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
 
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.
 
2014-02-20 08:46:47 PM

cchris_39: What seems absurdly outlandish today will be mainstream tomorrow.


www.visi.com
 
2014-02-20 08:47:17 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.


We already of plenty of laws against incest.  Those laws will apply to gay couples exactly like they do for straight couples.  Next question.
 
2014-02-20 08:49:42 PM
Bush made it kosher for Republicans to support horrifying lies. The 2012 race for the nomination turned lying into an industrial process. Now, anything goes. I think among the more cynical of the campaign aides that there's an informal competition to come up with the most ludicrous tack to take. Maybe there are bets and taunts as one day's horror becomes mundane the next. They're behaving like junkies.
 
2014-02-20 08:51:53 PM

nmrsnr: 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.


Yes, that goes to illustrate why I shouldn't try to understand things at the end of the work day. My mind skipped right over your "consenting adults" phrasing. Sorry about that. :-)
 
2014-02-20 08:53:14 PM
The fundamental thing these guys haven't understood is that "marriage" is a flexible concept, not a rigid definition

It has been many different things in different cultures and different times.

And if you're worried about gays marrying, wait until your kids start marrying robots
 
2014-02-20 08:56:56 PM
These people would like to have a word.
cdn.uproxx.com
 
2014-02-20 08:59:52 PM
We already have laws against incest. We already have laws against statutory rape. Minors can't sign marriage agreements (maybe if they're emancipated?).

That he is using his time and energy as a lawmaker to say this ignorant horseshiat makes him an affront to civil society. The fact this politician has a say in how laws are created is more evidence our government is a joke. Not that we needed more.
 
2014-02-20 09:02:24 PM

Rapmaster2000: Once my turtle accepts the ring I bought her, we're getting married too.


Approves:

i28.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-20 09:08:05 PM

DamnYankees: 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.


didn't Caine and santurum lead the republican primary polls at some point? Maybe I'm wrong but I think so. Its february. Maybe the polls are a totally accurate snapshot, but that doesn't mean the picture will be the same a long time from now when the election happens.
 
2014-02-20 09:15:44 PM

yakmans_dad: Bush made it kosher for Republicans to support horrifying lies. The 2012 race for the nomination turned lying into an industrial process. Now, anything goes. I think among the more cynical of the campaign aides that there's an informal competition to come up with the most ludicrous tack to take. Maybe there are bets and taunts as one day's horror becomes mundane the next. They're behaving like junkies.


This is a very Gonzo kind of post.
 
2014-02-20 09:18:41 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.


Make you wonder what you accept as normal was outlandish in ages past.
 
2014-02-20 09:24:47 PM
Genetic studies show that Kentucky babies and babies from that portion of Ohio known as Cincintucky are mostly inbred.

What do the studies mean when they say inbred. We are talking Fathers/Daughters and Brothers/Sisters inbred. Although West Virginia merely practices incest Ohio and Kentucky have perfected it.
 
2014-02-20 09:28:41 PM

NickelP: DamnYankees: 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.

didn't Caine and santurum lead the republican primary polls at some point? Maybe I'm wrong but I think so. Its february. Maybe the polls are a totally accurate snapshot, but that doesn't mean the picture will be the same a long time from now when the election happens.


True enough. But to be fair to Grimes, she's already won a statewide election, Democrats routinely do well in KY (look at Beshear), and Grimes seems to be normal and reasonable, not a nut job like Santorum.

Is Grimes likely to win? No, but she has a shot, and if liberals give up on her preemptively without good cause, that shot will go away quick. We should give it a shot.
 
2014-02-20 09:29:29 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 figure by the time you are farked up enough to want an incestuous relationship it's basically too late.
 
2014-02-20 09:31:59 PM
"If it's all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage - because 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 - so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise," Bevin said. "Where do you draw the line?"

This guy is full of shiat. COmpletely and utterly full of shiat. ANd he either knows it, or he's a complete retard. Same with everyone playing "Devil's Advocate" on this one. No line needs to be dran, no kids need to marry their parents, you know why? Because we already have inheritance laws that allow you to will stuff to your children. The reason that gay people have to fight for marriage is because families have successfully contested wills, and they have successfully blocked same sex partners from being able to visit their S.O.'s in the hospital. Hospitals have pulled this shiat as well, stating that they are not "immediate family", so they can not visit these people.

"Civil Union" laws have not been strong enough to fight this, and as a result, only marriage will work. Marriage or ALREADY BEING RELATED. Children can already inherit estates, they can already visit their parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles aunts, etc. in the hospital, so there would be no need for the farking "line" to be drawn, because this is a bullshiat "issue" that doesn't farking exist.

I thought we all covered this shiat already anyway?
 
2014-02-20 09:34:18 PM

cchris_39: What seems absurdly outlandish today will be mainstream tomorrow.


www.washingtonpost.com
 
2014-02-20 09:37:09 PM

Mikey1969: I thought we all covered this shiat already anyway?


Oh, you think we are all cat owners now?
 
2014-02-20 09:40:24 PM
He just wants to turn those creepy daddy daughter dances (purity balls?) into daddy daughter weddings, doesn't he?
 
2014-02-20 09:50:57 PM

Delay: Mikey1969: I thought we all covered this shiat already anyway?

Oh, you think we are all cat owners now?


Hey, I didn't say anything about litter, now did I?
 
2014-02-20 09:52:38 PM

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?


reminds me of michael irons' comment about gay marriage; can't he marry his son to avoid inheritance/estate taxes?

if they change the inheritance/estate taxes to apply to parent/child marriages, can't that be challenged in court as a form of discrimination?

/ugh, can't believe this is even being discussed.
 
2014-02-20 09:53:39 PM
so I woke up in 2014 and there were same gender marriages in some states and WTF is a normal person in Kentucky supposed to think.
 
2014-02-20 09:55:48 PM

nijika: 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.


Can we lock them in the basement as soon as they get out?  Cause if so I wouldn't necessarily call it a win-win, but I would be more inclined to look on the bright side of things, and elevators do have improved ventilation these days.
 
2014-02-20 09:58:04 PM

Kevin72: so I woke up in 2014 and there were same gender marriages in some states and WTF is a normal person in Kentucky supposed to think.


Same as always for "normal" in Kentucky. "Damn, my 14 year old sister Becky looks really hot."
 
2014-02-20 10:04:14 PM

Smackledorfer: 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 figure by the time you are farked up enough to want an incestuous relationship it's basically too late.


fc04.deviantart.net
 
2014-02-20 10:12:53 PM

cchris_39: so get ready for the equal protection nonsense to come back to haunt you.


You're not helping your cause.
 
