If you're for gay rights surely you should be for incest?

Scroll to see replies

So just to clarify again, they are hypocrites. Please explain the 'harm' it causes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest. There may be issues with certain practical situations e.g. harm to potential offspring, but that's not enough to rule out incest as an entire concept.

Umm I'm talking about this because that's what this whole thread is about? Look at the title genius. Just because I'm pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't mean this is the only argument I can make.

Well you're a Muslim so that's acceptable isn't it?

Reply 221

Wahid-r

Original post by mrkl

Well you're a Muslim so that's acceptable isn't it?

LOL no, I'm an EX-Muslim.

Reply 222

louieee

If you're against gay rights surely you should be against straight rights?

bae your logic is so flawed that you're not even beyoncé when she wakes up

Reply 223

mrkl

Original post by Wahid-r

LOL no, I'm an EX-Muslim.

OK, good for you, I guess.

But you have to admit that marrying / having a sexual relationship with your own immediate family is not natural.

Reply 224

Wahid-r

Original post by mrkl

OK, good for you, I guess.

But you have to admit that marrying / having a sexual relationship with your own immediate family is not natural.

Just because I personally find it distasteful doesn't mean I agree to stopping someone else from doing it. If two people are consenting then I feel they have the right to do what they want.
Now this becomes more complex as there are other factors to consider about its practicality so there is much more discussion needed on it. But intrinsically there is nothing ethically wrong with incestuous relationships.

Reply 225

mrkl

Original post by Wahid-r

OK, then by that logic what about animals ? if someone has " strong feelings" for his dog , should be be allowed to marry it ???

I don't think so

Reply 226

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by mrkl

OK, then by that logic what about animals ? if someone has " strong feelings" for his dog , should be be allowed to marry it ???

I don't think so

You seemed to have missed the importance of consent....

Reply 227

mrkl

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

You seemed to have missed the importance of consent....

You seemed to have missed the importance of that dogs don't consent to any partner of any kind .... !

Reply 228

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by mrkl

You seemed to have missed the importance of that dogs don't consent to any partner of any kind .... !

Then you pretty much just answered your own question. Hence dogs can't be married at all. :h:

Reply 229

mrkl

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

Then you pretty much just answered your own question. Hence dogs can't be married at all. :h:

No. The law can be changed just as it is for gays! :biggrin:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 230

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by mrkl

No. The law can be changed just as it is for gays ! :biggrin:

Thank you for showing your bigotry. Having established that you incapable of taking a rational approach I think we are all justified in ignoring you now.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 231

mrkl

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

Thank you for showing your bigotry. Having established that you incapable of taking a rational approach I think we are all justified in ignoring you now.

And Thank you for showing your fraudulent logic. Having established that you incapable of taking an intellectually honest approach, I think we are all justified in branding you a troller fraud.

Reply 232

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by mrkl

And Thank you for showing your fraudulent logic. Having established that you incapable of taking an intellectually honest approach, I think we are all justified in branding you a troller fraud.

Here is some very simple logic for you. To be married you need to be able to consent. Can homosexuals consent? Yes. Then gays can marry. Can animals consent? No. Then they can't marry. Logic. :top:

Reply 233

mrkl

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

Here is some very simple logic for you. To be married you need to be able to consent. Can homosexuals consent? Yes. Then gays can marry. Can animals consent? No. Then they can't marry. Logic. :top:

Here is some relevant and simple logic for you. To be married it used to be only between a consenting man and a woman. Can the law be changed ? Yes. Then a gay can also marry his/her dog because the need for consent can be removed. So they can marry. Better and more relevant Logic. :wink:

Reply 234

RandZul'Zorander

Original post by mrkl

Well of course it is. The need for anything could be removed. Murder COULD be made legal that doesn't make that (impossibility small) possibility relevant to the debate. So no. You haven't provided any kind of logical argument. :h:

Reply 235

mrkl

Original post by RandZul'Zorander

Well of course it is. The need for anything could be removed. Murder COULD be made legal that doesn't make that possibility relevant to the debate. So no. You haven't provided any kind of logical argument. :h:

Your reply is so stupid it needs to be in the dictionary next to the word.

The need for anything can be removed if Parliament approves it. Called democracy .So yes. You are a miltant gay who assumes he is intelligent but acts like a logic denier. :rolleyes:

Reply 236

Kabloomybuzz

In theory, I do see and agree with the vasic point, but in practise, as proven here, it would have to be subject to a hell of a lot of conditions which in reality, simply could not eliminate the risks involved. That paired with the potential for abuse would make it a complete legal minefield.

It's because of all the conditions, complications and risks (not just to the self, which full responsibility can be taken for but a potential innocent other that incest and homosexuality are not really comparable.