General Discussion

Notafraidtoo

(402 posts)

1. Not to mention the obvious

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 03:56 AM

Jul 2013

Animals do not have the ability to enter legal contracts and the Constitution does not cover them.

As far as plural marriage goes it does say one man and his wives plural in the bible so its weird how they have a issue with that on religious grounds. honestly as long as its equal i don't see a issue with it.

As far as incest goes the known harm it would cause to potential offspring is enough to keep it illegal forever. We can go one step farther a family member can inherit,make legal decisions on ones behalf, take care of children of deceased parents and visit the family member in the hospital with out having to get married..There for they are still equal under the law.

Republicans are stupid.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I feel a need to spell-out the rebuttals to the gay-marriage slippery slope arguments. [View all] Deep13 Jul 2013 OP

Not to mention the obvious Notafraidtoo Jul 2013 #1

True about the contracts. Deep13 Jul 2013 #2

If you want an argument against incest Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2013 #6

The test case for plural marriage customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #3

the idea of plural marriages involving both many men and many women intrigues me lunatica Jul 2013 #4

Perhaps. My concern would be that jealousies would tear it apart. Deep13 Jul 2013 #7

The 'rules' would be different lunatica Jul 2013 #17

The real issue of the slippery slope argument is that it's yet another way justiceischeap Jul 2013 #5

Where to draw the line for incest will always be judgement call. Deep13 Jul 2013 #8

You forgot one objection... Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2013 #9

I've been flirting with a cute pencil sharpener. Deep13 Jul 2013 #11

Ow. Just...you know. Ow. Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2013 #15

What of the argument that Churches will be eventually required to marry people they don't want to?nt el_bryanto Jul 2013 #10

They are not required to do it now. Deep13 Jul 2013 #12

You can choose not to - but if you want to be married in a Catholic or Baptist or Muslim ceremony el_bryanto Jul 2013 #13

Sorry, but the 1st Am. protects institutional bigotry if it is religious. Deep13 Jul 2013 #14

Here's the answer to that customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #16