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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Kentucky Republican claims that same-sex marriage will lead to parent-child marriage. Immediately secures coveted Woody Allen vote   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 173
    More: Asinine, Kentucky Republican, Mitch McConnell, child marriage, Republicans, Kentucky, opponents of same-sex marriage, parents, federal bench  
•       •       •

1706 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 7:56 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 07:58:20 PM
You know what? He might not be wrong. If two consenting adults want to get married, and we're arguing that ick factor isn't a reason to stop them, and that children are not in any way tied to marriage, what other reason do we have to stop incestuous marriages from taking place?

There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.
 
2014-02-20 07:59:16 PM
yeah, probably.

you'll get over it.
 
2014-02-20 08:00:50 PM

nmrsnr: You know what? He might not be wrong. If two consenting adults want to get married, and we're arguing that ick factor isn't a reason to stop them, and that children are not in any way tied to marriage, what other reason do we have to stop incestuous marriages from taking place?

There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.


Can a child sign a legal contract?
 
2014-02-20 08:01:10 PM
I blame the Greeks.
 
2014-02-20 08:01:38 PM
Doesn't this already happen in Kentucky?
 
2014-02-20 08:02:37 PM

Safari Ken: nmrsnr: You know what? He might not be wrong. If two consenting adults want to get married, and we're arguing that ick factor isn't a reason to stop them, and that children are not in any way tied to marriage, what other reason do we have to stop incestuous marriages from taking place?

There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.

Can a child sign a legal contract?


He means "child" in the sense of "offspring" rather than "minor"
 
2014-02-20 08:03:18 PM
Just point and laugh.
 
2014-02-20 08:03:29 PM
"at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repressions and things that come with it"

Huh? What 'repressions'?
 
2014-02-20 08:05:21 PM
Sounds about right to me. 40 year old living with her 70 year old mom? Let them enjoy the tax situation and other protections married folks do. Take Jesus and sex out of it and let the gov regulate it as a legal partnership.
 
2014-02-20 08:06:57 PM
Once my turtle accepts the ring I bought her, we're getting married too.
 
2014-02-20 08:10:27 PM
If it does happen, then we'll get to watch all the hetero parent-child couples complain about discrimination. Good times.
 
2014-02-20 08:10:48 PM
This is the guy the McConnell campaign is dubbing "Bailout Bevin"?  Ugh. How many more months do we have of this?
 
2014-02-20 08:13:28 PM

GardenWeasel: Doesn't this already happen in Kentucky?


I think thats more sister brother marriages. At the very least cousins.
 
2014-02-20 08:13:38 PM

nmrsnr: You know what? He might not be wrong. If two consenting adults want to get married, and we're arguing that ick factor isn't a reason to stop them, and that children are not in any way tied to marriage, what other reason do we have to stop incestuous marriages from taking place?

There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.


The "health reasons" thing is a red herring.  There are too many known fatal conditions that are genetic; blocking marriages on those grounds would be incredibly invasive, and isolating just the incest portion of the population would violate equal protection.

The real reason for blocking parent-offspring marriages is that there is no real way for the state to be assured that the natural power asymmetry between the two isn't being exploited in a coercive way.  Parental relationships involve uniquely powerful and multifaceted authority and care relations.  At bottom, the state interest in blocking these marriages is the same as why a mentally incapacitated person cannot sign a binding contract.  There is no (practicably manageable) way for them to give informed consent in a way that a reasonable person could accept.
 
2014-02-20 08:14:23 PM

Safari Ken: Can a child sign a legal contract?


No, but then again, they can't marry ANYBODY, because they are minors. I think we're only considering people of age of consent here.
 
2014-02-20 08:14:48 PM
I guess his mom must be pretty hot.
 
2014-02-20 08:15:07 PM
Meh, who even cares?  Factor out the tax/inheritance/visitation/etc. stuff and marriage as a legal institution has zero logical reason to exist.  Everyone's already free to bang whoever they want or have children out of wedlock.  If religions want to create a marriage-esque thing of their own for whatever reason then fine, but as far as the law is concerned any two (or more) people should be able to marry each other.

//and once science figures out how to talk to animals and they're given property rights etc., then we can talk about marrying dogs or cats or horses
 
2014-02-20 08:15:10 PM

Frozboz: This is the guy the McConnell campaign is dubbing "Bailout Bevin"?  Ugh. How many more months do we have of this?


I'm in his district. Right now my options are McConnell, the tea baggiest tea bagger in existence, and Grimes. I need to learn more about Grimes but so far I'm not impressed and it looks like a long shot she would beat either anyhow
 
2014-02-20 08:15:46 PM
www.focusst.org
 
2014-02-20 08:15:59 PM

logic523: nmrsnr: You know what? He might not be wrong. If two consenting adults want to get married, and we're arguing that ick factor isn't a reason to stop them, and that children are not in any way tied to marriage, what other reason do we have to stop incestuous marriages from taking place?

There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.

The "health reasons" thing is a red herring.  There are too many known fatal conditions that are genetic; blocking marriages on those grounds would be incredibly invasive, and isolating just the incest portion of the population would violate equal protection.

The real reason for blocking parent-offspring marriages is that there is no real way for the state to be assured that the natural power asymmetry between the two isn't being exploited in a coercive way.  Parental relationships involve uniquely powerful and multifaceted authority and care relations.  At bottom, the state interest in blocking these marriages is the same as why a mentally incapacitated person cannot sign a binding contract.  There is no (practicably manageable) way for them to give informed consent in a way that a reasonable person could accept.


Is that assuming that both parent and child are legal adults?
 
2014-02-20 08:17:47 PM

Summercat: Is that assuming that both parent and child are legal adults?


Yes. There's still an assumption of undue influence, so no one ever wants to marry their parent unless something is beyond farked up.
 
2014-02-20 08:18:09 PM
And the Teahadists win again by dropping a sulphurs fart in a crowded elevator and then running out to let the rest of us discuss it.
 
2014-02-20 08:20:05 PM

logic523: There are too many known fatal conditions that are genetic; blocking marriages on those grounds would be incredibly invasive, and isolating just the incest portion of the population would violate equal protection.


I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but for an average couple you'd have to have a state-mandated genetic test to determine if they're at risk, which is indeed invasive, whereas the mere fact of an incestuous marriage is suspect without having to do any testing. So there's a fairly clear distinction.

As for the undue pressure, there are already so many farked up power structure relationships, it'd be prejudicial to assume that incestuous marriages are any more coercive than normal people marriages.
 
2014-02-20 08:22:28 PM

DamnYankees: so no one ever wants to marry their parent unless something is beyond farked up.


Says you. I personally think it's super duper cringe-worthy and creepy, but I don't pretend to speak for all of humanity that non-farked up people might exist for whom the thought of marrying their parent/offspring doesn't set off screaming alarm bells.
 
2014-02-20 08:23:16 PM

NickelP: Frozboz: This is the guy the McConnell campaign is dubbing "Bailout Bevin"?  Ugh. How many more months do we have of this?

I'm in his district. Right now my options are McConnell, the tea baggiest tea bagger in existence, and Grimes. I need to learn more about Grimes but so far I'm not impressed and it looks like a long shot she would beat either anyhow


Yeah, you should blow it off. It's not like they're polling in a virtual dead heat or anything.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2014-kentucky-senate-mc co nnell-vs-grimes
 
2014-02-20 08:23:49 PM

DamnYankees: Summercat: Is that assuming that both parent and child are legal adults?

Yes. There's still an assumption of undue influence, so no one ever wants to marry their parent unless something is beyond farked up.


Unless you are de-facto forced to do so.

My maternal grandmother couldn't live on her own (legal blindness + infirmity due to not moving around enough due to said blindness), and as the youngest sister who was a single mother with a young child when her older two sisters broke free, she got stuck with it.

There was already than undue influence in that relationship, and while I loved my grandmother, she did push and abuse things. My mother didn't get free of her mother until she died, and we had a year or two until her eldest sister and her son had to move in with us.

I'm likely going to end up in the same situation as my mother, despite her growing horror of me being stuck like she was. My mother's health isn't too good, and she's working a management job at a dollar store (which isn't exactly light duty). There was a good period of time she was bedridden due to a spine injury (and then ignoring her blood pressure meds that led to a seizure)..

I don't even know where I'm going with this. Just depressed and venting I guess.

TL;DR: Sometimes you're stuck in a de-facto situation, might as well make it de-jure.
 
2014-02-20 08:24:31 PM
Forever Wrong.
 
