Chick Fil A was packed this morning
- Thread starter majorwhiteapples
- Start date
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
I35, based on the wikipedia information, yes, incest causes direct harm in cases of minors and those who inbreed. So, theoretically, a sterile adult incestuous couple could have a relationship and get married with no direct harm to anyone. However if this were legal, the relationship and related marriage, you would have an increase in abuse and coercion of minors in an attempt to corral them into the adult relationships.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the situation not more complicated, and that sterile adult incestuous marriage would not affect other parts of familial relations. That it is truly victimless. Incest marriage would be on equal footing philosophically with same-sex marriage then. So if same-sex marriage has been allowed by legislatures and supported in the courts, why not the same for the type of harmless incest? Well, to start with there is not a massive movement to grant marriage rights to sterile incestuous adults, and there never will be. Incestuous mariage will not be part of democratic platform, because no one will push for it. We need not fear the courts either, because no court is going to side with the incestuous couple, because it would be very difficult to differentiate between the harmless incestuous relationships and the harmful ones. Allowing the sterile adult incestuous relationships, would have the effect of increasing the number of harmful ones. Because of this, courts would not overturn bans on incest based on equating it with same-sex marriage.
Similar arguments to the above could be made with polygamy, bestiality and so on. These too are not equivalents to same-sex marriage in terms of neither damage to individuals and society, nor in popular support. No legislature would legalize them and no court will allow them on the grounds of similarity to same-sex marriage. There is no slippery slope. Same-sex marriage can sit on solid ground, and a judicial and legislative wall will protect us from the truly harmful forms of human relationships.
To go at it from another angle, if gay-marriage would lead to justification for incestuous marriage and polygamy, then wouldn't the three types of relations -- homosexual, incestuous and polygamous -- have to be equally viewed under the law? Yet, homosexuality is permitted and laws against it struck down by the Supreme court. And on the other hand, polygamy, incest, beastality are banned almost everywhere. Why would allowing adults consenting in a legal relationship to marry, suddenly change
the legal status of incest and polygamy? If it would, then why wait for gay-marriage, if gays can screw why can't my sister and I? The reason is courts have drawn a distinction between the two, and that distinction will not change because gays are allowed to marry.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the situation not more complicated, and that sterile adult incestuous marriage would not affect other parts of familial relations. That it is truly victimless. Incest marriage would be on equal footing philosophically with same-sex marriage then. So if same-sex marriage has been allowed by legislatures and supported in the courts, why not the same for the type of harmless incest? Well, to start with there is not a massive movement to grant marriage rights to sterile incestuous adults, and there never will be. Incestuous mariage will not be part of democratic platform, because no one will push for it. We need not fear the courts either, because no court is going to side with the incestuous couple, because it would be very difficult to differentiate between the harmless incestuous relationships and the harmful ones. Allowing the sterile adult incestuous relationships, would have the effect of increasing the number of harmful ones. Because of this, courts would not overturn bans on incest based on equating it with same-sex marriage.
Similar arguments to the above could be made with polygamy, bestiality and so on. These too are not equivalents to same-sex marriage in terms of neither damage to individuals and society, nor in popular support. No legislature would legalize them and no court will allow them on the grounds of similarity to same-sex marriage. There is no slippery slope. Same-sex marriage can sit on solid ground, and a judicial and legislative wall will protect us from the truly harmful forms of human relationships.
To go at it from another angle, if gay-marriage would lead to justification for incestuous marriage and polygamy, then wouldn't the three types of relations -- homosexual, incestuous and polygamous -- have to be equally viewed under the law? Yet, homosexuality is permitted and laws against it struck down by the Supreme court. And on the other hand, polygamy, incest, beastality are banned almost everywhere. Why would allowing adults consenting in a legal relationship to marry, suddenly change
the legal status of incest and polygamy? If it would, then why wait for gay-marriage, if gays can screw why can't my sister and I? The reason is courts have drawn a distinction between the two, and that distinction will not change because gays are allowed to marry.
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
UTChe,
Why should opposite sex couples be give incentive to marry? Gay marriage would probably have an effect, though likely negligible, on tax revenue. But if the tax breaks, as is, are justified for hetero couples, why should it not be for gay couples? If you have a problem with married couples receiving a tax incentive, then your problem is with the tax incentive, not gay-marriage.
Why should opposite sex couples be give incentive to marry? Gay marriage would probably have an effect, though likely negligible, on tax revenue. But if the tax breaks, as is, are justified for hetero couples, why should it not be for gay couples? If you have a problem with married couples receiving a tax incentive, then your problem is with the tax incentive, not gay-marriage.
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
Yeah, but the civil rights movement was controversial too...controversy didn't stop justice then. There are many similar examples through are history. I think if there is legal justification for allowing gay marriage, then the controversy shouldn't matter.
