How do you justify gay marriage without justifying incest?

[Michael C]

I don't have a huge problem with incest between two consenting adults as long as they make it impossible to have children together.

Are you also against making it impossible for a "normal" couple to have children if the two people are found to have a specific genetic defect in common?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Last chance... what exactly are you asking for evidence of and what would you accept as evidence... and how does this relate to this thread?

I stated an opinion.

No you made a claim.

Saying that you think incest is gross is an opinion, stateing that group X has higher incidents of such behavior is a claim.

It is rather like I would be supprised if anyone here would respond "Oh that is just your opinion" to claims of high correlations between homosexuality and child molestation.

You have failed to show that it is not a cultural trend that it is more noticed when men do those things than when women do them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you also against making it impossible for a "normal" couple to have children if the two people are found to have a specific genetic defect in common?

Apparently we need to bring back forced sterlization.

 

[Lanzy]

Most states allow marriage between two consenting adults who are not related (some states allow first cousin marriage... others say they must be at least second cousins)--

Most states do not have (or did not have) laws forbidding sex between same sex couples nor did they allow polygamy, incestuous marriages, nor children to enter into "contracts"-- gay marriage was allowed in some states because it was never forbidden by the words of the law... incestuous marriage is.

Any idea how states determine this? I have a lot of first cousins but none of them share my last name, who tells the state?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just that the Oedipus Complex is more prevalent... and males are more likely to have strong but socially unacceptable sexual urges

Your claim, and one related to the topic of incest. Please try to keep up.

I think it's pretty well known that across the board.. given any sexual aberrancy of fetish... you are more likely to find men who engage in it or find it "no big deal" or risk a lot to indulge it than women... I presume that includes incest. Most men are not into incest-- but most promoters of incest or those who "would do it' if it was "socially acceptable" are probably men. Men, by far, are the most likely perpetrators of unwilling incest and statutory rape incest.

Please stay on topic.

But I'm not going to derail because you thought I said something I'm not saying. I think the smart people can figure out what I'm saying.

You claimed to be able to quantify the matter of urges, whereas the matter of actions is more easily supported. I also tend to agree that the matter of actions is as you suggested, if that was where you were headed, which is why I asked, rather than going into some sort of bullhorn toting attack mode. I was offering you an out, and a chance to clarify.

*note to self: put stupid people back on ignore... let *

Putting yourself on ignore, are you?

Neat trick.

DR

 

[articulett]

Any idea how states determine this? I have a lot of first cousins but none of them share my last name, who tells the state?

I don't know... heck... I think there are problems determining the gender of some people. I think it's just part of the questions they ask you on the application process, and then your marriage is "null" if you dishonest... like on an insurance policy.

I think you sign a statement saying that you meet the requirements of being able to get married in your state with the requirements being listed. I doubt anyone would tell the state or check... unless family or people were bothered by it... which could happen. But like bigamy... I bet there wouldn't be a lot of investigation given to the matter. Most people can find some state that will marry them legally and then it applies to all states they might move to.

 

[articulett]

No you made a claim.

Saying that you think incest is gross is an opinion, stateing that group X has higher incidents of such behavior is a claim.

Nope... this is what I said... see "an opinion" (you can tell by the word "suspect") SNAP

how do you know? I suspect some men do find themselves having such urges--natural or not. I suspect fewer women do.

It's an opinion I still hold and it's backed up by crime statistics and personal experience and knowledge of incest victims and people who express incestuous thoughts. I suspect no amount of evidence would be enough to convince you otherwise, but I don't think any evidence is needed for that opinion of mine for most smart people. I don't want to be drawn into these silly conversations where I have to explain to people the difference between an opinion and a fact and what I meant versus what they've interpreted when it's all a big derail anyhow.

Let me be perfectly clear... you are not making sense to me. I do not care about your opinion regarding incest and who "wants it" and for what reasons. It would take actually data and people to convince me that women were anywhere near as likely to be perpetrators as unwilling victims... You may have convinced yourself that it's observation bias, but then where are these women like Fritzl or the Polygamous Mormon men or the many people serving crimes for incest/statutory rape? Other than in your imagination, I mean? Are they out there leading regimes and running cults and ordering airplanes flown into buildings? Are they start wars, paying people to step on their genitals, or dying of auto-erotic asphyxiation? Abusing power, presiding over nations, buying bizarre sex?

On my planet, women in these roles appear by all means to be strong exceptions to the rule. I thought maybe you had some evidence that women were more than an exception to the rule... apparently not, so you tangent ala claus. I only converse with those capable of conversation. I can't help it; I'm a snob that way. I can never make sense of some people. Oh, btw, I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you, but you suck at analogies... and your sterilization comment above is what is known as a "straw man".

Goodbye.

 

[ksbluesfan]

Are you also against making it impossible for a "normal" couple to have children if the two people are found to have a specific genetic defect in common?

No, I am not, but it might be wise for them to do so voluntarily.

 

[geni]

Any idea how states determine this? I have a lot of first cousins but none of them share my last name, who tells the state?

Well generaly the state relies on people not trying to get around the law and if someone does try someone being concerned enough to tell them. This is ultimately how rather a lot of the law works.

 

[geni]

I don't think the law has any business in who sleeps with who unless there is not consent or a minor is involved.

The problem with that argument is that amoung hetrosexual couples that law doesn't know that there may not be a minor involed (only way out of that one involves getting rid if child support requirements).

