Adult incest couple jailed

Pair accused of incest remain jailed - Clovis News Journal

The left is running out of "victim groups" to advocate for. You know incest will one day again be taken up by the degenerate left. How long can they contain themselves before they do?
Mommy and son, the most damaging kind of incest out there. Brother and sister is the least damaging but no one ever wants to say the damage actually varies because even talking about such things scares the shit out of people...
is this what happened to you?
Don't troll...
 
You have to admit....

It is pretty bad when you're so hard up you have to do your MOM!!!!!!

Where are the Libs to explain this one to us??????

I want all of you to go to your mother and look her in the eyes and tell her you want to stick your tongue so far and deep into her pussy that it tickles her tonsils.
 
How liberals are unwittingly paving the way for the legalization of adult incest


......
Scalia made a similar slippery-slope argument in his dissent in United States v. Windsor (2013), the case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In Scalia's view, it didn't matter that the majority had refrained from finding "a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage." By denying that there is any possible rationale for opposing same-sex marriage besides the desire to "'disparage,' 'injure,' 'degrade,' 'demean,' and 'humiliate' our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual," the majority had established a principle that rendered both state-level bans on gay marriage indefensible and an eventual declaration of a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry inevitable.

A series of lower courts have subsequently paid backhanded tribute to the power of Scalia's argument by relying in part on his dissent in overturning numerous state-level bans on same-sex marriage. As for his claim about an inevitable constitutional right to gay marriage, it hasn't been declared yet. When will it happen? Since the principle justifying such a right has already been established, Scalia thinks it could happen any time, with the primary consideration being what the majority believes "it can get away with."

Well, how long before the majority wants to and believes it can get away with declaring a constitutional right to sibling incest?

Don't laugh. As with same-sex marriage, the principle has already been established. In a notorious passage of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that upheld the constitutional right to abortion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, of the mystery of human life." Kennedy relied on the same passage in his majority opinion in Lawrence. The German Ethics Council expressed a similarly libertarian ideal of sexual autonomy in its ruling in favor of sibling incest.

Perhaps you still think the comparison is silly. But it's not. Here are some relevant questions for liberals. I think you'll be surprised where the answers lead you.

Do you support the right of consenting adult brothers and sisters to marry? If not, why not? What legal or moral principle justifies granting marriage rights to unrelated same-sex couples while denying such rights to brothers and sisters?

Note that the German Ethics Council also held that the prospect of a brother and sister producing children with genetic defects cannot be used as a reason to deny them a right to marry. After all, disabled couples are not prohibited from procreating under German law, even though they have a greater-than-average chance of producing disabled kids. The same is true, incidentally, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

If you do support the right of brothers and sisters to marry, is it because you think there's nothing wrong with (or even something potentially good about) incestuous relationships? Or do you support the right to incestuous marriage despite being disgusted by the practice?

This question is significant because in recent years some liberals have begun to argue that it is not enough for traditionalist religious believers merely to tolerate same-sex marriage. Instead, these people must positively affirm the legitimacy and goodness of gay marriage as an institution. Otherwise, they run the risk of perpetuating the evil of homophobia. Which brings us to:

Is it acceptable to affirm the right of incestuous couples to marry while continuing to think that such marriages are depraved? Or should we combat such anti-incestuous beliefs — just like racism, sexism, and homophobia — on the grounds that they will encourage hurtful stereotypes?

I suspect that liberals won't appreciate being asked these questions. But refusing to answer won't stop the logic at work in the sexually libertarian principles that on other occasions liberals triumphantly champion. Once a person, couple, or group of people make a sexual-partnership claim based on autonomy and consent, there is increasingly no basis on which to legally reject it. And once it becomes legally accepted, there is increasingly no basis on which to morally reject it.

Which means that, sooner or later, incest is likely to be legal and morally accepted in the United States.


How liberals are unwittingly paving the way for the legalization of adult incest
 
well here goes....its called genetic attraction....

.....seems this happens mostly with kids united with parents at adulthood.....now that is just nasty

It's a sexual orientation then. That seals it. Between consenting adults their actions are protected as much as any other sexual orientation. Being "icky" or "just nasty" is the same thing said about homosexuals.

