Sorry Proxy, but once again, I already discredited your absurd comparisons at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11169#188821

Oh, but I can see that I didn’t address incest. Well, incest is wrong and incestuous couples have no claim to legitimacy for two reasons...

Firstly, any children incestuous couples bare would have health problems and therefore it is viewed as immoral.

Secondly, close family members have a responsibility to perform various roles in the lives of their fellow members whenever possible. For example, fathers need to be fathers for as long as they are alive, and cannot continue to perform that role if they enter into an intimate relationship with one of their children.

There goes Boaz’s vasectomy solution (designed to make the Bible look like a reliable moral authority) for incestuous couples... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11261#190041

<<Incestuous people and paedophiles are criminals, and both these deplorable acts have NOTHING to do with homosexuality>>
Just a few short years ago one could just as easily have said "homosexuals are criminals".
Would you have been one of the people then saying "homosexuals are criminals" or would you have been one of the people then saying homosexuality should be decriminalised?
Well, now we have you saying "incestuous" people are criminals and their supporters are arguing that they just want to love the person they love.
Does that make you an incestophobic bigot in the same way that you accuse people against homosexual "marriage" of being homophobic bigots?
So what is the difference again?
You can't have it both ways.
What is to stop the decriminalisation > pride > fundamental human right > marriage process being applied to incest?
How can homosexual activists demand the right for anyone to marry anyone when they then turn around and deny the same "fundamental human right" to others?

<<Incest (is a) deplorable act>>
Are homosexual relations between consenting adult relatives (say brothers) a deplorable act?
If so, on what basis in your shaky and inconsistent worldview?

<<incest is wrong and incestuous couples have no claim to legitimacy for two reasons...
Firstly, any children incestuous couples bare would have health problems and therefore it is viewed as immoral.>>

Two homosexual incestuous brothers could not possibly bear children so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have surrogate children then, according to your argument.

<<Secondly, close family members have a responsibility to perform various roles in the lives of their fellow members whenever possible. For example, fathers need to be fathers for as long as they are alive, and cannot continue to perform that role if they enter into an intimate relationship with one of their children.>>

Two homosexual incestuous sisters could not possibly bear each others children and do not have any parental role to perform toward each other so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have artificially created children, according to your reasoning.

Yes Proxy...

<<Two homosexual incestuous brothers could not possibly bear children so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have surrogate children then, according to your argument.>>

Which is why I included my second point.

<<Two homosexual incestuous sisters could not possibly bear each others children and do not have any parental role to perform toward each other so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have artificially created children, according to your reasoning.>>

But the sisters still have an obligation to be there for each other as sisters. The 'parental role' example was just that - an example. Hence the words: "For example".

Sorry ol’ son. It’s back to the drawing board for you.

Dearrrrr AJP...you DO read my stuff :)

Mate... you said:

"Secondly, close family members have a responsibility to perform various roles in the lives of their fellow members whenever possible."

And I feel like jumping up on your kitchen table with a HUGE sign which says "On WHAT authority?"

This is the whole problem with you progressives....you canonize your own subjective opinions.

SUS... poor ol fuddy duddy me :) Aaah yes..stuck in the late 50s... what a looooozer.

BUT WAIT. you also say:

//The thing is Al, society has been changing greatly every decade, and we can never stay the same.//

and NOW...I'm a gonna pounce on you like a leopard from a tree onto an Impala! Here is your error....the words "been changing"

No no no no NOOooooo... it has not been 'changing'...it has been CHANGED by specific pressure groups me dear... ie.. it was an 'active' process not just a haphazard passive thing. There was and is..an AGENDA..and it's called the 'progressive' agenda.. which began with the Fabians (1890) and Frankfurt school (30s)and particularly Marcuse (haven't you been keeping up ?) in 1965 here:

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

It's been a process of ongoing repression of former ideas and a tolerance of the new. Repression never sits well...now does it?

*That* is life.

So is this.. care to comment?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

No do keep up :) orrrrr...I'll pronounce judgement on you to watch Glenn Beck for a whole WEEK!

Yes AGiR,
They're quite incredible aren't they?

Two sisters are forbidden to be in a lesbian relationship because they need to be sisters to each other,
a proclamation of immutability by one who would otherwise change whatever he damn well pleases.

Nothing like being consistently inconsistent.

Yes, it's so important that we carry forward the unchangeable principle that sisters must be sisters to each other
whereas claiming that a child has a natural birthright to a mother and a father is homophobic hatred.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Immutable principles coming from moral relativists.

Priceless.