[John Reynolds]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...wh/bush_judges

Pryor also came under fire for filing a Supreme Court brief in a Texas sodomy case comparing homosexual acts to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia."

Sounds like a man after Bush's own heart.

[Tim Murray]

Pryor wasn't actually that bad, compared to, say, anyone else from Alabama. I mean, the article does go on to say:

Many Alabama Republicans remain angry at Pryor for leading the charge to oust the state's chief justice, Roy Moore, for refusing to abide by federal court orders requiring him to move a Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse.

[RussSchultz]

Ahhh, quoted out of context. Nothing like journalists with an agenda.

"Petitioners' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects 'the choice of one's partner' and 'whether and how to connect sexually' must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be 'willing')," he wrote.

Really, honestly. Spend a little time to get to the root of the quote--read it from the source. Don't take any journalists' summary prima facia. They apparently can't summarize without changing the meaning to fit their own agenda.

[John Reynolds]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Ahhh, quoted out of context. Nothing like journalists with an agenda.

Really, honestly. Spend a little time to get to the root of the quote--read it from the source. Don't take any journalists' summary prima facia. They apparently can't summarize without changing the meaning to fit their own agenda.

Actually, I don't think these issues "must logically extend" to such activities. In fact, some of those (both bestiality and necrophilia) were brought up by several fundie co-workers of mine last week in arguing how the legalization of gay marriage would corrupt our society and open doors for worse things (such as the above). I wonder if the same arguments were applied by people fighting over miscegenation laws back in the '60s?

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

Actually, I don't think these issues "must logically extend" to such activities. In fact, some of those (both bestiality and necrophilia) were brought up by several fundie co-workers of mine last week in arguing how the legalization of gay marriage would corrupt our society and open doors for worse things (such as the above). I wonder if the same arguments were applied by people fighting over miscegenation laws back in the '60s?

I wonder if you've read any of the 300 or so threads already covering that topic?

[Sage]

the "right to choose ones partner" logically only applies to persons with the legal ability to consent. and, as such, the chosen parter also has the "right to choose" and in order to be given that, the chosen partner must have the legal ability to consent. Therefore this excludes: minors, deceased, and animals. Additionally, marriage is a legally binding contract between two parties and by excercising ones "right to choose" outside of the marrieage, the contract is broken. This protects adultery laws, although the wording may have to be modified. This leaves only protstitution and concentual incest, both of which should be legalized and already have been in many Western, democratic countries. With the legalization of prostitution the industry can be brought under government controll and thus allow safer and more healthy working conditions. Recent studies have shown that the risks of genetic defects due to incest are drastically lower than was previously believed, particularly in cases of first cousins (virtually no increase in risk). While the risk is genuine, so is the risk of contracting or unknowingly passing on HIV each time you have sex; should it be required that you take a blood test each time you have sex? What wasn't mentioned: polygamy. If multiple people all choose to be married, so long as all parties involved consent to marriage with all other parties involved, it should also be legal. There should be multiple-spouse benefits, however there should also be mechanisms put in place to prevent the abuse of such benefits.

[PatrickL]

This leaves only protstitution and concentual incest, both of which should be legalized and already have been in many Western, democratic countries.

Really curious which western democraty legalized incest ???

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

Bush says screw the Senate

Bush sucks, deal with it.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by PatrickL

Really curious which western democraty legalized incest ???

I believe it was France....














j/k!

I TEASE!!! :P

[Geeforcer]

Originally Posted by PatrickL

Really curious which western democraty legalized incest ???

Any that hasn't explicitly outlawed it?

[andi598d]

So far as I know, the Netherlands do not persecute incest between consenting adults (I'm not sure if it's legal there, however). Germany explicitly defines incest as sexual intercourse with natural parents or siblings and only outlaws that.

[bloodbob]

I found a silly quirk in my state law regarding incest it turns out the if your penis is long enough to be inserted into your own anus and you do so then you have committed incest. This happens because you are a descendant of your grand parents and having any of them insert their penis into your anus is incest under law.

[StefanS]

Originally Posted by bloodbob

I found a silly quirk in my state law regarding incest it turns out the if your penis is long enough to be inserted into your own anus and you do so then you have committed incest. This happens because you are a descendant of your grand parents and having any of them insert their penis into your anus is incest under law.