2014-02-20 10:14:09 PM

DamnYankees: "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'?


Are you trying to cast aspersions on his asparagus?
 
2014-02-20 10:16:15 PM

nijika: 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.


Huh? Why would anyone run out of an elevator filled with the delicious smell of his own farts?

Anthow, if anyone ever complains they just say the black guy did it.
 
2014-02-20 10:16:36 PM

Safari Ken: Can a child sign a legal contract?


We're all someone's child.
 
2014-02-20 10:19:55 PM
You can't marry anyone you are now, or were ever considered the legal guardian thereof. Problem solved.
 
2014-02-20 10:24:40 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.


No. That would be a way to avoid estate taxes, creating a wealthy aristocracy who can pass their fortunes down, tax-free, to their spoiled children.
 
2014-02-20 10:24:52 PM

bk3k: 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'm guessing the concern is that a parent may become attracted to their child before the child reaches the age of consent and use undo influence throughout the child's life to convince the child to start a relationship after the child becomes an adult.  I think that's a valid concern, but that's just my two cents.
 
2014-02-20 10:27:12 PM
Fun fact: Kentucky's state seal used to have two men embracing on it...
www.uky.edu
 
2014-02-20 10:28:56 PM

rubi_con_man: Safari Ken: Can a child sign a legal contract?

We're all someone's child.


What about Jesus? Did he have just one patent? Could he have gay married Joseph, of would that have been icky?
 
2014-02-20 10:31:40 PM

Mikey1969: "If it's all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage - because 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 - so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise," Bevin said. "Where do you draw the line?"

This guy is full of shiat. COmpletely and utterly full of shiat. ANd he either knows it, or he's a complete retard. Same with everyone playing "Devil's Advocate" on this one. No line needs to be dran, no kids need to marry their parents, you know why? Because we already have inheritance laws that allow you to will stuff to your children. The reason that gay people have to fight for marriage is because families have successfully contested wills, and they have successfully blocked same sex partners from being able to visit their S.O.'s in the hospital. Hospitals have pulled this shiat as well, stating that they are not "immediate family", so they can not visit these people.


As much as I hate to defend this guy - and anyone who has seen me in any other gay marriage thread would know that I am absolutely in favor of equal rights - he's not completely wrong. He is not suggesting incest as a natural result of legalizing same sex marriage; rather, he's suggesting line marriages between parents and children, a la Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: a legal maneuver in which property can be passed down, probate and tax free, from generation to generation, accumulating wealth dramatically... provided you start out with enough capital. It's a way to create an aristocracy, just as it was in England in, oh, every century until half way through the last one.

So, yes, there is a line that needs to be drawn - you can't extend marriage to people that already have consanguineous relationships and next of kin rights.

But that's not about gay marriage - that's about  any marriage: you also can't marry your opposite-sex child, sibling, or cousin, for the same reason. His slippery slope is still a fallacy, and does not relate to gay marriage in any way.
 
2014-02-20 10:36:10 PM

The Larch: What about Jesus? Did he have just one patent?


The rest were invalidated on the basis of prior art.
 
2014-02-20 10:40:19 PM

INeedAName: You can't marry anyone you are now, or were ever considered the legal guardian thereof. Problem solved.


Why not?

Theaetetus: a legal maneuver in which property can be passed down, probate and tax free, from generation to generation, accumulating wealth dramatically... provided you start out with enough capital. It's a way to create an aristocracy, just as it was in England in, oh, every century until half way through the last one.


There are several solutions to that sort of problem other than barring familial marriage. For instance, lowering the estate tax, but enforcing it on any death (of an estate above a certain value), without tax-free transfer to anyone. Or, you could establish a rule that any widow or widower couldn't remarry a family member.

It's a somewhat legitimate issue, but if we really wanted to allow any two consenting people to marry, not an insurmountable one.
 
2014-02-20 10:53:02 PM

nmrsnr: cchris_39: What seems absurdly outlandish today will be mainstream tomorrow.

[www.visi.com image 500x75]


if you're going to mislabel something as a fallacy you probably shouldn't use an image macro that has the definition of the fallacy showing you to be wrong on it.
 
2014-02-20 10:53:57 PM
Didn't Republican wonderboy Ted Nugent adopt a girl so he could have sex with her? Pretty much the same thing.
 
2014-02-20 11:01:14 PM

Ned Stark: if you're going to mislabel something as a fallacy you probably shouldn't use an image macro that has the definition of the fallacy showing you to be wrong on it.


How was it wrong? He was suggesting that since we can change marriage laws to allow adult offspring to marry their parents then it could lead to adult parents marrying their minor children.

This is a slippery slope argument.
 
2014-02-20 11:13:16 PM
Marriage is about creating a family, even if it's just a family of two. Parents and children are already family. There is almost no benefit or purpose for parents to marry children other than to attempt to exploit loopholes in the law that would become open.

And guess what? That's just the same shiat people have been saying about the possibilities of straight same-sex roommates getting married, terrorists getting married, and other silly abuses that straight men and women have been able to supposedly exploit and take advantage of since forever.

But we don't have rampant and problematic sham heterosexual marriages popping up all over just because the possibility exists, do we?

This is just handwringing bullshiat backing bigotry, thinly disguised as concern for law and order.

Stop buying it.
 
2014-02-20 11:14:49 PM

nmrsnr: Ned Stark: if you're going to mislabel something as a fallacy you probably shouldn't use an image macro that has the definition of the fallacy showing you to be wrong on it.

How was it wrong? He was suggesting that since we can change marriage laws to allow adult offspring to marry their parents then it could lead to adult parents marrying their minor children.

This is a slippery slope argument.


then you probably should have called that out then, instead of "What seems absurdly outlandish today will be mainstream tomorrow." which is just a statement of fact.
 
2014-02-20 11:20:46 PM
FTFA: Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Matt Bevin suggested that legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to legalizing marriage between a parent and child.

I thought they already had parent child marriages in Kentucky. "Junior, it in here and tell yer cousin-ma and uncle-pa good night."
 
2014-02-20 11:29:30 PM

nmrsnr: There are several solutions to that sort of problem other than barring familial marriage. For instance, lowering the estate tax, but enforcing it on any death (of an estate above a certain value), without tax-free transfer to anyone.


That would be unfair to couples who have worked together to build a life together. Taxing people when a spouse dies is pretty mean in general, too.

Or, you could establish a rule that any widow or widower couldn't remarry a family member.

That would be relatively arbitrary, if you were allowing any other family members to get married. Since marriage is a fundamental right, and that solution isn't narrowly tailored to avoid familial inheritance, you'd probably lose on both due process and equal protection grounds.

