Teenager Who Has Been Dating Her Father For Two Years Reveals The Pair Are Planning To Get Married..

[bripat9643]

Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.

If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.

What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

Your line is totally arbitrary. You have yet to explain why one case is acceptable while the other isn't. Not without contradicting yourself, anyway.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.

If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.

What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

Your line is totally arbitrary. You have yet to explain why one case is acceptable while the other isn't. Not without contradicting yourself, anyway.

You are an idiot. STOP quoting me.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.

If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.

What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

You offer no rational basis for drawing such a line. In fact, all the arguments used to defend "gay marriage" argue for removing the line.

Um, no they don't, as demonstrated in this thread. The rational basis (which is exactly WHY parent/child unions ARE illegal) is because of the potential for abuse. How many more times does that have to be repeated before it sinks into your incredibly dense skull?

Again, you're talking about sex with a minor. It's already perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter who is of legal age.

You're trying to win this argument by erecting a straw man.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.

If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.

What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

Your line is totally arbitrary. You have yet to explain why one case is acceptable while the other isn't. Not without contradicting yourself, anyway.

You are an idiot. STOP quoting me.

I'll take that as an admission that you know you've lost the argument. If you want me to stop quoting you, then stop posting your idiocies.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.

If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.

What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

You offer no rational basis for drawing such a line. In fact, all the arguments used to defend "gay marriage" argue for removing the line.

Um, no they don't, as demonstrated in this thread. The rational basis (which is exactly WHY parent/child unions ARE illegal) is because of the potential for abuse. How many more times does that have to be repeated before it sinks into your incredibly dense skull?

Again, you're talking about sex with a minor. It's already perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter who is of legal age.

You're trying to win this argument by erecting a straw man.

Legal? That depends: Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

You offer no rational basis for drawing such a line. In fact, all the arguments used to defend "gay marriage" argue for removing the line.

Um, no they don't, as demonstrated in this thread. The rational basis (which is exactly WHY parent/child unions ARE illegal) is because of the potential for abuse. How many more times does that have to be repeated before it sinks into your incredibly dense skull?

Again, you're talking about sex with a minor. It's already perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter who is of legal age.

You're trying to win this argument by erecting a straw man.

Legal? That depends: Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's legal in some states, and that's all that's needed to make the argument.

However, why would a critic of anti-sodomy laws support making incest illegal? The same old "two consenting adults" logic is in play in both cases.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I though somebody should question the authenticity of the story since we've gone through 49 pages of wrangling over it.

If you read the interview of this screwed up kid, you'll see they don't plan to record the marriage so there's not likely to be any legal issue.

What It s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

Your line is totally arbitrary. You have yet to explain why one case is acceptable while the other isn't. Not without contradicting yourself, anyway.

You are an idiot. STOP quoting me.

I'll take that as an admission that you know you've lost the argument. If you want me to stop quoting you, then stop posting your idiocies.

If anyone is an idiot, it would be you. The reason why child/parent unions are illegal is because of the potential for abuse, MORON. It doesn't matter the age of the VICTIM.

Incest laws may involve restrictions on marriage rights, which also vary between jurisdictions. When incest involves an adult and a child, it is usually considered to be a form of child sexual abuse.[1][2] With several exceptions, age of consent laws do not have a bearing on incestuous sex, which is unlawful irrespective of age.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

You offer no rational basis for drawing such a line. In fact, all the arguments used to defend "gay marriage" argue for removing the line.

Um, no they don't, as demonstrated in this thread. The rational basis (which is exactly WHY parent/child unions ARE illegal) is because of the potential for abuse. How many more times does that have to be repeated before it sinks into your incredibly dense skull?

Again, you're talking about sex with a minor. It's already perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter who is of legal age.

You're trying to win this argument by erecting a straw man.

Legal? That depends: Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's legal in some states, and that's all that's needed to make the argument.

However, why would a critic of anti-sodomy laws support making incest illegal? The same old "two consenting adults" logic is in play in both cases.

Yes it is, although a good biological argument can be made in the case of incest if their sexual relations might lead to them having offspring. Otherwise it's the old "that's icky" argument and we have plenty of those coded into the law, rightly or wrongly. She is however correct that we can draw the line at incest if we wish to. In my case I wouldn't but I like to be consistent.

The same limits apply to teachers, don't fuck your students and bosses don't demand sex from your workers.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes because we live in a vacuum of perpetual todays and we are all going to agree with your static premise that "marriage equality isn't legal now so it will never be, living in the perpetual today". Taking your point out of the tiny little box you shoved it in, we can say that if this couple isn't real, there will be a couple tomorrow (there's that dreaded word!) that WILL be real. They will enjoy every right newly granted to ALL (not just some) alternative-sexual lifestylists consenting adults may access.

