If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Portland Press Herald)   As we approach Election Day, opponents of the same-sex marriage referendum ask us, "If "fairness" is the standard by which marriage is to be judged, how fair is it, then,... that a parent could not marry his or her child?"   (pressherald.com) divider line 385
    More: Asinine, same-sex marriages, election days, universal suffrages  
•       •       •

2980 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 1:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



385 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-01 09:45:41 AM  
This is what opposition to same sex marriage actually is.
 
2012-10-01 09:48:04 AM  
This argument makes perfect sense. If we want equal rights for everyone, why can't I download a car if I choose? Exactly.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:27 AM  
Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:53 AM  
What a tool. Is the whole concept of minors not being allowed to engage in contracts, requiring instead for them to be consenting adults completely lost in this farkwad? 20 centuries? Given that most of that time multiple wives were taken in virtually every society and women were property isn't exactly related to the last 150 years of what we have as modern "traditional" marriage.
 
2012-10-01 10:10:15 AM  
IF THEY'LL MARRY EACH OTHER, THEY'LL MARRY WOODCHUCKS OMGWTFBBQ!!111!!!
 
2012-10-01 10:10:44 AM  

exick: Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.


why? It has no place in the argument; we still require the individuals entering marriage to be consenting adults. Preventing gay people from doing this isn't going to allow incest in any form.
 
2012-10-01 10:19:34 AM  

dr_blasto: exick: Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.

why? It has no place in the argument; we still require the individuals entering marriage to be consenting adults. Preventing gay people from doing this isn't going to allow incest in any form.


I assume the argument is that if we let any two consenting adults marry, how can we bar parents from marrying their children? It ignores any number of problems with this, namely that, you know, that isn't what it's about in the first place. It's just another set of derp from the out of date bigots grasping for any straw they can find to hide the real motivation.

It also raises the question of why exactly parent/child relationships are so much on people's minds, but that's another topic.
 
2012-10-01 10:22:28 AM  
I've never particularly understood the Judeo-Christian revulsion toward incest, anyway. From a fundamentalist viewpoint, all of earth's humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve. Maybe there wasn't any parent-child mingling going on back then, but there definitely was brother-sister. Unless God created a whole lot of dating partners after the first generation was born, which I don't believe he did. So brother-sister relations should be acceptable, at least. At least.
 
2012-10-01 10:22:29 AM  

GAT_00: dr_blasto: exick: Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.

why? It has no place in the argument; we still require the individuals entering marriage to be consenting adults. Preventing gay people from doing this isn't going to allow incest in any form.

I assume the argument is that if we let any two consenting adults marry, how can we bar parents from marrying their children? It ignores any number of problems with this, namely that, you know, that isn't what it's about in the first place. It's just another set of derp from the out of date bigots grasping for any straw they can find to hide the real motivation.

It also raises the question of why exactly parent/child relationships are so much on people's minds, but that's another topic.


They do seem to think about this much more often than what any sane person would consider healthy.
 
2012-10-01 10:26:05 AM  

dr_blasto: They do seem to think about this much more often than what any sane person would consider healthy.


You really do have to wonder about arguments like this. What mental connect is that? Allow gay people to get married? Why that will inevitably mean fathers will fark their daughters. I don't even understand how it's possible to do that.
 
2012-10-01 10:26:20 AM  

dr_blasto: exick: Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.

why? It has no place in the argument; we still require the individuals entering marriage to be consenting adults. Preventing gay people from doing this isn't going to allow incest in any form.


I'm not talking about parents marrying minor children. That's just as idiotic as any other argument against gay marriage. What I'm saying, is that the primary argument that stops incestuous marriages from taking place ("because it's icky") is the same one used for gay marriage. And as a person who supports gay marriage, there's no real cogent argument I can fathom that would allow me to say yes to two unrelated men getting married while saying no to two sisters who wanted to marry one another.
 
2012-10-01 10:27:33 AM  
Yeah, prevention of incest. I'm sure the real source of this opposition has nothing to do with the feeling of 'gay people are icky, and I hate them.'
 
