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  
•       •       •

1705 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 7:56 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

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

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report