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

mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#221
Report 4 years ago
#221
(Original post by Wahid-r)
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?
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#222
Report 4 years ago
#222
(Original post by mrkl)
Well you're a Muslim so that's acceptable isn't it?
LOL no, I'm an EX-Muslim.
0
reply
louieee
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#223
Report 4 years ago
#223
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
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#224
Report 4 years ago
#224
(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.
0
reply
Wahid-r
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#225
Report 4 years ago
#225
(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.
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#226
Report 4 years ago
#226
(Original post by Wahid-r)
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.
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
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#227
Report 4 years ago
#227
(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....
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#228
Report 4 years ago
#228
(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 .... !
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#229
Report 4 years ago
#229
(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.
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#230
Report 4 years ago
#230
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Then you pretty much just answered your own question. Hence dogs can't be married at all.

No. The law can be changed just as it is for gays!
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#231
Report 4 years ago
#231
(Original post by mrkl)
No. The law can be changed just as it is for gays !
:lol: 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.
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#232
Report 4 years ago
#232
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
:lol: 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.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#233
Report 4 years ago
#233
(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:
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#234
Report 4 years ago
#234
(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.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#235
Report 4 years ago
#235
(Original post by mrkl)
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.
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.
0
reply
mrkl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#236
Report 4 years ago
#236
(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.
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:
0
reply
Kabloomybuzz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#237
Report 4 years ago
#237
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.
0
reply
minimarshmallow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#238
Report 4 years ago
#238
Guys, I don't want any slurs, or any insulting each other. This thread has been pretty good so far, so let's keep it as such.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (125)
39.06%
No - but I will (17)
5.31%
No - I don't want to (20)
6.25%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (158)
49.38%

Watched Threads

View All