Hollywood director comes out in favor of incest

[Athanasias]

Don't think that this is so unreasonable. A woman married a building in my state!

About the insest thing. I agree. eww. But I guess it explains the book I saw today. I was looking for a nice *decent* book to read, and I picked up one that I thought would be interesting, but then I read that it was the about the love affair of a father with his daughter and I decided that I'm not really interested. Call me "old fashioned", but somehow that's not a storyline I find even a bit interesting. Sick maybe. But not interesting.

Are you serious?/ Its legal to marry a building?? What the heck???

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Problem is a majority of states had allowed miscegenation or did not have any laws prohibiting such marriages in the books. The only ones who stood against such marriages were the South, and even they were few and far between.

In 1967 16 states hand laws against mixed marriage. But that's hardly the point is it ?

If all states had laws agasint mixed marriage it would still be a violation of people's rights.

Right's go not come from majority rule.

But even looking at such marriages, theologically speaking, there is no sound or logical reasoning that can be deduced that prohibits why a man and woman of different color should not be wed.

Maybe not to you. But to other people it was. Which is why using a particular theology isn't a good arguement against someone's rights.

 

[Athanasias]

I just want it to be legal and moral to murder these people if I do not like them. Perhaps I can start a Church that says it is!! Fannnnnnnnnnnnnnnntastic!

 

[AMDG]

I just want it to be legal and moral to murder these people if I do not like them. Perhaps I can start a Church that says it is!! Fannnnnnnnnnnnnnnntastic!

You don't need to find a Church. Abortion does the job quite nicely. It even saves you from feeling a dislike of the people when they are grown.

 

[Athanasias]

You don't need to find a Church. Abortion does the job quite nicely. It even saves you from feeling a dislike of the people when they are grown.

Funny i was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

In 1967 16 states hand laws against mixed marriage. But that's hardly the point is it ?

16. I stand corrected as I thought even less States had barred it before Loving v. Virginia.

If all states had laws agasint mixed marriage it would still be a violation of people's rights.

Depends. Most states still don't grant same-sex marriages. Is that a violation of people's rights? Don't stop with same-sex marriage; look beyond just homosexual acts.

Right's go not come from majority rule.

If you take a look at desegregation, miscegenation, abortion, contraception, sodomy, sodomy between homosexuals, etc., the Supreme Court was able to rule or overrule the way they did by basing it off what most States themselves allowed.

One reason you're not going to gain any traction on the federal level with regards to same-sex marriage: need more states to favor same-sex marriage.

Maybe not to you. But to other people it was. Which is why using a particular theology isn't a good arguement against someone's rights.

Maybe there were people who preached that, but I do know that most in the South still held onto eugenics, that black people were primitive and based it off of antiquated & flawed anthropological, psychological studies and even using physiology to try to distinguish between whites and blacks and how segregation was warranted.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

16. I stand corrected as I thought even less States had barred it before Loving v. Virginia.

Then lets not make claims that we haven't verified.

Depends. Most states still don't grant same-sex marriages. Is that a violation of people's rights?

Yes.

Don't stop with same-sex marriage; look beyond just homosexual acts.

Huh ?

If you take a look at desegregation, miscegenation, abortion, contraception, sodomy, sodomy between homosexuals, etc., the Supreme Court was able to rule or overrule the way they did by basing it off what most States themselves allowed.

No

This is entirely incorrect. It is not true I do not know where you learned American history but this is not a correct statement.

One reason you're not going to gain any traction on the federal level with regards to same-sex marriage: need more states to favor same-sex marriage.

No

This is not true

This is incorrect

Maybe there were people who preached that, but I do know that most in the South still held onto eugenics, that black people were primitive and based it off of antiquated & flawed anthropological, psychological studies and even using physiology to try to distinguish between whites and blacks and how segregation was warranted

This is also incorrect.

While a fringe beleieved this most mainstrean objections to mixed marriage were based on bibical, thelolgical objections made my religious leaders of various type.

Please let me know where you are getting this from. This source needs to be exposed as fraudulent.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Then lets not make claims that we haven't verified.

SOOORRRYY.

Even then, it's 34 states vs. 16.

Yes.

Same-sex marriage should be afforded?

Well then....

Huh ?

People's right. Incest, zoophilia, polygamy. Do these people too have rights that are being violated?

No

This is entirely incorrect. It is not true I do not know where you learned American history but this is not a correct statement.

Look at Bowers, Lawrence, Loving, Roe, Brown, etc., and look at how many states had already been desegregated, allowed sodomy, allowed abortions, contraception, etc.

No

This is not true

This is incorrect

We have DOMA, don't we? You really are going to believe politicians are all of a sudden going to repeal DOMA, or for that matter, the Supreme Court is going to overrule what - to this day - a majority of states don't believe is a constitutional right?

This is also incorrect.

While a fringe beleieved this most mainstrean objections to mixed marriage were based on bibical, thelolgical objections made my religious leaders of various type.

Please let me know where you are getting this from. This source needs to be exposed as fraudulent.

Fraudulent? What was segregation based off of? So these States were going to allow segregation but bat a blind eye at different races marrying one another?

Come on....

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Alright: Is it or is not legitimate for a state to permit plural marriage or polygamy? If the claim is made, that they are all consent adults of the legal age (at least 18 years of age or older): would a marriage of a man and three wives be legally sanctioned or condoned? After all, the folks that practise such do claim that they 'love one another' and that they 'gave their free and willing consent'.

What would be the impediment? In a Liberal society, there is none. There is no line in the sand that dictates what is permitted and what is not. All that matters is 'consent' and that they 'love one another'; no matter the form of relationship or how bizarre it may appear to you and I.

 

[WarriorAngel]

For some reason the movie Blade Runner just popped into my head.....

Cherry 2000.

 

[Michie]

Hmm. I thought the next big trend now that "gay marriage" has been mainstreamed would be polygamy, but maybe I'm wrong....



"Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?”

Indeed. That's what they say----love who you want. Who are we to judge? Where's your tolerance?

Interesting. What hath "gay rights" wrought?

Opinion piece: Can sex between brothers and sisters ever be normal? | Fox News

Not a bit surprised. I'm waiting for pedophilia to be declared a sexual orientation as well.

Then there is this:

Slate Writer Argues for Polygamy
Monday, April 15, 2013, 11:44 PM
Robert P. Georgehttp://twitter.com/

“You are resorting to scare tactics!”

“No one is arguing for the legal recognition of polygamous or polyamorous relationships as marriages!”

“Recognizing same-sex partnerships does not open the door to changing fundamental marital norms. It will not change the nature of marriage as a monogamous and exclusive union—it will simply make marriage as we’ve always understood it available to more people.”

That was then; this is now. Have a look at the article by Jillian Keenan in the perfectly mainstream online magazine Slate:

Continued- Slate Writer Argues for Polygamy » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

 

[Blackwater Babe]

*sigh*