Equality is equality. It wears a blindfold as you already know.

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

Your line is totally arbitrary. You have yet to explain why one case is acceptable while the other isn't. Not without contradicting yourself, anyway.

You are an idiot. STOP quoting me.

I'll take that as an admission that you know you've lost the argument. If you want me to stop quoting you, then stop posting your idiocies.

If anyone is an idiot, it would be you. The reason why child/parent unions are illegal is because of the potential for abuse, MORON. It doesn't matter the age of the VICTIM.

Incest laws may involve restrictions on marriage rights, which also vary between jurisdictions. When incest involves an adult and a child, it is usually considered to be a form of child sexual abuse.[1][2] With several exceptions, age of consent laws do not have a bearing on incestuous sex, which is unlawful irrespective of age.

Hmmm, no. The reason for laws against incest is the much greater incidence of birth defects resulting from such union, but all you apologists for gay marriage claim that procreation is not a reason to reject it.

 

[bripat9643]

You offer no rational basis for drawing such a line. In fact, all the arguments used to defend "gay marriage" argue for removing the line.

Um, no they don't, as demonstrated in this thread. The rational basis (which is exactly WHY parent/child unions ARE illegal) is because of the potential for abuse. How many more times does that have to be repeated before it sinks into your incredibly dense skull?

Again, you're talking about sex with a minor. It's already perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter who is of legal age.

You're trying to win this argument by erecting a straw man.

Legal? That depends: Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's legal in some states, and that's all that's needed to make the argument.

However, why would a critic of anti-sodomy laws support making incest illegal? The same old "two consenting adults" logic is in play in both cases.

Yes it is, although a good biological argument can be made in the case of incest if their sexual relations might lead to them having offspring. Otherwise it's the old "that's icky" argument and we have plenty of those coded into the law, rightly or wrongly. She is however correct that we can draw the line at incest if we wish to. In my case I wouldn't but I like to be consistent.

You liberal turds keep saying that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. Now you're admitting that it does.

 

[ChrisL]

That is not true. Why do you insist that we cannot draw a line? We most certainly can. I think parent/child unions are where the lines should be drawn. That is taking things too far, and these people are obviously sick in the head.

Your line is totally arbitrary. You have yet to explain why one case is acceptable while the other isn't. Not without contradicting yourself, anyway.

You are an idiot. STOP quoting me.

I'll take that as an admission that you know you've lost the argument. If you want me to stop quoting you, then stop posting your idiocies.

If anyone is an idiot, it would be you. The reason why child/parent unions are illegal is because of the potential for abuse, MORON. It doesn't matter the age of the VICTIM.

Incest laws may involve restrictions on marriage rights, which also vary between jurisdictions. When incest involves an adult and a child, it is usually considered to be a form of child sexual abuse.[1][2] With several exceptions, age of consent laws do not have a bearing on incestuous sex, which is unlawful irrespective of age.

Hmmm, no. The reason for laws against incest is the much greater incidence of birth defects resulting from such union, but all you apologists for gay marriage claim that procreation is not a reason to reject it.

You obviously cannot read. I just posted you a link that explains why it is illegal. It is because, in most instances, it is the result of sexual abuse between parent/child.

If you can't understand that simple concept, you are beyond any kind of help.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Um, no they don't, as demonstrated in this thread. The rational basis (which is exactly WHY parent/child unions ARE illegal) is because of the potential for abuse. How many more times does that have to be repeated before it sinks into your incredibly dense skull?

Again, you're talking about sex with a minor. It's already perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter who is of legal age.

You're trying to win this argument by erecting a straw man.

Legal? That depends: Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's legal in some states, and that's all that's needed to make the argument.

However, why would a critic of anti-sodomy laws support making incest illegal? The same old "two consenting adults" logic is in play in both cases.

Yes it is, although a good biological argument can be made in the case of incest if their sexual relations might lead to them having offspring. Otherwise it's the old "that's icky" argument and we have plenty of those coded into the law, rightly or wrongly. She is however correct that we can draw the line at incest if we wish to. In my case I wouldn't but I like to be consistent.

You liberal turds keep saying that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. Now you're admitting that it does.

No, I said the biological argument is about sexual relations, not marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your line is totally arbitrary. You have yet to explain why one case is acceptable while the other isn't. Not without contradicting yourself, anyway.

You are an idiot. STOP quoting me.

I'll take that as an admission that you know you've lost the argument. If you want me to stop quoting you, then stop posting your idiocies.

If anyone is an idiot, it would be you. The reason why child/parent unions are illegal is because of the potential for abuse, MORON. It doesn't matter the age of the VICTIM.

