1.)The childhood argument is used against SSM often as well pointing out the fact that their sex isn't reproductive and is biologically wasted from a human reproduction standpoint.
2.) Why not allow incest couples to just have abortions if they are with child? There is an increased risk, but it's still just a
risk and not a definite outcome.
3.) People are against incest because they are bigoted against sibling love. It disgusts them and they go based on their feelings. They are intolerant of that kind of relationship.
4.)If two consenting siblings love each other and want to wed who should stop them?
5.) What about a homosexual relationship between siblings? There is no problem with children there, why ban that?
6.)You like to toss around the word "fact" a lot. Please show me the solid, empirical "facts" regarding human rights and why SSM is a human right. Don't confuse your perspective or opinion with "fact" either.
Thank God TN isn't a state with bigoted laws that respects human rights, equality and all that other wonderful stuff
eace
1.) uhm again not even close to equal, not having kids which hetero choose to do sometimes is nothing like endangering kids to have deformities Are you serious. did you just compare couples not being able to and couples choosing not to have kids to risking deformities and bring a child into the world deformed? wow digs that totally fails it snot even close to the same or logical
2.) did you read my post, i basically already said this. but again it has nothing to do with gay rights
3.) yep this is possible and im sure there are but thats not why its illegal. again nothing to do with gay rights
4,) again you didnt read my post did you , i said if they want to fight to be allowed im fine with it but it has nothing to do with gay rights, what arent you getting
5.) see above
see the fact none of that is equal and NOBODY can marry their siblings, NOBODY
6.) sure no problem
see the court cases saying so its factually an equality issues, the courts made it so, no me, not my preservative, court cases and precedence
also in those court case they refer to human rights , human dignity, human liberties, fundamental human relationship
also when SCOTUS ruled 14 times that marriage is a right and it relates to these cases and when they ruled those things again many times the same verbiage was used: human rights , human dignity, human liberties, fundamental human relationship
also see the hundreds of human rights orgs that also deem it so, including the article i just posted to you in another thread about the UN putting more effort into the human rights of equal rights for gays..
now that makes it fact for an equality issue, no arguing that
if you want to say thats not good enough for a human rights issue, then id simply say then their are no factual human rights issues then and ill simple stick with all those rulings, laws, orgs and case precedence and you are free to go against them based on what ever you have.
what else you got? slipper slops fails comparisons to incest, polygamy, pedophilia all fail, too just like they did with interracial marriage which is also NOT a straw man no matter how many times you falsely deem it that and loving vs Virginia has been referenced in some of the previous mentions rulings.
let me know what else you got, you know ill gladly discuss anythign with you