Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

And more and more comes out......so you don't like your mother, huh???

 

I have no interest in rejecting marriage betwen siblings, or marriage between farm animals and humans.

Marriage and sex are independent of eacother.

You're welcome.

 

I disagree because there's only ONE argument the homosexuals use in the face of the procreation argument for why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. They say "procreation is not relevant to marriage". So if we now are coming to the conclusion that procreation IS relevant to marriage then we must revisit the procreation argument with homosexuals.

The state's interest in regulating marriage is the promotion of procreation. If homosexuals are incapable of procreation in and of themselves then they would not qualify to receive the benefits that are provided for marriage which are intended to promote procreation.

It's one way or the other but it can't be both.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't know my mother and don't particularly care?

 

Incestual coupling is known to produce offspring that may be deformed or genetically compromised which would be a perpetual defect in future generations, it is thus consider a taboo practice and in some cases legislation has been enacted to prevent it. Homosexual coupling cannot produce offspring under any circumstance, and thus does not carry these risks.

In the case of incest we have valid biological reasons to protect society from possible harm...not so in the case of homosexuality.

 

Exactly... this is the type of perversion you have to engage in when you also accept the perversion of homosexual marriage. You put yourself in an indefensible position as Circlebird is so graciously acknowledging. At least he's honest.

Kudos

 

What slope, and what are these dangers you are so worried about?

 

How is it a perversion?

Why are you opposed to the forms of marriage that i mentioned?
Defend your own position.

Marriage and sex are independent of eachother.

 

Wait a minute... as homosexuals have argued that procreation has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Now we're saying that procreation IS relevant to marriage? We can't have it both ways. Either procreation is relevant to marriage or it is not.

Furthermore, you're not stopping them from having children by stopping them from getting married. They can have children whether you allow them to marry or not. All you are doing by denying them marriage is denying them equality under the law and their equal rights granted to them by the 14th amendment (sound familiar?).

Also, what about the incestuous couple who may be sterile and are not able to have children? Or what about the gay incestuous couple... they're still not allowed to marry either.

 

The slipperyslope from accepting the perversion of homosexuality that will lead to the acceptance of other perversions or "crimes against nature" because of the indefensible position that you put yourself in when you accept homosexuality.

- - - Updated - - -

Because marriage and sex are NOT independent of each other first of all. If you do not consummate the marriage you can actually get it annulled. That's one of the reasons for being allowed to annul a marriage in many places.

- - - Updated - - -

LoL You can continue to make this about me until the cows come home but you'll NEVER be able to successfully defend your position in regards to homosexual marriage or any of these other perversions. But keep up your red herring

BTW rahl... this is a red herring.

 

Well if YOU think your argument is valid, and gay marriage is now becoming legal in more and more places, which one of us do you think is correct?

 

I too would have sex with most of your mothers so I'm ok with this.

"I think gay marriage should be legalized. I also think if you have a hot cousin you should be able to bang once." - Dave Attell

 

YOU made it about you, not me.

Again, you didn't dream up some generic scenario of a son marrying his mother....you CHOSE to make it personal, about YOU marrying YOUR mother.

And then added all kinds of interesting tidbits about how she died when you were 2....how you have been "informed" that she wasn't a nice person......plus your obvious obsessive hatred of homosexuals from this post and others.

Nothing I mentioned in my list....wasn't supplied by YOU. I wonder if unconsciously...you meant to do it?

 

OP, I think argued against your slippery slope theory in the past, but I have to agree with you in this case, albeit for different reasons.
I can't support SSM and oppose incestous marriage at the same time.
The risk of birth defects would not justify a ban unless you generally exclude people with genetic disorders from marriage - which would be a step in a direction I don't like at all.

Edit: I have to say this. I rarely agree with anything I ever read from The Immortal, but I find the innuendo directed at his family distasteful and disgusting. Should we only treat those with respect who share our opinion? I think not.

 

Unmaried people have sex all the time. Married people go years without sex.

Marriage and sex are independent of eachother. That is reality.

 

Just because they've gained some support in the courts doesn't mean that their argument is valid. It simply means that they got a homosexual judge in California to strike it down as unconstitutional and they've gained support for their cause in the courts.

But an appeal to authority is not a cogent refutation as to why procreation is relevant in regards to marriage when we're talking about incestuous couples but not when we're talking about homosexuals.

- - - Updated - - -

I could care less what you say I'm just having fun showing the hypocrisy of the homosexual argument... or at the very least the acceptance of perversion they must engage in.

 

If you make a venn diagram of incest and gay marriage, you realize they don't have much in common. It's like trying to use the "can I marry a goat" argument.

 

LoL just because married people withhold sex from each other doesn't remove the clear and unmitigated relationship that marriage and sex have.

 

Isn't it strange what people worry about, I see "crimes against nature" as the depletion of the rain forest, poisoning of the seas etc etc. And you see it as 2 blokes wanting to say they are married or having a dodgy relationship with your sister. I wouldn't worry to much I cant ever see many campaigning for the right to marry their mum or a chicken.

 

Then make an argument why. So far all you've presented is that procreation is relevant when we talk about incest but not when we talk about homosexual marriage. Yet you don't provide any justification as to why. And of course you've made an argument to authority but that doesn't make it correct.

If it's so easy, make the argument why.

 

But see that's the point that I'm making... the court and the constitution do not care if it's 1 person or 1,000,000 people campaigning for that right. If you establish a certain interpretation of the constitution and it is accepted by the courts if one disgusting perverted incestuous participant or other perverts makes the same argument that you've already accepted... they have to accept his as well.

 

That's just it, the burden of proof isn't on me. Point 1: You made an irrelevant argument. Point 2: Gay marriage is being legalized in more and more states, rendering my OPINION stronger than yours. Point 3: You have about 2 years before gay marriage is legal everywhere and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Even if you have these insane arguments.

 

So you can't make an argument why. Noted.

 

Why would I need to make an argument? It's irrelevant. If it were relevant, then incest would be a topic of discussion in congress. It's irrelevant.

Lol, you seem to not get this Fact.

 

That's an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy.

That's not an argument for your position. That's the same thing as saying "is slavery immoral?" And you coming back and saying well congress is passing laws that allow slavery so it must be moral!

Provide justification for why incest should not be allowed.

 

It's relevant in your mind, I get it, I'm just saying it's not relevant in real life.