You Australians sure do a lot of funny things

[Sage]

err... anyone with a penis long enough to stick it in their own arse please raise your hand

[bloodbob]

Originally Posted by Sage

err... anyone with a penis long enough to stick it in their own arse please raise your hand

Dunno I haven't tried may I ask if you have

[Sage]

Originally Posted by bloodbob

Dunno I haven't tried may I ask if you have

EEEEEEEEEEEEEK not what I wanted it to show... ill just put this instead....

[K.I.L.E.R]

Sage, don't steal bandwidth.

[zidane1strife]

deceased

That's actually an object... you might as well exclude sex toys... heheh

[StefanS]

Originally Posted by Sage

EEEEEEEEEEEEEK not what I wanted it to show... ill just put this instead....

do we find your pictures there as well? or your ex-girlfriend's?

[Bolloxoid]

Originally Posted by PatrickL

Really curious which western democraty legalized incest ???

Incest means sex between close relatives. The special case of incest involving an adult and a child is criminalised in just about any country via statutory rape legislation so there is no need to criminalise incest specifically. There are, of course, laws on marriage but that is a slightly different thing.

[Ty]

How is it that gay marriages are a larger risk to the welfare of society than say, divorce? I mean, just what is at risk here? That little timmy will see a male couple and become homosexual? FYI, I do NOT want to see guys kissing each other (/shiver) but I just don't understand how society is threatened. So those interested in the welfare of society are better off fighting against, poverty, unwed mothers, and divorce imo.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Ty

How is it that gay marriages are a larger risk to the welfare of society than say, divorce? I mean, just what is at risk here? That little timmy will see a male couple and become homosexual? FYI, I do NOT want to see guys kissing each other (/shiver) but I just don't understand how society is threatened. So those interested in the welfare of society are better off fighting against, poverty, unwed mothers, and divorce imo.

Because it's EVIL! Because it's BAD! Because the BIBLE SAYS SO!!!

Jeeze, it's a sin so it should be a law!

(Y'all do realize I'm being rather majorly sarcastic I hope)

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Ty

How is it that gay marriages are a larger risk to the welfare of society than say, divorce? I mean, just what is at risk here? That little timmy will see a male couple and become homosexual? FYI, I do NOT want to see guys kissing each other (/shiver) but I just don't understand how society is threatened. So those interested in the welfare of society are better off fighting against, poverty, unwed mothers, and divorce imo.

Becuase God said "and let not man lay with man or woman lay with woman" and thus it became a sin. And Satans will shall sweep through our society and taint our children, driving them further and further from Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour and ensuring their eternal Damnation. If we let Satan take this foothold then it will only open the gates for more sin and corruption. Our society will turn from Jesus Christ out Lord and Savior and become morally decadent and Satan will have his way with our children. To allow homosexuality is to invite Satan into our homes.

seriously... that's the problem as most who oppose it see it. I, on the otherhand, have already invited Satan into my home... and he's a hell of a f*ck

[epicstruggle]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Because it's EVIL! Because it's BAD! Because the BIBLE SAYS SO!!!

Jeeze, it's a sin so it should be a law!

(Y'all do realize I'm being rather majorly sarcastic I hope)

Why is polygamy and incest illegal? doesnt hurt either you or me if consenting adults do what they will in their own bedroom. Why is drug use by responsible adults illegal? Why is prostitution illegal?
IMO its societies job to place some boundaries on what is/isnt acceptable. This boundary shouldnt be static, so with changing times values should adjust. The question for me is it a good thing for gay marriages, and is it the right time for it. Im quite opposed to gay marriages, however I do favor civil unions for gays, polygamists, incestuast(sp?) partners, and even straight couples who dont believe in "marriage". If we are going to tear down one form of discrimination we should tear all the other walls down too.

later,
epic

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

The question for me is it a good thing for gay marriages, and is it the right time for it. Im quite opposed to gay marriages, however I do favor civil unions for gays, polygamists, incestuast(sp?) partners, and even straight couples who dont believe in "marriage". If we are going to tear down one form of discrimination we should tear all the other walls down too.

Why? A marriage is just a state of legal being, to deny it to someone based on their sexual preference is purely discrimination.

I think people are getting religious marriage and the legal state of marriage confused too much. The first I should have no say over, the latter I get to insist is only fair if it's for everyone.