It's a somewhat legitimate issue, but if we really wanted to allow any two consenting people to marry, not an insurmountable one.

There's no reason to allow family members to marry - they already are next of kin to each other and in the intestate succession line. Marriage is a tool for choosing someone who is not a blood relation to be your next of kin and trump all other next of kin: it's how you can actually pick your family. There's no need if you're only picking your existing family.
 
2014-02-20 11:37:22 PM
Well then according to his logic inter-racial marriage did that. So he is arguing that we let states ban that too.
 
2014-02-20 11:39:31 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.


Is that not obvious? There is no genetic implication to same sex marriage...

case closed.
 
2014-02-20 11:41:57 PM

Theaetetus: you'd probably lose on both due process and equal protection grounds.


Unsurprising that the first two solutions off the top of my head are not amazingly well thought out, but the point is there are work arounds.

Theaetetus: There's no reason to allow family members to marry


Because marriage is more than just about legal rights. Hasn't that been the argument against "civil unions" that were legally identical to marriage?

/don't know why I'm arguing this hard for incest, there will never be a large enough contingent of people who want this to actually codify it into law.
 
2014-02-20 11:43:19 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.


There was a thread recently with a 'famous' model posing creepily with her sons...can't remember her name though
 
2014-02-20 11:44:32 PM

sobriquet by any other name: There are health reasons for not allowing children from those marriages, but no real reason to stop the marriage itself.


Is that not obvious? There is no genetic implication to same sex marriage...


I see you sort of covered that in the last sentence, but one thing i think EVERYONE agrees on, is that marriage includes sex.

Is there such a thing as a marriage without intimacy? Yes, in the olden day, but if we're talking tax credits, i want to see some basic human needs like love and community be supported, that's what we're paying for by giving the credit in the first place.

there's not much stable about an incestual relationship and damage is nearly certain to follow. It does beg the question of what if two male family members wanted to marry (ugh..), but even then i'm pretty sure the definition of child should supersede partner under the law, and it does. no problem.
 
2014-02-20 11:44:57 PM
Clearly this guy has something on his mind.

mattbevin.com
 
2014-02-20 11:51:18 PM

Brainsick: There was a thread recently with a 'famous' model posing creepily with her sons...can't remember her name though


Stephanie Seymour:

www.fashiongonerogue.com
 
2014-02-20 11:52:21 PM
You lost. Shut up.
 
2014-02-20 11:53:16 PM

Brainsick: There was a thread recently with a 'famous' model posing creepily with her sons...can't remember her name though


Was it Stephanie Seymour?

www.papparasi.com
 
2014-02-20 11:53:33 PM

nmrsnr: Because marriage is more than just about legal rights. Hasn't that been the argument against "civil unions" that were legally identical to marriage?


To the contrary, the argument against civil unions is that they fail to provide the same legal rights as marriage. The truth is precisely the opposite of what you've said.
 
2014-02-20 11:55:01 PM

DamnYankees: Brainsick: There was a thread recently with a 'famous' model posing creepily with her sons...can't remember her name though

Stephanie Seymour:

[www.fashiongonerogue.com image 800x970]


That picture never fails to give me the heebie-jeebies. I think it's mostly the one son trying to look away from her affections while the other is going, "Gimme a piece of dat ass."

That makes the Cyrus Father/Daughter picture look tame in comparison.
 
2014-02-20 11:56:27 PM

nmrsnr: Because marriage is more than just about legal rights. Hasn't that been the argument against "civil unions" that were legally identical to marriage?


Yes and no... The regions civil unions are inferior is because of the separate-but-equal problem: by segregating a group into a separate institution and not allowing them access to the institution provided to the majority, you are inherently discriminating against them, even if the institutions are in all respects equal.

That has nothing to do with whether family members would gain something more from being married, though.
 
2014-02-20 11:56:36 PM

Weatherkiss: That picture never fails to give me the heebie-jeebies. I think it's mostly the one son trying to look away from her affections while the other is going, "Gimme a piece of dat ass."


The one on the right is actually gay, I think. Not that that helps a whole lot.
 
2014-02-20 11:57:11 PM

Ned Stark: then you probably should have called that out then, instead of "What seems absurdly outlandish today will be mainstream tomorrow." which is just a statement of fact.


Unless you have possession of President Obama's Magical Time Machine and have visited the future, it is not a statement of fact. Simply because a particular idea is prominent or even dominant at some point does not guarantee it was either prominent in the past or will be prominent in the future. People used to hold seances in the White House because Spiritualism was a big thing back in the mid-19th century. They don't anymore. Unless you have some proposed independent connection (besides the natural passage of time) it is indeed a fallacy,
 
2014-02-20 11:57:16 PM

BMulligan: nmrsnr: Because marriage is more than just about legal rights. Hasn't that been the argument against "civil unions" that were legally identical to marriage?

To the contrary, the argument against civil unions is that they fail to provide the same legal rights as marriage. The truth is precisely the opposite of what you've said.


Nope, even if they were 100% equal to marriage, at all levels, from state to federal, they would still be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. See Sweatt v. Painter.
 
2014-02-20 11:58:09 PM

DamnYankees: Weatherkiss: That picture never fails to give me the heebie-jeebies. I think it's mostly the one son trying to look away from her affections while the other is going, "Gimme a piece of dat ass."

The one on the right is actually gay, I think. Not that that helps a whole lot.


I think I saw that movie with Anthony Perkins in it.
 
2014-02-21 12:02:07 AM

sobriquet by any other name: Is that not obvious? There is no genetic implication to same sex marriage...

sobriquet by any other name: I see you sort of covered that in the last sentence, but one thing i think EVERYONE agrees on, is that marriage includes sex.


Consummation has not been a requirement in any jurisdiction for years. For example, troops overseas are allowed to marry spouses who are back home; and convicts in solitary confinement are allowed to marry their spouses.

Furthermore, by explicitly tying marriage and sex, you're falling towards the anti-same sex marriage people's trap of tying marriage and  procreation.
No, sex and procreation can occur outside of marriage, and marriage can certainly occur without procreation, or even sex. They are frequently correlated, but are separate.
 
2014-02-21 12:10:45 AM
I won't claim to know what the future of marriage laws will or won't be, but he's right about one thing:

Gay marriage was largely advanced on the basis that, "Two people who love each other shouldn't be able to get married because ick" wasn't a valid enough argument.

If we're to be consistent and honest with ourselves, there really isn't any better reason to deny incestuous marriage between consenting adults. The arguments against it based on "genetic deficiency of offspring" or "coercion" are pretty clearly grasping at straws, to disguise the fact that the real reason for the ban is "ick".
 
