1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!
Guest1 Guest2 Guest3

Trump Budget Makes It Official: You're Paying For The Wall, Not Mexico. Another promise broken

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by incest fetish, Mar 18, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 2 of 2
  1. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    I would suggest that the only reasons that it is illegal are ignorance coupled with the blatant lack of intelligence!:)
     
    annab2, Apr 16, 2017
    #21
    allison17 likes this.
  2. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Comment of the day. The reason they made incest illegal was a FLAWED belief that one generation would make "mutants". That was proven to take multiple generations. And that only really was going to happen for sure if the father continued down for generations.

    Example. Father has daughter with non relative. He then has a daughter with his daughter. Then one with his grand daughter. That means that, in theory, the daughter has around 50% daddy. The grand, up to 75%, the great 87.5%. This allows recessive mutations to surface. Take same father out of the picture? It goes away mostly.

    The multiple spouse thing is totally "It is one man and one woman. Praise God! Amen!"
     
    buffyfan, Apr 16, 2017
    #22
    annab2, allison17 and villager like this.
  3. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    My family is living proof that incest is an acceptable way to engineer generations. We are from a long line of multigenerational incestuous ancestral relationships, My family are academics and have been for generations, My father held three Doctorates, his siblings were similarly endowed, we have survived as a familial grouping, prior to the French and Indian war, we are all fine of face, gracefully strong-limbed and bright of mind, we can hold our own in any arena. Our forefathers had the insight to recruit new family members, to "refresh the blood" incrementally each generation by choosing through a family ballot! Yes, we women have always had an equal say on who was recruited into our family. At one time in our history, we were known as "Lottites!" We have never believed in that doctrine, you espoused in your last quotation. Our beliefs in some respects are the same as yours, while in others, we beg to differ! We are always on the look-out to incorporate new family members, but they must pass muster first! Not many do!:) All votes have to be unanimous!
     
    annab2, Apr 16, 2017
    #23
    allison17 and villager like this.
  4. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    In my post I never said Conservative should have their way. I said the Liberals are trying to force people to do what they want and its the use of force which is causing the conflict. If the Liberals want to implement change they should propose it to the people and let them decide if they want it or not and if the people decide that they don't want it the Liberals should not resort to creating laws and regulations which deny the people the right to choose, they should not take claims to the courts to get legal judgment against the peoples right to choose just because people don't want to do what the Liberals want them to do. In other words the Liberals should listen to the will of the people.
     
    Neophyte, Apr 16, 2017
    #24
    annab2 and allison17 like this.
  5. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Right. I was pointing out the erroneous assumption that "one generation is enough" that created these laws.
     
    buffyfan, Apr 16, 2017
    #25
    allison17 likes this.
  6. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    So no detail on what they are pushing. Just "will of the people" vague.

    I will use Gay Marriage as an example. Forcing would be saying you have to marry someone of your sex. Forcing is not "I want it BANNED! And if it is legal you are forcing it on me!". Forcing can not be applied to a business unless they are a Church. Both Cake Baker cases were in areas where local or state legislature passed laws saying "You can not discriminate against Homosexual people". If law X exists in a place you have two choices. Follow the Constitution based path of Court challenge or move the business to a place with different laws. Or. And this seems like common sense to most I have ever brought it up to. Just make an EXCUSE. If they law says you can not discriminate against Homosexuals? And you quote Bible passage on why you dont have to? YOU put yourself in a situation to be sued. I support Kim Davis not issuing licenses personally. I do not support Kim Davis deciding that means her whole office will not because she disagrees. That is forcing her views on people who do not agree with her. Because once she was out of the equation? At least 1 person was willing to do it.
     
    buffyfan, Apr 16, 2017
    #26
    amiraj, annab2 and allison17 like this.
  7. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    It's like I've said before, "My values are dependent on the individual, not on how society classifies them." ;) Granted, there are times that people should look beyond past performance and do some concentrating on potential, but past performance has always been a good indicator of and for future progression/regression. So, it is solely on the shoulders for each individual's merits, that decisions are to be made. That is one of the reasons that I won't ever knowingly invite a thief or a liar into my home!o_O:)
     
    annab2, Apr 17, 2017
    #27
Page 2 of 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.