adult.

It doesn't.

Have you heard anything from The Fool? It's really good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rvCDxiy6OM

They're probably into spanking.

All on vinyl within the past year: Architecture in Helsinki - Places Like This

Who's fighting for amorality?

I know Wikipedia can be wrong, but it's strange that such an error should be so egregious: (Link)Silly Wikipedia, don't you know the phrase "civil rights" was created in 1964 and was totally meaningless before then? Given your fourteen posts in the topic, I think that's fairly obvious.

No, for anyone. Apparently, if anyone wants to talk about civil rights, they need to be referring only to the parties mentioned in the Civil Rights Act, as if the Act defined what "civil rights" is. Was there no such thing as "civil rights" prior to the Act? To get pissy over someone else fighting for their rights and using the word "civil" is just silly, so a silly response is fitting.

So if the Civil Rights Act dictates what "civil rights" includes, were there no civil rights prior to the Act?

So it's arbitrary.

?I'm just wondering what your standard is for one to qualify as "obviously pretty messed up." Some people would say that homosexuals are "obviously pretty messed up," but I take it from your posts in another topic that you wouldn't agree. What is your standard? Are you saying we should keep our daughters chained in the back yard? /sIf a dog can demonstrate that it is informed, as well as giving discernible consent, then I see no problem with it.

Large enough? A dog can't communicate consent.

Just for clarity, is this "obvious" because she does things that you find repulsive?

In my opinion, it should be legal. I do find it distasteful, but this is a result of my upbringing no less than you've suggested one's inclination toward incest might be a result of their own upbringing.

I don't believe that this should be illegal, but I wouldn't say anything about social stigmas, as they're generally nothing more than a large group of people sharing the same belief (to which they have every right).

Of course not, but I'm also not suggesting that we should find any attempts to prevent it from being more fallacious laughable.

I'm not talking about all cases of suspected incest, I'm talking about all cases. And, of course, I'm being sarcastic. Incestuous child abuse does not necessarily lead to an incestuous relationship in adulthood, and incestuous relationships in adulthood are not necessarily the product of incestuous child abuse. Perhaps incestuous relationships in adulthood are more likely after incestuous child abuse, but we can't forget that correlation does not imply causation. To base law on assumed causation, then, is fallacious.

It's an unfortunate result, but if we're going to reject incest on these grounds, we should reject sex between people with genetic disorders as well. Of course, it's also possible that such activities go on prior to a child reaching adulthood, at which point they stop. Should the government not just go ahead and intrude in all cases, just to be sure?

The law has no business telling two informed and consenting adults that they can't have sex with each other.

I wonder if they're equally offended that religious freedoms are included in civil rights... Are you saying the opinion of those funding the military, the taxpayers, should be of no consequence?

Do the offended black people not realize that gay people have to deal with fear as well? Perhaps the name Matthew Shepard rings a bell. Or maybe you heard about the warrant-less (and unwarranted) raid of the Eagle in Atlanta within the past year or two? Yeah, gay people have it easy. The fact that gay people can now serve openly doesn't mean they're going to be talking about sex all the time; it means they don't have to hide a large portion of their lives. How do you think other soldiers would feel if they had to hide their marriage and couldn't even mention their significant other, for fe

I think that's a pretty tight argument. This is like a tax-exempt church endorsing a particular politician. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Right. So, at least in the part of Paulding I'm accustomed to, this is nothing special.

Don't headlights do that?

Of course, this treatment won't be an option for most, but it's promising nonetheless. Link