Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1727 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 7:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 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
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report