2014-02-21 12:13:02 AM

Theaetetus: BMulligan: nmrsnr: Because marriage is more than just about legal rights. Hasn't that been the argument against "civil unions" that were legally identical to marriage?

To the contrary, the argument against civil unions is that they fail to provide the same legal rights as marriage. The truth is precisely the opposite of what you've said.

Nope, even if they were 100% equal to marriage, at all levels, from state to federal, they would still be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. See Sweatt v. Painter.


I think you've misread that case. The Court found that the law schools weren't equal, that the school open to the plaintiff was in fact substantially inferior to the UT School of Law. The Court went on to hold that "petitioner may claim his full constitutional right: legal education equivalent to that offered by the State to students of other races." The key word there is "equivalent." If civil unions were in every way identical to marriage in all respects but name, equal protection would be satisfied. But of course, the bigots would never allow such a thing because they don't care about the name any more than the courts do; like the courts, the bigots are focused on rights - specifically, in the case of the bigots, how to deny them.
 
2014-02-21 12:24:29 AM

NickelP: 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.


That's a good point.  I'm a Lexington liberal, and thought about donating to Grimes until I went to her campaign site and read a bit.  I know, she has to do what she has to do to win, but there's an awful lot we disagree on.  I'll vote for her, though, cause issue-wise she's way closer to me than anyone else that's running, unless Ashley changes her mind and joins the fray
 
2014-02-21 12:27:36 AM

SpaceBison: These people would like to have a word.
[cdn.uproxx.com image 650x325]


Did you really have to remind me of that episode?  Really?
 
2014-02-21 12:29:56 AM

Skyrmion: I won't claim to know what the future of marriage laws will or won't be, but he's right about one thing:

Gay marriage was largely advanced on the basis that, "Two people who love each other shouldn't be able to get married because ick" wasn't a valid enough argument.

If we're to be consistent and honest with ourselves, there really isn't any better reason to deny incestuous marriage between consenting adults. The arguments against it based on "genetic deficiency of offspring" or "coercion" are pretty clearly grasping at straws, to disguise the fact that the real reason for the ban is "ick".


I don't think it's grasping for straws. Genetic deficiency is very much a valid reason to put a stop to such acts. It was not too long ago I read an article on Fark regarding a man who was given a cease and desist order for donating his sperm to women in his area outside of legal means. Part of the reason is because there was no clear documentation on who he donated to since it was mostly anonymous.

This becomes a public health concern because without clear documentation over which children he's anonymously fathering, as they grow up and get involved in a relationship with another person, there's the possibility it's their half-brother or half-sister.

The odds of which are typically fairly low -- up until the health dept. recognizes the magnitude he's been donating to and it sets up a nasty precedent for issues in the future in regards to health problems as a result of inbreeding. Because they do cause health problems, and become a burden on the state to care for those health problems, including special needs schools as a result of mental retardation.

That's why incest is not going to be cleared off the books. The odds of being involved in a relationship with someone you're closely related to is supposed to be small. But if inbreeding is given a greenlight, you start introducing massive health problems to your local population later on down the line. Not unlike in parts of the animal kingdom where there's very little genetic diversity as a result of inbreeding due to a lack of potential mates they are not closely related to.
 
2014-02-21 01:08:41 AM

HighOnCraic: I'm guessing the concern is that a parent may become attracted to their child before the child reaches the age of consent and use undo influence throughout the child's life to convince the child to start a relationship after the child becomes an adult. I think that's a valid concern, but that's just my two cents.


And while I think that while this imaginary scenario "might" just work when someone is a child, it will fall apart once someone has become and adult(or probably a few years before that).  See adults have this magical ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES that may erase the theoretical programming instilled into them as a child.

If 2 consenting non-mentally disabled adults wish to be together - no matter WHO they are - I have to assume that they both actually wish this themselves and I think we should honor that decision.  But if you can't "honor" that decision, then at least get yourself and government out of the way with force of law.  It is not really your business (not government business) to start with.

I have this amazing, new concept of governance - treat adults like adults.  That applies to such things as the war on drugs, and it applies to people's chosen relationships.  I do realize how novel, different, and scary such a concept is.  But hell why not give it a try?  It won't doom all humanity... I promise.
 
2014-02-21 01:19:50 AM
I don't think that the incest lobby is powerful enough to get this pushed through congress.

I also don't think that the voters are on board yet..... they haven't held enough incest pride parades.

/What do you think their flag should look like?
 
2014-02-21 01:39:45 AM

DamnYankees: Brainsick: There was a thread recently with a 'famous' model posing creepily with her sons...can't remember her name though

Stephanie Seymour:

[www.fashiongonerogue.com image 800x970]


nmrsnr: Brainsick: There was a thread recently with a 'famous' model posing creepily with her sons...can't remember her name though

Was it Stephanie Seymour?

[www.papparasi.com image 300x362]


Yup

Thanks!
 
2014-02-21 01:44:42 AM

Weatherkiss: I don't think it's grasping for straws. Genetic deficiency is very much a valid reason to put a stop to such acts.


Oh?  You know that because you have seen research that clearly shows this, or you "know" that because everyone knows that, duh?

Feel free to look into the actual stats or I could just help you out.  Let me tell you the groups of people who stand a HIGHER chance of having babies with birth defects than those who directly inbreed.  Smokers, drinkers, women over 40, people with a family history of cancer, workers in risky industries(say a coal miner for example), hemophiliacs, drug users, etc, etc.

Isn't it about time we outlawed women over 40 from procreating?  Of course not.  So lets get to your REAL objection - which can be described in one word... ick!  There is no better reason to ban incest than this, and it is not a terribly good reason.

Going back to those birth defects... which the rate is not that bad actually.  Modern medical science can deal with quite a bit of it.  Now when incest continues for several concurrent generations, yes you start getting into what you stereotypically expect from inbreeding.  But doing so across a single generation is not very statistically significant.
 
2014-02-21 01:46:42 AM

Sammichless: they haven't held enough incest pride parades.


Now that is a funny thought right there.  For once these pride parades actually start off in the South!
 
2014-02-21 01:54:29 AM

Sammichless: I don't think that the incest lobby is powerful enough to get this pushed through congress.

I also don't think that the voters are on board yet..... they haven't held enough incest pride parades.

/What do you think their flag should look like?


crystalwashington.com
 
2014-02-21 02:26:39 AM

bk3k: Weatherkiss: I don't think it's grasping for straws. Genetic deficiency is very much a valid reason to put a stop to such acts.

Oh?  You know that because you have seen research that clearly shows this, or you "know" that because everyone knows that, duh?

