In article <look-C305E5.03074007072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> > 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.
IOW, you don't have an argument.
> 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.
I asked you first.
"Sick and gross" is not a position, it's an emotional reaction. It's
not sufficient reason to make something illegal. You'll have to do
better than that.
> 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.
1) First you were talking about "legalized incest," then you changed
the subject to incestuous marriages. They're two different topics, and
you haven't made a case aginst either.
2) I haven't expressed my opinion on the subject yet. You know nothing
about my position, so you have no grounds to call it ridiculous.
--
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)
In article <look-8BBF72.22520711072003@no-spam>,
The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on the
> > subject. They lie.
>
> So _that's_ how you rationalize your support of infanticide.
See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
fetus is not an infant.
--
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)
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> In article <look-8BBF72.22520711072003@no-spam>,
> The Expatriate <look@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't believe _anything_ the anti-abortion nuts have to say on the
> > > subject. They lie.
> >
> > So _that's_ how you rationalize your support of infanticide.
>
> See, that the first lie. I don't support infanticide, because the
> fetus is not an infant.
> --
> 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)
So what is a fetus?? Jello with eyes?