Let's Get Hitched Son
- Thread starter J.B
- Start date
So, where are you two registered?
Who's making fun? I'm sure you will look pretty in your white dress.
You are arguing this issue by proxy to attempt to crack the impenitrable wall of reasonability that surrounds the gay marriage issue, so I'll ask you: What <i>is</i> wrong with two people in love with each other expressing it? Incest is taboo because of the genetic consequences, as well as the fear of the sort of person who might emotionally abuse their child in order to raise a hopelessly dependant lover. Neither of these problems are present in normal homosexual relationships. But hell, I'll go even further with my pie in the sky idealism and ask you what would be wrong with a specific incestual relationship that lacked an element of emotional abuse, or chance of procreation? The answer seems to be, evidently, that the problem is the way you have been socially conditioned to not accept these sorts of relationships. Your own irrational objection is something you will seek to insert artificially into the relationship between two people, hence creating the conflict that you realized the situation lacked.
Just like the laws have changed for interacial and homosexual couples, the laws should change for incestual couples.tiassa said:
It is just two adults expressing there love for one another.
And come to think of it why does marriage just have too be JUST between two people? What if 3,4,5, or even a hundred adult people felt they loved each other enuff to ALL get married?
This is great how nothing can be wrong, because anything can be right.
J.B. said:
How many different ways can you fail to understand the same point? At least I can give you points for creative sexual obsession.
Nonetheless, your bald declarations have not addressed the point. So I shall repeat myself:
• As a matter of equal protection, since heterosexual incestuous union is untenable as social policy, the whole incest show is off.
Key phrases:
a matter of equal protection
heterosexual incestuous union is untenable as social policy
heterosexual incestuous union is untenable as social policy
What about this do you need explained?
Furthermore, for the number of times this point has been explored in both the public discourse and debate here at Sciforums, I'm wondering how it is you could get this far into the issue and have no clue as to its resolution.
As such, I should point out that pretending you're stupid, J.B., will only cause people to think you're stupid. Reconsider the strategy of the willful ignoramus. It doesn't work.
J.B said:
Oh my, you certainly showed me. I suppose that’s why heterosexual couples only raise heterosexual children... because sexuality its a choice!
Though we are left to wonder where homosexuals come from… they probably crawl out of a cave or something.
But no one is pleading for equal rights for incest, on the other hand, we have a significant percentage of same-sex couples already, and they are being denied the rights given to the majority, for no other reason than the religious-based belief that their kind of love is wrong.
Sons and daughters already have many rights of relatives, they have the right of inheritence, they can get into a hospital room, etc..
Sons and daughters already have many rights of relatives, they have the right of inheritence, they can get into a hospital room, etc..
Incest is out of bounds because(in a hetero's case) it could create a terrible life for the child. In the case of homosexuality, whether incest or no, there is no child to be concerned with in this instance. Incest is one of those things that just shouts out WRONG! but has no superior justification for it. I'm sure moral grounds could be found to disprove it, but not many are willing to search hard enough. Therefore, it is to stand for a time. If, by some chance, there are moral grounds for it being wrong, please bring them forth and I'll agree.
I am one of those that sees the concept completely disgusting. However, this is "subconcious", there are no justified verifications, so I will not fight against it.
I am one of those that sees the concept completely disgusting. However, this is "subconcious", there are no justified verifications, so I will not fight against it.
Why are all of you just dancing around taboo? You are acting like incest is wrong because its icky, whereas in my previous post I pointed out two actual reasons it is a taboo. These reasons are abso-fucking-lutely unrelated in any way to the homosexual argument. That should pretty much settle the incest = homosexuality argument unless you think you can successfully suggest that those two reasons are also problems with homosexuality. Taboos are not above examining, and if you fools think that anything can be wrong just for the amorphous "because it is" then you cows aught to withdraw yourselves from the debate of social issues.
Last edited:
J.B said:
I'm going to supply the answer that no one wants to and say:
My worry is that they would have children and that there are so many horrible consequences for that child that it no longer is about expression of love, it is about selfish and careless abuse of a child.
However, if there is no child involved, I don't see the problem. Who are we to say who a person can and cannot love. I do not condone it, and would be incredibly intolerant of such people, as I was raised with this taboo, and have, as an adult, rationalized the reasons for it being a taboo.
A second worry: (not that anyone is looking to legalize incestuous marriages) Is the next step the battle over legalization or illegalization of children as a product of such marriages? Is that not a right as well? And how could we stop that if we begin to condone such relationships?
This is just a ludicrous argument.
