14 Comments

• Soa's Fate~ says:

  February 5, 2009 at 08:24

  It’s not bad to be ***. Homophobes want it to be bad, so they’re just trying to relate it with incest/pedophilia/etc. when everyone knows that being *** is a completely different thing from any of those.
• unknown-1 says:

  February 3, 2009 at 05:15

  Personally I don’t see how those two topics relate.
• Baron Cimitiere says:

  January 31, 2009 at 03:25

  I think the argument is invalid. ********** relationships are between two individuals of the same gender. Nothing wrong with that.

  Incest is is a relationship (usually sexual) between two individuals of close familial ties. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

  The problem with ****** is that in most recorded cases of incest, one of the individuals is to young to make a decision on the matter legally, and is often forced into the situation. There is something wrong with that.

  For the sake of your question, I’ll assume you mean willing ****** between individuals who are otherwise legally able to engage in the relationship whether it is sexual or non.

  If for example, a brother and sister became romantically involved with each other after they were adults, I don’t believe that it’s any of my business. I believe that they should be allowed the same chance at happiness as the rest of us.

  If that brother and sister then have a child, things become a touch more complicated due to the chance of genetic defects developing. It’s a danger that they should become knowledgeable about.

  Should they then be allowed to marry? I personally don’t believe in marriage. That being the case, I don’t personally see a problem with it. I’m neither the brother nor the sister in this equation and thus it doesn’t affect my life in any significant way.

  All willing adults should have the same chance to improve or damage their lives as the next willing adult.

  You may now attack my viewpoint.
• ProudGayTeen22 says:

  January 29, 2009 at 17:50

  Incest and homosexuality aren’t even closely related.

  Incest can create birth defects, homosexuality prevents birth entirely.

  No, it is not true.

  Equality is equal rights for everyone.
  And i see the main point of argument. But it’s just wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry, and disgusting to allow family to.
• pushstroke says:

  January 27, 2009 at 11:28

  In *** marriage there are two of the same gender involved. I doubt they can produce children. If they could they’d be millionaires. Plus it’s not ****** for gays to marry, unless they happened to be closely related as below, and then I doubt they’d be allowed, but that has never come up to the best of my knowledge, but it is an interesting question to put before the ones presiding over the marriage or the courts where *** marriage is allowed, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
  In incest, especially a female and a male there is a high risk of children being brought into this world with birth defects. Fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, first cousins and even a risk at second cousins. Third cousins may marry.
  Now not quite off the topic, but . . . if specific Mormon may marry more than one woman at a time, then why can’t all men marry more than one woman at a time? Further more, why can’t a Mormon woman have more than one husband at a time; and if so . . . why can’t all women have more than one husband at a time?
• Michael A says:

  January 27, 2009 at 10:45

  A very big difference is that there are medical-genetic consequences to incest, but no such equivalent consequences to same-sex marriage.

  There is no foolproof contraception method, and pregnancy could always happen in instances of ******.

  There is also a difference in that being *** or ******* would imply a general romantic orientation to males or females, just as in heterosexuality; but ****** is by nature talking about an extremely restricted gene pool. Most people, straight or gay, would not be romantically attracted *only* to their brother or sister. That is more an issue of emotional growth and leaving the nest, rather than an issue of being able to mate and be a life-partner to someone at all. The question of being able to have a life-partner at all is a basic issue of the “pursuit of happiness”.

  The state has an interest in promoting stable, long-term relationships, and should support such bonds whether they are straight or ***. That encourages healthy families and discourages promiscuity, which is a double reason for the state to protect such long-term relationships.

  That is worlds away from saying that every sister has the right to marry her brother.
• quikzip7 says:

  January 26, 2009 at 14:11

  They are definately not of the same ilk!!! ****** is never a good thing.
• garyomega says:

  January 25, 2009 at 16:56

  It won’t be too long, the way things are going, the moral decay and lack of any “moral compass”, anything no matter how perverse, will use the “minority discrimination” argument to justify anything. It’s only a matter of time. This country is so rife with apathy, they hardly notice the insidious ways these things sneak into the fabric of society.
• Hm, I don't know... says:

  January 20, 2009 at 14:57

  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ****** however, ****** between straight couples is likely to produce abnormal offspring… so that’s a big problem. With *** couples, there’s nothing like that, so it’s very different.
• Enlightened Ehyeh asher ehyeh says:

  January 19, 2009 at 19:22

  Two different concepts.
• zedrica says:

  January 18, 2009 at 05:58

  the reason for the laws against ****** is the fact that people who are too genetically close have really messed up children born with terrific birth defects both physical and mental.
• Juxta roberto says:

  January 16, 2009 at 08:24

  I honestly don’t give a crap what consenting adults do sexually. I really don’t.

  But if you’re going to have *** with your sister PLEASE don’t have kids, THEY’RE the ones who are going to suffer, not you.
• cc says:

  January 15, 2009 at 05:15

  You are comparing apples to oranges here!
  They are not the same thing!
  And agreeing with same *** marriage does not mean you have to agree with ******!
• Marq says:

  January 11, 2009 at 03:53

  if you believe this specious argument, then you are an insensitive fool!

Trackbacks