The problem is that no one really views incest as OK or normal. There are not large groups of folks who claim they were born incestual.

So brothers and sisters are not born brothers and sisters?

 

And first off before your read any further I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO BUT RATHER TO POINT OUT TO ZOOT SOMETHING IN HIS LAST SENTENCE.

 

There is a group of pedophiles out there that are claiming they are born with a natural attraction to kids. In essence they are born that way. Forget what it is called but I am sure someone on here will post it.

So brothers and sisters are not born brothers and sisters?

 

And first off before your read any further I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO BUT RATHER TO POINT OUT TO ZOOT SOMETHING IN HIS LAST SENTENCE.

 

There is a group of pedophiles out there that are claiming they are born with a natural attraction to kids. In essence they are born that way. Forget what it is called but I am sure someone on here will post it.

 

I'm pretty sure he was saying that people don't claim to be born with an attraction to their brother or sister.

 

It's gross, but if two consenting adults that are sibling want to be married, that's their choice. Just as if two women both want to marry the same guy, they're (all 3) are okay with the arrangement, that's their choice.

I'm pretty sure he was saying that people don't claim to be born with an attraction to their brother or sister.

 

It's gross, but if two consenting adults that are sibling want to be married, that's their choice. Just as if two women both want to marry the same guy, they're (all 3) are okay with the arrangement, that's their choice.

 

That is my point, if you can't define marriage as between one man and one woman, there should not be any definition of it and groups of 100 getting married should be allowed.

 

Either define it as the traditional marriage or don't define it. Not some definition that fits who is screaming loudest at present.

So brothers and sisters are not born brothers and sisters?

 

And first off before your read any further I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO BUT RATHER TO POINT OUT TO ZOOT SOMETHING IN HIS LAST SENTENCE.

 

There is a group of pedophiles out there that are claiming they are born with a natural attraction to kids. In essence they are born that way. Forget what it is called but I am sure someone on here will post it.

 

There is a difference between having a sister and being physically attracted to your sister.

I honestly don't doubt that there are pedophiles who are born with an inclination to be near children. There difference here is that their dispositions are a danger to others.

Just so we're clear here LBBC, do you believe gays should have the right to marry?

There is a difference between having a sister and being physically attracted to your sister.

I honestly don't doubt that there are pedophiles who are born with an inclination to be near children. There difference here is that their dispositions are a danger to others.

 

So, you are saying as a society, we are ALLOWED to tell a brother and sister that is gross and wrong to be attracted to each other but we cannot tell two people of the same gender the same thing?

 

That is a really intolerant position to take in what is supposedly a better, more open society.

Just so we're clear here LBBC, do you believe gays should have the right to marry?

I think marriage should be defined as one man and one woman that are not directly related. That excludes everything that does not fit that above definition.

There is a group of pedophiles out there that are claiming they are born with a natural attraction to kids. In essence they are born that way. Forget what it is called but I am sure someone on here will post it.

 

And that is the slippery slope that I was referring to.

There is a group of pedophiles out there that are claiming they are born with a natural attraction to kids. In essence they are born that way. Forget what it is called but I am sure someone on here will post it.

 

The obvious difference between that and homosexuality is that it's a crime to take advantage of and/or molest a child. It's not a crime to be a homosexual.

 

Do you think homosexuality should be illegal?

The obvious difference between that and homosexuality is that it's a crime to take advantage of and/or molest a child. It's not a crime to be a homosexual.

 

Do you think homosexuality should be illegal?

 

No.

I think marriage should be defined as one man and one woman that are not directly related. That excludes everything that does not fit that above definition.

 

So what options would you give homosexual couples that want to marry? Or would you just say "tough"?

So, you are saying as a society, we are ALLOWED to tell a brother and sister that is gross and wrong to be attracted to each other but we cannot tell two people of the same gender the same thing?

 

That is a really intolerant position to take in what is supposedly a better, more open society.

 

That's a very fair point. But I don't know that I would tell them they can't get married. It all depends on your viewpoint, like all things. I have to believe though that the number of incestual couples that would want to wed would have to be considered far, far outliers in all this. Homosexuality is much more prevalent in our society.

So what options would you give homosexual couples that want to marry? Or would you just say "tough"?

 

Marriage is not one but some legal contracts could be allowed on some issues. But contrary to what is posted on here, I have not heard the argument that civil unions will suffice, they want to be MARRIED! When the NY law was past, I heard plenty say they are marching to the church to be married.

That's a very fair point. But I don't know that I would tell them they can't get married. It all depends on your viewpoint, like all things. I have to believe though that the number of incestual couples that would want to wed would have to be considered far, far outliers in all this. Homosexuality is much more prevalent in our society.

 

So, it is fine to discriminate (their word not mine) against a smaller minority of incestual couples but not fine to discriminate (their word not mine) against a minority of homosexual couples.

 

The number of couples is the determining factor then?

Marriage is not one but some legal contracts could be allowed on some issues. But contrary to what is posted on here, I have not heard the argument that civil unions will suffice, they want to be MARRIED! When the NY law was past, I heard plenty say they are marching to the church to be married.

 

That's because a civil union does not allow the same benefits (health, etc.) that marriage does. Please show me evidence that the term "marriage" is important. It's what marriage represents and bestows on them with regards to benefits that they're after.