Dems Showing Their True Racist Colors

[beachbum]

@Beachbum....the reason why siblings can't get married is because the government would be endorsing and thereby supporting inbreeding which we have seen is VERY BAD.

Inbreeding has serious negative consequences.....thus it's logical and reasonable NOT to allow it to happen.

I anticipated that, reread my second to last line and let me know your thoughts.

[JustAlex]

What if you could guarantee that the brothers and sisters that marry won't repopulate? It would be ok, then, right?

And how would you guarantee this?

Forcibly make them sterile? Cuz I'd be against that.

But it seems to me you want to hear from a liberal that incest is ok....

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my definition of "liberal" is to allow humans to do LITERALLY whatever they want as long as rights are not being infringed.

So I already said why I'm against legal incest marriages.

But what about regular incest sex....say between a sterile brother and sister or two brothers or two sisters (OH WOW, two sisters, how freaking amazing would that be?! )...

In my definition of liberal....I can't say that I would be against this.

Of course I have to add that BOTH parties MUST be consensual adults.

Also, I will add that I obviously DO NOT approve of this action, although ultimately there's nothing I'd be able to do to prevent it if two sisters wanted to have sex....and there's no reason why I'd want to prevent it either.

Seriously, hot sisters....go for it!

But in a 100% non-perverted, reasonable matter....no, I can't say I can support incest....but I also wouldn't stop it.

[habsheaven]

I feel the same about you, you've been doing this crap all thread...lets go deeper into this and I'll explain.

You won't answer the question so I'll state the obvious. Brothers can't marry sisters, not because they are adult humans with the freedom to choose, not because two people that love each other can't get married, its because of incest, right??

Incest has been wrong for a long time, hasn't it?

What we have here is a shift in the standard. I had a line in the sand, you pushed it way forward and it was good for you. When someone else comes along and pushes it even farther than you (more liberal), than what??

What if you could guarantee that the brothers and sisters that marry won't repopulate? It would be ok, then, right?

Come on, these are legit questions that fall right in line with liberal "do whatever you want" society!

Like I said your thought process is twisted.

1. To argue with a "liberal" you have to know what a "liberal" is. You don't, clearly.

2. Asking a hypothetical question about a scenario that is IMPOSSIBLE is in no way legitimate. You may well have asked; if your dog learns how to speak and proposes I should be agreeable to you two marrying. See how stupid that sounds? So was your scenario.

3. A PROGRESSIVE society moves the line in the sand all the time, and it's always in the RIGHT direction. I wonder what ISIS would think of your "liberal" ideas about women? Would they speak of an imaginary line in the sand and accuse you of moving it too far? Probably.

[beachbum]

And how would you guarantee this?

Forcibly make them sterile? Cuz I'd be against that.

No forcibly anything, you like massive oversized government right?? You could make a whole new part of the government called the Central Marriage Agency and before brothers and sisters could get legally married, they would have to voluntarily sterilize themselves. That way, they would just cohabitate together and risk having children that way. But I am sure there would be lots of tax dollars to take care of those babies right, no wait, how could I forget the ace in the hole........abortion.

But it seems to me you want to hear from a liberal that incest is ok....

Not really what I was going after just pointing out the contradiction and hypocrisy of the liberal mindset.

[JustAlex]

Not really what I was going after just pointing out the contradiction and hypocrisy of the liberal mindset.

Where is the contradiction?

[beachbum]

3. A PROGRESSIVE society moves the line in the sand all the time, and it's always in the RIGHT direction. I wonder what ISIS would think of your "liberal" ideas about women? Would they speak of an imaginary line in the sand and accuse you of moving it too far? Probably.

You're pushing it, don't put words in my mouth, you don't like the clear contradiction in your perverse ideology, thats your problem, don't you dare align me with terrorists!!!

[beachbum]

Where is the contradiction?

The rules you lay out for gay marriage should be just as good for any two other adult human beings...period.

[habsheaven]

You're pushing it, don't put words in my mouth, you don't like the clear contradiction in your perverse ideology, thats your problem, don't you dare align me with terrorists!!!

What words did I put in your mouth? Where is the clear contradiction? Do you not think terrorists have their own ideology? Heck with terrorists if it bothers you so much, change that to Saudis. Do you not think they have their own lines in the sand that you and your western society have moved to suit you? Are they wrong?

[JustAlex]

The rules you lay out for gay marriage should be just as good for any two other adult human beings...period.

Ok, let me lay out the rules and we'll see if your statement is true.

My personal rule to marriage: Two consenting adults regardless of gender, nationality, ethnicity, color, or religion can be married.

Well, we can immediately rule out any nonsense of pedophilia or bestiality, so let's just focus on adult humans.

Heterosexual incest carries a very big risk....inbreeding.

As a society we don't want to go down the line of screwing up the gene pool....this is where government regulation would step in and say no.

See this is the key, when someone says YES you can do WHATEVER THE HELL you want.....but that doesn't mean there won't be regulations.

Regulations are very important.

Did you know that Prostitution IS legal somewhere in the U.S?

In Nevada (but not Las Vegas) you can go to the "Bunny Ranch" and pay to have sex with a woman.

But this is strictly regulated, and guess what, it WORKS!

My point here is, when you allow humans to do risky things, you also have to set out a guides and regulations so it doesn't fall apart.

[beachbum]

Ok, let me lay out the rules and we'll see if your statement is true.

My personal rule to marriage: Two consenting adults regardless of gender, nationality, ethnicity, color, or religion can be married.

Well, we can immediately rule out any nonsense of pedophilia or bestiality, so let's just focus on adult humans.

Heterosexual incest carries a very big risk....inbreeding.

As a society we don't want to go down the line of screwing up the gene pool....this is where government regulation would step in and say no.

See this is the key, when someone says YES you can do WHATEVER THE HELL you want.....but that doesn't mean there won't be regulations.

Regulations are very important.

Did you know that Prostitution IS legal somewhere in the U.S?

In Nevada (but not Las Vegas) you can go to the "Bunny Ranch" and pay to have sex with a woman.

But this is strictly regulated, and guess what, it WORKS!

My point here is, when you allow humans to do risky things, you also have to set out a guides and regulations so it doesn't fall apart.

Alex I see what you are saying and you make a whole hell of a lot more sense than Habs but it doesn't change my point. What do you do when encountered with a movement more liberal than yours, do you dig in and stand up for your version (that you just laid out) or do you give in to this new perceived ultra liberal agenda?