In article <bbernardini-AF8266.16530606072003@no-spam>,
Brian Bernardini <bbernardini@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <look-BBCEFF.16145906072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > In article <dommanno-21136A.23182605072003@no-spam>,
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <look-7E3EFE.12061005072003@no-spam>,
> > > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Those responsible for overturning the sodomy laws are opening the door
> > > > to legalized incest.
> > >
> > > Let's say for argument's sake that that happens. As long as the
> > > participants are consenting adults, what's the problem?
> >
> > Do you really want me to explain "the problem" with a society that
> > allows marriage between siblings, or parent and child?
> >
> > Too bad your question wasn't published in a forum where a significant
> > number of people will actually read it. It shows your side's true
> > colors, and would have done much to silence this mindless, knee-jerk
> > criticism of Santorum.
>
> And here we see the basic problem with Republicans. They think anybody
> who disagrees is representative of an entire group of people.
Do *you* agree with him?
If so, your argument is both ironic and moot.
If not, then have the backbone to say so. That is, if dissention with
the liberal ranks is permitted. Liberals' failure to denounce such
scenarios as Manno's only proves that Santorum and I are right.
In article <dommanno-C9590A.17153106072003@no-spam>,
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> In article <look-BBCEFF.16145906072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Those responsible for overturning the sodomy laws are opening the door
> > > > to legalized incest.
> > >
> > > Let's say for argument's sake that that happens. As long as the
> > > participants are consenting adults, what's the problem?
> >
> > Do you really want me to explain "the problem" with a society that
> > allows marriage between siblings, or parent and child?
>
> Yes, I do. That's why I asked. I want to see if you have an argument
> that doesn't boil down to "God says it's wrong."
How about this: It's sick and gross.
If this isn't an adequate enough justification, then you and your
liberal pals are welcome to go on the record as disputing that position,
or rationalizing incest as a "personal choice" or some such garbage.
Go ahead. I dare you.
> > Too bad your question wasn't published in a forum where a significant
> > number of people will actually read it. It shows your side's true
> > colors, and would have done much to silence this mindless, knee-jerk
> > criticism of Santorum.
>
> I said "for argument's sake." That doesn't mean I endorse the idea.
That you ask "for argument's sake" what's wrong with sibling marriage is
blatantly ludicrious. That you could ask what's wrong with sibling
marriage, "for argument's sake" or no, isn't putting me on the spot.
It's making you and your position look ridiculous.
In article <beeglr$g4p$1@no-spam>,
Paul <send_it_to@no-spam> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > So you're saying it's wrong because people say it's wrong. You're
> > arguing in circles.
>
> You're argument is asinine. EVERY law, every legislative action we have
> on the books is based on someone's saying something is right or wrong.
Usually when you want to make something illegal, you give reasons for
doing so. Saying that something should be illegal because it's wrong
is a tautology.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)