father and daughter should be allowed to marry

[KittenKoder]

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.

Incest is also between one man and one woman, so by your definition it's already okay,

 

[elvis]

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.

polygamists could stand on religious freedom. After all, American Indians are allowed to use peyote and possess eagle feathers for the same reason, something I am not allowed to do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Ohh I see, you get to argue parents will prep their children to later marry them, BUT no gay couple will ever prep their children to be gay? HYPOCRITE.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

So then why not alter the law again to include gay people? It doesn't open it up anymore than having one man and one woman, since incest is still within that limit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Incest is also between one man and one woman, so by your definition it's already okay,

Already answered your ignorant claim. Come on Kitten you can do it, ADMIT your opinion is no more valid then anti gay people's opinion.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

Incest is also between one man and one woman, so by your definition it's already okay,

Already answered your ignorant claim. Come on Kitten you can do it, ADMIT your opinion is no more valid then anti gay people's opinion.

I'm basing it on the exact same logic, but with my logic the implications are far more realistic. How is it that marriage between one man and one woman stop incest, since a father and daughter is still one man and one woman. It follows your logic far more since it's a smaller step. Gay to incest, that's a huge stretch, but straight to incest is just a hop.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incest is also between one man and one woman, so by your definition it's already okay,

Already answered your ignorant claim. Come on Kitten you can do it, ADMIT your opinion is no more valid then anti gay people's opinion.

I'm basing it on the exact same logic, but with my logic the implications are far more realistic. How is it that marriage between one man and one woman stop incest, since a father and daughter is still one man and one woman. It follows your logic far more since it's a smaller step. Gay to incest, that's a huge stretch, but straight to incest is just a hop.

WRONG you DUMB ASS. The laws already exist making it ILLEGAL. YOU are the one breaking down those laws with the idiotic excuse it is a matter between two consenting adults. YOU not I, create the situation that allows incest and polygamy to argued the EXACT same way. YOU not I , insist that the majority opinion is irrelevant on the issue of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once again you HYPOCRITE YOU create the environment that allows incestuous relationships to be made into marriages and that allows polygamy to be legal. YOUR ENTIRE line of reasoning demands it. Once gays win based on the argument their rights were violated because the Government has no business in the private affairs of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS that creates the same avenue for the two things YOU HAPPEN to oppose.

 

[Amanda]

And that's why I love this thread, the hypocrisy bubbles to the surface and just won't go away.

 

[KittenKoder]

Already answered your ignorant claim. Come on Kitten you can do it, ADMIT your opinion is no more valid then anti gay people's opinion.

I'm basing it on the exact same logic, but with my logic the implications are far more realistic. How is it that marriage between one man and one woman stop incest, since a father and daughter is still one man and one woman. It follows your logic far more since it's a smaller step. Gay to incest, that's a huge stretch, but straight to incest is just a hop.

WRONG you DUMB ASS. The laws already exist making it ILLEGAL. YOU are the one breaking down those laws with the idiotic excuse it is a matter between two consenting adults. YOU not I, create the situation that allows incest and polygamy to argued the EXACT same way. YOU not I , insist that the majority opinion is irrelevant on the issue of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once again you HYPOCRITE YOU create the environment that allows incestuous relationships to be made into marriages and that allows polygamy to be legal. YOUR ENTIRE line of reasoning demands it. Once gays win based on the argument their rights were violated because the Government has no business in the private affairs of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS that creates the same avenue for the two things YOU HAPPEN to oppose.

Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.

 

[Amanda]

I'm basing it on the exact same logic, but with my logic the implications are far more realistic. How is it that marriage between one man and one woman stop incest, since a father and daughter is still one man and one woman. It follows your logic far more since it's a smaller step. Gay to incest, that's a huge stretch, but straight to incest is just a hop.

WRONG you DUMB ASS. The laws already exist making it ILLEGAL. YOU are the one breaking down those laws with the idiotic excuse it is a matter between two consenting adults. YOU not I, create the situation that allows incest and polygamy to argued the EXACT same way. YOU not I , insist that the majority opinion is irrelevant on the issue of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once again you HYPOCRITE YOU create the environment that allows incestuous relationships to be made into marriages and that allows polygamy to be legal. YOUR ENTIRE line of reasoning demands it. Once gays win based on the argument their rights were violated because the Government has no business in the private affairs of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS that creates the same avenue for the two things YOU HAPPEN to oppose.

Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.

I didn't see anything religious in his statements. Maybe you could point them out?

 

[KittenKoder]

WRONG you DUMB ASS. The laws already exist making it ILLEGAL. YOU are the one breaking down those laws with the idiotic excuse it is a matter between two consenting adults. YOU not I, create the situation that allows incest and polygamy to argued the EXACT same way. YOU not I , insist that the majority opinion is irrelevant on the issue of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once again you HYPOCRITE YOU create the environment that allows incestuous relationships to be made into marriages and that allows polygamy to be legal. YOUR ENTIRE line of reasoning demands it. Once gays win based on the argument their rights were violated because the Government has no business in the private affairs of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS that creates the same avenue for the two things YOU HAPPEN to oppose.

Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.

I didn't see anything religious in his statements. Maybe you could point them out?

They certainly have no logic in them, thus the only point of view is religious.

Question, do you squawk like a parrot when you type to?

 

[Amanda]

Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.

I didn't see anything religious in his statements. Maybe you could point them out?

They certainly have no logic in them, thus the only point of view is religious.

Question, do you squawk like a parrot when you type to?

Personal attacks? I thought you were above that. I guess nothing's too low when you're backed into a corner. Are you going to give a reference to how his statements are religious or are you going to retract your ridiculous statement? You're embarrassing yourself all over this board tonight, KK.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm basing it on the exact same logic, but with my logic the implications are far more realistic. How is it that marriage between one man and one woman stop incest, since a father and daughter is still one man and one woman. It follows your logic far more since it's a smaller step. Gay to incest, that's a huge stretch, but straight to incest is just a hop.

WRONG you DUMB ASS. The laws already exist making it ILLEGAL. YOU are the one breaking down those laws with the idiotic excuse it is a matter between two consenting adults. YOU not I, create the situation that allows incest and polygamy to argued the EXACT same way. YOU not I , insist that the majority opinion is irrelevant on the issue of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once again you HYPOCRITE YOU create the environment that allows incestuous relationships to be made into marriages and that allows polygamy to be legal. YOUR ENTIRE line of reasoning demands it. Once gays win based on the argument their rights were violated because the Government has no business in the private affairs of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS that creates the same avenue for the two things YOU HAPPEN to oppose.

Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.

WRONG AGAIN you fucking DUMB ASS. Gay Marriage was illegal too, you RETARD. It is being MADE legal with the argument that it is none of the Governments business and is somehow a right for 2 CONSENTING ADULTS of ANY sex to marry. This means, now stay with me you half wit..., that an Incestuous couple or couples could come in and make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Since the only thing keeping them from marrying is the same thing that kept Gays from marrying, the OPINION of the morals of the Majority. And you and the Judges allowing gay Marriage have DESTROYED that argument completely or nearly completely.

KEEP UP DUMB SHIT.... IF a court has ruled that Gays can marry because of the fact they are 2 CONSENTING ADULTS then guess what NUMB NUTS? An Incestuous couple can then cite that decision as an excuse for THEIR RIGHT to marry.

The other argument being that marriage laws do not stipulate man and woman. That decision of the Supreme Court everyone keeps citing does not stipulate Incest either. If Marriage of and by itself is a right, then you have no right to deny ANY people that are adults and consenting from marrying each other.

 

[KittenKoder]

WRONG you DUMB ASS. The laws already exist making it ILLEGAL. YOU are the one breaking down those laws with the idiotic excuse it is a matter between two consenting adults. YOU not I, create the situation that allows incest and polygamy to argued the EXACT same way. YOU not I , insist that the majority opinion is irrelevant on the issue of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once again you HYPOCRITE YOU create the environment that allows incestuous relationships to be made into marriages and that allows polygamy to be legal. YOUR ENTIRE line of reasoning demands it. Once gays win based on the argument their rights were violated because the Government has no business in the private affairs of 2 CONSENTING ADULTS that creates the same avenue for the two things YOU HAPPEN to oppose.

Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.

WRONG AGAIN you fucking DUMB ASS. Gay Marriage was illegal too, you RETARD. It is being MADE legal with the argument that it is none of the Governments business and is somehow a right for 2 CONSENTING ADULTS of ANY sex to marry. This means, now stay with me you half wit..., that an Incestuous couple or couples could come in and make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Since the only thing keeping them from marrying is the same thing that kept Gays from marrying, the OPINION of the morals of the Majority. And you and the Judges allowing gay Marriage have DESTROYED that argument completely or nearly completely.

KEEP UP DUMB SHIT.... IF a court has ruled that Gays can marry because of the fact they are 2 CONSENTING ADULTS then guess what NUMB NUTS? An Incestuous couple can then cite that decision as an excuse for THEIR RIGHT to marry.

The other argument being that marriage laws do not stipulate man and woman. That decision of the Supreme Court everyone keeps citing does not stipulate Incest either. If Marriage of and by itself is a right, then you have no right to deny ANY people that are adults and consenting from marrying each other.

Incest fits being between "one man and one woman" better than two consenting adults.

 

[Amanda]

Well, if the laws already exist making incest illegal then there is no problem with gay marriage legal since it won't change those laws already in place. Admit it, you are basing your whole argument on religious views only.

WRONG AGAIN you fucking DUMB ASS. Gay Marriage was illegal too, you RETARD. It is being MADE legal with the argument that it is none of the Governments business and is somehow a right for 2 CONSENTING ADULTS of ANY sex to marry. This means, now stay with me you half wit..., that an Incestuous couple or couples could come in and make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Since the only thing keeping them from marrying is the same thing that kept Gays from marrying, the OPINION of the morals of the Majority. And you and the Judges allowing gay Marriage have DESTROYED that argument completely or nearly completely.

