Incest rears its ugly head

[rgrimm01]

Does it?

Fair enough. I would say yes. It might be true that the era from which I have sprung is skewing my perception of the way things are today. Having said that, I would be surprised to find a higher proportion of non married women striving to populate our species than their married counterparts.

We are going somewhat sideways from the point I was trying to convey. The question was should .gov have the authority to dictate whether incestuous behavior be allowed. My answer is that behavior (including any marriage thereof) should not be allowed for reasons previously stated? No one should have the right or freedom to prey upon the vulnerabilities of their children.

 

[IndyGal65]

It'd absolutely true. The only thing stopping the States from depriving you of every right you think you have is incorporation through the 14th amendment. The Court had previously ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal govt. The Indiana Congress very nearly added a prohibition in gay marriage to the State Constitution but the feds stepped in

Well, thank goodness... My partner (wife, sorry if that term upsets anyone) and I are already confused on how to do our taxes this year. 25 years together and we have to put up with the confusion of married/not married state tax rules. We usually use Turbo Tax. Hopefully, it is set up for this scenario, whatever "this" is.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Fair enough. I would say yes. It might be true that the era from which I have sprung is skewing my perception of the way things are today. Having said that, I would be surprised to find a higher proportion of non married women striving to populate our species than their married counterparts.

We are going somewhat sideways from the point I was trying to convey. The question was should .gov have the authority to dictate whether incestuous behavior be allowed. My answer is that behavior (including any marriage thereof) should not be allowed for reasons previously stated? No one should have the right or freedom to prey upon the vulnerabilities of their children.

I'd say if married mothers outnumber unmarried mothers varies based on the neighborhood, and if you include divorced and blended families, pfft, who knows? However none of those children are being born or not born based on legality. They are being born or not born based on societal pressure, personal ethics, religious codes, etc.

If your claim is that by allowing this couple to marry the state is encouraging the behavior which will result in some harm is basically saying that there are a significant number of people who would engage in an incestuous relationship that are holding back simply based on if they can get married or not. That if the state allows them to marry or not is what's holding them back? I'm guessing that number is pretty much zero.

If we're talking about children children, absolutely I think there's a role for society via the state to protect them. Once someone reaches the age of consent, though, they have been deemed to have enough wisdom legally to decide who they couple with. The fact it icks out 99% of us is in modern society is irrelevant. There is no harm to anyone who is not a voluntary participant. If you want to argue the potential children are harmed, then that brings up the question of are children of incest healthier than children of those with hereditary diseases and how comfortable you are with a eugenics program.

Both participants are deemed by society, via the law, to be mature enough to make their own coupling decisions. If they choose poorly is not our business legally, although of course you're free to attempt to persuade, shame, or argue them to voluntarily not participate in the behavior. If a "child" of that age can decide to not undergo live saving medical procedures, and the .gov is overstepping its bounds to try to force that "child" to live, how in the world can you argue the "child" can't decide their own sexual partners?

 

[rambone]

As far as marriage, is it not in society's best nterest to actually have branches in our family trees? Should not a high probability of mutated offspring be avoided?

I do not see this as an argument for an overreaching big goverment. Setting morality aside, this s a health concern and an example of an impressionable misguided child taken advantage.

When the government prohibits relationships & breeding in order to manipulate the collective gene pool of society, it is called eugenics. The USA blazed a trail into this dark place once before.

 

[oldpink]

We demand state recognition of intra-family marriage now.
To do otherwise is to allow the stormtroopers to win.
...not to mention the Vince Foster assassins, the plotters at Roswell, and the black helicopters.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We demand state recognition of intra-family marriage now.
To do otherwise is to allow the stormtroopers to win.
...not to mention the Vince Foster assassins, the plotters at Roswell, and the black helicopters.

Or don't recognize any marriage. Whichever. Leave the marriages to religious organizations and allow civil contracts if folks want their union to be acknowledged by the government for whatever reason.

Freedom of choice includes the freedom to choose poorly, as long as you don't endanger or otherwise interfere with others.

Again I ask, what harm does it do to you or to anyone not in the voluntary arrangement?

 

[oldpink]

If we don't allow total weirdos to have marriage licenses to fully legitimize their perversion, the tyrants have won!
Man the ramparts!
Get out your "I-N-C-E-S-T Keep it in the family" picket signs and stand to be counted; stand up for civil rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111oneoneoneone

 

[jamil]

If we need the state to issue marriage licenses, then the state gets to decide to whom it issues licenses. Likely, the rules for which people get marriage licenses, reflects the whim of who controls the state. When it becomes politically advantageous, the state will issue licenses for marrying sheep.

 

[BoxingRef]

Does this mean sheep will feel safer now in some states?

 

[cobber]

Again I ask, what harm does it do to you or to anyone not in the voluntary arrangement?

No harm. I'm good with it if the liberty lovers are prepared to accept the consequences. The gates were opened, and you can't slam them shut on any union, no matter if you find it "icky" or not.

Because, liberty!

Does this mean sheep will feel safer now in some states?

No, it means soon sheep will be able to marry their partners, human or not. Once this right to marry thing has run out of road, we'll be moving on to animal rights in a big way.

Because, y'know, liberty.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, other than snark and strawmen has anyone come up with a reason this is our business yet?

*Hint: Animals are not consenting adults. Minors are not consenting adults. Fairground rides are not consenting adults.

 

[rambone]

So, other than snark and strawmen has anyone come up with a reason this is our business yet?

What if someone bones a strawman?

Surely there is something in the bedroom we can regulate.

 

[Rookie]

Can it be a straw woman?

 

[findingZzero]

We are all married to our snark.

 

[Dead Duck]

I like Sheep!

 

[findingZzero]

I think I'm in love...b a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......, but still not ready to commit.

 

[rw496]

If we need the state to issue marriage licenses, then the state gets to decide to whom it issues licenses. Likely, the rules for which people get marriage licenses, reflects the whim of who controls the state. When it becomes politically advantageous, the state will issue licenses for marrying sheep.

That explains all the sheeple running around

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by edporch Check out this story.
"Woman getting married to fairground ride
Amy Wolfe, a US church organist who claims to have objectum sexuality,
a condition that makes sufferers attracted to inanimate objects,
plans to marry a magic carpet fairground ride."

Woman getting married to fairground ride - Telegraph

Does it harm her? Does it harm the ride? Does it harm anyone?

​Does anyone give a rat's ass?

My point is to the OP, that the gay marriage thing is just the tip of the iceburg.
This issue who can marry who/what has just begun, and where it will end is anybody's guess.

I guarantee you that it will progress to a point that one day it will get so depraved that even you will "give a rat's ass" about what will be allowed.

 

[Dead Duck]

I like Pigs too!

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Originally Posted by edporch Check out this story.
"Woman getting married to fairground ride
Amy Wolfe, a US church organist who claims to have objectum sexuality,
a condition that makes sufferers attracted to inanimate objects,
plans to marry a magic carpet fairground ride."

Woman getting married to fairground ride - Telegraph



My point is to the OP, that the gay marriage thing is just the tip of the iceburg.
This issue who can marry who/what has just begun, and where it will end is anybody's guess.

I guarantee you that it will progress to a point that one day it will get so depraved that even you will "give a rat's ass" about what will be allowed.

The level of supposed "depravity" is meaningless to me. Some people regard gay marriage as depraved. Some people used to regard inter-racial marriage as depraved and doubtless still do. Some people regard sex in anything other than male-superior position with the lights out as depraved. My standard will remain the same: is anyone being harmed?

As long as the answer to that is "no" then depravity, like beauty, will be in the eye of the beholder.