Skip to comments.Gay Marriage And Incest Are Pretty Much The Same Thing, Right?
Posted on 10/01/2012 10:02:00 AM PDT by MNDude
For starters incest is, by most civilized people, considered a vile union between two relatives. Its not only frowned upon, but is illegal in most places. (I could totally make an Appalachia joke here, but I wont.)
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is far from vile. Its not even in the same category of incest no matter how hard you try to put it there. (This is where the far right jumps in to object.) Yes, it may be illegal in some places at the moment, but not for long. The likelihood of incest ever becoming legal or accepted by society is pretty low not just because its been ingrained in our heads that its wrong, but on an evolutionary scale, it doesnt make sense.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegloss.com ...
“...but on an evolutionary scale, it doesnt make sense.”
But homosexuallity does? This writer is EASILY refuted.
The Gloss —another liberal blog???
How about a French joke? or a Japan joke?
yep. for many reasons.
historically, homosexuality has NEVER been accepted.
(the liberals have rewritten Greek history.
but Plato, Socrates, and others, spoke strongly against it.
so clearly, it was never common or accepted.).
yet incest, has been historically accepted.
one example, the Pharohs.
and Muslims all over the world, commonly marry 1st cousins.
It IS a vile disgusting, unnatural act. Only to liberals is it considered somehow natural.
Or a Muslim joke. In Islam it is considered okay to marry your first cousin.
But the homosexual argument is always about fairness and the ability to marry the one a person loves. That argument does not invalidate the application toward related partners or multiple partners. In fact, there is no requirement of sexual activity. Marrying one’s relative is not incest unless one engages in a sex act with them.
If you toss aside that foundation and say, "Let's add something more" then it's not a tweak to an old institution. It's a complete destruction of the foundation of the institution. It's not a slippery slope; it's a cliff. Marriage between two men? Fine. 3 people, four people, animals, siblings, little children -- upon what grounds could anyone say any of that was somehow "wrong"? We threw away the foundation and now all bets are off.
1 man, 1 woman. Or else absolutely anything goes.
An incestiphobic lefty?
What about same-sex marriage between two brothers or two sisters? If same-sex marriage is considered okay, what’s the argument against incestuous same-sex marriage?
Homosexual practice however was ALWAYS considered vile and reprehensible, whereas incest wasn't always...and became that way--as genetic defects accumulated in families and tribes--making it a genetic disaster.
Before the Law of Moses, for example (from around 1400 BC) half-brother/sister marriage was practiced by godly Abraham and others, and in pagan cultures, (like Egypt) full incest was practiced (and later, in the Law of Moses, condemned). Of course Adam and Eve's children must of been incestuous--as there was no one else around--BUT, with their pure genetics, at that time it wouldn't of caused genetic problems--those took generations of time to accumulate.
Incest is wrong because of the close family affinity of the couple (eww)....and it is so risky of genetic damage to the offspring, and future generations....
Homosexuality is similarly wrong because of the close sexual affinity of the "couple" (ewww!) and it always results in NO offspring, no future......(the ultimate genetic damage...).
In short the sin of homosexuality is similar to the sin of incest...but, it is even worse.
So having sex with your sister, a male and female relationship between two consenting adults is vile, but dipping your penis in feces is just fine.
If either is fine , incest is the more natural act.
Like poster number 2 says there is nothing evolutionary about homosexuality. No woman ever got pregnant from spit.,and the male does not have a womb .
poor cuz was lucky if she had a choice in the matter
Any person whose reason is so askew, as to not see the correlation with homosexual acceptance, cannot be debated. Her approach to the issue is to present a straw-man shibboleth, and continue her argument as if braced on the shoulders of Atlas. Ergo, as sound as your argument is, it can never sink into the mental process of a liberal and take root. It is as if sowing seeds upon rock.
Chattel has no choice.
I think the author isn't a nail-in-poo type, her construction is more tongue-in-groove...
I’m not seeing any. In fact, if ssm goes through, I plan to “marry” each of my sons in order to transfer wealth upon our “divorce” to avoid any pesky inheritance issues.