I35
5,000+ Posts
HornCyclist,
I have to hand it to you, you make some damn good points in your argument and I agree. The only thing I would question is you state that there isn't that many people that want a relationship of incest. But just going back to the 80's most gays were in the closet and nobody was talking or debating about gays getting married. Today it is very acceptable to be gay and that was not the case all that long ago. The rate we're going in 30 or 40 years there might be more families of incest come out of their closet and be advocating for this right. I don't really see it but then again I would have thought the same thing about gay marriage in the 80s.
I'm guessing Oklahoma will be the first state to argue for this right
I have to hand it to you, you make some damn good points in your argument and I agree. The only thing I would question is you state that there isn't that many people that want a relationship of incest. But just going back to the 80's most gays were in the closet and nobody was talking or debating about gays getting married. Today it is very acceptable to be gay and that was not the case all that long ago. The rate we're going in 30 or 40 years there might be more families of incest come out of their closet and be advocating for this right. I don't really see it but then again I would have thought the same thing about gay marriage in the 80s.
I'm guessing Oklahoma will be the first state to argue for this right
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
I35, thanks for being receptive to my arguments. I couldn't find any statistics on it quickly but I would guess that the number of adults who would pursue the "harmless" type of incest would be very small compared to the number of closeted gays. There wouldn't be enough people to push for incest marriage equality even if they all came "out." Which that is to ignore the fact that incest is banned and the ban has been upheld by the courts. The gay marriage movement didn't have to jump that hurdle.
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
And yes, OK would certainly be leading the incest marriage movement. Probably paired with FLDS charging for polygamy and aggy representing the beastality cause. Oh the horror. Actually, considering that, I think we should just ban all marriage. Don't want to take any chances.
biganakhanhda
500+ Posts
HornCyclist for the mfering Nguyen!!! Loving your display of knowledge and valid points. Loving you too, FULL HOMO style!
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
I am not equating them. I said there were differences. It still comes down to restrictions on rights, and the justifications for those restrictions are similar. The two movements do not have to be similar in scope, because your point was that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's controversial and would have unwelcomed tax consequences. Civil rights is an example of a controversial movement being supported by the courts and legislation despite the controversy and people not liking the consequences...because it was right legally. Gay-marriage is equatable to civil rights in these respects.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
NEWDOC2002
1,000+ Posts
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
Are we going to discuss the accuracy of Wikipedia now? Because it's been discussed and has been shown to be as accurate as any published encyclopedia. It's a shortcut for finding information quickly. If you'd like I could post the cited sources from Wikipedia. Do you doubt any of the information?
Serious flaws in the argument for deviant marraige.
First, society doest not accept sexual deviants having rights on the basis of being a sexual deviant. Not a civil rights issue.
The argument of who does it hurt does not apply, as you are simply comparing other sexual deviants that also will not have rights based on their sexual deviance.
In addition to sexual deviation such as incest, necrophelia, beastiality and pedophelia, Society also determines other unacceptable behaviors such as polygamy.
No rights, same sex marraige included, are going to going to be approved at the ballot box by society for sexual deviants.
I applaud Cathey for his stance as his views are society's views.
Unfortunately, we are in the midst of "Generation Coward" where a large percentage of people are afraid to express their views for fear of being labled a bigot, homophobe, racist or just plain old mean.
The intolerance of anyone that expresses a view that is different from the liberal left is unbelievable.
Yes, this is a first amendment right of freedom of speech issue as society already knows what sexual deviants are and has no plans to vote them rights for being sexual deviants.
First, society doest not accept sexual deviants having rights on the basis of being a sexual deviant. Not a civil rights issue.
The argument of who does it hurt does not apply, as you are simply comparing other sexual deviants that also will not have rights based on their sexual deviance.
In addition to sexual deviation such as incest, necrophelia, beastiality and pedophelia, Society also determines other unacceptable behaviors such as polygamy.
No rights, same sex marraige included, are going to going to be approved at the ballot box by society for sexual deviants.
I applaud Cathey for his stance as his views are society's views.
Unfortunately, we are in the midst of "Generation Coward" where a large percentage of people are afraid to express their views for fear of being labled a bigot, homophobe, racist or just plain old mean.
The intolerance of anyone that expresses a view that is different from the liberal left is unbelievable.
Yes, this is a first amendment right of freedom of speech issue as society already knows what sexual deviants are and has no plans to vote them rights for being sexual deviants.
biganakhanhda
500+ Posts
To it all, I say, it is all ****** up. We all just gotta accept the fact that there's no perfect system for everyone, and that we all will just have to agree to disagree. And thanks to our slave owning "founding" fathers, they've made it so that we have the "freedom" to voice our opinions for when we agree or disagree with something and or someone.
**** I love this country!!!
AMERICA......**** YEAH........
