Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Neutraligon]

Bestiality is tricky. I don't think animals can consent, but someone once told me that they can when they're in heat.

As far as incest or polyamory go I say why not? As long as everyone is consenting it isn't hurting anyone.

That maybe means they can consent to sex, that does not necessarily mean they can form a contract.

[DaWoad]

I think Polygamy is probably the next fight. Everyone able to consent should be able to marry anyone they want, and I'm perfectly fine with the fight continuing until then.

I think I draw the line at family, there's too much risk of coercion for me to be at all comfortable with direct intra-familial relationships.

[Uelvan]

How doesn't incest hurt anyone? Your children will the ones who suffer... Society moved away from that early on because it is destructive to your community.

[Cori]

sex is really fun lol who cares what hole you go in...just finish ur business and let it all out lol im a sicko im innocent lalalaallaaaa lol creamyy LOL OMG IM WEIRD

[Creative Vikings]

Maybe in future we'll stop saying "You're only against homosexualty because you like " and instead say "You're only against bestiality because you like it "

Is there research showing sexual arousal spiking in anti-bestiality types when they're subjected to viewing animal pornography? Because there's evidence that anti-gay men tend to be aroused by gay porn. Source.

*High-Fives*

[Anachronous Rex]

Bestiality is tricky. I don't think animals can consent, but someone once told me that they can when they're in heat.

As far as incest or polyamory go I say why not? As long as everyone is consenting it isn't hurting anyone.

Or, rather, it's pretty obvious when they're coming on to you. Damn goats... ruined my childhood.

Anyway, the issue at hand is not fucking them, it's marriage to them.

[Anachronous Rex]

How doesn't incest hurt anyone? Your children will the ones who suffer... Society moved away from that early on because it is destructive to your community.

This is why people with genetic conditions are forbidden to procreate, right?

Look, the simple fact is, if incest were legal, it wouldn't suddenly become very popular. About the same number of people who do it now, would do it then, they would just be more open about it.

[San-Silvacian]

sex is really fun lol who cares what hole you go in...just finish ur business and let it all out lol im a sicko im innocent lalalaallaaaa lol creamyy LOL OMG IM WEIRD

wat

just. wat

Also,

OMG GHEYS CAN GET MARRIED.

TIEM TO START FUCKING HORSES NOW.

I hope you thought long and hard about what you saying, OP.

[Creative Vikings]

sex is really fun lol who cares what hole you go in...just finish ur business and let it all out lol im a sicko im innocent lalalaallaaaa lol creamyy LOL OMG IM WEIRD

Tumblr is further along the road...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

sex is really fun lol who cares what hole you go in...just finish ur business and let it all out lol im a sicko im innocent lalalaallaaaa lol creamyy LOL OMG IM WEIRD

wat

just. wat

Also,

OMG GHEYS CAN GET MARRIED.

TIEM TO START FUCKING HORSES NOW.

I hope you thought long and hard about what you saying, OP.

Not fucking.

Marrying.

Like people are going to start thinking that this guy isn't completely batshit insane.

[Uelvan]

How doesn't incest hurt anyone? Your children will the ones who suffer... Society moved away from that early on because it is destructive to your community.

This is why people with genetic conditions are forbidden to procreate, right?

Look, the simple fact is, if incest were legal, it wouldn't suddenly become very popular. About the same number of people who do it now, would do it then, they would just be more open about it.

And that's a good reason to make it legal? I highly doubt it would just stay with them either. I'm not saying everyone will, but without the laws discouraging the act, it will become less taboo. No thanks to that.

No one said anything about people with genetic conditions procreating either.

[Cori]

first off i dont see why 2 guys cant fuck...they have tools for the job lol.... and two how does gay people getting married have anything to do with fucking horses? LOL EWWWW!!!!! lol

[The Floor Kippers]

I just noticed, there's a comma missing between Siblings and Parents.

EDIT: Plus one after now what.

[Abatael]

People marrying animals won't be allowed because animals DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS.

Just like blacks didn't in the 1700's, right?

[Creative Vikings]

first off i dont see why 2 guys cant fuck...they have tools for the job lol.... and two how does gay people getting married have anything to do with fucking horses? LOL EWWWW!!!!! lol

Here's a map, see NS is here on Inane Street, and Tumblr is there on Pretnetious Avenue.

[Threlizdun]

How doesn't incest hurt anyone? Your children will the ones who suffer... Society moved away from that early on because it is destructive to your community.

The harms of incest are greatly exaggerated, and considering the fact that we don't forbid people with inheritable disorders from reproducing, I don't see how that would truly be relevent.

[Uelvan]

How doesn't incest hurt anyone? Your children will the ones who suffer... Society moved away from that early on because it is destructive to your community.

The harms of incest are greatly exaggerated, and considering the fact that we don't forbid people with inheritable disorders from reproducing, I don't see how that would truly be relevent.

Because people with inheritable disorders probably did not consent having them on birth? I fail to see how allowing 2 consenting adults the rights to inbreed will help in that cause either, especially when they have a good chance to produce a child who will have problems through out their life. This discussion is more hillbilly than a redstate biblethumper rally.

[Anachronous Rex]

This is why people with genetic conditions are forbidden to procreate, right?

Look, the simple fact is, if incest were legal, it wouldn't suddenly become very popular. About the same number of people who do it now, would do it then, they would just be more open about it.

And that's a good reason to make it legal? I highly doubt it would just stay with them either. I'm not saying everyone will, but without the laws discouraging the act, it will become less taboo. No thanks to that.

No one said anything about people with genetic conditions procreating either.

Your reasoning applies to them. That's just logical consistency.

The reason to make it legal, is because it is not any else's business. You can say, "the children are more likely to suffer genetic conditions," but that same reasoning, as I said, applies to people who, currently, we do allow to marry. To be consistent you must choose to render one legal, or the other illegal.

Of course, it's an odd form of argument in any case. You don't have to be married to procreate, and you don't have to procreate if you are married. And, indeed, I'm sure many incestuous couples would rather not marriage or no, so your point is, as we say, moot.

[Uelvan]

And that's a good reason to make it legal? I highly doubt it would just stay with them either. I'm not saying everyone will, but without the laws discouraging the act, it will become less taboo. No thanks to that.

No one said anything about people with genetic conditions procreating either.

Your reasoning applies to them. That's just logical consistency.

The reason to make it legal, is because it is not any else's business. You can say, "the children are more likely to suffer genetic conditions," but that same reasoning, as I said, applies to people who, currently, we do allow to marry. To be consistent you must choose to render one legal, or the other illegal.

Of course, it's an odd form of argument in any case. You don't have to be married to procreate, and you don't have to procreate if you are married. And, indeed, I'm sure many incestuous couples would rather not marriage or no, so your point is, as we say, moot.

I don't care about logical consistency when it comes to giving someone a somewhat more fair chance in life. If someone is born disabled, it would be unethical to deny them the right to marry. It is, however, not unethical to tell someone you can not have sex with your sister, as it is unfair to any offspring you may produce.

[Anachronous Rex]

Your reasoning applies to them. That's just logical consistency.

The reason to make it legal, is because it is not any else's business. You can say, "the children are more likely to suffer genetic conditions," but that same reasoning, as I said, applies to people who, currently, we do allow to marry. To be consistent you must choose to render one legal, or the other illegal.

Of course, it's an odd form of argument in any case. You don't have to be married to procreate, and you don't have to procreate if you are married. And, indeed, I'm sure many incestuous couples would rather not marriage or no, so your point is, as we say, moot.

I don't care about logical consistency when it comes to giving someone a somewhat more fair chance in life. If someone is born disabled, it would be unethical to deny them the right to marry. It is, however, not unethical to tell someone you can not have sex with your sister, as it is unfair to any offspring you may produce.

But it is equally unfair to the offspring of those with genetic conditions. You can't have this both ways.

And, again, if it's just children you're worried about, why not make that illegal? Why marriage?

[Maurepas]

I think Polygamy is probably the next fight. Everyone able to consent should be able to marry anyone they want, and I'm perfectly fine with the fight continuing until then.

I think I draw the line at family, there's too much risk of coercion for me to be at all comfortable with direct intra-familial relationships.

Coercion would imply some level of lack of consent, however. I also would say what you describe is wrong, but what's wrong about it is the coercion.

[Uelvan]

I don't care about logical consistency when it comes to giving someone a somewhat more fair chance in life. If someone is born disabled, it would be unethical to deny them the right to marry. It is, however, not unethical to tell someone you can not have sex with your sister, as it is unfair to any offspring you may produce.

But it is equally unfair to the offspring of those with genetic conditions. You can't have this both ways.

And, again, if it's just children you're worried about, why not make that illegal? Why marriage?

I can get over the risks of a person with a genetic disorder given a fair chance. It is more unethical to me, to deny someone rights based off of their genes, no matter what it makes you. However, it is not unethical to tell two (probably) healthy consenting adults that their incestuous relationship will probably produce a child who will be disadvantaged, and find that grounds to deny them.

If you read my first post, I pretty much flat out said incest should be illegal.

[Threlizdun]

Because people with inheritable disorders probably did not consent having them on birth? I fail to see how allowing 2 consenting adults the rights to inbreed will help in that cause either, especially when they have a good chance to produce a child who will have problems through out their life. This discussion is more hillbilly than a redstate biblethumper rally.

No, it is a discussion on whether or not people should ever be prohibited from reproducing. I happen to agree with the UN on this issue.

Article 16.
• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

I do not believe people should be prohibited from reproducing simply because their children may be born with disorders.

[Uelvan]

Because people with inheritable disorders probably did not consent having them on birth? I fail to see how allowing 2 consenting adults the rights to inbreed will help in that cause either, especially when they have a good chance to produce a child who will have problems through out their life. This discussion is more hillbilly than a redstate biblethumper rally.

No, it is a discussion on whether or not people should ever be prohibited from reproducing. I happen to agree with the UN on this issue.

Article 16.
• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

I do not believe people should be prohibited from reproducing simply because their children may be born with disorders.

Where does that provide them the rights to marry their family members?

[Anachronous Rex]

But it is equally unfair to the offspring of those with genetic conditions. You can't have this both ways.

And, again, if it's just children you're worried about, why not make that illegal? Why marriage?

I can get over the risks of a person with a genetic disorder given a fair chance. It is more unethical to me, to deny someone rights based off of their genes, no matter what it makes you.

But that's exactly what you are doing. You're punishing two people who love each other on account of an accident of birth that causes them to have very similar genes.

However, it is not unethical to tell two (probably) healthy consenting adults that their incestuous relationship will probably produce a child who will be disadvantaged, and find that grounds to deny them.

How is that different? Define "probably." And again, why would it? It is not axiomatic that marriage produces children.

If you read my first post, I pretty much flat out said incest should be illegal.

And I will flat out say that you are wrong.