Anyone who thinks the Koran/Bible/Torah is actually the word of God can't be classified as totally sane, rational or reasonable, surely? Have you ever met a God botherer who seems totally level headed? Not bad people the vast majority but still not the full ticket. And certainly not able to think outside the religious box for fear of the same God.

Do you think differently, then?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

[I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.]

But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'.

- For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them.

- Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question:
'Who are you to deny someone's right to marriage on grounds (childbearing) which aren't a key facet of the union?'

- Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage.

- There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage.
- Also who is to say that a loving related couple couldn't make a sick child's life worthwhile and be good parents?
- Homosexual incestuous relationships are one form of marriage which wouldn't have that increased risk of deformity.

The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading.

[Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis]

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Glad you have clarified your original blanket statement "Live and let live. And for those who think otherwise ...". I should think the vast majority of those who disapprove of homosexuality, and those that disapprove of the intrusions into peoples' liberties, by the fruits of gay pressure groups, are also against "hateful bigotry" and "violent homophobia" and do not consider anyone sub-human. The later is usually the preserve of anti-Semites of the past and present.

Your position is wholly right in my opinion. But then again it's just my opinion.

We have the rightly to conscientiously object. The problem is that some, obviously not all people who disagree with us can be aggressive and belittle us as anti-progressive and against freedom.

It's a shame, but by familiarising ourselves with the form which arguments for gay marriage take we can help display that we're not small-minded bigots even though persons (on both sides actually) can be.

What I've discovered through research is that marriage law doesn't really involve the concept of love at all. It's a shame really, although probably a necessary one for legal purposes. There aren't really grounds for activists to use it as an argument point though.

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Maple thinks he's found sophisticated Welshmen.....Next it'll be Mermaids with STDs.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

We do allow close genetic union - Cousins or more distant are exempt from incest.

Big difference is a) consenting incest is really f**king rare b) the affect of homosexuality outside of the consenting adults is negligible to non-existant.

Complete straw man argument that has no bearing on the actual reality of the point its trying to make.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The Vatican will not allow gay marriage in its cloistered hallways. It seems they do polygamy there. The more senior the clergyman the more 'wives' he has.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

I see what you did there..... clever!

Hopefully this means that annoying little sh1t Graham Norton will piss off back to Oireland.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

No, it isn't a straw man argument at all.

The comment, 'consenting incest is really f**king rare' is pointless and also appears to be plucked out of your own prejudices...I mean how on earth would you know?

Besides it doesn't have any relation to the argument as obviously those cases where abuse is proven can simply not be allowed.....It isn't an argument against the legalising of incest marriage.

Until the 1967 homosexaulity was banned in Britain....The argument against it, outside of religion, was mainly the public's 'yuk' factor as what goes on between consenting adults isn't their business....'individual rights' won and even Thatcher voted to legalise. It was, I'm sure most of agree a good thing.

To my mind the main arguments against incest is that it obviously can cause internal family conflict...But it isn't for the state to tell people how to conduct their family life outside of sex with minors so in cases where people are beyond the age of consent the argument becomes a very old fashioned one.

Secondly As we have seen, getting married and producing children with higher risks of deformaties is allowed for couples with conditions so that argument can't be rationally used to stop incest marriage either.

No, it's just the 'yuk' factor and distaste and considering that this was the argument against homosexuality until reformers campaigned and won against it I can't see what valid argument exists against incest marriage.

The law exists for everyone and if we are going to have different strokes for different strokes then we should be consistent.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2015 11.10am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)