How Dare You Prudes Deny My RIGHT to Have Sexual Relations With My Sister

All the gay marriage supporters are just as narrow-minded as anybody else!

What right do you have to tell me I can't live my PERSONAL life the way I want?

And if our kids are genetically screwed up, so what? Npw you're going to discriminate against the mentally disabled?

It's the 21st century. God is dead, morality is relative, and you racist incestiphobes ought to just shut the hell up.

Check out this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gs-defied-law-plan-start-new-life-abroad.html

I swear. . .

Call me when the Middle Ages are over.

 

I will just point out that in another thread you called yourself a troll.

 

If you believe in the Christian God, then God ordered incest and we are all products of incest. So much for morality coming from God. mod edit...insult

 

Interestingly, it's the blue states that have the most lax laws on marrying within your family. Somebody posted a chart on this a year or two ago, and it was quite amusing to see how backwards conventional wisdom is. Red states like Texas forbid it while blue states like California, New York, and Illinois allow it.

 

Gay trumps incest everytime. After all, if you're gay, no chance of incest being "gross"

Plus, incest children birth defects only come from multiple intermingling over a few generations.

This will be the next demand for marraige laws.

Slippery slope exists

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

 

To be fair, its not like they grew up together. They never knew they were related until the first child was conceived, and they seem to be half siblings, not full blood siblings, which is not the same thing.

 

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH- just one more idiotic thread comparing gay people to something completely unrelated. Seriously- grow up and get the (*)(*)(*)(*) over it already.

 

Premise in first post is up the creek. There is no right to commit a crime, just the ability.

 

2 consenting adults....
since marriage isn't about conception, that is a moot point
what happens in the bedroom is noone's business.


wow, that argument can be made for both gays or incest

 

and you are right, there is no biological reason why incest should be illegal ,and in ancient times it wasn't . .Egyptians practiced incest as did the royal family of France. One of the guiding factors for making incest illegal is the false assumption that it will always produce abnormal off spring .. not true, there is only a 7% higher risk of abnormality for the offspring of siblings than for no related couples.
Another reason for its illegal status is the perception that incest will almost always involve abuse of a younger person and while this may be true to a point, why should it be illegal between two consenting adults over the age of consent . .that is purely down the majority viewpoint, which I'm afraid is against you as far as gay marriage is concerned .. laws are made in reflection to what the majority want, not on biblical terms.

 

to a point, you're dead on, (the thing about the increased risk is dead on) but majority rule is not how a republic works and the US is a Republic, not a democracy. A true democracy, yes, but not a republic. You can't get majority rule to reinstate slavery now could you and I'm willing to bet, in the 30's, had it been put to a popular vote, there would have been a lopsided win for the proslvery crowd (since blacks were being prevented from voting in large numbers) Even if it had been voted on, and a majority said "yes", it wouldn't have withstood checks and balances.

you're welcome on the civics lesson.


As far as the argument FOR pro-incest.... it's the slippery slope that always occurs. Give an inch, take a mile.


However, with all that said.... I find it VERY hypocritical whenever I see pro-gay supporters not support pro-incest. It's the same arguments that pro-gay uses.


So, either way, you either should support both, or be against both.... not just supporting your agenda and screw the rest.

FTR - I don't support either.

 

lol, no civics lesson required here. the USA isn't a true Republic even though the founding fathers wanted it that way, the USA has become a more democratic country there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Even as a Republic if a party ran with a policy of re-introducing slavery and enough of the populace backed them and they became elected, any law they proposed concerning slavery would be a law based on the will of the people, whether that law was ever ratified and enacted would be subject to other types of scrutiny .. but in essences, if left entirely to the government that law could very well be passed.
how many terms do you think a government would remain in power if it didn't follow, to a point, the will of the people?

I find it just as hypocritical that Anti-gay supporters are just as much against abortion and welfare .. but that is why we have these debates, it would be a very boring site if we all agreed on everything.

 

I am all for incestual sex being allowed, any argument against it boils down to being icky or something, thats just ridiculous.

But there ought to be a law against incestual reproduction, because of genetic risks.

 

should there be laws against 40+ yo women having kids due to increaed risk, too. Lol

 

should there be laws against 40+ yo women having kids due to increaed risk, too. Lol

 

Will of people is represented by a republic, but you can not pass a law (and expect it to be upheld by the scotus if its unconstitutional. Slavery would never pass a popular vote today, but 100 years ago. .... possibly. Still wouldn't matter as the constitution prevents it.

Having direct voting on local issues is one thing, but that doesn't happen on the national level. Even presidential elections aren't direct votes

 

So what? You plan to marry your sister? If not, it doesn't affect you. Stop putting your nose in other people's business and live your own damn life.

 

It does affect me the same way gay marraiges do..... now, more people will be demanding spouse rates in insurance

You can not add a new demographic in a system without increases in my rate.

 

You're assuming homosexuals and people in incestuous relationships don't have insurance already. Since the former is typically better off than average and the latter is incredibly rare, that is an unreasonable assumption.

 

Your "facts" are baseless. And since you can't say that 100% are already insured, then it will increase based on economic theory

 

Enough are that it won't make any difference to you. Do you even pay for your health insurance?

 

Any increase affects me.

 

Well, then, I am sorry to inform you that you're just going to have to deal with it. For the question is not if it is going to be the law of the land from sea to shining sea. That answer to that question is that it most assuredly will, about that there is no doubt. The only question is when, and how. And if SCOTUS rules properly on Prop 8, it could be as soon as June.

 

Ruin the system for everyone instead of working hard and buying health coverage. .... definition of self entitled.....