Yep,

Throwing people in prison for icky is waht Iran, Saudi arabia and Russia does. This shouldn't be America.
 
Yep,

Throwing people in prison for icky is waht Iran, Saudi arabia and Russia does. This shouldn't be America.

Can't be hypocrites or discriminatory. Obergefell applies to every sexual orientation or none of them. The 14th Amendment won't allow both ways.
 
If two guys can marry, why not a man and his adult son? Where is their equality?
There is no true marriage equality at all. It's "special gay marriage" that the USSC added to the 14th Amendment while simultaneously shutting out all other forms of consenting adult orientations.
 
Yep,

Throwing people in prison for icky is waht Iran, Saudi arabia and Russia does. This shouldn't be America.

Can't be hypocrites or discriminatory. Obergefell applies to every sexual orientation or none of them. The 14th Amendment won't allow both ways.
Incest is not an "orientation". Words have meanings, use them appropriately.
 
Yep,

Throwing people in prison for icky is waht Iran, Saudi arabia and Russia does. This shouldn't be America.

Can't be hypocrites or discriminatory. Obergefell applies to every sexual orientation or none of them. The 14th Amendment won't allow both ways.
Incest is not an "orientation". Words have meanings, use them appropriately.

You mean like "he" for male and "she" for a female? :popcorn:

Incest (the sexual attraction to blood relatives) or polygamy (sexual attraction to multiple partners) are equally sexual orientations to homosexuals (the sexual attraction to same gender). Who are you to elevate one over the others? Answer: nobody.
 
Yep,

Throwing people in prison for icky is waht Iran, Saudi arabia and Russia does. This shouldn't be America.

Can't be hypocrites or discriminatory. Obergefell applies to every sexual orientation or none of them. The 14th Amendment won't allow both ways.
Incest is not an "orientation". Words have meanings, use them appropriately.

You mean like "he" for male and "she" for a female? :popcorn:

Incest (the sexual attraction to blood relatives) or polygamy (sexual attraction to multiple partners) are equally sexual orientations to homosexuals (the sexual attraction to same gender). Who are you to elevate one over the others? Answer: nobody.
Incest is not an orientation, it's sexual acts between closely related people, and polygamy is an ancient form of marriage, also not an orientation. Homosexuality is an orientation.

Words have fucking meanings, you can't just make up whatever the hell you want them to mean because it fits your agenda so, knock it the fuck off. It doesn't help you one bit anyway.
 
Words have fucking meanings, you can't just make up whatever the hell you want them to mean because it fits your agenda so, knock it the fuck off. It doesn't help you one bit anyway.

So then male = "he" and female = "she" Without that agreement this conversation can't continue in all seriousness because your level of hypocrisy would have risen to Mt. Everest heights..

And, even when mandated to stay apart, incest people often violate the court order, as these two have multiple times, and refuse to hook up with non-blood relatives and move on. So, it's either an addiction or an orientation. It's an orientation. Sorry.
 
Words have fucking meanings, you can't just make up whatever the hell you want them to mean because it fits your agenda so, knock it the fuck off. It doesn't help you one bit anyway.

So then male = "he" and female = "she" Without that agreement this conversation can't continue in all seriousness because your level of hypocrisy would have risen to Mt. Everest heights..
He and She is not the problem here. And I'm fine he = male and she = female, and for the most part, that is who fucks each other so we call that, "normal".

Most of us have little problem being identified as one or the other. How you figure out which is one or the other is where it gets interesting...
 
So, you flaming liberals, why are you so suddenly intent upon limiting freedoms?

You wanted homosexual marriage; you got homosexual marriage.

You wanted all-gender pissoirs; you got all-gender pissoirs.

You wanted freedom to murder the unborn; you got the freedom to murder the unborn.

So now you;re suddenly interested in who is screwing whom - or even (remember, we must include our Arab friends) who is screwing WHAT?

Some concealed puritanical streak?

What?????
 

Forum List

Back
Top