Everything but marriage

[Yurt]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

i certainly hope you're not insinuating i hate...i have no idea who you are talking to as you quoted no one...so maybe you're just blabbing

i think the reason people don't like the incest argument, is because they are against incest. the arguments against incest marriage are strikingly similar to those made by the folks who do not support gay marraige. i am surprised that you, kitten, who claim no partisanship and claim to be "fair", do not see the similiarities of the arguments....

 

[Luissa]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

No Yurt that is different. Just ask Kittenkodder.

the difference is two homosexuals male are not going to give birth to a child that is more at risk for health problems.

 

[KittenKoder]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

i certainly hope you're not insinuating i hate...i have no idea who you are talking to as you quoted no one...so maybe you're just blabbing

i think the reason people don't like the incest argument, is because they are against incest. the arguments against incest marriage are strikingly similar to those made by the folks who do not support gay marraige. i am surprised that you, kitten, who claim no partisanship and claim to be "fair", do not see the similiarities of the arguments....

Really? If it's so similar then why is everyone against incest? I am against all marriage really, I am against it being religious in any way. If you want the law to stay out of religion, then keep religion out of law. Until marriage is gone completely I will continue to support gay marriage, yes, that's partisan of me, but the thing is, only a few people agree with me on this, but more agree with gay marriage. So, lesser of two evils.

 

[Luissa]

so should the government run genetic tests on everyone to determine their odds of producing children with genetic defects? that is what you are arguing...if marriage is a fundamental right, how do you think that is going to play against the compelling interest? you do realize that those who argue against homosexuality and homosexual marriages have also used the compelling state interest argument....

using your logic, it is a scientific fact homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus the state would ultimately lose its population base if the majority should homosexual. might the state have a compelling interest in maintaining the population? all one has to do is look to china, which mandates a decreased population and then to russia which is giving incentives to its citizens to increase population.

and this is not a troll argument. your counter argument to the issue raised is an excellent one, this issue is not one you can just dismiss out of hand no matter how much jillian wants to cover her ears and claim it is a troll.

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

did i say there was a compelling interest?

it is not clear that all incest will result in birth defects, that is false. further, using YOUR logic, if incest will in fact always result in birth defects, then the incest couple can have a child the same way a homosexual couple does....

thus, there is no reason the state should interfere in an incest marriage, using YOUR logic and the logic of lawrence v. texas...

Opponents say that children born out of incest face an increased risk of genetic problems, especially inherited disorders of "recessive" conditions, or those caused by a double dose of a gene that carries a mutation — one from each parent. There are about 3,500 recessive conditions, most of them very rare.

"Everyone carries several of these recessive gene mutations, but since most of them are extremely rare, the chance of two unrelated people carrying a mutation in the same gene is low," said Jess Buxton, spokesman for the British Society of Human Genetics.

But he said sexual relationships between relatives more closely related than cousins carry increased risks to offspring because the adults share a greater proportion of their genetic material. Full siblings share 50 percent of their genetic material, as do parents and their children.

"The closer the biological relationship between two people, the higher the risk of passing on a recessive condition to their children," Buxton said.

FOXNews.com - Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


and you are an idiot if you don't think it cannot result in birth defects.
I watch a PBS special about a family in some third world country about these cousins who married and all their children had to walk on all fours because a recessive gene both parents carried because they were cousins. The parents could walk somewhat up right but their children could not all because in them having two doses of the recessive gene, their cases were much worse.
Look at dogs and if you inbreed them too much, you are the one who is not thinking logically.

 

[KittenKoder]

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

did i say there was a compelling interest?

it is not clear that all incest will result in birth defects, that is false. further, using YOUR logic, if incest will in fact always result in birth defects, then the incest couple can have a child the same way a homosexual couple does....

thus, there is no reason the state should interfere in an incest marriage, using YOUR logic and the logic of lawrence v. texas...

Opponents say that children born out of incest face an increased risk of genetic problems, especially inherited disorders of "recessive" conditions, or those caused by a double dose of a gene that carries a mutation — one from each parent. There are about 3,500 recessive conditions, most of them very rare.

"Everyone carries several of these recessive gene mutations, but since most of them are extremely rare, the chance of two unrelated people carrying a mutation in the same gene is low," said Jess Buxton, spokesman for the British Society of Human Genetics.