I'm not against them giving incentives for people to act responsibly or in a manner that lessens risk to society (Don't have tons of babies the state will need to support and educate). I don't think any marriage between consenting adults should be prevented. If there are privileges associated with marriage--be it rights of survival or anything else-- then I don't think the government has any rights keeping consenting adults from engaging in it.

So you are okey with the goverment useing insentives but not okey with it useing marriage as an insentive? What kind of insentives are you okey with it useing?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let me be perfectly clear... you are not making sense to me. I do not care about your opinion regarding incest and who "wants it" and for what reasons. It would take actually data and people to convince me that women were anywhere near as likely to be perpetrators as unwilling victims...

As opposed to your current position on these matters which is not based on data at all.

It is just like how based on prison statistics it is trivial to say that that backs up all the needs you have claim that african americans are naturaly more violent and ciminaly prone. But I find it unlikely you would just call that an opinion.

You may have convinced yourself that it's observation bias, but then where are these women like Fritzl or the Polygamous Mormon men or the many people serving crimes for incest/statutory rape? Other than in your imagination, I mean? Are they out there leading regimes and running cults and ordering airplanes flown into buildings? Are they start wars, paying people to step on their genitals, or dying of auto-erotic asphyxiation? Abusing power, presiding over nations, buying bizarre sex?

I don't know what are the statistics on this? You are useing incredibly bad reasoning, by first basing your opinions on what the media promotes for one, and things that you have no real idea what the statistics are.

 

[ponderingturtle]

and your sterilization comment above is what is known as a "straw man".

No, forced sterilization was on the books until relatively recently, and it had many of the same rationals suggested here to be a reason to ban incestuous relations.

 

[Loss Leader]

No, forced sterilization was on the books until relatively recently, and it had many of the same rationals suggested here to be a reason to ban incestuous relations.

Except the reason I gave.

 

[luchog]

I'm not trying to make a claim against all men... just noting that incestuous urges appear to be more prevalent in males... the Oedipus complex more prevalent than it's opposite. In fact, I made it a point to say that I realize most men are not incestuous... but most perpetrators of unwanted incest are men.

Correction: Most known perpetrators of unwanted incest are male. There are strong indications that female-initiated incest, particularly of the female/female variety, are dramatically underreported; much the same way that other forms of child abuse by females have been until very recently. The issue is still controversial, and there is still considerable denial of it's existence and prevalence. Some deniers even claim that female-perpetrated sexual abuse only occurs at the instigation of a male third party (eg. they're forced into it, and are therefore not responsible for it); or if not, then it can only be the result of some form of mental illness. There still isn't much reliable information regarding female-perpetrated sexual abuse; particularly incestual sexual abuse.

Female Perpetration of Child Sexual Abuse: An Overview of the Problem
Female Sex Offenders
Breaking the last taboo: child sexual abuse by female perpetrators

 

[billydkid]

I'm not really getting the connection. First, marriage is a legal contract. Incest is incest. If you had said homosexuality/incest, that would make some sense. My personal feeling is that the state has no business being involved in sex issues or marriage issues and any two adult people should be allowed to have whatever kind of relationship they want to have with each other. The problem with the marriage contract is that the conditions are not specified. If marriage is a legal contract, that's what it should be. If marriage is some sort of spiritual union of two souls, then it should be that.

 

[articulett]

The problem with that argument is that amoung hetrosexual couples that law doesn't know that there may not be a minor involed (only way out of that one involves getting rid if child support requirements).



So you are okey with the goverment useing insentives but not okey with it useing marriage as an insentive? What kind of insentives are you okey with it useing?

First learn to spell.. then maybe I'll consider you capable of having this discussion with me. Somehow, with the bad spelling, this comes across as one of those woo questions that you don't really want answered and that no amount of evidence would make you change your mind about whatever point you are imagining yourself conveying. You are asking questions to infer some point... try conversing with pondering turtle... perhaps you guys are on the same page.

 

[Loss Leader]

First, marriage is a legal contract.

No, it isn't.

 

[Dragoonster]

I have no problem with incestuous marriage. There's no slippery slope in my mind, the distinction of allowable marriage is:

<the parties must be capable of informed consent>

That's it. Allowed under that are:

*polygamous marriage
*incestual marriage
*heterosexual marriage
*homoesexual marriage
*any-sexual marriage

Things disallowed, because of the informed consent restriction are:

*child marriage
*animal marriage
*comatose/totally insane/other states of being incapalbe of consent marriage

Remove the "marriage" bit and that's how I view what sexual relations should be legal too. If two brothers or a woman and five men or a man and five women want to get married, and all know exactly what they're doing, how on earth does that cause real harm to anyone else? It doesn't.

 

[Lonewulf]

No, it isn't.

It isn't?

But isn't one of the major things about marriage the state-sponsored benefits, that the U.S. government grants? That certainly seems legal to me.

According to Wikipedia on the subject:

It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

So it seems like you'd have to back up this statement if you want us to accept it.

 

[geni]

First learn to spell.. then maybe I'll consider you capable of having this discussion with me. Somehow, with the bad spelling, this comes across as one of those woo questions that you don't really want answered and that no amount of evidence would make you change your mind about whatever point you are imagining yourself conveying. You are asking questions to infer some point... try conversing with pondering turtle... perhaps you guys are on the same page.

Ad homs are noted. Now do you actualy have a case?