PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Exactly we are talking about someone making the Legal case that "all" adults have the "right" to define marriage or a relationship as they are inclined to do.

This isn't about some far-off assumptions such as marriage to a horse.... no these are real life relationships which could be motivated by a number of factors and are buttressed by nearly every

argument the Gay marriage folks used.

How does this man and his daughter(s) having sex effect your life?

If you don't want to marry your kids.... then don't.

Their commitment to each other "honors" marriage.

Polling shows a steady acceptance of "Free-marriage" you should get on the right side of history.

It's just not fair the people in a loving relationship not enjoy the benefits like everyone else.

Blah, blah, blah

It would behoove you to go back the initial post and re-read it. In no particular moment has this man and his daughter expressed their desire to get married.

The phrase 'What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated.' a snippet from the copy shown in the original post is really what is at the center of this discussion. The point in case is that the relationship between this father and daughter is heterosexual, so comparing it to a homosexual relationship may indicate he himself has trouble understanding the difference.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Gegel

[decocker 7,198]

this guy is asking how his incest is different, but asking the question doesn't make the comparison valid. incest is not homosexuality.

[JohnR! 5,495]

this guy is asking how his incest is different, but asking the question doesn't make the comparison valid. incest is not homosexuality.

That is what I have been pointing for a while. It is no different than asking how his incest is different than divorce...

Edited April 8, 2013 by Gegel

[SMR 368]

That is what I have been pointing for a while. It is no different than asking how his incest is different than divorce...

You're missing a bit of the point. The issue in the OP isn't really gay marriage. It's homosexuality. It's 'I can do whatever I want with other consenting adults behind closed doors.' It's not 'if gays can get married I can have sex with my daughter.' It's 'if gays can have sex with each other, I can have sex with my daughter.'

[JohnR! 5,495]

You're missing a bit of the point. The issue in the OP isn't really gay marriage. It's homosexuality. It's 'I can do whatever I want with other consenting adults behind closed doors.' It's not 'if gays can get married I can have sex with my daughter.' It's 'if gays can have sex with each other, I can have sex with my daughter.'

I think he is using homosexuality as an excuse. As a man he is having sex with another woman, other than his wife. It would make sense for him to postulate that divorces can have sex with women other than their wives, therefore he should be able to have sex with his daughter.

[decocker 7,198]

It's 'if gays can have sex with each other, I can have sex with my daughter.'

because having sex with his daughter is gay sex?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Exactly we are talking about someone making the Legal case that "all" adults have the "right" to define marriage or a relationship as they are inclined to do.

This isn't about some far-off assumptions such as marriage to a horse.... no these are real life relationships which could be motivated by a number of factors and are buttressed by nearly every

argument the Gay marriage folks used.

How does this man and his daughter(s) having sex effect your life?

If you don't want to marry your kids.... then don't.

Their commitment to each other "honors" marriage.

Polling shows a steady acceptance of "Free-marriage" you should get on the right side of history.

It's just not fair the people in a loving relationship not enjoy the benefits like everyone else.

Blah, blah, blah

You're missing the most important argument, I suspect on purpose.

Two homosexuals of majority age and sound mind can consent and enter into an adult relationship like you and your wife.

You and your hamster can not.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why was incest considered socially unacceptable? The root cause is genetic even if people didn't understand why originally.

The genetic aspect is still a primary reason today why an incestual marriage cannot take place. The only hole in my logic that I can find is that during the SCOTUS hearings is that procreation should have no bearing on the legality of a marriage.

Therein lies the answer. He can make his defense of incest on its own merit and try and change the law.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You're missing the most important argument, I suspect on purpose.

Two homosexuals of majority age and sound mind can consent and enter into an adult relationship like you and your wife.

You and your hamster can not.

Danno, apparently, does not understand consent. He questions it every time it's mentioned.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Danno, apparently, does not understand consent. He questions it every time it's mentioned.

I believe he may be confusing love for consent.

Your dog can love you. But your dog can not consent to you neutering it.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I believe he may be confusing love for consent.

Your dog can love you. But your dog can not consent to you neutering it.

My dog tries to show it's love for my thigh every Spring. I think it's because of the way I dress, I'm just askin for it.

[mota bhai 2,675]

My dog tries to show it's love for my thigh every Spring. I think it's because of the way I dress, I'm just askin for it.

Maybe dogs can consent, but they can not consent to human beings like us in a manner that is admissible in a court run by human beings like us.

It is entirely possible that in dog-world that humping your thigh stuff constitutes legally admissible consent for whatever comes next.

But it does not in human world and we all inhabit human world and must abide by its rules.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I believe he may be confusing love for consent.

Your dog can love you. But your dog can not consent to you neutering it.

Evidence suggests a lack of understanding the difference between love and consent.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Maybe dogs can consent, but they can not consent to human beings like us in a manner that is admissible in a court run by human beings like us.

It is entirely possible that in dog-world that humping your thigh stuff constitutes legally admissible consent for whatever comes next.

But it does not in human world and we all inhabit human world and must abide by its rules.

It's a dog eat dog world.

[mota bhai 2,675]

It's a dog eat dog world.

I do not understand this response.