isadore;1080786 wrote:Group marriage, let them
but I believe there should be limits on the ability of adults to marry minors, people mentally unable to give consent, and for incestous couples to marry. If I interfered with your life plans, sorry.

Con_Alma;1081863 wrote:There are limits in place. Only those who can enter a contract can marry. If you can enter a contract then the State should not be able to prevent you from being married.

mella;1082710 wrote:I don't think that many of us would argue that 2 women having sex is a bad thing, normal or not.

Thinthickbigred;1082723 wrote: Man on woman period .

isadore;1082618 wrote:The possible physical and mental harm to outspring, the abuse it will generate in family situations both argue for the incest restriction. As can be seen in the your own arguments there is a slippery slope leading to the end of protections for the underaged from abuse.
Con_Alma "The age of consent doesn't respect the clear differences in young people's development, and as such 'punishes' the fast developers in order to protect the slow developing."

Con_Alma;1082798 wrote:It doesn't matte. Only an adult can enter a contract. I don't want that changed.

All other adults, however, should not be denied this basic right. State sanctioning of marriages does that.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1082728 wrote:...Or woman on man:thumbup:

isadore;1082810 wrote:so you support incestous marriage no matter the harm to the off spring and the inherent threat of abuse within the family. And sex with "fast developing" children.

Con_Alma;1083325 wrote:I support the right of all adults who are able to enter into a contract being able to do so without permission of the State.

I don't know what "sex with sat developing children even means". I can't definitively state I agree with something I don't know what it means.

Children have nothing to do with being able to legally enter a contract.

isadore;1083361 wrote:are you dsylexic.

isadore;1083382 wrote:That is a natural question, not discrimination. If you walked into a wall and I asked if you were blind, it is not discrimination but a natural question. If I asked you a question four times and you did not answer, then I asked you using sign language if you were deaf, it would not be discrimination but a natural question.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1083394 wrote:So your saying it's okay to see a person that looks like the steryotypical gay and assume that he/she is gay and say that it is a natural question without knowing them? Gays were born this way, correct?

isadore;1083398 wrote:all the thinks I listed are handicaps, being blind, deaf or dyslexic are handicaps. Not being able to read a word, running into a wall, not hearing a question are possible signs of those handicaps.
a gay person is not handicappped although some bigots might consider him or her as not normal.

pnhasbeen;1083399 wrote:Then what exactly is the "natural question"?

pnhasbeen;1083399 wrote:Then what exactly is the "natural question"?

Bio-Hazzzzard;1083400 wrote:Izzy was being discriminating and is trying to cop out of it, his natural thing to do.

isadore;1083398 wrote: a gay person is not handicappped although some bigots might consider him or her as not normal.

isadore;1083401 wrote:natural question when you walk into a wall, are you blind, natural question when you read fast as ast, are you dsylexic, when you ask "then what exactly is the "natural question?" the natural question is are you an asshole?

Bio-Hazzzzard;1083405 wrote:So just because a person can't hear or see you wouldn't consider them as a normal person?

pnhasbeen;1083406 wrote:So a typo causes you to ask if someone is dyslexic? Who's the ****?

isadore;1083409 wrote:I would consider them to be auditorally or visually challenged.