KEEP UP DUMB SHIT.... IF a court has ruled that Gays can marry because of the fact they are 2 CONSENTING ADULTS then guess what NUMB NUTS? An Incestuous couple can then cite that decision as an excuse for THEIR RIGHT to marry.

The other argument being that marriage laws do not stipulate man and woman. That decision of the Supreme Court everyone keeps citing does not stipulate Incest either. If Marriage of and by itself is a right, then you have no right to deny ANY people that are adults and consenting from marrying each other.

Incest fits being between "one man and one woman" better than two consenting adults.

Um... not if it is in fact 2 consenting adults. You're flailing here, KK.

Myself, I wonder why anyone that doesn't have any interest in sex even has an opinion on what others that are interested in sex want to do.

It's so much fun when that 1 is thrown at me, I'm curious how you will respond and what your stake in all of this is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

WRONG AGAIN you fucking DUMB ASS. Gay Marriage was illegal too, you RETARD. It is being MADE legal with the argument that it is none of the Governments business and is somehow a right for 2 CONSENTING ADULTS of ANY sex to marry. This means, now stay with me you half wit..., that an Incestuous couple or couples could come in and make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Since the only thing keeping them from marrying is the same thing that kept Gays from marrying, the OPINION of the morals of the Majority. And you and the Judges allowing gay Marriage have DESTROYED that argument completely or nearly completely.

KEEP UP DUMB SHIT.... IF a court has ruled that Gays can marry because of the fact they are 2 CONSENTING ADULTS then guess what NUMB NUTS? An Incestuous couple can then cite that decision as an excuse for THEIR RIGHT to marry.

The other argument being that marriage laws do not stipulate man and woman. That decision of the Supreme Court everyone keeps citing does not stipulate Incest either. If Marriage of and by itself is a right, then you have no right to deny ANY people that are adults and consenting from marrying each other.

Incest fits being between "one man and one woman" better than two consenting adults.

Um... not if it is in fact 2 consenting adults. You're flailing here, KK.

Myself, I wonder why anyone that doesn't have any interest in sex even has an opinion on what others that are interested in sex want to do.

It's so much fun when that 1 is thrown at me, I'm curious how you will respond and what your stake in all of this is.

She vocally and forcefully has argued the premise that " 2 consenting adults" was the only criteria for marriage. Now when faced with some of the realities of that argument she wants to do what she berated US for doing. Use her morals to deny 2 consenting adults their supposed personal right to engage in sex and be legally married.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

The notion that inbreeding increases the chance of there being weaknesses in offspring is a commonly understood simple genetic principle. Read high-school level book on genetics. Here is a good book on the subject. Page 80 of “From Instinct to Identity” is a good source.

From Instinct to Identity: The ... - Google Book Search

Now, if I am wrong – if there is no increase in the chance of an offspring from incest having such a handicap - then it stands to reason that I would not be opposed to incest marriage (unless I learn of some other significant disadvantage that I think would outweigh any benefit). I do not mean to be unnecessarily prejudicial or discriminatory this area.

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.

I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. I am practicing my freedom of speech. You are not required to listen to me. You can communicate your opinion too. I don’t have to pay attention to you. In our republic, the most popular bill or candidate usually gets enacted into legislation or wins elections respectively. That does not necessarily mean that the most popular view or candidate was the right one. If most people oppose gay marriage and if gay marriage never becomes the law of the land, it does not follow that gay marriage is wrong or right – just that it was not popular. Bill Clinton won the popular vote twice. I guess that it means that he was the right person to lead America for 8 years. Read about the bandwagon effect. Anyway, all political systems considered I do prefer the republic.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Lefties and homosexuals are hypocrites and a father marrying a daughter is wrong and once again like gay marriage violates the institution of what a family is. Some liberals are just so damn out of hand limits must be created and enforced because without them our country would be in utter chaos and the Bass doesn't want to live in a place where everything goes.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

As the Bass has stated in another thread and will state again, *ALL* Americans have the right to marriage, thus gays have no argument that they are denied the "right" to marriage, however, their fight for "rights" is not one for marriage but for a special marriage that suits their sexual lifestyle and that request for a special marriage that fits their lifestyle is what they are fighting for, not the right to marriage itself. If gays are allowed to have a special marriage that suits their lifestyle by that logic all people should have special marriages that suit their sexual lifestyle, that includes incestuous marriages, polygamy, the right to marry two people of opposite sexes if one is so called bisexual, etc. Gays are hypocrites is they are against this, of course using their own logic.

 

[Amanda]

Incest fits being between "one man and one woman" better than two consenting adults.

Um... not if it is in fact 2 consenting adults. You're flailing here, KK.

Myself, I wonder why anyone that doesn't have any interest in sex even has an opinion on what others that are interested in sex want to do.

It's so much fun when that 1 is thrown at me, I'm curious how you will respond and what your stake in all of this is.

She vocally and forcefully has argued the premise that " 2 consenting adults" was the only criteria for marriage. Now when faced with some of the realities of that argument she wants to do what she berated US for doing. Use her morals to deny 2 consenting adults their supposed personal right to engage in sex and be legally married.

Yup, I see it too.