Same Sex Marriage

[WWW.SETH.COM]

that image is not showing up for me

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

fixed

[Larry Flyntz]

Wow, that map is kind of scary.  It's really scary because so many states are misusing their constitutions.  Constitutions are not supposed to set out limits on the people; they're supposed to set out limits on the government.

Also, I definitely agree that bestiality is cruel to animals, and that that fact shows that the slippery slope is bullshit.  But, if it could be proven that it wasn't cruel (apparently Peter Singer, that fucking tool, thinks that there are some cases where it isn't), I think the law wouldn't be overturned, because the force of moral outrage is so strong.  So, we're agreeing, I'm just making a subtle point that probably isn't relevant anymore.

Anyway, I think that consensual protected incest is a better example.  I don't see any reason other than moral outrage to claim that a guy shouldn't be able to fuck his sister if she consents to it and if they use protection.

[GREGORIAN CHANT!!!]

We all know that no form of protection is 100% effective. Anybody that is sexually active has had at least one scare. Sexual Relationships within the family can only lead to retard babies and awkward social gatherings. There is no benefit to either party and if you are interested in having sex with a family member then you most likely aren't concerned about using protection while doing so.

[Larry Flyntz]

What do you mean there is no benefit to either party?  They both want to get laid.  They're both getting laid.  That seems like a benefit to me.  And let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is a 100% effective protection.  And if some sort of mistakes do happen, we can make them get an abortion.  My point is that we can construct a hypothetical fact pattern that narrows the concern to a moral one.  But, this isn't really important anyway.  The question that I'm trying to raise is this: "Is it always unacceptable to legislate based on moral revulsion?  Is there a point where moral revulsion is enough?"  I'm not sure what the answer is to that.  I lean towards saying "Yes, no," but I'm just saying that I'm not 100% convinced that those answers are always right.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

Mostly, I agree with Flyntz about the incest thing. If two consenting adults that just happen to be siblings want to do each other, I don't really see a problem with that. I mean, I would never do it, but I don't believe in making laws based on only my moral sensibilities. And if the two people are in fact adults and consenting, then is it even really immoral? No, I don't think so.

However, I don't entirely disagree with the fact that it is illegal. And the ONLY reason for that is because there is plenty of scientific data to support the damage that inbreeding does to the human (well not just human either actually) gene pool. When close relatives have babies, those babies are usually born with all sorts of birth defects and whatnot, and when those kinds of things are easily avoidable by saying "Okay you can't fuck your sister or you go to jail" then why not make that law? Oh but then I don't know...it's such a gray area. On the one hand, I'm a big supporter of "people can do whatever the fuck they want so long as they leave me out of it" but on the other hand...its incest.

But yeah, doesn't that map make you kind of physically ill? It does me, for sure.

[TheOfficer]

This is one of those issues I won't even go near, because if somebody tries to argue against same-sex marriage it offends me more than possibly anything else in the world.

Fuck haters.

Love is love is love is love. And everyone in love is entitled to the benefits of a union of love.