J.B. & Baron Max
No. Stay with me through the rest, here:
One thing Americans generally oppose is holding stakes over people in such a way: Liberal critics of conservative welfare reform ideas will often point out that certain reforms economic conservatives favor bring the symptom of increasing the abortion rate. Just ... as an example.
If we make the limitation J.B. proposes, we open the possibility that the law will compel someone to alter their body--e.g. vasectomy, hysterectomy--in order to comply with the law and get with their sibling.
While I personally do not object if someone desiring an incestuous relationship chooses to throw their reproductive potential out with the bathwater, and in fact advocate it as a choice if someone really is that taken with their relation, I could not accept such a condition of law that might compel people to undertake such a "permanent" solution to a potentially-curable stupidity.
So here we have a bloc of women who are viable and ineligible, and a bloc of women who are nonviable and therefore eligible. This does not work because we cannot discriminate in such a manner regarding disability. And, as we see from race relations in the United States, reverse-discrimination doesn't fly either.
So now we have a bloc--women--who are forbidden heterosexual relations. We could, I suppose, easily draw similar distinctions for men. Furthermore, whichever, men or women, we choose to take note of first, we are inherently obliged to regard equally the other gender; this is at the crux of equal protection under the law.
And equal protection between the genders also interferes with any endorsement of homosexual incestuous relationships.
It's weird to talk about "protection" in such a manner, isn't it? Equal regard, equal "in the eyes of the law" (for "Justice is blind") ... any questions on that part?
To put the whole thing as simply as possible: Start with the legitimate practical objection, and note that the routes to the necessary discrimination are all obstructed.
Throw in polygamy and father and son can double-end the kid's "other mom". Why not? Or his mother, provided the son only sodomizes her or receives fellatio.
I'm with P.J. O'Rourke on this one; you should only screw your kids in your last will and testament, and siblings having sex with one another only indicates is a seriously dysfunctional socialization paradigm.
Legitimizing incestuous unions will actually change the fundamental role of the family as American institutions presently recognize it. This can be called progress or decline as per anybody's will. It can be called an irrelevant change, even. But such a fundamental change in the way the family relates to the society is going to be everybody's to cope with.
J.B. said:
No. Stay with me through the rest, here:
Baron Max said:
One thing Americans generally oppose is holding stakes over people in such a way: Liberal critics of conservative welfare reform ideas will often point out that certain reforms economic conservatives favor bring the symptom of increasing the abortion rate. Just ... as an example.
If we make the limitation J.B. proposes, we open the possibility that the law will compel someone to alter their body--e.g. vasectomy, hysterectomy--in order to comply with the law and get with their sibling.
While I personally do not object if someone desiring an incestuous relationship chooses to throw their reproductive potential out with the bathwater, and in fact advocate it as a choice if someone really is that taken with their relation, I could not accept such a condition of law that might compel people to undertake such a "permanent" solution to a potentially-curable stupidity.
So here we have a bloc of women who are viable and ineligible, and a bloc of women who are nonviable and therefore eligible. This does not work because we cannot discriminate in such a manner regarding disability. And, as we see from race relations in the United States, reverse-discrimination doesn't fly either.
So now we have a bloc--women--who are forbidden heterosexual relations. We could, I suppose, easily draw similar distinctions for men. Furthermore, whichever, men or women, we choose to take note of first, we are inherently obliged to regard equally the other gender; this is at the crux of equal protection under the law.
And equal protection between the genders also interferes with any endorsement of homosexual incestuous relationships.
It's weird to talk about "protection" in such a manner, isn't it? Equal regard, equal "in the eyes of the law" (for "Justice is blind") ... any questions on that part?
To put the whole thing as simply as possible: Start with the legitimate practical objection, and note that the routes to the necessary discrimination are all obstructed.
• • •
Throw in polygamy and father and son can double-end the kid's "other mom". Why not? Or his mother, provided the son only sodomizes her or receives fellatio.
I'm with P.J. O'Rourke on this one; you should only screw your kids in your last will and testament, and siblings having sex with one another only indicates is a seriously dysfunctional socialization paradigm.
• • •
Legitimizing incestuous unions will actually change the fundamental role of the family as American institutions presently recognize it. This can be called progress or decline as per anybody's will. It can be called an irrelevant change, even. But such a fundamental change in the way the family relates to the society is going to be everybody's to cope with.
Last edited:
J.B. said:
Especially with dedicated advocates such as yourself, J.B. You are Sciforums' foremost incest advocate, and I must admit I'm glad it's not me. I couldn't keep a straight face if I had to do it.
Congratulations on that achievement, but I confess it's hard to thank you for that contribution.