father and daughter should be allowed to marry

[Amanda]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

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

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

Really, why?

 

[Amanda]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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

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

Really, why?

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]

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.

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

 

[manu1959]

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

 

[elvis]

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

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

 

[Ravi]

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.

so are you saying it should be legal for ANY too adults to get married, whether they are related 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]

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

Really, why?

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.

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

 

[KittenKoder]

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

Really, why?

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[elvis]

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.

so are you saying it should be legal for ANY too adults to get married, whether they are related 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.

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

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]

Really, why?

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.

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

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

 

[mattskramer]

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]

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.

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

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

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?