..
so dumb comparison, one of many I've seen in this thread.

 

[bodecea]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So, you were equally upset when the SCOTUS overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban law.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not a fallacy...

Not when there are crazy people who want to marry their cars, pets, trees etc...

The basis is there and there is evidence to support the notion "individuals" would marry just about anything....

It's NOT a fallacy...

Calling that a fallacy is just a convenient argument - its like calling those who oppose Obamafuck a racist..

You REALLY need to look up the definition of consent (especially before some farmer shoots you for screwing with his sheep).

Informed consent.

Neither a child nor an animal are capable of giving informed consent.

Or a dead person, or a car, etc.

 

[bodecea]

Because most people are Christians and under Christianity it is a sin...

How very Taliban if you...

Once again - that is the answer...

This is getting funnier and funnier.