In article <dommanno-EE5D7D.10090307072003@no-spam>,
"D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote:
> 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.
This isn't a high school debate class. I don't have to prove an axiom.
Few people these days deny the right of gay couples the right to sleep
with whom they please, but I don't notice a big rush to defend
incestuous couples. Society realizes it's taboo, and no one, with the
exception of you, is willing to waste time and energy trying to prove
incest is just another "lifestyle choice."
> > 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.
_Now_ who doesn't have an argument?
> "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.
No I don't. And as I said before, those who don't agree are more than
welcome to go on record as disagreeing with me.
D.F. Manno wrote:
> 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.
Really now?
Give me an example of a law that is in place that restricts activity
that isn't ultimately based on someone's moral views and definitions of
right and wrong.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0