But he said sexual relationships between relatives more closely related than cousins carry increased risks to offspring because the adults share a greater proportion of their genetic material. Full siblings share 50 percent of their genetic material, as do parents and their children.

"The closer the biological relationship between two people, the higher the risk of passing on a recessive condition to their children," Buxton said.

FOXNews.com - Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


and you are an idiot if you don't think it cannot result in birth defects.
I watch a PBS special about a family in some third world country about these cousins who married and all their children had to walk on all fours because a recessive gene both parents carried because they were cousins. The parents could walk somewhat up right but their children could not all because in them having two doses of the recessive gene, their cases were much worse.
Look at dogs and if you inbreed them too much, you are the one who is not thinking logically.

There is only one time in which they would be right: In Laws. But yeah, I agree with you Luissa.

 

[Yurt]

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

did i say there was a compelling interest?

it is not clear that all incest will result in birth defects, that is false. further, using YOUR logic, if incest will in fact always result in birth defects, then the incest couple can have a child the same way a homosexual couple does....

thus, there is no reason the state should interfere in an incest marriage, using YOUR logic and the logic of lawrence v. texas...

Opponents say that children born out of incest face an increased risk of genetic problems, especially inherited disorders of "recessive" conditions, or those caused by a double dose of a gene that carries a mutation — one from each parent. There are about 3,500 recessive conditions, most of them very rare.

"Everyone carries several of these recessive gene mutations, but since most of them are extremely rare, the chance of two unrelated people carrying a mutation in the same gene is low," said Jess Buxton, spokesman for the British Society of Human Genetics.

But he said sexual relationships between relatives more closely related than cousins carry increased risks to offspring because the adults share a greater proportion of their genetic material. Full siblings share 50 percent of their genetic material, as do parents and their children.

"The closer the biological relationship between two people, the higher the risk of passing on a recessive condition to their children," Buxton said.

FOXNews.com - Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


and you are an idiot if you don't think it cannot result in birth defects.
I watch a PBS special about a family in some third world country about these cousins who married and all their children had to walk on all fours because a recessive gene both parents carried because they were cousins. The parents could walk somewhat up right but their children could not all because in them having two doses of the recessive gene, their cases were much worse.
Look at dogs and if you inbreed them too much, you are the one who is not thinking logically.

i have NEVER claimed it does not result in birth defects...

you are a moron for not reading what i wrote and realizing that i told tech esq. he made an excellent point...i then have fully discussed that issue in subsequent posts, and some states actually allow 1st cousins if they won't have children, same could be done here if that is the state's interest, they can have kids just like homosexuals. also, there is new data that suggests 1st cousins only have a 4-7% chance versus a 3-5% chance for non cousins....so, would you support 1st cousins?

and don't think i approve of incest, i'm arguing the point to show that the arguments are similar and the counter arguments are eerily similar to those who are against gay marriage. it is hypocritical.

 

[Yurt]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

i certainly hope you're not insinuating i hate...i have no idea who you are talking to as you quoted no one...so maybe you're just blabbing

i think the reason people don't like the incest argument, is because they are against incest. the arguments against incest marriage are strikingly similar to those made by the folks who do not support gay marraige. i am surprised that you, kitten, who claim no partisanship and claim to be "fair", do not see the similiarities of the arguments....

Really? If it's so similar then why is everyone against incest? I am against all marriage really, I am against it being religious in any way. If you want the law to stay out of religion, then keep religion out of law. Until marriage is gone completely I will continue to support gay marriage, yes, that's partisan of me, but the thing is, only a few people agree with me on this, but more agree with gay marriage. So, lesser of two evils.

*scratches head*

thats my whole point, the arguments are similar, but everyone is against incest...it is hypocrisy and it shows that if you take the arguments and apply the arguments equally, you will at some point disagree with your own arguments.