2012-10-01 10:28:26 AM  

exick: Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.


If someone wants to create a group to promote incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, first cousin marriage or NAMBLA marriage, they're free to do so. Frankly, most of those are more traditional than the "two autonomous, loving people defining their relationship in their own terms" marriage that is commonplace now. But if you bring it up during a same-sex marriage debate, it just proves you don't have any secular arguments against it.

And the slippery slope argument works both ways: if we ban same-sex marriage now, what's to stop the government from banning opposite sex marriage in the future!?!?
 
2012-10-01 10:32:41 AM  
So is there scores of parent-child couples in loving, stable relationships out there who want to get married? ...No?
Yeah, they could legalize parent-child marriage tomorrow, and I probably still won't want to bone either of my parents. These idiots seem to think that laws are all that keep people from going farking mad and doing anything and everything.
 
2012-10-01 10:36:23 AM  
Parent/Child incest of adults can be argued against on the basis of the inherent power imbalance in the relationship in much the same way that teacher/student or therapist/patient relationships are frowned upon. That said if both parties are adults who cares?
 
2012-10-01 10:36:51 AM  
www.nuttermagnet.co.uk
 
2012-10-01 10:36:55 AM  

exick: dr_blasto: exick: Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.

why? It has no place in the argument; we still require the individuals entering marriage to be consenting adults. Preventing gay people from doing this isn't going to allow incest in any form.

I'm not talking about parents marrying minor children. That's just as idiotic as any other argument against gay marriage. What I'm saying, is that the primary argument that stops incestuous marriages from taking place ("because it's icky") is the same one used for gay marriage. And as a person who supports gay marriage, there's no real cogent argument I can fathom that would allow me to say yes to two unrelated men getting married while saying no to two sisters who wanted to marry one another.


I don't personally care who gets married. I have no investment in their relationship and, as such, no business dictating what's proper or not. I have seen arguments from weirdos asking what's to prevent some adult man from marrying a 12-year-old boy. Santorum and his famous comments about marrying animals track that same thought and neither is a valid argument, just like the sad claims that SSM is somehow going to ruin some straight person's marriage.

What are the odds of an adult marrying their parent? Seriously? Also, if a brother and sister wanna start farking, they're going to do it. Whether we let them marry or not isn't going to change that. West Virginia is still going to West Virginia.

In the end, if you (you, as in generic person, not directed at exick) really want traditional marriage, then get one. Be happy, cherish it or whatever.
 
2012-10-01 10:42:38 AM  
This is why incest is bad
4.bp.blogspot.com
This is not usually an issue in gay relationships
 
2012-10-01 10:46:25 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This is why incest is bad
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 392x400]
This is not usually an issue in gay relationships


If we as a society want to limit marriage to those who won't produce deformed/retarded children the population in Red States will be almost zero in 30 years.
 
2012-10-01 10:47:11 AM  

NuttierThanEver: MaudlinMutantMollusk: This is why incest is bad
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 392x400]
This is not usually an issue in gay relationships

If we as a society want to limit marriage to those who won't produce deformed/retarded children the population in Red States will be almost zero in 30 years.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
2012-10-01 10:47:55 AM  
It's not like we're doing a great job preventing it now: Relevant Fark Link
 
2012-10-01 10:50:32 AM  
the targaryans did marry brother and sisters for hundreds of years to keep lines pure.
 
2012-10-01 11:06:54 AM  
Yes. Strawmen and slippery slopes are great arguments to have on your side.
 
2012-10-01 11:47:37 AM  

kid_icarus: These idiots seem to think that laws are all that keep people from going farking mad and doing anything and everything.


This this thisitty this.

Also: fear of HPV is the only thing keeping their teenage daughters from going into heat like cats and being serviced by a pile of black men on the front lawn.
 
2012-10-01 11:48:57 AM  

Chariset: kid_icarus: These idiots seem to think that laws are all that keep people from going farking mad and doing anything and everything.

This this thisitty this.

