A question for liberals

Why do you think marriage between gays is an issue about freedom but marriage between cousins gets your panties in a twist?

 

I have never heard any liberals care about that.

 

Inbreeding.

 

Two points. 1. By banning incest on grounds of procreation, you establish procreation as the basis of marriage, which would exclude gays.
2. How well do you think a ban on incestual marriage is going to work to prevent incestual sex? I mean, do you think gays never have sex in Texas?

 

I'm unable to join you on that fragile branch. Good luck.

 

Gay couples being allowed to marry is a matter of equality, but why do you fantasize about twisted panties?

- - - Updated - - -

Is that an ad hominem?

 

I need to be reported to the relevant authorities. I expect some big government proponent is on it. I'll have to man-up and take my lumps.

 

Most people prefer their own selective bigotry over logical consistency.

 

I personally don't care. Take marriage out of the purview of the government completely and we'll solve the problem completely.

 

Check mate.

 

This isn't chess and even if it was there's only one player.

 

I dunno, his point was legitimate.

 

Why is it those that are against same sex marriage are considered bigots now, but was not the case just a few years ago when Obama said he belied marriage was between a man and a woman?

 

I stopped reading after the errant supposition that marriage was therefore based upon procreation and let him know he was on his own.

Then he won a game of chess!

 

It's not errant, though. If your argument against incestual marriage is on the basis of procreation, you give your opponent an excuse to bring procreation in as a basis for why he/she thinks same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

You can't base an argument on procreation and then tell someone else they can't do the same thing.

 

I'm not making any argument.

Someone wanted to know why cousins can't marry. The answer is troglodytes.

Obviously they can screw outside of marriage and have a brood anyway. I presume that's illegal, too, not to mention aesthetically unpleasing.

None of which has anything to do with the errant notion that squirting out little miracles is the basis of marriage. It isn't.

Maybe it's handy to assume so in order to disbar gays from marrying but I ain't touching that steaming turd.

 

I think the state should not be involved in recognizing or providing incentives for marriage. Instead, the state should recognize civil unions available to basically any pairing or group of consenting adult participants. My advocacy for equality betwixt gays and heteros extends to cousins, yes, and even polygamists. These are not inherently harmful relationships relative to the traditional institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Real American Thinker again.

Yes, because I couldn't fathom the rationale for why cousins couldn't marry. I know the reasons, as everyone else does here. What I'm asking is for you to be logically consistent.

Exactly. The cleanest way to deal with this is for the state to make no moral judgement in marriage. Who knows, maybe then we'll have a black man and a white woman marry!

- - - Updated - - -

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Real American Thinker again.

Yes, because I couldn't fathom the rationale for why cousins couldn't marry. I know the reasons, as everyone else does here. What I'm asking is for you to be logically consistent.

Exactly. The cleanest way to deal with this is for the state to make no moral judgement in marriage. Who knows, maybe then we'll have a black man and a white woman marry!

 

So long as the cousins are consenting adults, I don't see how its mine or anyone else's business.

 

So should we also ban unrelated people with the potential to pass on negative genetic traits to their children from marrying and having sex?

 

He believed marriage was between one man and a woman, however he did not believe that his opinion should be forced on others against their will like Republicans do.

 

Huh? frankly I could care less about first cousins getting married. Here is a list of states that allow first cousins to marry

Alabama​

Alaska​

California​

Colorado​

Connecticut​

District of Columbia​

Florida​

Georgia​

Hawaii​

Maryland​

Massachusetts

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia


​

 

According to whose logic must I conform in order for that to work?

 

"We"?

I don't care who marries who or what. You can marry a horse if you must. Treat her or him without abuse is about the extent of my concern.

 

See....there's the rub. This person considers gay marriage no different than a person marrying a horse. That's how they view gays.