Feel free to look into the actual stats or I could just help you out.  Let me tell you the groups of people who stand a HIGHER chance of having babies with birth defects than those who directly inbreed.  Smokers, drinkers, women over 40, people with a family history of cancer, workers in risky industries(say a coal miner for example), hemophiliacs, drug users, etc, etc.

Isn't it about time we outlawed women over 40 from procreating?  Of course not.  So lets get to your REAL objection - which can be described in one word... ick!  There is no better reason to ban incest than this, and it is not a terribly good reason.

Going back to those birth defects... which the rate is not that bad actually.  Modern medical science can deal with quite a bit of it.  Now when incest continues for several concurrent generations, yes you start getting into what you stereotypically expect from inbreeding.  But doing so across a single generation is not very statistically significant.


The fact is it's a red herring.  Parent-child sexual relations are essentially non-existent.
 
2014-02-21 04:33:45 AM

Sammichless: I don't think that the incest lobby is powerful enough to get this pushed through congress.

I also don't think that the voters are on board yet..... they haven't held enough incest pride parades.

/What do you think their flag should look like?


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-21 05:04:13 AM
I mean, in a perfect world, this guy should have to resign from office. I don't care who elected him.
 
2014-02-21 05:39:01 AM
Tell me again how "normal" jesus approved mariage couldn't possibly lead to the same thing.
 
2014-02-21 06:10:51 AM

Mr.Tangent: Tell me again how "normal" jesus approved mariage couldn't possibly lead to the same thing.


Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters?
 
2014-02-21 06:22:26 AM
The bigots are really reaching now... Lots of parent / adult children looking to get hitched in Kentucky, are there? OR anywhere for that matter?

Why can't this farking idiots get it through their thick skulls? Your backwards ass religious dogma has no business being codified into law.
 
2014-02-21 08:13:27 AM

Mjeck: Mr.Tangent: Tell me again how "normal" jesus approved mariage couldn't possibly lead to the same thing.

Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters?


Don't get me started on the whole garden of Eden thing.  There be a whole lot of relative farkin' going on there.
 
2014-02-21 08:31:09 AM
"If it's all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage - because 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

Apparently the concern over straight people doing this is non-existent.
 
2014-02-21 08:32:13 AM

Mr.Tangent: Mjeck: Mr.Tangent: Tell me again how "normal" jesus approved mariage couldn't possibly lead to the same thing.

Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters?

Don't get me started on the whole garden of Eden thing.  There be a whole lot of relative farkin' going on there.


One simply can't believe that story without giving incest a nod.
 
2014-02-21 08:35:07 AM

Mjeck: Mr.Tangent: Tell me again how "normal" jesus approved mariage couldn't possibly lead to the same thing.

Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters?


No, that was Lot you're thinking of.
 
2014-02-21 08:39:11 AM

nmrsnr: 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.


Not true, in several states minors can get married with parental consent. So daddy can give consent to marrying his own underage daughter.
 
2014-02-21 08:45:25 AM

Weatherkiss: Skyrmion: I won't claim to know what the future of marriage laws will or won't be, but he's right about one thing:

Gay marriage was largely advanced on the basis that, "Two people who love each other shouldn't be able to get married because ick" wasn't a valid enough argument.

If we're to be consistent and honest with ourselves, there really isn't any better reason to deny incestuous marriage between consenting adults. The arguments against it based on "genetic deficiency of offspring" or "coercion" are pretty clearly grasping at straws, to disguise the fact that the real reason for the ban is "ick".

I don't think it's grasping for straws. Genetic deficiency is very much a valid reason to put a stop to such acts. It was not too long ago I read an article on Fark regarding a man who was given a cease and desist order for donating his sperm to women in his area outside of legal means. Part of the reason is because there was no clear documentation on who he donated to since it was mostly anonymous.

This becomes a public health concern because without clear documentation over which children he's anonymously fathering, as they grow up and get involved in a relationship with another person, there's the possibility it's their half-brother or half-sister.

The odds of which are typically fairly low -- up until the health dept. recognizes the magnitude he's been donating to and it sets up a nasty precedent for issues in the future in regards to health problems as a result of inbreeding. Because they do cause health problems, and become a burden on the state to care for those health problems, including special needs schools as a result of mental retardation.

That's why incest is not going to be cleared off the books. The odds of being involved in a relationship with someone you're closely related to is supposed to be small. But if inbreeding is given a greenlight, you start introducing massive health problems to your local population later on down the line. Not unlike in parts of the animal kingdom where there's very little genetic diversity as a result of inbreeding due to a lack of potential mates they are not closely related to.


That's why the only acceptable incest is homosexual incest. Especially if they're two hot sisters.
 
2014-02-21 08:50:21 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Mjeck: Mr.Tangent: Tell me again how "normal" jesus approved mariage couldn't possibly lead to the same thing.

Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters?

No, that was Lot you're thinking of.


yeah... It was the butt that God was severely concerned with, Father-Daughter didn't seem that bad after the whole Sodom and Gomorrah kerfuffle
 
2014-02-21 08:57:17 AM
The Allen thing was definitely creepy, but in fairness to him, he was in no way Soon-Yi's "parent". She was the adopted daughter of Allen's girlfriend and her (then ex-) husband. "My mom's boyfriend" isn't "my dad" or "my step-dad."
 
2014-02-21 09:02:37 AM

Biological Ali: Sammichless: I don't think that the incest lobby is powerful enough to get this pushed through congress.

I also don't think that the voters are on board yet..... they haven't held enough incest pride parades.

/What do you think their flag should look like?

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 275x183]


You should have chosen a state where first-cousin marriage is legal. Perhaps New York, California, or Massachusetts would have been better.
 
2014-02-21 09:08:38 AM

Tellingthem: GardenWeasel: Doesn't this already happen in Kentucky?

I think thats more sister brother marriages. At the very least cousins.


If it ain't a twin, it ain't a sin.
 
2014-02-21 09:15:38 AM

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.


Why is that when we talk about these types of arrangements, we jump to opposite sex? Why not same sex? How can a same sex couple procreate? And who says marriage requires sex?
 
2014-02-21 09:16:43 AM
Gay marriage leads to incest in the same way that religion leads to bombing buildings.
 
2014-02-21 09:19:15 AM

BMulligan: Theaetetus: BMulligan: nmrsnr: Because marriage is more than just about legal rights. Hasn't that been the argument against "civil unions" that were legally identical to marriage?

To the contrary, the argument against civil unions is that they fail to provide the same legal rights as marriage. The truth is precisely the opposite of what you've said.

Nope, even if they were 100% equal to marriage, at all levels, from state to federal, they would still be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. See Sweatt v. Painter.

