[MNDude]

Anyone remember that liberal nut that wrote "I Hate my Therapist for Getting Pregnant?" Here's one of her new pieces of her wisdom.

[GoDuke]

“...but on an evolutionary scale, it doesn’t make sense.”

But homosexuallity does? This writer is EASILY refuted.

[brooklyn dave]

The Gloss —another liberal blog???

[GeronL]

(I could totally make an Appalachia joke here, but I won’t.)

How about a French joke? or a Japan joke?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is far from vile.

It IS a vile disgusting, unnatural act. Only to liberals is it considered somehow natural.

[Sgt_Schultze]

But the homosexual argument is always about fairness and the ability to marry the one a person loves. That argument does not invalidate the application toward related partners or multiple partners. In fact, there is no requirement of sexual activity. Marrying one’s relative is not incest unless one engages in a sex act with them.

[ClearCase_guy]

I see the whole thing as pretty binary. Marriage is either just between 1 man and 1 woman, or else it isn't. When we say 1 man and 1 woman, we reference many centuries of western civilization and we reference the Bible. This is the foundation upon which marriage has been defined for a long, long time.

If you toss aside that foundation and say, "Let's add something more" then it's not a tweak to an old institution. It's a complete destruction of the foundation of the institution. It's not a slippery slope; it's a cliff. Marriage between two men? Fine. 3 people, four people, animals, siblings, little children -- upon what grounds could anyone say any of that was somehow "wrong"? We threw away the foundation and now all bets are off.

1 man, 1 woman. Or else absolutely anything goes.

[TheDon]

An incestiphobic lefty?

[AnalogReigns]

Actually, probably the word's foremost expert on what the Bible, in its original Hebrew and Greek, says on homosexuality--shows how the Bible treats incest and homosexual practice very much alike. See: robgagnon.net

Homosexual practice however was ALWAYS considered vile and reprehensible, whereas incest wasn't always...and became that way--as genetic defects accumulated in families and tribes--making it a genetic disaster.

Before the Law of Moses, for example (from around 1400 BC) half-brother/sister marriage was practiced by godly Abraham and others, and in pagan cultures, (like Egypt) full incest was practiced (and later, in the Law of Moses, condemned). Of course Adam and Eve's children must of been incestuous--as there was no one else around--BUT, with their pure genetics, at that time it wouldn't of caused genetic problems--those took generations of time to accumulate.

Incest is wrong because of the close family affinity of the couple (eww)....and it is so risky of genetic damage to the offspring, and future generations....

Homosexuality is similarly wrong because of the close sexual affinity of the "couple" (ewww!) and it always results in NO offspring, no future......(the ultimate genetic damage...).

In short the sin of homosexuality is similar to the sin of incest...but, it is even worse.

[Bratch]

Hollywood disagrees.

At Toronto Film Fest, Nick Cassavetes on Incest: ‘Who Gives a Damn? Love Who You Want’

[Iron Munro]

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is far from vile.

Far from vile?

Yeah - It's far from vile alright. But on the other side.

Homosexualism and Homo "Marriage" are way, way over the line and well into the utterly putrefying, disgusting, mentally diseased side of vile.

[freekitty]

Incest by definition is incest between close relatives of a family. Inbreeding is between father daughter, son mother . Line breeding is Aunt nephew, Uncle niece, cousins. This can cause a lot of problems.

[driftdiver]

“(I could totally make an Appalachia joke here, but I won’t.)”

How about a black joke?