Bevin (R) suggests gay marriage could lead to parents marrying children

[TheOldSchool]

I remember when people said I was crazy for saying that this would lead to polygamy.

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

Was that only last year?

Hey I think that decision actually puts you and other religious objectors on the hot seat. They won that victory on the grounds of religious expression. So how can you try to prohibit gays from their rights based on your religious views while condemning the "sister wives" based on their religious views?

You must have me confused with the guy in your mirror.

^ What?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, you are the one doing that. He is simply pointing out the inevitable truth that, if it is illegal to oppose same sex marriage based issues of equality how is it legal to oppose inscestual relationships?

They are two completely different things. Again I could compare your opposition to same sex marriage to opposition for interracial marriage. They are COMPLETELY different.

I don't know why you people can't get it

Why are they different? Unless you can answer that, you really don't have a point. Even if you can, you probably don't because you would be wrong, but give it a shot, I might be wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey I think that decision actually puts you and other religious objectors on the hot seat. They won that victory on the grounds of religious expression. So how can you try to prohibit gays from their rights based on your religious views while condemning the "sister wives" based on their religious views?

You must have me confused with the guy in your mirror.

^ What?

See, I was right.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Actually, you are the one doing that. He is simply pointing out the inevitable truth that, if it is illegal to oppose same sex marriage based issues of equality how is it legal to oppose inscestual relationships?

They are two completely different things. Again I could compare your opposition to same sex marriage to opposition for interracial marriage. They are COMPLETELY different.

I don't know why you people can't get it

Why are they different? Unless you can answer that, you really don't have a point. Even if you can, you probably don't because you would be wrong, but give it a shot, I might be wrong.

Go to post #37 of this thread. I've been paraphrasing myself ever since that post. And that's being generous because that's paraphrased from a bunch of my posts from a bunch of different threads. And no one was able to come up with a legitimate response to it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not once in this thread have you posited an argument as to why gay marriage should be banned by the command of government.

Instead you propose hypothetical scenario's that haven't been a part of the argument because you'd rather argue talking points. Incest and Polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage. If you want to argue about those start a thread about them.

Wrong, You and your ilk have claimed several things. One is that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is not the Governments business and that equality means that any two consenting adults should be free to marry one another. Those are the arguments used to justify Gay marriage.

So under those standards how do you support preventing two adults that happen to be siblings or parent and child from marrying? How do you, under those standards propose laws that make incest between consenting adults in the privacy of their home illegal?

Okay RGS let me try to break it down for you. Between 2 random gay or lesbian people in this country, there are ZERO laws connecting them together or tying them together in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

A parent and a child, or two siblings, ARE BOUND TOGETHER BY LAW BY THEIR ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP.

Therefore you are trying to use a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT legal relationship to justify government intervention into something that you don't like.

You are an idiot. Until the Courts decided that the Government had no compelling interest in regulating what CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their homes it was in fact ILLEGAL in every State to have gay sex. Be it between two men or two women.

So again since we are talking about 2 CONSENTING adults, why if Gays have no problem does the law differentiate on 2 siblings or a parent and an adult child? They also are TWO consenting adults.

That is in fact, according to your logic , an arbitrary ruling. The law says that two consenting adults may engage in any sex they chose in the privacy of their home. Yet you claim 2 consenting adults that happen to be related are an exception.

Further the law in most States STILL says that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that gay marriage is illegal. Your argument is that the Government has no compelling interest in making the distinction when TWO consenting adults want to get married. Yet you would establish that your argument is in fact not valid because you would arbitrarily deny two consenting adults that happen to be related from marrying.

In other words you have limits and can not justify them especially when your whole argument is about what two consenting adults want.

 

[Political Junky]

More Republican duct tape fail!!!!

"If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage -- because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with this -- so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they could then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise?

WOW!! If you're male, and your kid is female, wouldn't this be already happening?

Bevin, another Right Wing genius. Joining those who just can't go far enough to the Right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are two completely different things. Again I could compare your opposition to same sex marriage to opposition for interracial marriage. They are COMPLETELY different.

I don't know why you people can't get it

Why are they different? Unless you can answer that, you really don't have a point. Even if you can, you probably don't because you would be wrong, but give it a shot, I might be wrong.

Go to post #37 of this thread. I've been paraphrasing myself ever since that post. And that's being generous because that's paraphrased from a bunch of my posts from a bunch of different threads. And no one was able to come up with a legitimate response to it.

I already read this thread, so know that you didn't answer my question, but I will humor you anyway.

And laugh.

Okay RGS let me try to break it down for you. Between 2 random gay or lesbian people in this country, there are ZERO laws connecting them together or tying them together in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

A parent and a child, or two siblings, ARE BOUND TOGETHER BY LAW BY THEIR ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP.

Therefore you are trying to use a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT legal relationship to justify government intervention into something that you don't like.

I was right, that was funny.

Does that mean a boss cannot marry their secretary? Because, I have news for you, that happens all the time. How about a lawyer marrying their client?

Just to tally blow your feeble brain all over your computer screen, it is actually legal in some states for a parent to marry their legal child. That is because those states define incest as being between ancestors and descendents by blood, not parent and child.

But, please, keep telling me you got it nailed because it is a legal relationship, I enjoy laughing at idiots.

 

[Silhouette]

You are an idiot. Until the Courts decided that the Government had no compelling interest in regulating what CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their homes it was in fact ILLEGAL in every State to have gay sex. Be it between two men or two women.

So again since we are talking about 2 CONSENTING adults, why if Gays have no problem does the law differentiate on 2 siblings or a parent and an adult child? They also are TWO consenting adults.

That is in fact, according to your logic , an arbitrary ruling. The law says that two consenting adults may engage in any sex they chose in the privacy of their home. Yet you claim 2 consenting adults that happen to be related are an exception.

Further the law in most States STILL says that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that gay marriage is illegal. Your argument is that the Government has no compelling interest in making the distinction when TWO consenting adults want to get married. Yet you would establish that your argument is in fact not valid because you would arbitrarily deny two consenting adults that happen to be related from marrying.

In other words you have limits and can not justify them especially when your whole argument is about what two consenting adults want.

Well put sir. Well put.