Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh, you're here. But you won't discuss gay marriage. Its legality, morality, any pending cases about it. Anything.Actually Pops, I think it's a great idea. When are you filing?
There are states that now have legal status for two adults regardless of sexual relationship, who share a home and finances. This seems reasonable, as siblings not in incestuous relationships may well need to care financially and legally for one another. And, if they consent to sex, it has nothing at all to do with their legal and financial obligations.
Once more - same-sex marriage is not, never has been about sex. It is about legal and financial protections for consenting adults who share a life and make up a family unit and any children they bring into that unit.
Do the arguments for pro-gay marriages apply to pro-incest marriages - Quora
I won't go to the site, cuz this is delicious.
1. You are arguing that THE STATES define marriage, NOT THE COURTS.
2. They are discriminating based on PROCREATION ability
You're link destroyed your two biggest arguments.
Question though. Are those marriages federally recognized?
No Pops, that's not the only reason. 1st cousins can marry in some states only if they don't procreate so there is no validity in your argument.
Again, I think it's a great idea that you should pursue with all rapidity.
Changing the subject is so boring. Siblings are not cousins, are they?
Which makes your babble about incest all the more pointless.
You've conceded the same sex debate, running from it and refusing to discuss it.
Which speaks volumes.
I'm here, you?
Not so much.
I think a ruling by the court that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage is pretty important.
It has nothing to do with the case that the USSC is hearing. None of the legal questions being answered are about sibling marriage. Nor is anyone in the Obergefell case related.
You're obsession with incest doesn't amount to relevance.
I think your in the wrong thread to be deflecting.
Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case.
Now tell me it can't become law.
Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.
It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.
I don't care that much if you want to go have gay butt sex. I'm just saying what it really is.We should just view homosexuality as a mental illness and send them to the psych ward.
You, as an anti gay bigot, are free to "think" whatever you like. Science disagrees...but that has never deterred bigots.
No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry. Really odd.Red Minnow will be disappointed to find out his fellow incest/polygamy travelers will have to build their own legal cases to make their desires legal.Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG
You idiot, I am opposed to those things, but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.
I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. Time will prove me right.
no one ever said it would. parent/child marriage when both are over the age of majority is not rape, but it could become legal if gay marriage becomes legal.
deny it all you want, but we are on a legal slippery slope.
It has nothing to do with the case that the USSC is hearing. None of the legal questions being answered are about sibling marriage. Nor is anyone in the Obergefell case related.
You're obsession with incest doesn't amount to relevance.
I think your in the wrong thread to be deflecting.
Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case.
Now tell me it can't become law.
Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.
It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.
Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.
Incest but not polygamy. Marriage is still two adults here, so far. But hey, let's be Biblical and then you can marry a flock and have another on the side. Good times...It has nothing to do with the case that the USSC is hearing. None of the legal questions being answered are about sibling marriage. Nor is anyone in the Obergefell case related.
You're obsession with incest doesn't amount to relevance.
I think your in the wrong thread to be deflecting.
Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case.
Now tell me it can't become law.
Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.
It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.
Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.
How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.
It sounds like that's what YOU want.
Here is a clue for you so you don't get into trouble...
Animals, children and dead people can't consent. Hope that keeps you out of jail.
No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry. Really odd.Red Minnow will be disappointed to find out his fellow incest/polygamy travelers will have to build their own legal cases to make their desires legal.
You idiot, I am opposed to those things, but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.
I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. Time will prove me right.
no one ever said it would. parent/child marriage when both are over the age of majority is not rape, but it could become legal if gay marriage becomes legal.
deny it all you want, but we are on a legal slippery slope.
They always bring up that straw man because they have no valid arguments against it. If you look at all the arguments supporting gay marriage, they are all based on one logical fallacy or another.
His "reasoning" stops at "I hate faggots"...I think your in the wrong thread to be deflecting.
Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case.
Now tell me it can't become law.
Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.
It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.
Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.
If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?
The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.
I think your in the wrong thread to be deflecting.
Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case.
Now tell me it can't become law.
Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.
It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.
Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.
If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?
The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.
How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.
It sounds like that's what YOU want.
Here is a clue for you so you don't get into trouble...
Animals, children and dead people can't consent. Hope that keeps you out of jail.
Animals don't have to consent to being slaughtered for food, so why should they have to consent to being married?
Your argument works if you want to fuck a goat, not marry one. Getting married requires that both parties can consent to a legally binding contract.How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.
It sounds like that's what YOU want.
Here is a clue for you so you don't get into trouble...
Animals, children and dead people can't consent. Hope that keeps you out of jail.
Animals don't have to consent to being slaughtered for food, so why should they have to consent to being married?
WOW yeah cause incest is best and children are never involved. WOWWith plural marriages, yes. That argument can be used.Bullshit. Apparently, I know a helluva lot more about our legal system than you do. Anyone can make any argument, that does not mean the court will hear or agree with their argument.Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG
Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.
For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.
You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.
Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination
those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.
I don't care if you agree, it is already in the works.
Time will prove me right, and you wrong
Watch.
However, with incest and sex with children harm is done to the children, thus the argument does not hold any weight.
Incestuous marriages don't involve children. All participants are adults. How are you going to object to that?
No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry. Really odd.
You idiot, I am opposed to those things, but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.
I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. Time will prove me right.
no one ever said it would. parent/child marriage when both are over the age of majority is not rape, but it could become legal if gay marriage becomes legal.
deny it all you want, but we are on a legal slippery slope.
They always bring up that straw man because they have no valid arguments against it. If you look at all the arguments supporting gay marriage, they are all based on one logical fallacy or another.
Work against what? Your desperate attempt to change the topic?
When your argument against gay marriage has collapsed so completely that you can't even *discuss* gay marriage anymore.......clearly you've run into some problems with your claims.
Your argument works if you want to fuck a goat, not marry one. Getting married requires that both parties can consent to a legally binding contract.How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.
It sounds like that's what YOU want.
Here is a clue for you so you don't get into trouble...
Animals, children and dead people can't consent. Hope that keeps you out of jail.
Animals don't have to consent to being slaughtered for food, so why should they have to consent to being married?
Many, probably most, weren't Liberal, just much smarter than you, and therefore able to follow the spirit of the law.Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case.
Now tell me it can't become law.
Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.
It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.
Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.
If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?
The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.
Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a fuck what the law says or what logic says, just like you.
Incorrect. Pop is talking about pedophilia.. marrying pre-pubescent children etc.No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry. Really odd.Red Minnow will be disappointed to find out his fellow incest/polygamy travelers will have to build their own legal cases to make their desires legal.Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG
You idiot, I am opposed to those things, but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.
I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. Time will prove me right.
No one is talking about raping a child, moron.
WOW yeah cause incest is best and children are never involved. WOWWith plural marriages, yes. That argument can be used.Bullshit. Apparently, I know a helluva lot more about our legal system than you do. Anyone can make any argument, that does not mean the court will hear or agree with their argument.Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.
For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.
You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.
Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination
those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.
I don't care if you agree, it is already in the works.
Time will prove me right, and you wrong
Watch.
However, with incest and sex with children harm is done to the children, thus the argument does not hold any weight.
Incestuous marriages don't involve children. All participants are adults. How are you going to object to that?
Many, probably most, weren't Liberal, just much smarter than you, and therefore able to follow the spirit of the law.Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.
It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.
Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd. Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.
If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?
The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.
Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a fuck what the law says or what logic says, just like you.
While it doesn't necessarily have to be, it follows tradition, legal traditions.Your argument works if you want to fuck a goat, not marry one. Getting married requires that both parties can consent to a legally binding contract.How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.
It sounds like that's what YOU want.
Here is a clue for you so you don't get into trouble...
Animals, children and dead people can't consent. Hope that keeps you out of jail.
Animals don't have to consent to being slaughtered for food, so why should they have to consent to being married?
Really? Why should that be?