I think you've misread that case. The Court found that the law schools weren't equal, that the school open to the plaintiff was in fact substantially inferior to the UT School of Law. The Court went on to hold that "petitioner may claim his full constitutional right: legal education equivalent to that offered by the State to students of other races." The key word there is "equivalent." If civil unions were in every way identical to marriage in all respects but name, equal protection would be satisfied.


Nope, I think you may have stopped reading the case too early. The point was that, due to intangible elements like prestige, tradition, community respect, and the long line of historical achievement from its members,  no "law school for blacks" could ever be equivalent to the UT School of Law. In fact, shortly after, in Brown v. Board of Educ., the Supreme Court described Sweatt as:
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school."


I.e., even if the all of the tangible factors are equal - buildings, libraries, facilities, etc. for law schools, or property rights, taxation, privilege, etc. for civil unions - the intangible factors, incapable of objective measurement and including the history and traditions of the institution and the great respect afforded to it in our society, would make the newer institution forever inferior.

Or, in the short version, "marriage" is something that has been celebrated for millennia. Our parents were married, their parents were married, their parents were married, etc. Marriage is cheered, just as divorce is scorned. But "civil unions"? Those didn't even exist in this country until 2000, when Vermont created them as a compromise position between homosexual couples, who had just won in the Vermont Supreme Court in Baker v. Vermont, and religious bigots. Like separate train cars or water fountains for coloreds, "civil unions" were allegedly equal in rights, but clearly inferior in the intangible qualities that are, nonetheless, still required to be equal under the 14th Amendment.
 
2014-02-21 09:50:29 AM

A Cave Geek: Gay marriage leads to incest in the same way that religion leads to bombing buildings.


So sometimes but in the majority of cases not?
 
2014-02-21 10:07:36 AM

SpaceBison: These people would like to have a word.
[cdn.uproxx.com image 650x325]


I remember when that episode was banned in Canada but later shown on TV.
 
2014-02-21 10:17:20 AM
img.fark.net

Shut up, Bevin!
 
2014-02-21 10:24:01 AM
This is perfect. All there needs to happen now is for McConnell to come out and say, "how stupid" this comment was because we all know how tea baggers like being called stupid.
 
2014-02-21 10:26:31 AM

nmrsnr: 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.


There are already blood test requirements, fail to see genetic ones as a hindrance.
 
2014-02-21 10:38:17 AM

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.



It's legal to marry your employees.
 
2014-02-21 11:56:13 AM

suebhoney: nmrsnr: 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.

There are already blood test requirements, fail to see genetic ones as a hindrance.


There are no more blood test requirements for marriage anywhere in the US.  A few states still had them on the books until a few years ago, but everything has been struck down now.  They were removed because they were seen as an unnecessary burden.
 
2014-02-21 12:13:16 PM

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?


Property rights.
 
2014-02-21 12:20:07 PM

Mjeck: Mr.Tangent: Tell me again how "normal" jesus approved mariage couldn't possibly lead to the same thing.

Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters?


If you go from the bible the whole human race is predicated on inbreeding.
 
2014-02-21 12:37:52 PM

lennavan: 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.

It's legal to marry your employees.


Employer-employee power relations are voluntary rather than natural.  I think that makes a big difference in how we assess whether consent is substantively free of coercion.
 
2014-02-21 12:42:30 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.


static.guim.co.uk

\that's true
 
2014-02-21 12:56:18 PM

logic523: Employer-employee power relations are voluntary rather than natural.  I think that makes a big difference in how we assess whether consent is substantively free of coercion.


There isn't much voluntary about being taken advantage of by a supervisor.  By the time someone is an adult, they are technically as free to walk out the front door (barring physical restraints) as they are free to give up everything and quit their job to escape a bad employer's sexual power games. That they psychologically stick around is another matter entirely.

But even with that situation, the attachment of a marriage license changes little: the abused child who says yes on the altar to marry his parent probably wasn't going to simply walk away were that option not on the table. Heck they might benefit from a marriage, because now they can get that sweet alimony and half the abusing parent's shiat when they finally make the decision to leave.

Also, leave words like "natural" at home.  Nobody ever knows what the fark anyone else means when they use it.
 
2014-02-21 12:59:17 PM
bk3k:

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.


It's not magic.  Most parents do have a substantial influence on their adult children.  It's not an accident that so many adults choose to support their parents during their parents' retirement or hospitalization.  The bonds between parent and offspring are cultivated in the caring and dependence relationships in childhood.  Those childhood relationships leave deep impressions in people's psyche.

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.

Yeah, me neither.  In fact, there are extensive studies that show that incest is a powerful taboo across almost all cultures.  But think about someone who did find their parent attractive.  Would there not be some reason to think, on the face of it, that the attraction was pathological or coerced?  Remember, I'm not talking here about siblings getting married.  I'm talking about fathers and daughters, or mothers and sons.

But I people having the basic freedom as adults to make these sort of decisions themselves.

I agree that adults should have basic freedoms.  I think that consenting adults should be able to marry each other.  My worry is that figuring out whether someone is freely consenting is not just a matter of hearing them say the words "I do".

  I also think you have a very, very poor understanding of human relationships in all their forms.

Do you really think that?  You think you have a grip on how I'm understanding human relationships in all their forms just from a post on Fark?

  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?

Yes.  I think rape is wrong.  I don't care if someone else thinks rape is OK.  I'm interested in having laws that protect people from having their rights violated, and so I don't want to see a person pushed inappropriately into a marriage.  Parent-offspring marriages are tricky cases to figure out.  My problem with them is epistemic.  It is hard to DETECT genuine consent in those cases.  If there IS genuine consent, and that was KNOWN, then I would be fine with parent-offspring marriage.
 
2014-02-21 01:06:54 PM

logic523: lennavan: 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.

It's legal to marry your employees.

Employer-employee power relations are voluntary rather than natural.  I think that makes a big difference in how we assess whether consent is substantively free of coercion.


You think an employee-employer relationship is more voluntary than a parent-adult offspring relationship?  That's ridiculous.
 
2014-02-21 01:29:19 PM
They'll be marrying little foreign orphan boys before long. Foreign marriage is how the only way they can increase their numbers and their political clout. They haven't invented the rectal womb transplant yet.
 
2014-02-21 01:32:03 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Clearly this guy has something on his mind.

[mattbevin.com image 850x314]


Not another "quiverfull" fundie... goddamnitsomuch.
/looks like it
//stop trying to use your spawn (and adopted spawn) to take over the world
 
2014-02-21 01:53:51 PM
lennavan:
You think an employee-employer relationship is more voluntary than a parent-adult offspring relationship?  That's ridiculous.

I'm having trouble telling whether we mean different things by the words we are using, or you are being sarcastic, or you are sincerely endorsing what you seem to have said.

