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.
You're introducing all kinds of issues that aren't part of the argument. Assume the relationship didn't start until they were both adults. Why should it be illegal for them to marry?
Yeah, I see something wrong with that. I also see something wrong with Adam and Steve getting married.
Ugh, I don't even want to think about it anymore. It's gross.
That's right, run away like a scarred little puppy with its tail between its legs.
Lol, I'm not afraid to admit that I would run away from incest. Maybe you would like it.
Typical liberal: when you're losing an argument, you accuse your opponent of some kind of foulness. Then you'll wine like a baby if I apply the labels to you that accurately describe you.
I don't think I lost any arguments. I think my points still stand. You have not refuted any of them except to say they are both "adults." I already told you that the girl was only 16 years old. You admitted you see a problem with it.
It's not like we don't already. Lock one up and they won't be getting it on.And if it was decided that those risks were so great what we would deny them would be sexual relations, not marriage, especially if they could not produce children.Yes, you just old me your hypocritical position on incestuous marriages. You obviously don't have a problem with being a hypocrite. That's all you proved.
My position is in #333. Tell me what's hypocritical about it.
Well, you're still wrong because when people who are related that have transmissible genetic defects have children, the defects are many times more likely to be transmitted.
Huh? Are you saying the government can prevent people from having sex?
Ugh, I don't even want to think about it anymore. It's gross.
That's right, run away like a scarred little puppy with its tail between its legs.
Lol, I'm not afraid to admit that I would run away from incest. Maybe you would like it.
Typical liberal: when you're losing an argument, you accuse your opponent of some kind of foulness. Then you'll wine like a baby if I apply the labels to you that accurately describe you.
I don't think I lost any arguments. I think my points still stand. You have not refuted any of them except to say they are both "adults." I already told you that the girl was only 16 years old. You admitted you see a problem with it.
As I said previously, you will continue failing to get the point. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.
It's not like we don't already. Lock one up and they won't be getting it on.And if it was decided that those risks were so great what we would deny them would be sexual relations, not marriage, especially if they could not produce children.My position is in #333. Tell me what's hypocritical about it.
Well, you're still wrong because when people who are related that have transmissible genetic defects have children, the defects are many times more likely to be transmitted.
Huh? Are you saying the government can prevent people from having sex?
No, the government does not lock up consenting adults for having sex.
Ugh, I don't even want to think about it anymore. It's gross.
That's right, run away like a scarred little puppy with its tail between its legs.
Lol, I'm not afraid to admit that I would run away from incest. Maybe you would like it.
Typical liberal: when you're losing an argument, you accuse your opponent of some kind of foulness. Then you'll wine like a baby if I apply the labels to you that accurately describe you.
I don't think I lost any arguments. I think my points still stand. You have not refuted any of them except to say they are both "adults." I already told you that the girl was only 16 years old. You admitted you see a problem with it.
As I said previously, you will continue failing to get the point. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.
It's not like we don't already. Lock one up and they won't be getting it on.And if it was decided that those risks were so great what we would deny them would be sexual relations, not marriage, especially if they could not produce children.Well, you're still wrong because when people who are related that have transmissible genetic defects have children, the defects are many times more likely to be transmitted.
Huh? Are you saying the government can prevent people from having sex?
No, the government does not lock up consenting adults for having sex.
Incest is illegal in many states with good reason. Because, as I explained to you earlier, but you failed to understand, there is a HUGE potential for abuse in such relationships.
That's right, run away like a scarred little puppy with its tail between its legs.
Lol, I'm not afraid to admit that I would run away from incest. Maybe you would like it.
Typical liberal: when you're losing an argument, you accuse your opponent of some kind of foulness. Then you'll wine like a baby if I apply the labels to you that accurately describe you.
I don't think I lost any arguments. I think my points still stand. You have not refuted any of them except to say they are both "adults." I already told you that the girl was only 16 years old. You admitted you see a problem with it.
As I said previously, you will continue failing to get the point. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.
I don't think you even know what your "point" is anymore. Lol! Here you are sticking up for incest!!! Disgusting and shameful!
That's right, run away like a scarred little puppy with its tail between its legs.
Lol, I'm not afraid to admit that I would run away from incest. Maybe you would like it.
Typical liberal: when you're losing an argument, you accuse your opponent of some kind of foulness. Then you'll wine like a baby if I apply the labels to you that accurately describe you.
I don't think I lost any arguments. I think my points still stand. You have not refuted any of them except to say they are both "adults." I already told you that the girl was only 16 years old. You admitted you see a problem with it.
As I said previously, you will continue failing to get the point. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.
No that would be you who is stupid and incredibly ignorant, not to mention lacking any integrity at all. A poor excuse for a man.
It's not like we don't already. Lock one up and they won't be getting it on.And if it was decided that those risks were so great what we would deny them would be sexual relations, not marriage, especially if they could not produce children.
