If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's hypocritical. Gay marriage proponents simply want the majorities' morality replaced with their own. They want to keep it tradition to two people, no siblings, etc. just like the heterosexual marriages they want to mimic, but of course abandon the traditional gender requirements that mankind has enjoyed since recorded history.

You can't be a progressive without being hypocritical, it's two sides of the same coin.

Why do you want to keep traditional polygamy illegal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The legalization of homosexual marriage has opened a lot of doors.....

Be prepare for some to be kicked in full-force....

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's hypocritical. Gay marriage proponents simply want the majorities' morality replaced with their own. They want to keep it tradition to two people, no siblings, etc. just like the heterosexual marriages they want to mimic, but of course abandon the traditional gender requirements that mankind has enjoyed since recorded history.

You can't be a progressive without being hypocritical, it's two sides of the same coin.

You don't know what hypocrisy is.

 

[Bonzi]

The legalization of homosexual marriage has opened a lot of doors.....

Be prepare for some to be kicked in full-force....

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

Correct.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs. I think extremist religious people are vile and repulsive...but I would never try to deny them the legal right to marry.

 

[Bonzi]

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs. I think extremist religious people are vile and repulsive...but I would never try to deny them the legal right to marry.

oh blah blah... Christians are trying to do no such thing... you secularists are having your way in the world yet you still want to cry like little infants.... sheesh......

 

[Iceweasel]

Of course it's hypocritical. Gay marriage proponents simply want the majorities' morality replaced with their own. They want to keep it tradition to two people, no siblings, etc. just like the heterosexual marriages they want to mimic, but of course abandon the traditional gender requirements that mankind has enjoyed since recorded history.

You can't be a progressive without being hypocritical, it's two sides of the same coin.

Why do you want to keep traditional polygamy illegal?

I don't. You see what isn't there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The legalization of homosexual marriage has opened a lot of doors.....

Be prepare for some to be kicked in full-force....

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

Correct.

The 'legal' argument, such as it is, against incestuous marriage hinges on the genetic consequences argument.

1. That separates it completely from any same sex marriage arguments and therefore demolishes any attempted analogies between the two.

2. The genetic argument itself is quite weak for many reasons

a. it is discriminatory because unrelated couples with transmissible genetic defects aren't banned from marriage
b. Incest marriages between couple who can't reproduce would logically be exempted from the ban. They aren't.
c. Some anti-incest laws involve non-biologically related siblings, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, thus ignoring the genetic argument altogether.

 

[Bonzi]

The legalization of homosexual marriage has opened a lot of doors.....

Be prepare for some to be kicked in full-force....

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

Correct.

The 'legal' argument, such as it is, against incestuous marriage hinges on the genetic consequences argument.

1. That separates it completely from any same sex marriage arguments and therefore demolishes any attempted analogies between the two.

2. The genetic argument itself is quite weak for many reasons

a. it is discriminatory because unrelated couples with transmissible genetic defects aren't banned from marriage
b. Incest marriages between couple who can't reproduce would logically be exempted from the ban. They aren't.
c. Some anti-incest laws involve non-biologically related siblings, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, thus ignoring the genetic argument altogether.

... like I said... opening doors....

 

[NYcarbineer]

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

Correct.

The 'legal' argument, such as it is, against incestuous marriage hinges on the genetic consequences argument.

1. That separates it completely from any same sex marriage arguments and therefore demolishes any attempted analogies between the two.

2. The genetic argument itself is quite weak for many reasons

a. it is discriminatory because unrelated couples with transmissible genetic defects aren't banned from marriage
b. Incest marriages between couple who can't reproduce would logically be exempted from the ban. They aren't.
c. Some anti-incest laws involve non-biologically related siblings, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, thus ignoring the genetic argument altogether.

... like I said... opening doors....

Legally the door was already open.

When people run out of arguments against same sex marriage, of course they're going to turn to making hypothetical arguments about some perceived boogey man out there in the future.

That's a well worn logical fallacy.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs. I think extremist religious people are vile and repulsive...but I would never try to deny them the legal right to marry.

oh blah blah... Christians are trying to do no such thing... you secularists are having your way in the world yet you still want to cry like little infants.... sheesh......

So it wasn't Christians that passed all the anti gay marriage laws or who are trying to discriminate against gay couples in the issuing of marriage licenses? You might want to check your facts again instead of "blah, blah, blahing"...which is obviously how you respond when you can't counter what I said.

