Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

Incest was never covered.

 

Point of order, that just the aristocracy and certain remote villages!

 

It doesn't need to be covered. It works exactly the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing same.

 

Incest was never covered.

 

11 pages and most of the supporters of homosexuals have had to acknowledge that they'll have to accept incestuous marriage as well.

The few who didn't are still clinging to the procreation reasoning as to why incest should not be allowed. But when asked about procreation and homosexuality they say that procreation is not relevant to marriage.

Looks like I was right.

 

Except you haven't made a case as to why marriage between blood relatives should be prohibited.

 

Right about what?

 

Plus you certainly revealed a LOT about yourself.

 

So why should incest be legal? Where's your argument for that? What are the pro's for making incest legal? Cons?

 

I couldn't actually care less that acceptance of Gay Marriage has opened the flood gates to sexually repressed right wingers humping sheep and marrying their mothers. I hope it makes you guys happy.

 

This is what I do not understand.

If two people above the age of consent want to be married I do not think of it as I have accepted or tolerated it It is simply none of my business. I do not get where you think that you have the right to not accept it. There are lots of things in the world I do not like, or feel I want to partake in, but I just ignore it if it isn't harmful to anyone. Why do you care so much about "perversion"?

 

As is yours, only yours is real, mine is largely manufactured by you.

It is a near enough certainty that some sort of coercion is involved in close familial relations that we can make the assumption that it in involved in all relations We do exactly that with situations where one partner is under age, though I, and everyone here probably, has known several under age people who are, mentally, quite able to give fully informed consent with no feeling of coercion several years before they have reached the age when the law says they are able to do so. Same thing applies to farm animals, btw, or do you want to argue that we really can't know their "thoughts" either. The law makes these assumptions all the time and has done so for centuries routinely. Your argument is Fail of the Purest Ray Serene.

 

Seriously the sheep thing I would object to, despite what some of my fellow countryman might say, a sheep cannot consent.

 

The problem with this argument is that if true, it would null any other contract made between family members as being the result of coercion. You wouldn't be able to sell something to your dad because the terms of the sale would be coerced.

 

We used to get bashed for saying that gay marriage would Segway towards arguments for polygamy and incest, now western "intellectuals" in the US are arguing for polygamy and Germany's ethics commission is arguing for a right to incest. I was actually surprised, I thought this would take a decade, maybe multiple decades and instead it started happening within months or a couple years. That's progressivism for you, hubris disguised as destiny.

 

So are we going to require genetic testing of everyone seeking to become married? There are plenty of couples out there with the ability to pass on birth defects or serious debilitating genetic diseases to their children. If marriage is really about having children, then clearly you should support banning non-related individuals who can pass on defects or diseases from getting married.

 

His mom died when he was 2 years old.

You may be the lowest, most classless members I've seen on PF.

 

Isnt it revealing. Gays and there advocates insist marriage cant be limited to heterosexual couples as the only couples with procreation, because not all heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation, and yet, they don't bat an eye excluding ALL closely related couples from marrying, because they can imagine coercion in some situations of closely related couples.
As well, I don't see any more potential of coercion among closely related couples than I do among unrelated couples.

 

... and another classless act.

I have to say it's certainly expected from you, but the fact that PF allows people like you to represent them, and flame others like this is ridiculous.

 

Banning the most obviously deficient matings is why a testing policy isn't necessary to begin with.

 

Looks like they would rather insult you than address the topic.

Btw... sorry for your loss.

 

???? How so? I would say there is no more certainty than there is with unrelated couples. As well, we have thousands of years of history of unrelated couples being coerced through arranged marriages and no history of coercion of closely related couples.

 

If you're serious and think that you can get most Americans to respect your desires, advocate for its legalization, by all means. That's your right.

However, it really sounds like the type of red herring that some simple-minded homophobe might contrive under the ludicrous misconception that incest somehow relates to equality under the Constitution.

Equal treatment under law would only pertain if you were allowed to marry one parent, and asserted your right to marry the other one.

Of course, sex and reproduction are entirely separate issues that may or may not be involved, both within and without a marriage contract.

 

Lack of sense of humor noted.

 

Reading... Still a huge struggle for you I see.



Since you intentionally edited it out of the quote: