Sep 14, 2012 at 03:59:39
“Incestuous couples do not have the right to reproduce because of the higher possibility of negatively affecting the human gene pool, but we have the right to kill off the human gene pool via abortion? LOL...ok.”
Sep 12, 2012 at 16:56:00
“"Yes there are. The law changes its definitions of things all the time"
"Wow. It's really not hard to counter your arguments. Legal marriages require consent, genius."
Lol...like you said earlier, laws change all the time. You think consent is going to stop people from marrying their dog or children? A quick google search will reveal that pedophiles are seeking the same rights as homosexuals and they will be granted. Another quick google search will reveal that the APA is in the process of declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder, they did the same thing to homosexuality in 1973.
Homosexuals are allegedly born gay, Pedophiles claim they are born attracted to children, what is the difference? They'll get children between the ages of 7 and 10 to consent to marriage, make movies about the subject like Cassavetes is doing now and before you know it pedophilia will be seen as normal behavior.
The fact is to allow homosexuals to marry and refuse that right to incestuous couples is unfair. Homosexuals do not need marriage for equal rights and benefits, civil unions would've worked fine.”
Erin84 on Sep 13, 2012 at 09:51:32
“Yes, a quick google search will reveal a number of crackpot websites making ridiculous false claims, such as the aPA wants to declassify pedophilia, and that we're anywhere close to abolishing a need for consent in marriage. Your posts just keep getting more and more ridiculous.”
Sep 12, 2012 at 16:23:47
“No one can escape the risk of birth defects. If we were to prevent incestuous marriages because of possible birth defects, then we would also have to prevent alcoholics from getting married or having children. Besides, Cassavetes doesn't think incest is wrong as long as the couple doesn't want children.”
samadnitt on Sep 13, 2012 at 13:47:17
“While we all share the risk of birth defects, INCEST CREATES A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE PROBABILITY of not just birth defects, but of genetic defects. You don't know the difference, do you? It means you are not just dooming your own offspring, you are affecting the future gene pool. And you do not have the right to do that. Change your username. Your logic is anything but supreme.”
Sep 12, 2012 at 15:06:57
“Marrying for legal kinship is the absolute last reason people decide to get married, it's always about love first. Your definition cannot be applied to homosexual marriage because by definition there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage. Marriage has been solely for heterosexual couples for the last 6 to 10,000 years, and homosexuals can not establish TRUE kinship in marriage because a homosexual marriage is spurious. You either support the right for people to marry who they want or you do not. Pedophiles and Zoophiles will be marrying next thanks to the gay rights movement.”
Erin84 on Sep 12, 2012 at 16:03:00
“"Marrying for legal kinship is the absolute last reason people decide to get married, it's always about love first." False. People can be in love without being married. The fight for gay marriage is for the legal benefits of it. Unofficial gay marriages have already existed for years. Obviously people use the marriage license for a whole lot more than being in love. "Your definition cannot be applied to homosexual marriage because by definition there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage." Yes there are. The law changes its definitions of things all the time, and already has in 6 states and several countries, so every point you've built from this false premise is invalid. "Marriage has been solely for heterosexual couples for the last 6 to 10,000 years," Another outright lie. Polygamy and polyandry survived for a very long time in several cultures and other cultures and eras had same sex marriages. Marriage is also older than 10,000 years. "Pedophiles and Zoophiles will be marrying next thanks to the gay rights movement." Wow. It's really not hard to counter your arguments. Legal marriages require consent, genius.”
Sep 12, 2012 at 14:18:11
“They are 2 different things, and there are practical legal reasons why incestuous marriage should not be legalized, one of them being because it doesn't need to be.
How can you deny incestuous couples the right to marry and give it to homosexuals? They have the right to be happy too right lol?”
AdamWest1313 on Sep 12, 2012 at 15:40:54
“One could easily say it is because the offspring of incestuous relationships have a significantly higher probability of having birth defects, and thus it is putting a 3rd party in danger.”
Erin84 on Sep 12, 2012 at 14:28:44
“Maybe you should change your screenname, and stop ignoring key points I made if you want to attempt a logical rebuttal. Maybe reread this part, which you so conveniently ignored: "Siblings are already legal next of kin. Unrelated couples are not one another's legal next of kin until they marry." The purpose of legal marriage is to establish kinship, which is not needed for incestuous marriage. Once again there is no legal precedent created to support incestuous marriage by legalizing gay marriage, therefore the slippery slope argument comparing the 2 remains invalid.”