2014-02-20 08:25:24 PM
Go Bevin go! I'm rootin' for ya!

/in the primaries
 
2014-02-20 08:26:38 PM
Far right Christians scare me,  seems they need laws to keep them from doing awful things.
 
2014-02-20 08:26:39 PM

nmrsnr: DamnYankees: so no one ever wants to marry their parent unless something is beyond farked up.

Says you. I personally think it's super duper cringe-worthy and creepy, but I don't pretend to speak for all of humanity that non-farked up people might exist for whom the thought of marrying their parent/offspring doesn't set off screaming alarm bells.


I don't disagree, but its not an issue of moral judgment, but of coercion. Slightly different thing.
 
2014-02-20 08:27:21 PM
Mama's boy
Daddy's little girl.
 
2014-02-20 08:28:52 PM

Summercat: I don't even know where I'm going with this. Just depressed and venting I guess.


This does indeed suck, and sorry to hear it, but we have other ways of documenting the dependent parent/child relationship. Dependent parents count for the purposes of tax deductions (I think), and there already are pre-existing rights for children vis-a-vis their parents. You don't need marriage in order to get visitation rights in hospitals, for example, or to be the default heir, since children already are.
 
2014-02-20 08:29:09 PM

wellreadneck: Mama's boy
Daddy's little girl.


0_o
 
2014-02-20 08:29:15 PM

Summercat: TL;DR: Sometimes you're stuck in a de-facto situation, might as well make it de-jure.


Why? What benefits would marriage confer in this situation that are superior to the existing parent-child relationship?
 
2014-02-20 08:30:08 PM

JerkStore: NickelP: Frozboz: This is the guy the McConnell campaign is dubbing "Bailout Bevin"?  Ugh. How many more months do we have of this?

I'm in his district. Right now my options are McConnell, the tea baggiest tea bagger in existence, and Grimes. I need to learn more about Grimes but so far I'm not impressed and it looks like a long shot she would beat either anyhow

Yeah, you should blow it off. It's not like they're polling in a virtual dead heat or anything.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2014-kentucky-senate-mc co nnell-vs-grimes


In my opinion that's a result of the repubs beating on each other. Its a vicious primary. Mitch has a shiat ton of money. When he gets to direct it all at grGrimes she will fall fast. Anyhow I won't blow it off and intend to vote for Grimes. That doesn't mean I have to be thrilled about the situation.
 
2014-02-20 08:31:21 PM

DarwiOdrade: Safari Ken: nmrsnr: You know what? He might not be wrong. If two consenting adults want to get married, and we're arguing that ick factor isn't a reason to stop them, and that children are not in any way tied to marriage, what other reason do we have to stop incestuous marriages from taking place?

There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.

Can a child sign a legal contract?

He means "child" in the sense of "offspring" rather than "minor"


If we can change the marriage laws we can change the contracting laws too.

Pennsylvania tried an 11 year old as an adult so get ready for the equal protection nonsense to come back to haunt you.
 
2014-02-20 08:31:34 PM

NickelP: In my opinion that's a result of the repubs beating on each other. Its a vicious primary. Mitch has a shiat ton of money. When he gets to direct it all at grGrimes she will fall fast. Anyhow I won't blow it off and intend to vote for Grimes. That doesn't mean I have to be thrilled about the situation.


While I also think this, there are reasons for optimism. Remember, Mitch McConnell is objectively disliked in his own state - he has terrible approval ratings (worse than Obama). Furthermore, Grimes is a serious candidate. She's likable, and she's already won statewide office. She has a shot. Right now I'd make her a 3-1 underdog or so.
 
2014-02-20 08:31:37 PM
Republicans shrieking "WHO GETS TO DECIDE?!  WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE!?!" remind me of those people in commercials who struggle to get food on a fork.  Or who get attacked by shiat falling out of cupboards and suddently their hands and arms don't work so fark CUPBOARDS.

You're being an idiot on purpose.
 
2014-02-20 08:31:45 PM

NickelP: I'm in his district. Right now my options are McConnell, the tea baggiest tea bagger in existence, and Grimes. I need to learn more about Grimes but so far I'm not impressed and it looks like a long shot she would beat either anyhow


Yeah good luck.  I work in Louisville (Indiana resident), get the Louisville TV ads about how terrible Bevin is and liberal (lol) Grimes is, and listen to comments from coworkers about how much they hate McConnell but will vote for him over "that woman".  Already sick of it.
 
2014-02-20 08:33:35 PM

Frozboz: NickelP: I'm in his district. Right now my options are McConnell, the tea baggiest tea bagger in existence, and Grimes. I need to learn more about Grimes but so far I'm not impressed and it looks like a long shot she would beat either anyhow

Yeah good luck.  I work in Louisville (Indiana resident), get the Louisville TV ads about how terrible Bevin is and liberal (lol) Grimes is, and listen to comments from coworkers about how much they hate McConnell but will vote for him over "that woman".  Already sick of it.


They're lying.
 
2014-02-20 08:36:10 PM

NickelP: Sounds about right to me. 40 year old living with her 70 year old mom? Let them enjoy the tax situation and other protections married folks do. Take Jesus and sex out of it and let the gov regulate it as a legal partnership.


That's pretty much what the conservative government in Alberta did after gay marriage was legalized up here. They turfed common law marriage (because the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples had to be treated equally under it, so they decided that they'd take it away from everyone rather than let the gays benefit from it) and replaced it with the Alberta Adult Interdependent Relationships Act.
 
2014-02-20 08:37:14 PM

cchris_39: If we can change the marriage laws we can change the contracting laws too.


You're right, we can. All laws are mutable. We can also change the laws to allow marriage to encompass people and inanimate objects, but we won't, because there are objective, rational reasons why this would be a bad idea. The same cannot be said for same sex marriages, and it's similarly difficult to oppose familial marriages amongst consenting adults of sound mind.
 
2014-02-20 08:37:55 PM
a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com

Well I suppose he would know a thing or two about parent-child marriage.
 
2014-02-20 08:38:58 PM

DamnYankees: Summercat: I don't even know where I'm going with this. Just depressed and venting I guess.

This does indeed suck, and sorry to hear it, but we have other ways of documenting the dependent parent/child relationship. Dependent parents count for the purposes of tax deductions (I think), and there already are pre-existing rights for children vis-a-vis their parents. You don't need marriage in order to get visitation rights in hospitals, for example, or to be the default heir, since children already are.


qorkfiend: Summercat: TL;DR: Sometimes you're stuck in a de-facto situation, might as well make it de-jure.

Why? What benefits would marriage confer in this situation that are superior to the existing parent-child relationship?


I'm in my late 20s, almost thirties. My mother had to care for her mother from the age of 18, and by herself between 1990 and 2005. At the ages of the children involved, there's no parent-child relationship benefits.

Please note I am not advocating for this. I am merely providing a CSB where such a thing might have a positive impact in an already existing situation. I don't really have an opinion aside from not liking to reject ideas I have never heard of before.

Once I've heard them and discard them, when they come up again with a twist, I just check the twist :v
 
2014-02-20 08:41:32 PM

cchris_39: DarwiOdrade: Safari Ken: nmrsnr: You know what? He might not be wrong. If two consenting adults want to get married, and we're arguing that ick factor isn't a reason to stop them, and that children are not in any way tied to marriage, what other reason do we have to stop incestuous marriages from taking place?

There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.

Can a child sign a legal contract?

He means "child" in the sense of "offspring" rather than "minor"

If we can change the marriage laws we can change the contracting laws too.

Pennsylvania tried an 11 year old as an adult so get ready for the equal protection nonsense to come back to haunt you.


I know it's out of fashion around these parts, but when I feel compelled to address something someone has posted I try to respond with all the seriousness and thought that the original poster put into his or her commentary. It just seems like the right thing to do, you know? So, applying that principle to what cchris_39 has written here, let me just say:

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2014-02-20 08:41:41 PM

nmrsnr: cchris_39: If we can change the marriage laws we can change the contracting laws too.

You're right, we can. All laws are mutable. We can also change the laws to allow marriage to encompass people and inanimate objects, but we won't, because there are objective, rational reasons why this would be a bad idea. The same cannot be said for same sex marriages, and it's similarly difficult to oppose familial marriages amongst consenting adults of sound mind.


What seems absurdly outlandish today will be mainstream tomorrow.
 