 

[Nik]

so should the government run genetic tests on everyone to determine their odds of producing children with genetic defects? that is what you are arguing...if marriage is a fundamental right, how do you think that is going to play against the compelling interest? you do realize that those who argue against homosexuality and homosexual marriages have also used the compelling state interest argument....

using your logic, it is a scientific fact homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus the state would ultimately lose its population base if the majority should homosexual. might the state have a compelling interest in maintaining the population? all one has to do is look to china, which mandates a decreased population and then to russia which is giving incentives to its citizens to increase population.

and this is not a troll argument. your counter argument to the issue raised is an excellent one, this issue is not one you can just dismiss out of hand no matter how much jillian wants to cover her ears and claim it is a troll.

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

did i say there was a compelling interest?

Oy. No, you said some people might argue there was a compelling interest. I am telling you that they are wrong.

it is not clear that all incest will result in birth defects, that is false.

Did I say that all incest will result in birth defects?

further, using YOUR logic, if incest will in fact always result in birth defects, then the incest couple can have a child the same way a homosexual couple does....

Sure, they CAN. But will they? My guess would be no. If you can guarantee they won't, and its not parent/child relationship, then sure, allow it.

thus, there is no reason the state should interfere in an incest marriage, using YOUR logic and the logic of lawrence v. texas...

See consent.

 

[Yurt]

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

Oy. No, you said some people might argue there was a compelling interest. I am telling you that they are wrong.



Did I say that all incest will result in birth defects?



Sure, they CAN. But will they? My guess would be no. If you can guarantee they won't, and its not parent/child relationship, then sure, allow it.

thus, there is no reason the state should interfere in an incest marriage, using YOUR logic and the logic of lawrence v. texas...

See consent.

Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

what is clear then nik? i said you could run tests to determine IF genetic defects are likely to occur and you said....the above

what are you talking about then?

and exactly what about consent furthers your point? i wish i could write all my briefs like that....see "this"

i win, i win

 

[Amanda]

So much for them claiming that they "just don't want it called marriage" bullshit. Yes, they are trying to kill this even though it doesn't call it marriage. Hypocrites.

'Everything but marriage' law for same-sex couples on hold | The News Tribune - Local | Seattle-Tacoma News, Weather, Sports, Jobs, Homes and Cars | South Puget Sound's Destination

So, the gay advocates come up with the perfect compromise, it's not marriage by title or legal definition, but they still try to stop it. So far all I see from the anti-gay crowd is their desire to censor everything that they find "offensive" just to protect their over sensitive sensibilities.

LOL

You thought rightwing christians were telling the truth, that they "only" objected to the relationship being called "marriage"?

Let me explain something to you. Some of these rightwing christians are the biggest liars on the planet. There's a whole wing of rightwing christian theology that acutally thinks lying is okay, if it serves a broader purpose in promoting their religious views.


They have a problem with gays, at a very deep, and disturbing personal level. Its got nothing to do with a handful of obscure passages from the old testament.

Does this "whole wing" have a name, because I've never heard of it.

 

[Luissa]

did i say there was a compelling interest?

it is not clear that all incest will result in birth defects, that is false. further, using YOUR logic, if incest will in fact always result in birth defects, then the incest couple can have a child the same way a homosexual couple does....

thus, there is no reason the state should interfere in an incest marriage, using YOUR logic and the logic of lawrence v. texas...

Opponents say that children born out of incest face an increased risk of genetic problems, especially inherited disorders of "recessive" conditions, or those caused by a double dose of a gene that carries a mutation — one from each parent. There are about 3,500 recessive conditions, most of them very rare.

"Everyone carries several of these recessive gene mutations, but since most of them are extremely rare, the chance of two unrelated people carrying a mutation in the same gene is low," said Jess Buxton, spokesman for the British Society of Human Genetics.

But he said sexual relationships between relatives more closely related than cousins carry increased risks to offspring because the adults share a greater proportion of their genetic material. Full siblings share 50 percent of their genetic material, as do parents and their children.

"The closer the biological relationship between two people, the higher the risk of passing on a recessive condition to their children," Buxton said.

FOXNews.com - Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


and you are an idiot if you don't think it cannot result in birth defects.
I watch a PBS special about a family in some third world country about these cousins who married and all their children had to walk on all fours because a recessive gene both parents carried because they were cousins. The parents could walk somewhat up right but their children could not all because in them having two doses of the recessive gene, their cases were much worse.
Look at dogs and if you inbreed them too much, you are the one who is not thinking logically.

i have NEVER claimed it does not result in birth defects...

you are a moron for not reading what i wrote and realizing that i told tech esq. he made an excellent point...i then have fully discussed that issue in subsequent posts, and some states actually allow 1st cousins if they won't have children, same could be done here if that is the state's interest, they can have kids just like homosexuals. also, there is new data that suggests 1st cousins only have a 4-7% chance versus a 3-5% chance for non cousins....so, would you support 1st cousins?

and don't think i approve of incest, i'm arguing the point to show that the arguments are similar and the counter arguments are eerily similar to those who are against gay marriage. it is hypocritical.

you said you were unclear if it causes birth defects moron.
and if the child has not been brain washed into wanting to marry their father than go right ahead and do whatever you please. I highly doubt any sane person would have to marry their father though. They should not be allowed to have any biological children of their own.

 

[Amanda]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

There's nothing stopping gay interactions on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. There just isn't a market for it commercially like there is for hetero interaction.

And given your previous statements about sexuality I can't imagine anyone having a good time in your presence with you getting squeamish, so your indignation about heteros seems hypocritical.

 

[KittenKoder]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

There's nothing stopping gay interactions on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. There just isn't a market for it commercially like there is for hetero interaction.

And given your previous statements about sexuality I can't imagine anyone having a good time in your presence with you getting squeamish, so your indignation about heteros seems hypocritical.

There's nothing stopping you breeders from practically fucking on the streets either. Until you stop, I don't care if the gay people do it at all.

 

[Yurt]

Opponents say that children born out of incest face an increased risk of genetic problems, especially inherited disorders of "recessive" conditions, or those caused by a double dose of a gene that carries a mutation — one from each parent. There are about 3,500 recessive conditions, most of them very rare.

"Everyone carries several of these recessive gene mutations, but since most of them are extremely rare, the chance of two unrelated people carrying a mutation in the same gene is low," said Jess Buxton, spokesman for the British Society of Human Genetics.

But he said sexual relationships between relatives more closely related than cousins carry increased risks to offspring because the adults share a greater proportion of their genetic material. Full siblings share 50 percent of their genetic material, as do parents and their children.

"The closer the biological relationship between two people, the higher the risk of passing on a recessive condition to their children," Buxton said.

FOXNews.com - Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


and you are an idiot if you don't think it cannot result in birth defects.
I watch a PBS special about a family in some third world country about these cousins who married and all their children had to walk on all fours because a recessive gene both parents carried because they were cousins. The parents could walk somewhat up right but their children could not all because in them having two doses of the recessive gene, their cases were much worse.
Look at dogs and if you inbreed them too much, you are the one who is not thinking logically.

i have NEVER claimed it does not result in birth defects...

you are a moron for not reading what i wrote and realizing that i told tech esq. he made an excellent point...i then have fully discussed that issue in subsequent posts, and some states actually allow 1st cousins if they won't have children, same could be done here if that is the state's interest, they can have kids just like homosexuals. also, there is new data that suggests 1st cousins only have a 4-7% chance versus a 3-5% chance for non cousins....so, would you support 1st cousins?

and don't think i approve of incest, i'm arguing the point to show that the arguments are similar and the counter arguments are eerily similar to those who are against gay marriage. it is hypocritical.

you said you were unclear if it causes birth defects moron.
and if the child has not been brain washed into wanting to marry their father than go right ahead and do whatever you please. I highly doubt any sane person would have to marry their father though. They should not be allowed to have any biological children of their own.

link....i NEVER said that...let's see this link

what about 1st cousins?

 

[Nik]

Oy. No, you said some people might argue there was a compelling interest. I am telling you that they are wrong.



Did I say that all incest will result in birth defects?



Sure, they CAN. But will they? My guess would be no. If you can guarantee they won't, and its not parent/child relationship, then sure, allow it.



See consent.

Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

what is clear then nik? i said you could run tests to determine IF genetic defects are likely to occur and you said....the above

Yes. Incest=genetic defents are likely to occur. Non-incest you need to run tests to determine whether genetic defects are likely to occur.


what are you talking about then?

and exactly what about consent furthers your point? i wish i could write all my briefs like that....see "this"

i win, i win

We've discussed consent, and you've had nothing to say. But, since you are so thick-headed, here it is again.

