Going off of the forbidden fruit theory are we? lol

lol,, devils advocate,, applying all the 'rights' arguments,,,

I just realized I miss read what you said before. Who knows? Some people might think about boinking their siblings or cousins and don't do it because of legalities.

I recall reading something somewhere that talked about a girl when hanging out with her friends and one saying something rude, I think after that, she said she would rather have sex with her brother then this guy. It wasn't well received by anyone in the group as I recall. But the person who wrote this thing went on to talk about I think it was comfort levels and the closeness of siblings and other things like that. Maybe the person who wrote that had thoughts of doing it but didn't because of stigma a legality.

true, some people may 'think' about a lot of things and not do them because of societal reaction or other negative consequences

but people who 'cant help it' are going to do it regardless of the laws...


that's the problem

if we argue that laws don't change what people choose to do,, than we cant really argue the prpose of a law against homosexual OR incestuous relations,,,

but laws can be a deterrent, even if they aren't always,,,or even mostly,,,


if people are not going to run out and start sleeping with the same gender because we start de stigmatizing such behavior

how and why should we assume they will be more or less likely to start sleeping with their family members if we destigmatize it?


if we wish to avoid a mass inbreeding on the grounds of the weakening of the species,, why is it any more or less reasonable to want to avoid a msss same sex couplingon the grounds of it weakening the very NUMBERS of our species?

just about any argument used, pro or ocn , the LGBT agenda, can be extended to the agenda of the incestuous community

Since I don't really care what gay people I don't see a point in making that a legal issue. Incest is a different matter. Even if it is consensual and birth control is used there is always a chance that the birth control will fail. Everything has a failure rate. Then there is the idea that if the guy pulls out the girl can't get pregnant. But that's wrong because of pre-ejaculate. Something a lot of people don't learn about and probably should. My sister knew a girl in college who got pregnant and thought that it was because her BF came on her stomach and the semen went through her skin and got her pregnant. But chances are that was because of pre-ejaculate. If one of the two had known about that then maybe they wouldn't have been in the situation of having a kid before they were some what ready for it.

that's a lot of 'ifs' to regulate

we don't prevent any heteros from marrying, even IF they carry a higher risk of passing on some recessive genes

it would not be just to use such a justification for preventing family members from marrying


those that want to already are and there isn't a way to predict that many more who are thinking about it would do it ,, unless we aknowledge that law can be a deterrent to behavior

but that would void the argument of how peoples consentual sexual choices are foolish to legislate for the sake of deterrence,,,

which is why many of us who oppose and see social harm in same sex relations feel that it SHOULDNT be legalized through same sex marriage laws

Excellent point -- that destroys the "defective offspring" argument completely.

The somewhat similar argument against homosexuality "cannot produce offspring" is equally invalid unless heterosexuality that cannot produce offspring is also condemned. (Which might anger the entire "senior citizen" contingent).

Well to stop most of them we just need to stop giving them viagra and other ED pills. lol