Incest laws may involve restrictions on marriage rights, which also vary between jurisdictions. When incest involves an adult and a child, it is usually considered to be a form of child sexual abuse.[1][2] With several exceptions, age of consent laws do not have a bearing on incestuous sex, which is unlawful irrespective of age.

Hmmm, no. The reason for laws against incest is the much greater incidence of birth defects resulting from such union, but all you apologists for gay marriage claim that procreation is not a reason to reject it.

You obviously cannot read. I just posted you a link that explains why it is illegal. It is because, in most instances, it is the result of sexual abuse between parent/child.

If you can't understand that simple concept, you are beyond any kind of help.

He's not good with concepts, any of them.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, you're talking about sex with a minor. It's already perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his daughter who is of legal age.

You're trying to win this argument by erecting a straw man.

Legal? That depends: Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's legal in some states, and that's all that's needed to make the argument.

However, why would a critic of anti-sodomy laws support making incest illegal? The same old "two consenting adults" logic is in play in both cases.

Yes it is, although a good biological argument can be made in the case of incest if their sexual relations might lead to them having offspring. Otherwise it's the old "that's icky" argument and we have plenty of those coded into the law, rightly or wrongly. She is however correct that we can draw the line at incest if we wish to. In my case I wouldn't but I like to be consistent.

You liberal turds keep saying that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. Now you're admitting that it does.

No, I said the biological argument is about sexual relations, not marriage.

Yeah, people who get married don't have sexual relations.

Good argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Legal? That depends: Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's legal in some states, and that's all that's needed to make the argument.

However, why would a critic of anti-sodomy laws support making incest illegal? The same old "two consenting adults" logic is in play in both cases.

Yes it is, although a good biological argument can be made in the case of incest if their sexual relations might lead to them having offspring. Otherwise it's the old "that's icky" argument and we have plenty of those coded into the law, rightly or wrongly. She is however correct that we can draw the line at incest if we wish to. In my case I wouldn't but I like to be consistent.

You liberal turds keep saying that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. Now you're admitting that it does.

No, I said the biological argument is about sexual relations, not marriage.

Yeah, people who get married don't have sexual relations.

Good argument.

Yet again, you fail to understand. If two relations want to marry but cannot reproduce then the state has no valid reason to keep them apart since the only truly valid reason is the biological one.

 

[bripat9643]

It's legal in some states, and that's all that's needed to make the argument.

However, why would a critic of anti-sodomy laws support making incest illegal? The same old "two consenting adults" logic is in play in both cases.

Yes it is, although a good biological argument can be made in the case of incest if their sexual relations might lead to them having offspring. Otherwise it's the old "that's icky" argument and we have plenty of those coded into the law, rightly or wrongly. She is however correct that we can draw the line at incest if we wish to. In my case I wouldn't but I like to be consistent.

You liberal turds keep saying that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. Now you're admitting that it does.

No, I said the biological argument is about sexual relations, not marriage.

Yeah, people who get married don't have sexual relations.

Good argument.

Yet again, you fail to understand. If two relations want to marry but cannot reproduce then the state has no valid reason to keep them apart since the only truly valid reason is the biological one.

Marriage exists due to the fact that most couples can reproduce. It was basically a license to have children. Why would the state need to give homosexuals a license to have children?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage exists due to the fact that most couples can reproduce. It was basically a license to have children.

No, it wasn't, and still isn't. Whether you will or even can have children is of no interest to the State when issuing marriage licenses, which is why they don't even bother to ask.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage exists due to the fact that most couples can reproduce. It was basically a license to have children.

No, it wasn't, and still isn't. Whether you will or even can have children is of no interest to the State when issuing marriage licenses, which is why they don't even bother to ask.

Yes, that is of interest to the state. The claim that marriage is not about reproduction is proven wrong, even by it's proponents, by the admission that incestuous marriages shouldn't be allowed. Clearly, children are of interest to the state when issuing a marriage license.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage exists due to the fact that most couples can reproduce. It was basically a license to have children.

No, it wasn't, and still isn't. Whether you will or even can have children is of no interest to the State when issuing marriage licenses, which is why they don't even bother to ask.

Yes, that is of interest to the state. The claim that marriage is not about reproduction is proven wrong, even by it's proponents, by the admission that incestuous marriages shouldn't be allowed. Clearly, children are of interest to the state when issuing a marriage license.

It's not the marriage, dummy, it's the sex. And the state has an interest in children, not much in how it gets them. if the state truly cared, if that's what marriage is for, they would at the very least ask if you planned on having babies, and they don't because that's not a requirement, and never will be.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I can't believe this sick f*ckin' thread is still going.