No child chooses who their parent will be.  People generally have far greater choice over who their employer will be.  Quitting being someone's employee is a straightforward matter.  Quitting being someone's child may not be possible.  These are some of the reasons that lead me to the belief that an employee-employer relationship is more voluntary than an offspring-parent relationship.
 
2014-02-21 02:21:55 PM

logic523: lennavan:
You think an employee-employer relationship is more voluntary than a parent-adult offspring relationship?  That's ridiculous.

I'm having trouble telling whether we mean different things by the words we are using, or you are being sarcastic, or you are sincerely endorsing what you seem to have said.

No child chooses who their parent will be.  People generally have far greater choice over who their employer will be.  Quitting being someone's employee is a straightforward matter.  Quitting being someone's child may not be possible.  These are some of the reasons that lead me to the belief that an employee-employer relationship is more voluntary than an offspring-parent relationship.


So, are you against any contract between a parent and a child?
 
2014-02-21 02:27:37 PM

Noam Chimpsky: They'll be marrying little foreign orphan boys before long. Foreign marriage is how the only way they can increase their numbers and their political clout. They haven't invented the rectal womb transplant yet.


Why orphans? If you really want to increase your voting bloc, it makes more sense to bring over whatever gay-friendly in-laws they may have, too.
Why bother investing in the development of rectal womb technology when breeder biatches are dropping unwanted whelps all over the place?
 
2014-02-21 02:47:53 PM

logic523: Quitting being someone's employee is a straightforward matter.  Quitting being someone's child may not be possible.


While one cannot stop being the biological relation of another person, they are certainly capable of ceasing any contact and communication with said person.  Many children do just that to their parents, while many parents do that to their children.

It isn't easy, but then neither is giving up one's income.

In fact, reading your repeated statements about how easy it is to leave a job, I presume you feel sexual harassment laws should be abolished? There is not boss-->employee pressure there, the employee is volunteering to stick around and have a fat old man grab her butt and expect handjibbers for promotions.

If I didn't assume better (and you know what that does) I'd almost believe you were deliberately making a poor argument while playing devil's advocate.
 
2014-02-21 02:54:30 PM

HMS_Blinkin: 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.

We already of plenty of laws against incest.  Those laws will apply to gay couples exactly like they do for straight couples.  Next question.


This always seems to be the fallacy that Conservatives bring up. You hear it here as well as in marijuana legalization that somehow legalization in the same way as a pre-existing law (marriage/alcohol) it means that it's completely wide open...

/I'm so sorry for that sentence, I am incredibly undercaffeinated, but I think I got my point across
 
2014-02-21 03:58:49 PM
In the simplest terms, I believe that most LGBT men and women understand firsthand what's it like to be oppressed and bullied. This is what happens to animals every day, whether it is on factory farms, or in laboratories, circuses, and marine parks. I try to make the case that because we know how it feels, we should be more inclined to go vegan and get involved with trying to end the war on animals.

Both fall into our goal of "making the world a better place for all living beings." I believe that injustice is injustice, regardless of the community it affects or how voiceless the affected community is.

I believe that the fundamental connection between gay rights and animal rights, as well as countless other rights movements, is the mindset of the oppressor, which is always based in the thought that, I am better, and more important, than they are.

I think it's just about having the courage to live authentically and not be afraid to stand out. Luckily, I haven't had too many people in my life who have an issue with either. My father had a mini-meltdown when I told him I went vegan (it was so much worse than telling him I was gay) but over the years he's learned more about the issues, and now he begs my husband and I to cook for him when we're back home!

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-21 04:07:29 PM

I alone am best: So, are you against any contract between a parent and a child?


how about we start with some sort of civil union?  then we can just brain wash the current youth to shame people who are anti-incest as using "hate speech" ...?

we can certainly boycott their businesses to speed up the process :D

tasteslikehate.jpg

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-02-21 04:13:45 PM

logic523: lennavan:
You think an employee-employer relationship is more voluntary than a parent-adult offspring relationship? That's ridiculous.

I'm having trouble telling whether we mean different things by the words we are using, or you are being sarcastic, or you are sincerely endorsing what you seem to have said.


We're having trouble because you forgot the context you used.  You were talking about reasons why we should prevent marriage.

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.


Here, we are discussing ADULT offspring because we're talking about 2 adults giving consent to marry.  You're right, an 18 year old does not choose who their parent is.  But of what relevance is that?  At 18, that person chooses who they associate with.  They can move out.  At 18, the parent has absolutely no power over their offspring at all.  There is no power asymmetry because there is no power over each other in either direction.
 
2014-02-21 04:17:28 PM

logic523: Quitting being someone's employee is a straightforward matter. Quitting being someone's child may not be possible.


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.


I'm trying really hard to put these two things together to understand what you're saying.

1) You can't quit being someone's child
Therefore...
2) Offspring will feel coerced to marry their parent?
 
2014-02-21 06:55:50 PM

bk3k: HighOnCraic: I'm guessing the concern is that a parent may become attracted to their child before the child reaches the age of consent and use undo influence throughout the child's life to convince the child to start a relationship after the child becomes an adult. I think that's a valid concern, but that's just my two cents.

And while I think that while this imaginary scenario "might" just work when someone is a child, it will fall apart once someone has become and adult(or probably a few years before that).  See adults have this magical ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES that may erase the theoretical programming instilled into them as a child.

If 2 consenting non-mentally disabled adults wish to be together - no matter WHO they are - I have to assume that they both actually wish this themselves and I think we should honor that decision.  But if you can't "honor" that decision, then at least get yourself and government out of the way with force of law.  It is not really your business (not government business) to start with.

I have this amazing, new concept of governance - treat adults like adults.  That applies to such things as the war on drugs, and it applies to people's chosen relationships.  I do realize how novel, different, and scary such a concept is.  But hell why not give it a try?  It won't doom all humanity... I promise.


And this magical ability just appears when they turn 18, even after an unhealthy childhood?  Honestly, I do think it would be a valid concern when considering child/parent marriages. You're free to disagree.
 
2014-02-21 07:39:03 PM

HighOnCraic: bk3k: HighOnCraic: I'm guessing the concern is that a parent may become attracted to their child before the child reaches the age of consent and use undo influence throughout the child's life to convince the child to start a relationship after the child becomes an adult. I think that's a valid concern, but that's just my two cents.

And while I think that while this imaginary scenario "might" just work when someone is a child, it will fall apart once someone has become and adult(or probably a few years before that).  See adults have this magical ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES that may erase the theoretical programming instilled into them as a child.

