father and daughter should be allowed to marry

[KittenKoder]

Once again DUMB ASS GAY SEX IS ILLEGAL ALSO. Or are you to dense to understand the written word. You may be kicking footballs but they are sailing into windows and barn doors.

YOU set the criteria, now live with it.

gay sex isn't illegal anymore... and it wasn't just gay sex... it was specific acts...whether performed by people of the opposite or same sex. you think oral sex should be illegal?

Sodomy most definitely is still on the books and YOU damn well know it.

Sodomy is anal sex, not gay sex. Lesbians do not perform sodomy, and many straight couples do.

 

[Ravi]

Here you go, RGS. Looks like sodomy is legal for gays but not straights.

Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (see above). It is not clear whether or how sodomy laws that apply to both homosexual and heterosexual sex are affected by Lawrence

Sodomy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, you FAIL!

 

[jillian]

Thank you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

SODOMYLAWS.ORG

14 States and the Military. And while the 2003 decision says it is unconstitutional States still have the laws and some still enforce it.

But THIS just proves MY point Ravi. YOU claimed because something was illegal then it could not ever be legal nor have laws written making it legal.

YOU LOSE you idiot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thank you.

I suggest you actually READ the argument I have with Ravi. SHE claimed that because something is illegal it can not have any laws changing it to legal.

And this proves MY point, not hers.

 

[KittenKoder]

SODOMYLAWS.ORG

14 States and the Military. And while the 2003 decision says it is unconstitutional States still have the laws and some still enforce it.

But THIS just proves MY point Ravi. YOU claimed because something was illegal then it could not ever be legal nor have laws written making it legal.

YOU LOSE you idiot.

It says there, one fucking state ... LOL now it's an EPIC fail.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thank you.

I suggest you actually READ the argument I have with Ravi. SHE claimed that because something is illegal it can not have any laws changing it to legal.

And this proves MY point, not hers.

No, it proves neither point really. It still needs a majority either way.

 

[Ravi]

SODOMYLAWS.ORG

14 States and the Military. And while the 2003 decision says it is unconstitutional States still have the laws and some still enforce it.

But THIS just proves MY point Ravi. YOU claimed because something was illegal then it could not ever be legal nor have laws written making it legal.

YOU LOSE you idiot.

Retard. A state cannot enforce a law that violates the federal constitution. FAIL.

You cannot legalize marriage for two people that are engaged in an illegal relationship. First you have to legalize the relationship. And that is just not going to happen in this case. You can pretend all you want that just because homosexuality has become acceptable then too will incest but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Ravi]

Thank you.

I suggest you actually READ the argument I have with Ravi. SHE claimed that because something is illegal it can not have any laws changing it to legal.

And this proves MY point, not hers.

That's not what I said, silly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

SODOMYLAWS.ORG

14 States and the Military. And while the 2003 decision says it is unconstitutional States still have the laws and some still enforce it.

But THIS just proves MY point Ravi. YOU claimed because something was illegal then it could not ever be legal nor have laws written making it legal.

YOU LOSE you idiot.

It says there, one fucking state ... LOL now it's an EPIC fail.

WRONG AGAIN RETARD. There were 14 States and the US Military. And again you dumb ass RAVI claimed because something was illegal it could not then be made legal. Well this proves her entire claim to be false. By a simple decision of the Supreme Court her point was completely, totally destroyed.

Further it States the US Military still enforces its laws and at least 3 States continue to try enforce theirs.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thank you.

I suggest you actually READ the argument I have with Ravi. SHE claimed that because something is illegal it can not have any laws changing it to legal.

And this proves MY point, not hers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS has really gone off the deep end.

Incest is already illegal, though I doubt seldom if ever prosecuted. You can't make a law to "allow" a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is already illegal.

First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then you can marry your sibling of choice.

Ravi said this. Read it careful now.

 

[Ravi]

RGS has really gone off the deep end.

Incest is already illegal, though I doubt seldom if ever prosecuted. You can't make a law to "allow" a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is already illegal.

First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then you can marry your sibling of choice.

Ravi said this. Read it careful now.

You should read it more carefully, dimbulb.

You cannot make a law to allow a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is illegal.

There are two different laws in play here, maybe it is just to subtle a distinction for your thick head. But I've already explained it to you above.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS has really gone off the deep end.

Incest is already illegal, though I doubt seldom if ever prosecuted. You can't make a law to "allow" a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is already illegal.

First you should move to West Virginia, RGS, where incest isn't frowned on. Then you work to make it legal...then you can marry your sibling of choice.

Ravi said this. Read it careful now.

You should read it more carefully, dimbulb.

You cannot make a law to allow a marriage between people that are engaged in something that is illegal.

There are two different laws in play here, maybe it is just to subtle a distinction for your thick head. But I've already explained it to you above.

Look you DUMB ASS. One can now argue that Incest should not be illegal between consenting adults BECAUSE the argument was used for gays that all that mattered was CONSENTING ADULTS and love.

The only DIM BULB here is your ignorant ass. Until just a few years ago Gay sex was completely illegal now we have States allowing Gay marriage.

Now I realize since you have just one function brain cell it is hard to grasp any concept past what you want to eat later, BUT you ignorant idiot, the ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that because the excuse is used that two consenting adults should be free to do as they please, Incestuous relationships could now MAKE the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT.

I mean I am sorry that I assumed that you were capable of rational thought and actually able to follow an argument. I forgot just how fucking stupid you are.

 

[Anguille]

RGS, take a deep breath of methane and calm yourself down.

 

[WillowTree]

I love this topic.

I mean sure, you can bite the bullet and go along with it and be a considered a sick fuck by just about everyone, or you can man up and admit your hypocrisy.

The Left has been trying to be smug and claim some kind of moral superiority on the topic of gay marriage for so long, but this really presents an interesting conundrum.

So what's it going to be? Incest is a-ok or re-think that consenting adult thing? You can't be in favor of gay marriage and not be in favor of incestuous marriage without being a hypocrite.

This topic fucking rules.

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.

So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?
It's both incest and homosexual.

 

[Ravi]

RGS, take a deep breath of methane and calm yourself down.

heh...RGS's problem is that he is illogical.

Here's how his reasoning goes.

"If gays can legally have sex then by golly it should be legal for me to have sex with my sister or my dog!"

He can't see there is a valid reason to not make incest legal (narrowing of the gene pool, high incidence of mental retardation). He can't see that there is a valid reason not to make bestiality legal (animals cannot consent).

There's no valid reason to make homosexuality illegal.

 

[Montrovant]

I just wanted to bring up a quick point about the incest argument.

At least as far as parent/child relationships go, an argument might be made that the child cannot be considered able to give informed consent. The reason for this is that parents have such a strong influence and are such a controlling figure in a child's life.

Not asking anyone to agree with the argument, just bringing up something other than the inbreeding point.

 

[Anguille]

RGS, take a deep breath of methane and calm yourself down.

heh...RGS's problem is that he is illogical.

Here's how his reasoning goes.

"If gays can legally have sex then by golly it should be legal for me to have sex with my sister or my dog!"

He can't see there is a valid reason to not make incest legal (narrowing of the gene pool, high incidence of mental retardation). He can't see that there is a valid reason not to make bestiality legal (animals cannot consent).

There's no valid reason to make homosexuality illegal.

I don't think it's the government's business to regulate incest between consenting adults. Between an underage child and an adult it would fall under the category of sexual abuse.

Is the risk of mental retardation high? My understanding that incest does not lead to birth defects as frequently as people assume. If risk of birth defects is the reasoning for making incest illegal then sex between any two heterosexual carriers of genes that can put people at risk for genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, would then have to be illegal too.

 

[nia588]

discuss

and if you're against father marrying daughter, i will call you anti family

people like you need to be banned from breeding.