Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

Every child with a gay couple requires separating them from either their mother, father or both.

 

The way things are going....there is no way anyone can argue with you on this. Some of these challenges are already under way. The laws against bigamy which are also the same laws against polygamy have recently been weakened by court rulings. This is how it starts. So, the same-sex proponents have wrought on our society changes which would weaken our society....and therefore our country. How can it be legal for them to be able to marry now....and NOT be legal for all these other forms of marriage? It can't. Years from now, the younger generation who will no longer recognize the country will be questioning what they have wrought on U.S. society. And when they are PAYING for the support someday through benefits to all these "spouses," I think they'll rue the day they started us down this road. By then it will be too late to turn back.


"(CNN) -- A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series "Sister Wives."

The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

But the judge said he would keep in place the ban on bigamy "in the literal sense -- the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage."


"The 91-page decision comes months after the Supreme Court struck down a separate federal law that defined marriage as between only one man and one woman, a major legal, political, and social victory for homosexual couples seeking recognition of their same-sex unions.

The current suit was brought two years ago by Kody Brown, a Utah resident and his four wives -- Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn -- who together have 17 children, and whose lives are chronicled on the TLC cable television program.

They claim their privacy rights were being violated by the decades-old law, passed around the time Utah became a state. They are members of a fundamentalist branch of the Mormon Church known as the Apostolic United Brethren Church.
Brown and his family said in a statement they were grateful for the ruling.

"Many people do not approve of plural families," he said, but "we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs."
Some religious groups criticized the ruling.

"This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother and a father committed to each other for life," said Russell Moore, of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated, again and again, to hurt women and children.

Sadly, when marriage is elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/

 

So then the welfare of potential children doesn't matter as you are not willing to seek to prevent it across the board.

- - - Updated - - -

So then the welfare of potential children doesn't matter as you are not willing to seek to prevent it across the board.

 

Why can't folks marry their beloved pets (Dogs and Cats) and take advantage of the tax breaks? I love my Cat more than I ever did my ex-wife? Who are they to tell me who I can marry or not?

 

I have no inclination to generate the enormous list of societal failings, (and given the futility of corresponding with someone who, quite literally, is incapable of comprehending the scope and magnitude) of how our societies have spiraled into an almost anti-societal quagmired abyss, nor do I really have to. To quaintly apply the state of our societies, as "old people wanting the good ole days", makes my point in fullness.

You think that society has progressed positively, despite all evidence to the contrary. I cannot defeat with words that remarkable belief you hold.

 

he'd rather stereotype, then call you a bigot if he thinks you are doing it to him

 

Lawrence v Texas technically validated incest as well

 

I don't recall him ever suggesting he wanted to marry his dead mother. I usually use the example of the single mother,35 years old, widowed with 3 kids down the street, living with her mother, grandmother to her children also widowed, for over a decade. They own their home jointly, grandmother has adopted her grandchildren, living together as a family. In this day and age of single mothers, there are many times more families made up of two closely related adults with children biologically related to both, than there are homosexual couples with children. If marriage is now divorced from procreation by judicial fiat, and now instead an institution to foster the formation of stable homes, what possible justification could there be for excluding them?

In Rhode Island, you can legally have sexual relations with any family member of age, gays can marry and yet closely related couples are excluded by law from marriage. They even had to enact new laws when they legalized gay marriage, prohibiting closely related couples of the same sex from marring as their previous laws only excluded closely related couples of the opposite sex from marrying.

 

it's the same pros and cons as gay marraige...


the exact same....


if you suport gays, you are a hypocrit if you don't support incest

 

Your cat is incapable of legal consent.

 

I do. Society is and has always been on a path of positive progression. There have been hiccups, but the overall direction of progress is a positive one.

 

So support for the right to be in an incestuous relationship, including marriage, seems to be winning. So why the claims of hypocrisy?

 

That there are only 2 options after one accepts homosexuality. Either you accept other perversions such as incest or you engage in hypocrisy.

 

Beat me to it.

 

And as quite a few of us have said we'd support incestuous marriage. Now what's your point?

 

That's exactly what I expected.

But thank you very much

 

Actually, a matting between two closely related people of the same sex has ZERO chance of any deficiency

 

And a good portion of us have stated that so long as all participants are consenting, we have no issue with it.

 

Stop with this insistence for "gay marriage" claiming "equality" requires it.

 

That from there it becomes an even more slippery slope because at that point you've essentially eradicated any defense that you have to stop even more disturbing, deviant behavior... save for one. That is consent. But as has already been eluded to, that consent argument is extremely tenuous.

A good lawyer could destroy a consent argument in a heartbeat and show it to be unconstitutional.

Now with that being said, when you accept homosexuality and incest you've put ALL of your eggs in one basket. Your entire defense of bestiality and having sex with children then rests on the consent argument. And if a lawyer can successfully call into question the constitutionality of your consent argument then you have no other leg to stand on as you've relinquished any other legitimate defense in your blind support of homosexuality.

 

Non sequitur.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) about the US Constitution. Now what's your argument? Plus with your own argument you've just stated that no marriages should be allowed. Congrats.

 

No. It has been shown that the coercion argument is extremely tenuous. Legal, informed consent is still an issue.

 

No, your missing the point, the majority of people who support the rights of gays to marry have no issue with an incestuous marriage providing consent. Come on you mother (*)(*)(*)(*)ers stand up for your rights!

 

Well then on what grounds do you deny even minor-attracted persons from having their way with children?

And no my argument does not state that no marriages should be permitted.

- - - Updated - - -

One could easily show how the consent argument is not justifiable.

How can you claim that an American is not able to consent if you are able to try him/her as an adult for murder? We've tried people as young as 8 years old as adults for murder. Yet they're not capable of consent?

 

You do understand that the US Constitution is not the document that the world basis all its opinions on all topics? I don't have to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the US Constitution to support the protection of children from pedophiles.

And yes, your argument went against all marriage. What, you think incest is the only type of marriage in which coercion can exist? The history of "normal" marriage throughout history was one of coercion.