father and daughter should be allowed to marry

[HUGGY]

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?

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.

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

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

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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

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

Yes they do.

 

[alan1]

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

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

Yes they do.

Aww, you just ruined her illusion.

 

[Yurt]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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?

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

 

[Anguille]

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

 

[roomy]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[roomy]

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?

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

 

[alan1]

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.

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

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

 

[roomy]

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

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

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

I know, it is my forte.

 

[Valerie]

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).

Many states require 1 to 6 days to pass, between the granting of the licence and the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony, both spouses and the officiant sign the marriage licence (some states also require a witness). The officiant or couple then files for a certified copy of the marriage licence and a marriage certificate with the appropriate authority.

The requirement for marriage licences in the U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying.[citation needed]

Some states require a blood test to verify that the applicants are not carrying syphilis, a sexually-transmitted disease. As of 2008, the District of Columbia, Mississippi, and Montana require blood tests; Connecticut, Wisconsin, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma and Massachusetts have withdrawn the blood testing requirements, in the last few years.[citation needed]

In the early part of the twentieth century, the requirement for a marriage licence was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.[1] By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

In the United States, until the mid-nineteenth century, common-law marriages were recognised as valid, but thereafter the states began to invalidate common-law marriages. At present eleven states and the District of Columbia recognise common-law marriages. (See Common-law marriage in the United States.) Common-law marriages, if recognised, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage licence.

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.

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]

The marriage laws and license requirements of many states originated from the ideas of eugenics[7]. Such ideas had the support of scientists such as Linus Pauling, who advocated that people with genetic defects be denied marriage licenses. He even went so far as to recommend that people with sickle cell anemia have their foreheads stamped to identify their condition so that no one would mate with them, thus eradicating the disease[8]. Some states called for the compulsory sterilization of those deemed unfit to bear children. As it became clear that the science of eugenics was highly suspect and often racist, the 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.

 

[Amanda]

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.

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?

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

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

 

[roomy]

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?

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

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

It's only funny cos it's true.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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