Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?
Snit
fretwizz-2C1F9F...@netnews.comcast.net on 9/10/04 3:36 PM:
> In article <cht8de$k...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in article
>> 4141e337$0$214$7586...@news.frii.net on 9/10/04 10:24 AM:
>>
>>>>>> Can you give a reasoned, logical reason for them not to be able
to
>>>>>> marry? What is sick about me not wanting to push my views on
>>>>
>>>> others?
>>>>
>>>>> Health reasons, silly.
>>>>
>>>> Go on...
>>>
>>> http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1120897h.html
>>>
>>> The risk of gentic abnormalities and mental defects in any
offspring
>>> from a brother sister pairing is quite high.
>>
>> Not all relationships result in the production of children.
>>
>> For that matter, do you believe the only thing that keeps people out
of
>> incestuous relationships is the law? What type increase would you
>> expect if the law were to change?
>>
>>> Are you a product of an incestuous relationship, by any chance?
>>
>> No. You?
>>
>>>>> My you *are* ignorant, aren't you.
>>>>
>>>> Assume two people, say both in their 80's, who are brother and
>> sister,
>>>> decide to get married.
>>>
>>> Oh, so now you want to put age limits on it.
>>
>> In this example. I wanted to help you focus on the idea of incest
>> without the complication of offspring.
>>
>>> I'm not surprised. What other limits will you set? And why?
>>
>> I was setting limits to try to get you to focus. I failed.
>>
>> Are you willing to answer the question now:
>>
>> Assume two people, say both in their 80's, who are brother
>> and sister, decide to get married. Would you want the law
>> to prevent them?
>
> Technically, the 'law' doesn't prevent any two people from getting
> married in any manner in which they wish. The question is will the
> marriage be recognized by the state and various governing bodies
people
> generally seek entitlements from. One point I'd like to address...
I've
> noticed that you appear consistently confused as to what a right
is...
> as opposed to an entitlement or a revokable privilege. In a legal
sense,
> these things are very different and it behooves you to understand the
> differences so you don't do what you usually do with things that
involve
> law. Google around a bit an you will see that you have undoubtedly
> mistaken the word right for a revokable privilege. It's a pretty
common
> mistake and done by people like yourself every single day. You're
> welcome in advance for this education.
Steve, the context was legal marriage.
In any case, it is good to see your flame here is tamer than your norm.
Good troll... have a cookie.