Also: fear of HPV is the only thing keeping their teenage daughters from going into heat like cats and being serviced by a pile of black men on the front lawn.


Go on...
 
2012-10-01 11:59:53 AM  

Cythraul: Also: fear of HPV is the only thing keeping their teenage daughters from going into heat like cats and being serviced by a pile of black men on the front lawn.

Go on...


I wish I could find it, but one of the more verbally-gifted Farkers (I think maybe PocketNinja) wrote a whole story about a girl who received the HPV vaccine and instantly turned into a ravenous she-beast, leaving a trail of broken and spent men behind her.
 
2012-10-01 12:03:32 PM  

Chariset: Cythraul: Also: fear of HPV is the only thing keeping their teenage daughters from going into heat like cats and being serviced by a pile of black men on the front lawn.

Go on...

I wish I could find it, but one of the more verbally-gifted Farkers (I think maybe PocketNinja) wrote a whole story about a girl who received the HPV vaccine and instantly turned into a ravenous she-beast, leaving a trail of broken and spent men behind her.


That seems unlikely to have been written by anyone but PocketNinja.
 
2012-10-01 12:51:29 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I've never particularly understood the Judeo-Christian revulsion toward incest, anyway. From a fundamentalist viewpoint, all of earth's humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve. Maybe there wasn't any parent-child mingling going on back then, but there definitely was brother-sister. Unless God created a whole lot of dating partners after the first generation was born, which I don't believe he did. So brother-sister relations should be acceptable, at least. At least.


And the Noah reboot after the flood.

And for Mormons, Lehi's entire family populated the Americas.

Lots of bro on sis, cousin on cousin and so on action going on to (re)populate a continent or 7.
 
2012-10-01 12:58:38 PM  
If "tradition" is the standard by which marriage is to be judged, how traditional is it then that I can get married to a man of my own choosing even if I don't know him and my family doesn't approve, and then I can divorce him whenever the mood strikes me?
 
2012-10-01 01:06:47 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

I'm not raising any flipper grandkids.
 
2012-10-01 01:11:29 PM  
Reposted for relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
 
2012-10-01 01:13:43 PM  
Oh, sweet Jesus. You have lost. Same-sex marriage already very much exists in Western culture. It already exists in the US. It has existed now in Canada and the US during the same time that you are going on and on about how the divorce rate is going down for crying out loud!

It exists NOW. It exists in Canada, South Africa, Argentina, much of Europe, and in the US even in Iowa of all places.

This has not caused straight couples to get divorced. Do you find your marriage less satisfying because others are or are not getting married?

Admit it; you're a bigot. Quit trying to make excuses for your bigotry and either embrace the bigotry or try to learn to be a better person.
 
2012-10-01 01:22:47 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I've never particularly understood the Judeo-Christian revulsion toward incest, anyway. From a fundamentalist viewpoint, all of earth's humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve. Maybe there wasn't any parent-child mingling going on back then, but there definitely was brother-sister. Unless God created a whole lot of dating partners after the first generation was born, which I don't believe he did. So brother-sister relations should be acceptable, at least. At least.


Techinically, incestuous relationships were not barred until the introduction of the Holiness Code by Moses.
 
2012-10-01 01:24:32 PM  
Bigots: But don't you dare call us bigots!
 
2012-10-01 01:24:34 PM  
Because of physiological abuse, you idiots.
 
2012-10-01 01:24:47 PM  
But in His infinite compassion, Slaanesh only asks for your daughters. You would not deny me Her small enjoyments?
 
2012-10-01 01:24:51 PM  
They keep talking about traditional marriage, but every time I offer to trade them a three cows and a goat for their 13 year old daughter, suddenly it's all restraining orders and sex offender registries.
 
2012-10-01 01:25:27 PM  
When conservatives quote Orwell, are they aware that they are quoting a known socialist?
 