**** I love this country!!!
AMERICA......**** YEAH........
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
IvanDiablo, in case you haven't noticed, homosexuality and homosexual acts are not illegal, and thus are different, not just morally but legally, than incest or bestiality. Polygamy would actually be a more fair comparison, since having multiple partners is legal but the state does not support multiple marriages.
However, strong arguments can be made for the harm that polygamy causes -- often tied to abuse, incest and pedophilia -- but not that same-sex marriage causes. The issue I previously discussed of having a critical mass movement -- one measure of if something is right in society's eyes -- would also make it unlikely polygamists could push for recognition. How many polygamists or polygamist supporters do you know? How many gay people or same-sex supporters do you know?
However, strong arguments can be made for the harm that polygamy causes -- often tied to abuse, incest and pedophilia -- but not that same-sex marriage causes. The issue I previously discussed of having a critical mass movement -- one measure of if something is right in society's eyes -- would also make it unlikely polygamists could push for recognition. How many polygamists or polygamist supporters do you know? How many gay people or same-sex supporters do you know?
HornCycle, I believe your basis is flawed as you are starting with the premise that homosexuality is not sexual deviancy.
The fact that homosexuality is sexually deviant is why society will not approve of homosexual marraige.
Again, society will not grant rights to sexual deviants on the basis they are sexual deviants, nor should they.
This has been proven over and over in the ballot box, which makes Cathey being criticized for exercising his first amendment rights on the issue by a liberal minority along with sexual deviants repugnant.
The fact that homosexuality is sexually deviant is why society will not approve of homosexual marraige.
Again, society will not grant rights to sexual deviants on the basis they are sexual deviants, nor should they.
This has been proven over and over in the ballot box, which makes Cathey being criticized for exercising his first amendment rights on the issue by a liberal minority along with sexual deviants repugnant.
HornCyclist
500+ Posts
Okay. I can't help you with your bigotry but encourage you to read some recent science on sexuality. I'll instead leave you with some graphs, which I think speak for themselves.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
I appreciate you calling me a bigot as it validates my earlier post regarding fear of anyone with a different opinion of "being labled as a bigot, homophobe, racist or just plain old mean."
Your post also validates "Generation Coward" as the people taking polls regarding deviant marraige are telling you what you want hear, not how they believe or how they will vote. The vote on deviant marraige in North Carolina is a good example of polling versus reality.
Your post also validates "Generation Coward" as the people taking polls regarding deviant marraige are telling you what you want hear, not how they believe or how they will vote. The vote on deviant marraige in North Carolina is a good example of polling versus reality.
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
It is so sad a disgrace when one compares Racism to being the same thing as anti=homosexual, you are wrong on so many different levels.
The Race you are born with is not a choice.
I choose to be hetersexual, I could choose to be homosexual or I could choose to not be sexual.
I could choose to get married, I could choose to not get married, according to your logic, I should be able to marry as many people as I want.
Because someone is for Opposite Sex marriage and not for same sex marriage does not make them anti-gay at all. There are many many people that believe government should not be involved in marriage whatsoever, it does not make them bigots or anti-gay, that is your limited opinion. As usual your opinion is a broad stroked opinion that you believe should be bowed down to we should all hail.....
Why can't you allow people to have their own opinions and why do you have to hate on them?
The Race you are born with is not a choice.
I choose to be hetersexual, I could choose to be homosexual or I could choose to not be sexual.
I could choose to get married, I could choose to not get married, according to your logic, I should be able to marry as many people as I want.
Because someone is for Opposite Sex marriage and not for same sex marriage does not make them anti-gay at all. There are many many people that believe government should not be involved in marriage whatsoever, it does not make them bigots or anti-gay, that is your limited opinion. As usual your opinion is a broad stroked opinion that you believe should be bowed down to we should all hail.....
Why can't you allow people to have their own opinions and why do you have to hate on them?
biganakhanhda
500+ Posts
Perham , please quote any mention of religion in my earlier posts.
Perham, please quote any bigoted speech towards homosexuals in my previous posts.
Your rant is the epitomy of the Liberal intolerance of differing views or opinions.
You used bigot, racist and homophobe and only missed plain old meany.
Could you now please describe Cathey?
Perham, please quote any bigoted speech towards homosexuals in my previous posts.
Your rant is the epitomy of the Liberal intolerance of differing views or opinions.
You used bigot, racist and homophobe and only missed plain old meany.
Could you now please describe Cathey?
Perham, let me lead you to the water.
MAW made an accurate statement about choices.
Regardless of how, when, where and condition a person is born, that person can make a choice of how to live and what lifestyle to live.
MAW made an accurate statement about choices.
Regardless of how, when, where and condition a person is born, that person can make a choice of how to live and what lifestyle to live.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