Huh? Are you saying the government can prevent people from having sex?
No, the government does not lock up consenting adults for having sex.
Incest is illegal in many states with good reason. Because, as I explained to you earlier, but you failed to understand, there is a HUGE potential for abuse in such relationships.
I failed to understand nothing. It's not illegal between consenting adults. It's illegal only when committed when one of the parties is not of legal age.
You keep trying to bring up issues and constraints that aren't relevant to my hypothetical question. I'm not talking about people who aren't of legal age. I'm talking about adults. It's legal for them to have sex, so why isn't legal for them to marry?
There's also a reason that gays were not previously allowed to marry. It's the fact that they can't reproduce.
Lol, I'm not afraid to admit that I would run away from incest. Maybe you would like it.
Typical liberal: when you're losing an argument, you accuse your opponent of some kind of foulness. Then you'll wine like a baby if I apply the labels to you that accurately describe you.
I don't think I lost any arguments. I think my points still stand. You have not refuted any of them except to say they are both "adults." I already told you that the girl was only 16 years old. You admitted you see a problem with it.
As I said previously, you will continue failing to get the point. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.
No that would be you who is stupid and incredibly ignorant, not to mention lacking any integrity at all. A poor excuse for a man.
ROFL! The irony of that is just precious.
It's not like we don't already. Lock one up and they won't be getting it on.And if it was decided that those risks were so great what we would deny them would be sexual relations, not marriage, especially if they could not produce children.
Huh? Are you saying the government can prevent people from having sex?
No, the government does not lock up consenting adults for having sex.
Incest is illegal in many states with good reason. Because, as I explained to you earlier, but you failed to understand, there is a HUGE potential for abuse in such relationships.
I failed to understand nothing. It's not illegal between consenting adults. It's illegal only when committed when one of the parties is not of legal age.
You keep trying to bring up issues and constraints that aren't relevant to my hypothetical question. I'm not talking about people who aren't of legal age. I'm talking about adults. It's legal for them to have sex, so why isn't legal for them to marry?
There's also a reason that gays were not previously allowed to marry. It's the fact that they can't reproduce.
Not limited to that anymore.It's not like we don't already. Lock one up and they won't be getting it on.Huh? Are you saying the government can prevent people from having sex?
No, the government does not lock up consenting adults for having sex.
Incest is illegal in many states with good reason. Because, as I explained to you earlier, but you failed to understand, there is a HUGE potential for abuse in such relationships.
I failed to understand nothing. It's not illegal between consenting adults. It's illegal only when committed when one of the parties is not of legal age.
You keep trying to bring up issues and constraints that aren't relevant to my hypothetical question. I'm not talking about people who aren't of legal age. I'm talking about adults. It's legal for them to have sex, so why isn't legal for them to marry?
There's also a reason that gays were not previously allowed to marry. It's the fact that they can't reproduce.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that is without regard to the sexually abnormal who 'feel' that they will FINALLY be 'legitimate', if they can just 'get married'.
Not limited to that anymore.It's not like we don't already. Lock one up and they won't be getting it on.
No, the government does not lock up consenting adults for having sex.
Incest is illegal in many states with good reason. Because, as I explained to you earlier, but you failed to understand, there is a HUGE potential for abuse in such relationships.
I failed to understand nothing. It's not illegal between consenting adults. It's illegal only when committed when one of the parties is not of legal age.
You keep trying to bring up issues and constraints that aren't relevant to my hypothetical question. I'm not talking about people who aren't of legal age. I'm talking about adults. It's legal for them to have sex, so why isn't legal for them to marry?
There's also a reason that gays were not previously allowed to marry. It's the fact that they can't reproduce.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that is without regard to the sexually abnormal who 'feel' that they will FINALLY be 'legitimate', if they can just 'get married'.
Most of the country already takes it seriously my little infant.Not limited to that anymore.No, the government does not lock up consenting adults for having sex.
Incest is illegal in many states with good reason. Because, as I explained to you earlier, but you failed to understand, there is a HUGE potential for abuse in such relationships.
I failed to understand nothing. It's not illegal between consenting adults. It's illegal only when committed when one of the parties is not of legal age.
You keep trying to bring up issues and constraints that aren't relevant to my hypothetical question. I'm not talking about people who aren't of legal age. I'm talking about adults. It's legal for them to have sex, so why isn't legal for them to marry?
There's also a reason that gays were not previously allowed to marry. It's the fact that they can't reproduce.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that is without regard to the sexually abnormal who 'feel' that they will FINALLY be 'legitimate', if they can just 'get married'.
Yes it is. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. It will always be a joke, and no one will ever take it seriously.
As long as you are of age, fuck your brains out, just don't stick us with the bill for the morons you create like Palin's drooler.Incest is certainly more natural than homosexuality, so libs shouldn't have a problem.
