Explain your answer please.

I think a better question is this

Can you make a logical argument against two close homosexual relatives marrying....

No, against immoral and against conservative family values.

LOL!

Wut?

Albert Einstein married his cousin…. this however, led to his lesser known Theory of relativity.

It's actually a good question.

Is there any reason, other than moral values, why an adult male couldn't have sex with or marry his consenting adult sister?

Inbreeding...no, it leads to birth defects and deleterious traits caused by homozygosity.

bestiality not "beastiality" is illegal since animals cannot consent to sex.

what odd questions.

(12-17-2013 04:56 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It's actually a good question.

Is there any reason, other than moral values, why an adult male couldn't have sex with or marry his consenting adult sister?

Thank you. You picked up on EXACTLY where I was leading with this. "Two consenting adults" or a "consenting" animal.

No different than two fags.

(12-17-2013 04:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Inbreeding...no, it leads to birth defects and deleterious traits caused by homozygosity.

bestiality not "beastiality" is illegal since animals cannot consent to sex.

what odd questions.

Well shoot. I misspelled something for once. Anyways. Two consenting adults, a brother and sister, whats the problem? Animals can consent to sex.

(12-17-2013 04:56 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Albert Einstein married his cousin…. this however, led to his lesser known Theory of relativity.

PAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Now is as good of a time as any to post the real rationale behind what is perhaps the most famous homosexual related case in American history.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Yup, you read that right.

What the hell?

One could argue that using lambskin condoms is darn near necrophilic-zoophilia.

(12-17-2013 05:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Now is as good of a time as any to post the real rationale behind what is perhaps the most famous homosexual related case in American history.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Yup, you read that right.

What the hell?

So what do you think Kennedy supports here?

(12-17-2013 04:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Inbreeding...no, it leads to birth defects and deleterious traits

bestiality is illegal since animals cannot consent to sex.

I don't support either one.

(12-17-2013 05:18 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 04:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Inbreeding...no, it leads to birth defects and deleterious traits

bestiality is illegal since animals cannot consent to sex.

I don't understand. Why don't you support inbreeding? It's two consenting adults.

Animals cannot consent to sex with a human, so no. Inbreeding can affect an innocent person with birth defects and genetic diseases, so no. It is silly try to equate these with homosexual or polygamous relationships.

(12-17-2013 05:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Animals cannot consent to sex with a human, so no. Inbreeding can affect an innocent person with birth defects and genetic diseases, so no. It is silly try to equate these with homosexual or polygamous relationships.

It's the same f*cking thing, don't try to excuse the disgusting behavior of homosexualism. I'm throwing out the exact same excuse they throw out, yet yall think it's wrong for a brother/sister, and not for a boy/boy... Talk about f*cked in the head.

Ever hear the story of the dude that was trying to have sex with his mare? She was trying to get more out of him and backed into his wang, crushing him between her butt and the wall of the stable. He died. In brief, if the horse wasn't consenting, she would have kicked him or walked away.

Face it, homosexualism is no different than two related people or a man and animal.

The real excuse they use is "love."

If you "love" 'it' you should be allowed to F--- it.

(12-17-2013 05:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 05:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Animals cannot consent to sex with a human, so no. Inbreeding can affect an innocent person with birth defects and genetic diseases, so no. It is silly try to equate these with homosexual or polygamous relationships.

It's the same f*cking thing, don't try to excuse the disgusting behavior of homosexualism. I'm throwing out the exact same excuse they throw out, yet yall think it's wrong for a brother/sister, and not for a boy/boy... Talk about f*cked in the head.

Ever hear the story of the dude that was trying to have sex with his mare? She was trying to get more out of him and backed into his wang, crushing him between her butt and the wall of the stable. He died. In brief, if the horse wasn't consenting, she would have kicked him or walked away.

Face it, homosexualism is no different than two related people or a man and animal.

Actually if both brother and sister were sterile, I wouldn't have a problem with it. What two or twenty people do in their bedroom is none of my business as long as everyone says "yes" and can legally do so.

How is two dudes or two girls having sex the same as a person and a dog? That makes no logical sense.

As to your horse "backing into it" excuse, if a woman becomes aroused during a rape, does that equal consent?