father and daughter should be allowed to marry

[KittenKoder]

Here's the HUGE flaw in this, just saying it's between a man and woman opens it up more to incest than gay people. If we continue to define it so black and white then parents could logically marry their own children, since it still fits in the "black and white" logic, a mother and son are still a man and woman, a father and daughter still man and woman. Brother and sister, still one man and one woman. So ... how again is it that allowing gay marriage somehow makes it more possible?

 

[KittenKoder]

So far, it seems that allowing marriage to be defined as only between one man and one woman runs a higher risk of incest and many other "perversions" than gay marriage, at least if the gay couples are related they won't be ruining the lives of any offspring.

 

[Amanda]

thankfully most people don't enjoy your kind of love.

What's with all the hating tonight KK? Is there something wrong with this topic that is bothering you? I think it's fun because it takes an idea a lot of people have taken for granted and used as an argument and makes them re-think their preconceived notions. How is that a bad thing?

Meh, you're too simple minded to understand anyway. Since you cannot read or follow logic, the only fun you are is to make fun of.

Wow, KK, the gloves come off. Is there something I've done to offend you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Really, there is no logical or scientific connection between the two, it's twisting logic and reason in a perverted direction in an attempt to make something which harms no one sound bad. We can use the same logic twisting:

Do you support genocide?

If you don't then you don't support christianity. But if you do support christianity then you are vile or a hypocrite.

I disagree. I have always thought gays should have the right to marry but this IS a monkey wrench.
How do we constitutionally prevent a consenting adult from marrying his adult daughter?

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

BULLSHIT. No one is making an argument that pairs those two at all. Lying dumb ass. You have claimed though that 2 CONSENTING ADULTS should be free to marry no matter their sex no matter the feelings of others. BUT now, you want to add caveats. WHY? Because it offends your sensibilities. In other words you are a HYPOCRITE. Telling those of us against Gay Marriage we have no right to be against and INSISTING that two consenting adults are legally FREE to make that choice themselves.

Well not really right? Now YOU want to ban 2 consenting adults that happen to offend YOUR personal sensibilities. Sorry, you don't get to make that distinction any more than I do.

 

[mattskramer]

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

The polygamy issue can be avoided by making the law state that marriage is between two people.

BUT it is not ok to say marriage is between a man and a woman? Right?

I would allow marriage to include that between people of the same sex. I might stop short of allowing incest marriage - particularly if a baby might be the result.

Your turn: Is it okay to smoke tobacco but not okay to smoke marijuana? Where do you draw the line - and why do you draw it there?

 

[KittenKoder]

What's with all the hating tonight KK? Is there something wrong with this topic that is bothering you? I think it's fun because it takes an idea a lot of people have taken for granted and used as an argument and makes them re-think their preconceived notions. How is that a bad thing?

Meh, you're too simple minded to understand anyway. Since you cannot read or follow logic, the only fun you are is to make fun of.

Wow, KK, the gloves come off. Is there something I've done to offend you?

A daughter can marry their father, one man and one woman, so, if you think that sexuality has anything to do with who you marry, have at it.

 

[elvis]

fwiw, any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a contract that gives them the same tax benefits as a traditional marriage...whether they have sex or not.

And no, the government doesn't have the right to say that two consenting adults can't have sex.

Once again, the cons love big brother if he protects them from themselves.



btw, incest isn't a big problem because it is socially frowned on and evolutionarily stupid. But don't let that stop you from making a law that saves you from yourself, Yurt.

so are you saying it should be legal for ANY too adults to get married, whether they are related or not?

No, I'm saying that any two adults should be able to enter into a contract that gives them the same benefits as a married couple. Marriage itself is a religious ceremony and has nothing to do with government.

so you support the right of two people who are directly related to be LEGALLY married. Why not just say that? Afraid of how you really feel? and I fixed the too/two before you did.

 

[KittenKoder]

I disagree. I have always thought gays should have the right to marry but this IS a monkey wrench.
How do we constitutionally prevent a consenting adult from marrying his adult daughter?

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

BULLSHIT. No one is making an argument that pairs those two at all. Lying dumb ass. You have claimed though that 2 CONSENTING ADULTS should be free to marry no matter their sex no matter the feelings of others. BUT now, you want to add caveats. WHY? Because it offends your sensibilities. In other words you are a HYPOCRITE. Telling those of us against Gay Marriage we have no right to be against and INSISTING that two consenting adults are legally FREE to make that choice themselves.

Well not really right? Now YOU want to ban 2 consenting adults that happen to offend YOUR personal sensibilities. Sorry, you don't get to make that distinction any more than I do.

