pisspoor is a stupid, angry, miserable, insulting douchebag. Nothing will change that. Not his mistaken belief in God, not facts, nothing. In fact if there was a God, and he saw pspr at the gates, he would tell pisspoor to take a hike for being such a nasty raging stupid homophobic ignorant dogmatic fanatical lying douchebag.
You Brits sure seem to be an ignorant bunch. I don't have a problem. It seems that you and several other atheists visiting this site do though. I don't have to approve of anything you or any other queers do. Honestly, I don't. As a religious person, as I've said before, I believe what is said in God's words about queer activity. And, I'll believe him and keep my opinion in line with his until the day I die. You can't change that as much as you would like. As far as your ignorant question about "why is your opinion more valid than mine?" I've never questioned your opinion. It is YOU that are questioning my opinion. Martin, I honestly thought you were a smarter person than this discussion is showing you to be. No more.
Now, here is one ignorant, stupid, idiot. Futurecunt is about as stupid as they come. He must wear a pair of blinders around all day so he isn't subjected to some truth that he doesn't want to see and some earplugs so he doesn't have to hear any truth that might upset his wagon. FC you are soooooooo ignorant it is humorous to read you stupid posts. Keep it coming, moron.
As long as the adults are consenting, huh? Lets test that theory and see if you really are for it. Are you for marriage between a parent & their legal age child? How about if 2 brothers wanted to get married to each other? How about an old man and a mildly mentally handicapped young woman(who is just barely able to give her consent)? and if you are for all three of these types getting married(by some sick twisted reason) then are you also for forcing others to accept it as normal and as nothing wrong with it? And thats why pspr's opinion is more valid than yours. He see's the end game of this. You dont.
That's certainly part of the bucket of worms people like Martin conveniently over look about their outlook. It's shallow thinking that prevents them from seeing the problems beyond the religious consequences.
Well, seeing as how you're undoubtedly a smart person and I ain't, I am trying to get you to educate me... I am not looking for your approval. Your opinions, like I have said a number of times, are of no concern to me. And I am not questioning them. I am just trying to understand the following. You believe that your opinion of what constitutes and defines "marriage" is the one that all of society should adopt. Specifically, you don't want the term "marriage" to apply to same sex couples. Am I correct in that or am I missing smth here?
Then it seems we have nothing to talk about. If you can't answer any of the questions raised above, there is no point in my trying to answer any of your questions either, martin. Go back to your discussion with Maverick74. He seems to have more tolerance for your nonsense.
Well, let me make a general point first. My approach to these things is fully libertarian. I don't see why actions performed by capable adults which don't harm other persons should be subject to regulation by some big central agency, be it the Church or the State. I don't see how any "small government" conservative could possibly call themselves that if they want this "small government" to be in the business of regulating and enforcing some code of sexual behaviour. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement". As to your specific cases, no, I don't have a problem with the first two cases, as long as the people in question can make their decisions freely. There is an issue with incest, in that it can cause the offspring of a couple you describe, who obviously can't consent, to suffer and to need the State's care. So, in the first case, I would demand that the parents are sterile before they enter into such a union. As to the third case, the young woman in question is either capable of making her decisions freely or she isn't. If she is, I have no problem with it. If she isn't, I do. And no, I am not forcing anyone to accept the cases you've given as normal. All I am asking is for you to respect people's individual freedoms to make decisions, regardless of how misguided these decisions might be. You (and I, for that matter) might think that these things are not normal, but those are just opinions. The State shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from themselves or helping the Church do that. And no, this still doesn't tell me why my opinion is less valid than pspr's, 'cause I have no idea what endgame we're supposed to be seeing here.