2012-10-01 01:25:37 PM  

dr_blasto: exick: Actually, the incest argument is the only one of the litany of retarded arguments against gay marriage that has any merit at all. It is a bit prickly, that one.

why? It has no place in the argument; we still require the individuals entering marriage to be consenting adults. Preventing gay people from doing this isn't going to allow incest in any form.


Right, but what about consenting adult siblings? What if they can demonstrate that they are incapable of reproducing, so you take the birth-defect argument out of the equation?

The argument doesn't hold a LOT of water for me, but it definitely has more legs than invoking bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia or rape.
 
2012-10-01 01:25:54 PM  
So basically, there is no objection to gay marriage. Just to incest. So why not just be opposed to incest? Get your arguments and organization ready now if you don't want incest legalized.
 
2012-10-01 01:26:17 PM  

WorldCitizen: Oh, sweet Jesus. You have lost. Same-sex marriage already very much exists in Western culture. It already exists in the US. It has existed now in Canada and the US during the same time that you are going on and on about how the divorce rate is going down for crying out loud!

It exists NOW. It exists in Canada, South Africa, Argentina, much of Europe, and in the US even in Iowa of all places.

This has not caused straight couples to get divorced. Do you find your marriage less satisfying because others are or are not getting married?

Admit it; you're a bigot. Quit trying to make excuses for your bigotry and either embrace the bigotry or try to learn to be a better person.


Opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions are entirely irrational and dishonest. The failure of their predictions of disastrous consequences following legalization of same-sex unions in certain locales and countries is of no consequence to them; they will continue to issue their failed predictions in an effort to prevent further expansion of liberty elsewhere.

In this respect, they are identical to individuals who oppose "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems.
 
2012-10-01 01:26:20 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
Unavailable for comment.
 
2012-10-01 01:26:38 PM  

t3knomanser: They keep talking about traditional marriage, but every time I offer to trade them a three cows and a goat for their 13 year old daughter, suddenly it's all restraining orders and sex offender registries.


have you tried just raping the daughter? if you do, by biblical law you have to marry her.
 
2012-10-01 01:26:55 PM  

FarkedOver: When conservatives quote Orwell, are they aware that they are quoting a known socialist?


They quote Rand and she hates religion, died on social aid she rallied against, and hated Reagan. It's more of a looking away from the things they did instead of admitting "Well I don't agree with them on THAT part."
 
2012-10-01 01:27:47 PM  
It's strange that the idea of fairness is so repugnant to conservatives.
 
2012-10-01 01:28:20 PM  
What banning incest marriages!?! Why are you against "traditional biblical marriage"?
 
2012-10-01 01:28:31 PM  

exick: What I'm saying, is that the primary argument that stops incestuous marriages from taking place ("because it's icky") is the same one used for gay marriage.




This is why. See that guy's jaw? That's what happens when your family tree contains closed geometric shapes.

I suppose same-sex siblings getting married would sidestep that issue, but, really, let's just stick with our existing no sister-farking rules.
 
2012-10-01 01:29:41 PM  

odinsposse: So basically, there is no objection to gay marriage. Just to incest. So why not just be opposed to incest? Get your arguments and organization ready now if you don't want incest legalized.


Because they are actually against gay marriage. They just like to pretend its for some more honorable reason.
 
2012-10-01 01:30:01 PM  

thurstonxhowell: See that guy's jaw?


no ;)
 
2012-10-01 01:30:49 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I've never particularly understood the Judeo-Christian revulsion toward incest, anyway. From a fundamentalist viewpoint, all of earth's humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve. Maybe there wasn't any parent-child mingling going on back then, but there definitely was brother-sister. Unless God created a whole lot of dating partners after the first generation was born, which I don't believe he did. So brother-sister relations should be acceptable, at least. At least.


My creationist friend tells me that incestual relationships were fine, indeed necessary, in... uh... the beginning. But as Eve's original sin destroyed the perfection of God's creation man's "fall" resulted in less genetic perfection as time went on and eventually God had to step in put a stop to all that incest stuff once our genetics deteriorated to the point that those types of relationships would result in mongoloids... some time around Leviticus.
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report