Here's the HUGE flaw in this, just saying it's between a man and woman opens it up more to incest than gay people. If we continue to define it so black and white then parents could logically marry their own children, since it still fits in the "black and white" logic, a mother and son are still a man and woman, a father and daughter still man and woman. Brother and sister, still one man and one woman. So ... how again is it that allowing gay marriage somehow makes it more possible?

I repeat, how is it illegal by that definition?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The polygamy issue can be avoided by making the law state that marriage is between two people.

but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....

you have the same right as anyone else. between two people.

I know what you're going to say next.

Ya? The same argument applies to this as the Gays used to justify THEIR life Style. Consenting adults, none of the Governments business what happens in private and love is all that matters.

 

[KittenKoder]

but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....

you have the same right as anyone else. between two people.

I know what you're going to say next.

Ya? The same argument applies to this as the Gays used to justify THEIR life Style. Consenting adults, none of the Governments business what happens in private and love is all that matters.

Father and daughter would be a straight couple, so ... one man, one woman, by your own definition they can get married.

 

[elvis]

but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....

you have the same right as anyone else. between two people.

I know what you're going to say next.

Ya? The same argument applies to this as the Gays used to justify THEIR life Style. Consenting adults, none of the Governments business what happens in private and love is all that matters.

yes, I see your point. I usually agree with the consenting adults argument, but incest throws a monkey wrench in the mix.
come to think of it, how IS incest illegal if between two consenting adults?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Most states have a law preventing those who are closer than second cousins or further from marrying. Again, it's an over simplification. There are many more things that have to "break" in order for this to even come close to being a connected issue. Also, the offspring of such a union would be so in danger of mutation and disability that it's not a good idea to any intelligent person, and would run the risk of ruining that offspring's life, since gay couples cannot produce offspring that is another degree of separation. Also, you open up the world of abuse from the parent in such an instance, which is another can of worms you would have to sort out, yet even more degrees of separation. Now, if you want to live in a world of black and white, there are a few third world nations that are stuck in that mindset, luckily in the US we can see all the rainbow as a whole.

how would it be abuse if the daughter is an adult?

By looking into the "possibilities" ... you people are so good at only seeing unrelated possibilities yet you cannot see the obvious ones. If it were legal then parents who wanted to do it would "prep" their offspring for it, through many of the same brainwashing methods used by parents already to push their religious beliefs into the children's minds. Duh.

Yet you argue gays do not "prep" children they have, now do you? In fact you have argued they should be free to procreate and to adopt. Now you want to claim incestuous couples should not have that freedom as well.

By the way, PROVE that a single issue of a father and daughter or son and mother having children will result in mutations. It took generations for that to happen to the Royal Families in Europe and they all are pretty fine now.

 

[mattskramer]

you have the same right as anyone else. between two people.

I know what you're going to say next.

Ya? The same argument applies to this as the Gays used to justify THEIR life Style. Consenting adults, none of the Governments business what happens in private and love is all that matters.

yes, I see your point. I usually agree with the consenting adults argument, but incest throws a monkey wrench in the mix.
come to think of it, how IS incest illegal if between two consenting adults?

It is a little bit more dangerous - particularly if there is inbreeding.

 

[KittenKoder]

how would it be abuse if the daughter is an adult?

By looking into the "possibilities" ... you people are so good at only seeing unrelated possibilities yet you cannot see the obvious ones. If it were legal then parents who wanted to do it would "prep" their offspring for it, through many of the same brainwashing methods used by parents already to push their religious beliefs into the children's minds. Duh.

Yet you argue gays do not "prep" children they have, now do you? In fact you have argued they should be free to procreate and to adopt. Now you want to claim incestuous couples should not have that freedom as well.

By the way, PROVE that a single issue of a father and daughter or son and mother having children will result in mutations. It took generations for that to happen to the Royal Families in Europe and they all are pretty fine now.

*eye roll* Oh yeah, every child raised by a gay person is gay, sure .... got anymore phony gems?

Again, a father and daughter is still one man and one woman, what's stopping them now?

 

[elvis]

Ya? The same argument applies to this as the Gays used to justify THEIR life Style. Consenting adults, none of the Governments business what happens in private and love is all that matters.

yes, I see your point. I usually agree with the consenting adults argument, but incest throws a monkey wrench in the mix.
come to think of it, how IS incest illegal if between two consenting adults?

