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.
Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.
If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.
What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us
Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.
Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.
Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.
That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.
Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
- Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS
The defenders of homo marriage said it couldn't happen, yet here it is:
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.
That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.
This just goes to show how when someone is stuck in the bubble of their own thinking they cannot perceive how others see them.
Just how, pray tell, do you think it appears to others that two men are trying to use each other's anuses and colons (fecal expulsion organs) as artificial vaginas? Do you think that others might perceive that as "obviously sick in the head"?
Guess what? The majority of people do. And not only that, it's an activity that is the main vector for the spread of a dangerous and growing public health epidemic known as the HIV/AIDS epidemic. AND...turns out that obviously sick in the head behavior is rubbing off on a new generation who sees it as "the new cool thing that everyone is down with" (even though a majority isn't...a minority just happens to run GLAAD/the media)
Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
- Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS
Yes, there are some terrible things that are a scourge to society. Trouble is, once you legitimize one of them, it's really hard to say "no" to the others saying "those are icky in my opinion". Marriage equality wears blinders dearie..
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?...
No, that's not what I mean and it's not a good example of the slippery slope fallacy. Proposition 8 was about the gay marriage issue in California, the same issue that we face nationally. Gay marriage and incestuous marriage are totally different issues.The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?.....
No, that's not what I mean and it's not a good example of the slippery slope fallacy. Proposition 8 was about the gay marriage issue in California, the same issue that we face nationally. Gay marriage and incestuous marriage are totally different issues.The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?.....
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
For which lifestyle that is repugnant to the majority? And if any are omitted from theoretical federal "marriage equality" please explain in detail how you would disqualify them.You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?...
State laws are subject to the Constitution.
For which lifestyle that is repugnant to the majority? And if any are omitted from theoretical federal "marriage equality" please explain in detail how you would disqualify them.You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?...
State laws are subject to the Constitution.
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?...
State laws are subject to the Constitution.
we all know the left understand the Constitution more than the right.The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?...
State laws are subject to the Constitution.
And we all know the far left does not understand the Constitution..
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?...
State laws are subject to the Constitution.
And we all know the far left does not understand the Constitution..
A father and daughter are planning to get married, and she says they are gonna try to have kids. She is of consenting age. What's your thoughts?
Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.
If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.
What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us
Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.
Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.
That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.
No, that's not what I mean and it's not a good example of the slippery slope fallacy. Proposition 8 was about the gay marriage issue in California, the same issue that we face nationally. Gay marriage and incestuous marriage are totally different issues.The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.
You mean like when society said "NO" with Proposition 8 in California? Don't you mean instead "Five Justices can say no", but only if it isn't said arbitrarily...?.....
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Society can say no and does. We judge issues on their own merit. It's illogical to assume that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage.Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.
That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.
This just goes to show how when someone is stuck in the bubble of their own thinking they cannot perceive how others see them.
Just how, pray tell, do you think it appears to others that two men are trying to use each other's anuses and colons (fecal expulsion organs) as artificial vaginas? Do you think that others might perceive that as "obviously sick in the head"?
Guess what? The majority of people do. And not only that, it's an activity that is the main vector for the spread of a dangerous and growing public health epidemic known as the HIV/AIDS epidemic. AND...turns out that obviously sick in the head behavior is rubbing off on a new generation who sees it as "the new cool thing that everyone is down with" (even though a majority isn't...a minority just happens to run GLAAD/the media)
Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
- Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS
Yes, there are some terrible things that are a scourge to society. Trouble is, once you legitimize one of them, it's really hard to say "no" to the others saying "those are icky in my opinion". Marriage equality wears blinders dearie..
The defenders of homo marriage said it couldn't happen, yet here it is:
bripat the homophobe vomits his hate on USMB...
Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.
If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.
What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us
Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.
Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.
That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.
You offer no rational basis for drawing such a line. In fact, all the arguments used to defend "gay marriage" argue for removing the line.