If 2 consenting non-mentally disabled adults wish to be together - no matter WHO they are - I have to assume that they both actually wish this themselves and I think we should honor that decision.  But if you can't "honor" that decision, then at least get yourself and government out of the way with force of law.  It is not really your business (not government business) to start with.

I have this amazing, new concept of governance - treat adults like adults.  That applies to such things as the war on drugs, and it applies to people's chosen relationships.  I do realize how novel, different, and scary such a concept is.  But hell why not give it a try?  It won't doom all humanity... I promise.

And this magical ability just appears when they turn 18, even after an unhealthy childhood?  Honestly, I do think it would be a valid concern when considering child/parent marriages. You're free to disagree.


Yeah, it kind of took a while for me to start thinking for myself. It takes a little while for the ears to stop ringing after you leave the echo chamber.
 
2014-02-21 07:45:58 PM

LoneWolf343: HighOnCraic: bk3k: HighOnCraic: I'm guessing the concern is that a parent may become attracted to their child before the child reaches the age of consent and use undo influence throughout the child's life to convince the child to start a relationship after the child becomes an adult. I think that's a valid concern, but that's just my two cents.

And while I think that while this imaginary scenario "might" just work when someone is a child, it will fall apart once someone has become and adult(or probably a few years before that).  See adults have this magical ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES that may erase the theoretical programming instilled into them as a child.

If 2 consenting non-mentally disabled adults wish to be together - no matter WHO they are - I have to assume that they both actually wish this themselves and I think we should honor that decision.  But if you can't "honor" that decision, then at least get yourself and government out of the way with force of law.  It is not really your business (not government business) to start with.

I have this amazing, new concept of governance - treat adults like adults.  That applies to such things as the war on drugs, and it applies to people's chosen relationships.  I do realize how novel, different, and scary such a concept is.  But hell why not give it a try?  It won't doom all humanity... I promise.

And this magical ability just appears when they turn 18, even after an unhealthy childhood?  Honestly, I do think it would be a valid concern when considering child/parent marriages. You're free to disagree.

Yeah, it kind of took a while for me to start thinking for myself. It takes a little while for the ears to stop ringing after you leave the echo chamber.


This.

I'm just guessing that any type of parent/child relationship strong enough to inspire them to want to get married probably didn't just pop up out of nowhere once the kid turned 18, and that the bond was formed while the power relationship between parent and child was highly imbalanced.  Again, that just my guess.
 
2014-02-21 07:52:34 PM

HighOnCraic: LoneWolf343: HighOnCraic: bk3k: HighOnCraic: I'm guessing the concern is that a parent may become attracted to their child before the child reaches the age of consent and use undo influence throughout the child's life to convince the child to start a relationship after the child becomes an adult. I think that's a valid concern, but that's just my two cents.

And while I think that while this imaginary scenario "might" just work when someone is a child, it will fall apart once someone has become and adult(or probably a few years before that).  See adults have this magical ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES that may erase the theoretical programming instilled into them as a child.

If 2 consenting non-mentally disabled adults wish to be together - no matter WHO they are - I have to assume that they both actually wish this themselves and I think we should honor that decision.  But if you can't "honor" that decision, then at least get yourself and government out of the way with force of law.  It is not really your business (not government business) to start with.

I have this amazing, new concept of governance - treat adults like adults.  That applies to such things as the war on drugs, and it applies to people's chosen relationships.  I do realize how novel, different, and scary such a concept is.  But hell why not give it a try?  It won't doom all humanity... I promise.

And this magical ability just appears when they turn 18, even after an unhealthy childhood?  Honestly, I do think it would be a valid concern when considering child/parent marriages. You're free to disagree.

Yeah, it kind of took a while for me to start thinking for myself. It takes a little while for the ears to stop ringing after you leave the echo chamber.

This.

I'm just guessing that any type of parent/child relationship strong enough to inspire them to want to get married probably didn't just pop up out of nowhere once the kid turned 18, and that the bond was formed while the power relationship b ...


that's
 
2014-02-22 06:25:28 AM

WI241TH: He just wants to turn those creepy daddy daughter dances (purity balls?) into daddy daughter weddings, doesn't he?


There is not enough puke on this Earth.
 
2014-02-22 08:52:56 AM

Smackledorfer: logic523: Quitting being someone's employee is a straightforward matter.  Quitting being someone's child may not be possible.

While one cannot stop being the biological relation of another person, they are certainly capable of ceasing any contact and communication with said person.  Many children do just that to their parents, while many parents do that to their children.

It isn't easy, but then neither is giving up one's income.

In fact, reading your repeated statements about how easy it is to leave a job, I presume you feel sexual harassment laws should be abolished? There is not boss-->employee pressure there, the employee is volunteering to stick around and have a fat old man grab her butt and expect handjibbers for promotions.

If I didn't assume better (and you know what that does) I'd almost believe you were deliberately making a poor argument while playing devil's advocate.


I'm not denying that there are potential problems with employer-employee marriages.  I'm not claiming that leaving one's job is easy.

I am claiming that the power relations in parent-offspring relationships are considerably more powerful, enduring, and difficult to assess than power relations in employer-employee relationships.  And I am claiming that cutting ties with one's parent is considerably more difficult, for most people, than cutting ties with one's employer.
 
2014-02-22 09:01:02 AM

lennavan: logic523: lennavan:
You think an employee-employer relationship is more voluntary than a parent-adult offspring relationship? That's ridiculous.

At 18, the parent has absolutely no power over their offspring at all.  There is no power asymmetry because there is no power over each other in either direction.


I think our disagreement is going to boil down to this last claim you made.  In my view, power asymmetries between parents and offspring typically persist well into adulthood.  I suppose what we need here are psychological studies on whether adults still feel coercive pressure from their parents.  I'm not a psychologist, but do you know whether people tend to have adult problems, the kind that require psychological or pharmacological therapy, that stem from psychological pressures from their parents?
 
2014-02-22 09:03:32 AM

HighOnCraic: bk3k: HighOnCraic: I'm guessing the concern is that a parent may become attracted to their child before the child reaches the age of consent and use undo influence throughout the child's life to convince the child to start a relationship after the child becomes an adult. I think that's a valid concern, but that's just my two cents.

And while I think that while this imaginary scenario "might" just work when someone is a child, it will fall apart once someone has become and adult(or probably a few years before that).  See adults have this magical ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES that may erase the theoretical programming instilled into them as a child.


...

And this magical ability just appears when they turn 18, even after an unhealthy childhood?  Honestly, I do think it would be a valid concern when considering child/parent marriages. You're free to disagree.

Thank you. I'm in a discussion in this thread where this same issue is holding us up.  Why do some people not think that childhood makes a deep impression on people's psychologies into adulthood?
 
Displayed 173 of 173 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report