It is a little bit more dangerous - particularly if there is inbreeding.

being dangerous does not constitute illegality. promiscuous sex is also dangerous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. I am not wrong about what I said. Different people draw the line at different points. Some gays would probably support legalizing inter-family marriage (marriage between a father and an adult daughter). Others might not. Some gays would probably add a disclaimer to the notion of “2 consenting adults” such as “We think that 2 consenting adults should be free to have sex as long as the relationship is not parent to son or parent to daughter”. Those that support gay marriage but oppose marriage between fathers and daughters are no more anti-family than those who would allow cigarette smoking but oppose legalizing cocaine being anti-freedom. Gay marriage does not open the door to incest and polygamy any more than does alcohol or cigarettes open the door to other drugs. These things are not dominos. We have draw the line (and adjusted the line) at different points at different times for generations. We tried legalizing alcohol. Then we prohibited it. Then we decided to legalize it again. We put some restrictions on smoking cigarettes but we are still allowed to smoke in the privacy of our own home. Yet, we still manage to keep marijuana illegal for the most part.

No. Those that want to move the line to allow gay marriage but keep incest illegal are no more hypocritical than are those who would allow cigarette smoking but prohibit marijuana smoking.

Same question to you,
So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?

Right off hand, I think that it would be safe enough to allow gay brothers to get married.

SAFE? I will ask you as well, provide actual evidence that a father daughter or son mother marriage with children would result in mutations. It took generations for that to happen to the Royal families of Europe and they have recovered from it for the most part as well.

What right do you have to force YOUR opinion on us? And if it is by majority, then you lose on GAY marriages, since a VAST majority of Americans are AGAINST gay Marriages. INCLUDING the current President.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Same question to you,
So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?

Right off hand, I think that it would be safe enough to allow gay brothers to get married.

Really, why?

Your entire argument hinges of mutation from procreation, Gays can't procreate, REMEMBER? That was your latest attempt to justify YOUR opinion.

 

[manu1959]

By looking into the "possibilities" ... you people are so good at only seeing unrelated possibilities yet you cannot see the obvious ones. If it were legal then parents who wanted to do it would "prep" their offspring for it, through many of the same brainwashing methods used by parents already to push their religious beliefs into the children's minds. Duh.

Yet you argue gays do not "prep" children they have, now do you? In fact you have argued they should be free to procreate and to adopt. Now you want to claim incestuous couples should not have that freedom as well.

By the way, PROVE that a single issue of a father and daughter or son and mother having children will result in mutations. It took generations for that to happen to the Royal Families in Europe and they all are pretty fine now.

*eye roll* Oh yeah, every child raised by a gay person is gay, sure .... got anymore phony gems?

Again, a father and daughter is still one man and one woman, what's stopping them now?

wern't you arguing that straight parents would be "training" thier kids to marry them....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The polygamy issue can be avoided by making the law state that marriage is between two people.

BUT it is not ok to say marriage is between a man and a woman? Right?

How do we legally say man and woman? I think gay marriage is disgusting and wrong, but why force morals on everyone if no one's rights are being violated?

Then you agree, Incstuous relations are fine between two consenting adults. And you agree Polygamy is fine between however mutually consenting adults wish to be married? Notice though people like Matt and Kitten can not make that statement. They have argued forcefully in the past about the majority having no right to dictate to the minority on the issue of gays getting married, and NOW want to say the majority DOES have that right in THIS case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

BULLSHIT. No one is making an argument that pairs those two at all. Lying dumb ass. You have claimed though that 2 CONSENTING ADULTS should be free to marry no matter their sex no matter the feelings of others. BUT now, you want to add caveats. WHY? Because it offends your sensibilities. In other words you are a HYPOCRITE. Telling those of us against Gay Marriage we have no right to be against and INSISTING that two consenting adults are legally FREE to make that choice themselves.

Well not really right? Now YOU want to ban 2 consenting adults that happen to offend YOUR personal sensibilities. Sorry, you don't get to make that distinction any more than I do.

Here's the HUGE flaw in this, just saying it's between a man and woman opens it up more to incest than gay people. If we continue to define it so black and white then parents could logically marry their own children, since it still fits in the "black and white" logic, a mother and son are still a man and woman, a father and daughter still man and woman. Brother and sister, still one man and one woman. So ... how again is it that allowing gay marriage somehow makes it more possible?

I repeat, how is it illegal by that definition?

The same way we would prevent gays from marrying you dumb ass. BY STIPULATING that in the law. And why would we do that? Because the Majority opposed it. Good god you are as stupid as a rock. Same argument with matts idiotic smoking question.

YOU TWO want to blur the line and want to make claims that the majority have no rights. LIVE with the consequences. Or admit your entire argument was no better then those opposed to gay marriage in the first place.

HYPOCRITE.