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  
•       •       •

1742 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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 23 of 173 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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