Lots of people in this country are molested by their parents. Parents have a legally enforceable right over their children until they are 18. Parents are financially supportive of their children often until they are over 18. If a particular situation has a high likelihood of abuse, as do parent/child relationships, we should not legitimize them. When kids hit 18, all their bonds to their parents (including the bond of obeying what the parent says) do not just go away.

That good enough for you?

 

[Yurt]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

There's nothing stopping gay interactions on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. There just isn't a market for it commercially like there is for hetero interaction.

And given your previous statements about sexuality I can't imagine anyone having a good time in your presence with you getting squeamish, so your indignation about heteros seems hypocritical.

There's nothing stopping you breeders from practically fucking on the streets either. Until you stop, I don't care if the gay people do it at all.

that says it all...the rest explains it all...good lord

 

[Luissa]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

There's nothing stopping gay interactions on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. There just isn't a market for it commercially like there is for hetero interaction.

And given your previous statements about sexuality I can't imagine anyone having a good time in your presence with you getting squeamish, so your indignation about heteros seems hypocritical.

There is not a market for homosexauls on television? You obviously do not watch television very much. The difference is they make all the programs directed at homosexuals stay on cable or you have to buy a subscription. Queer as Folk was one of the top rated shows on Showtime for a quite a few years and one of their top rated shows in the history of Showtime.

 

[KittenKoder]

There's nothing stopping gay interactions on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. There just isn't a market for it commercially like there is for hetero interaction.

And given your previous statements about sexuality I can't imagine anyone having a good time in your presence with you getting squeamish, so your indignation about heteros seems hypocritical.

There's nothing stopping you breeders from practically fucking on the streets either. Until you stop, I don't care if the gay people do it at all.

that says it all...the rest explains it all...good lord

I hate sex, and I have to be bombarded with it almost 24/7 thanks to straight people, so yeah, I am going to adapt that term. If it's offensive, tough shit. I fight for gay rights as long as the human livestock still have the right to be offensive, so do they, period.

 

[Article 15]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

There's nothing stopping gay interactions on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. There just isn't a market for it commercially like there is for hetero interaction.

And given your previous statements about sexuality I can't imagine anyone having a good time in your presence with you getting squeamish, so your indignation about heteros seems hypocritical.

There is not a market for homosexauls on television? You obviously do not watch television very much. The difference is they make all the programs directed at homosexuals stay on cable or you have to buy a subscription. Queer as Folk was one of the top rated shows on Showtime for a quite a few years and one of their top rated shows in the history of Showtime.

From what I've seen of E! and HGTV, half of their programming is targeting homosexuals.

 

[Yurt]

what is clear then nik? i said you could run tests to determine IF genetic defects are likely to occur and you said....the above

Yes. Incest=genetic defents are likely to occur. Non-incest you need to run tests to determine whether genetic defects are likely to occur.


what are you talking about then?

and exactly what about consent furthers your point? i wish i could write all my briefs like that....see "this"

i win, i win

We've discussed consent, and you've had nothing to say. But, since you are so thick-headed, here it is again.

Lots of people in this country are molested by their parents. Parents have a legally enforceable right over their children until they are 18. Parents are financially supportive of their children often until they are over 18. If a particular situation has a high likelihood of abuse, as do parent/child relationships, we should not legitimize them. When kids hit 18, all their bonds to their parents (including the bond of obeying what the parent says) do not just go away.

That good enough for you?

like i remember every comment YOU make, you really do think you're god

i already argued that and there is zero proof that there will not be consent when the sibling or child comes of age. it is a novel theory, but it is not a fact, sorry, but you're not god and your opinion is not fact....the law says that when you turn 18, you have the legal ability to consent (assuming all things relevant), that is a fact. the state is then interfering with that person's right to consent....that is another fact.

don't you see that you are getting involved in the PERSONAL affairs of OTHER people, the very same argument used by pro homosexual marriage, they are telling the contra homosexual marraige crowd to STAY OUT OF THEIR BEDROOM....

you guys can't even see you're arguing against the very arguments used by those who support homosexual marriage. all i would have to do is switch out incest with homosexuality and you guys would be the side arguing against homosexual marraige as you're using virtually the same arguments.