Believe any fairy tale you want, just don't pass laws based on them.

 

[RosieS]

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs. I think extremist religious people are vile and repulsive...but I would never try to deny them the legal right to marry.

oh blah blah... Christians are trying to do no such thing... you secularists are having your way in the world yet you still want to cry like little infants.... sheesh......

Nah.

Secularists are having their way because the gov't must be secular.

It is solidly in the US Constitution. First Amendment. Freedom of Religion is immediately followed by the Establishment Clause.

Yes, it prevents the Establishment of your religion.

But it also prevents the Establishment of Sharia Law, too.

It is a GOOD thing.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Iceweasel]

The legalization of homosexual marriage has opened a lot of doors.....

Be prepare for some to be kicked in full-force....

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

Correct.

The 'legal' argument, such as it is, against incestuous marriage hinges on the genetic consequences argument.

1. That separates it completely from any same sex marriage arguments and therefore demolishes any attempted analogies between the two.

2. The genetic argument itself is quite weak for many reasons

a. it is discriminatory because unrelated couples with transmissible genetic defects aren't banned from marriage
b. Incest marriages between couple who can't reproduce would logically be exempted from the ban. They aren't.
c. Some anti-incest laws involve non-biologically related siblings, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, thus ignoring the genetic argument altogether.

Uh, the genetic argument is weak for many reasons but can't be used to redefine marriage? Do you think this shit through?

 

[rdean]

Sure,why not. Children from consanguineous partnerings only have twice the rate of genetic disorders.....we could always use more problems!!

The GOP doesn't see a problem. Looks like two young and healthy conservatives. So what's the problem.

 

[Obiwan]

 

[Iceweasel]

So it wasn't Christians that passed all the anti gay marriage laws or who are trying to discriminate against gay couples in the issuing of marriage licenses?

Marriage laws weren't anti-gay. They were normal. You've made it clear that concept is out of your reach. It's the way it's been forever, regardless of where and you think it's all a coincidence.

 

[Bonzi]

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

And gays don't give two shits what you believe...as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs. I think extremist religious people are vile and repulsive...but I would never try to deny them the legal right to marry.

oh blah blah... Christians are trying to do no such thing... you secularists are having your way in the world yet you still want to cry like little infants.... sheesh......

So it wasn't Christians that passed all the anti gay marriage laws or who are trying to discriminate against gay couples in the issuing of marriage licenses? You might want to check your facts again instead of "blah, blah, blahing"...which is obviously how you respond when you can't counter what I said.

Believe any fairy tale you want, just don't pass laws based on them.

What I am saying is "give them an inch they take a mile" - or more accurately, no matter what is given it's never good enough - people like you will not be happy until all Christians are forced to shut up and keep quiet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

List your reasons as to why siblings should not be allowed to marry.

By humanistic/secular standards, I don't have an argument (I'm sure others do and will chime in....)

Personally, I think it is revolting and wrong.
But I also feel that way about homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone, however - I feel nothing but love and compassion for them - I can feel that way and still not agree with their lifestyle however, contrary to popular belief.

Personal revulsion is not a legal argument.

Correct.

The 'legal' argument, such as it is, against incestuous marriage hinges on the genetic consequences argument.

1. That separates it completely from any same sex marriage arguments and therefore demolishes any attempted analogies between the two.

2. The genetic argument itself is quite weak for many reasons

a. it is discriminatory because unrelated couples with transmissible genetic defects aren't banned from marriage
b. Incest marriages between couple who can't reproduce would logically be exempted from the ban. They aren't.
c. Some anti-incest laws involve non-biologically related siblings, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, thus ignoring the genetic argument altogether.

Uh, the genetic argument is weak for many reasons but can't be used to redefine marriage? Do you think this shit through?

There is no ban on 'redefinition'. That word is meaningless. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that there is something inherently wrong with ever 'redefining' anything. It's an absurd argument.

 

[007]

The pedophiles will be the next ones to make a big move for acceptance, and that makes the muslims very happy.

 

[Bonzi]

The pedophiles will be the next ones to make a big move for acceptance, and that makes the muslims very happy.

People get outraged about this (as they should) yet there is a least 1 person on this board that lobbies for that and actually thinks they have a good argument...

They'll be coming out of the woodwork...............