re: Mother says sex with her son is 'incredible' as she reveals they're planning mar

quote:

---

Very well. If due process can be used to justify gay marriage, then it can likewise be used to justify that mom marrying her son.

---

100% agree with you Darth. You have no idea how much it pained me to say that.

But polygamy, incest, etc... It should be all on the table now.

And I can't wait to see the backbreaking lengths SJWs go to to show you why the causes they believe in are right, but a similar cause using the same arguments should he denied.

I'd love to listen to a dipshit feminist explain to me why gay marriage is great but 1 guy marrying 6 women should be denied.

quote:

---

100% agree with you Darth. You have no idea how much it pained me to say that.

---

I'm sorry for your discomfort.

quote:

---

But polygamy, incest, etc... It should be all on the table now.

---

Well, it sort of is. All that we're waiting for is the first court cases to be brought up. And I'd bet it won't be long before that happens. As things stand now, about the only limit they can put on marriage is ability to consent. Basically, if everyone is involved is of the age of consent then there's really no legal basis now to stop them from getting married.

quote:

---

And I can't wait to see the backbreaking lengths SJWs go to to show you why the causes they believe in are right, but a similar cause using the same arguments should he denied.

---

I find this quite interesting myself. They have carried on so much about equality and fairness. Yet now many of those same people are suddenly against everyone exercising that every equality. I honestly can't understand how someone can support gay marriage on the one hand and oppose polygamy and incestuous marriage on the other.

quote:

---

No because I provided actual government interest in not doing so.

---

And I totally shot all of those down. And I'm not even a lawyer.

quote:

---

The stats could not do the same for gay marriage.

---

Let me ask you this. If you support the right of two men (or two women) to get married, how can you deny that right to two men (or women) who happen to be related?

quote:

---

You didn't, but again. I ain't typing out a response to all that on my phone

---

I'm on my phone.

It's a simple question. If you support the right of two men to marry one another, how can you not support that same right just because they're related? Is it because that's ikky, gross, and unnatural to you?

quote:

---

No as I said. Repeated interbreeding can create birth defects. I don't think that a state has an interest in ensuring that marriages create children, because either way those gay men and women aren't producing children. The state does have an interest in preventing children who may be born from being diseased.

---

So by your logic should the state have the right to test everyone who wishes to marry and see if they are at risk for having children with genetic defects. After all, it's in the interest of the state, right? And what about single people? They get pregnant as well. By your logic the state should have the power to test everyone. I suppose the next step would be to sterilize those who pose a risk.

quote:

---

Second in allowing a parental figure to marry someone within their "influence" even after 18 has all sorts of negative implications.

---

What if it's siblings? Say two lesbian sisters. On what legal basis can they be denied the right to marry one another?

quote:

---

Your first "rebuttal" is ludicrous.

---

Translation: I can't come up with a valid rebuttal so I'll just call his "ludicrous" and move on.

quote:

---

Second, you still potentially have that situation with an older and a younger sister.

---

The potential is there anytime there's an age difference between spouses. By your logic I suppose we need laws saying only adults within a set number of years together can marry.

quote:

---

Either way the legality or not of incest does not affect whether gays should receive their civil rights.

---

I never said that gays should not receive their civil rights. I only pointed out that if those rights exist for gay couples, they exist for everyone, including that mother and son who want to marry.

quote:

---

No, your entire first point runs into a whole host of other legal issues to the point that it is completely absurd. I'm not going to respond to a completely made up hypothetical that runs into a host of Fourth Amendment issues as well as likely falling afoul of procedural due process.

---

This is not a completely "made up" hypothetical. We're posting in a thread about a mother and son who are "in love" are having sex, and plan to marry. That's as "real world" as it gets.

quote:

---

Second, two unrelated people who have not shared a family bond are in a completely different situation than someone looking up to an older family member.

---

The length of time a person knows the person they plan to marry has nothing to do with the legality of marriage. People meet and marry right off the bat all the time.

quote:

---

FWIW people challenged the constitutionality of anti-incest laws after Lawrence v. Texas and it never went anywhere. That is actually a much stronger legal argument, so I don't see incest going anywhere. Polygamy could really be interesting.

---

But we're living in a different world now. Gay marriage changed everything. Lawrence v. Texas doesn't apply here. That's what you don't understand. Once the limit of one man and one women was removed from marriage, that leads to the logical next question. Where is the limit and what can that limit be based upon? And every argument made to justify gay marriage can and will be made to justify incestuous marriage and plural marriage. The only basis to limit either would be on moral grounds. But one of the effects of gay marriage is we can no longer use "moral grounds" as a basis to limit marriage. Thus, it's only a matter of time before both plural and incestuous marriage between consenting adults will be legal.

Incest and homosexual marriage can not be compared because incest is not naturally advantageous and is just plain nasty.

its a british tabloid.

back here on planet earth incest is illegal, and those people could not get married in Florida or any other place in the USA, or England for that matter.