father and daughter should be allowed to marry

[Yurt]

discuss

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

 

[Luissa]

discuss

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

and I will call you fucked up for being for it!

 

[Yurt]

discuss

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

and I will call you fucked up for being for it!

you're anti family you family phobic racist bigot asshole bitch

 

[Yurt]

oh come on now....this is not a bad thing, they just want a loving relationship. you people are bunch of close minded bigot assholes....

 

[roomy]

It's not going to work Yurt.You need to ba a believable idiot.

 

[Yurt]

It's not going to work Yurt.You need to ba a believable idiot.

can't blame a man for trying....and now it has been moved to the affective grave yard....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

discuss

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

and I will call you fucked up for being for it!

Are you for Gay's marrying?

 

[mattskramer]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

 

[alan1]

discuss

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

and I will call you fucked up for being for it!

Are you for Gay's marrying?

You mean like a father and son?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

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.

 

[alan1]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

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.

That's gonna leave a mark.

 

[manu1959]

we can't deny them the same rights as other couples that would just be wrong...after all they didn't choose that lifestyle they were born that way.....

 

[HUGGY]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

should people be free to inhale cocaine?

Only if its that pink peruvian ether base flake. Now that shit will make you believe there is a dog.

When I was flyin the bud outta clombia they would tip me some of that stuff once in a while.... holy crap a line the size of a fingernail clipping would set you straight for hours.

 

[elvis]

anybody gonna touch this?

 

[Amanda]

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

 

[elvis]

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.

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?

 

[elvis]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

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.

 

[alan1]

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.

 

[mattskramer]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

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.

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.