2014-02-20 08:43:15 PM

Frozboz: NickelP: I'm in his district. Right now my options are McConnell, the tea baggiest tea bagger in existence, and Grimes. I need to learn more about Grimes but so far I'm not impressed and it looks like a long shot she would beat either anyhow

Yeah good luck.  I work in Louisville (Indiana resident), get the Louisville TV ads about how terrible Bevin is and liberal (lol) Grimes is, and listen to comments from coworkers about how much they hate McConnell but will vote for him over "that woman".  Already sick of it.


Wish I could quote two people on mobile. Anyhow DamnYankees listen to this man.

There are a shiat ton of far right people who hate mMitch. When polled they may even say they would vote for anyone (even Grimes) over him because they want Bevin. When he isn't an option we will see what happens. I don't see them voting d. They might stay home I guess but who knows
 
2014-02-20 08:44:26 PM

NickelP: Wish I could quote two people on mobile. Anyhow DamnYankees listen to this man.


I do. Presumably attitudes like that are reflected in polls - I don't see any reason to not think so. After 2012, if we learned nothing else its to trust polling unless you have an amazingly good reason not to.
 
2014-02-20 08:45:57 PM

cchris_39: nmrsnr: cchris_39: If we can change the marriage laws we can change the contracting laws too.

You're right, we can. All laws are mutable. We can also change the laws to allow marriage to encompass people and inanimate objects, but we won't, because there are objective, rational reasons why this would be a bad idea. The same cannot be said for same sex marriages, and it's similarly difficult to oppose familial marriages amongst consenting adults of sound mind.

What seems absurdly outlandish today will be mainstream tomorrow.


That's true. Women can vote, and there's a Negro in the White House. Study it out, sheeple.
 
2014-02-20 08:46:23 PM

nmrsnr: There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.


Massively overstated health reasons.  Studies have been done and the chance of lets say brother-sister children having a birth defect is far less than if the mothers smokes.  Now when you start having multi-generation inbreeding, things start getting worse.  By multi-generation I mean bro-sis have a kids.  Their kids have kids with each other, cycle continues.

Now maybe this should be discouraged to an extent, but not by force of law.  It should only be frowned upon like a smoking mother is frowned upon.

Now people CAN have sex and get married without producing offspring anyhow.  There are numerous forms of birth control and otherwise abortion is a perfectly fine option.  Or they can choose to have a baby and that isn't that big of a deal.  Chances are very good that the child will be perfectly normal.

logic523: The real reason for blocking parent-offspring marriages is that there is no real way for the state to be assured that the natural power asymmetry between the two isn't being exploited in a coercive way. Parental relationships involve uniquely powerful and multifaceted authority and care relations. At bottom, the state interest in blocking these marriages is the same as why a mentally incapacitated person cannot sign a binding contract. There is no (practicably manageable) way for them to give informed consent in a way that a reasonable person could accept.


That power-imbalance argument is BS.  Maybe if the offspring is still a child.  Not when they are both adults.  As an adult who makes his own damn living, pays his own damn bills, etc - my parents don't have so much as 0.01% of an actual ounce of authority over me.  Hell they probably didn't really have much effective authority when I was a teenager - seeing as how I didn't exactly respect their wishes during those years.  Parents do not have any magical mind control over any other adults like you seem to think they do.

I have no interest in any of my family members - I don't even find any of them to be attractive.  So I don't actually have a horse in this race.  But I people having the basic freedom as adults to make these sort of decisions themselves.  I also think you have a very, very poor understanding of human relationships in all their forms.  Even if you think it is wrong, can you REALLY justify using force of law to deny other people who feel differently the right to make that choice themselves?

Leaving it illegal does exactly that.  It is no different than the struggle gay people are going through - a struggle I also support despite not being gay.  People like you might have once argued that gay people are mentally ill and so cannot make those choices.  Hell enough people STILL think gay people "must have been molested as a child" (thus their being gay is a result of mental trauma) and shiat like that.

Tellingthem: At the very least cousins.

Cousins getting together is considered normal (and sometimes promoted by parents) in Japan.  Although they do have the same stigma about bro-sis as we do.  I don't think their society has ever really been strongly anti-gay the way ours was (and to a smaller extent still is).  But it is a demonstration that "sexual morality" is not universal.  Our sexual morality is just more heavily influenced by Christian thinking, even as we otherwise shed our bronze age beliefs we do have some mental fallout that we seem to wish to retain.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report