Incestious Marraige

[GabonX]

It's perfectly fine and should be legalized.

[Frigidus]

Sounds good, as long as it's between a man and a woman.

[GabonX]

Anyone should be allowed to marry anything. It's a basic human right, AND it needs official government recognition.

What's the point of marraige if I can't rub everyone's nose in it?

[SultanOfSurreal]

you know five years ago this shit would have made me pretty angry let me tell you

but now that i know you awful throwbacks are fighting a clearly losing battle over gay marriage, both legally and with respect to the public at large, i'm fine with your shrill handwringing over what the future holds, nay, i think it's awesome to behold

you and your ilk will be utterly broken across the fields of history. how does that feel? it must suck

[b.k. barunt]

Actually it doesn't make enough sense to suck. Sounds pretty though.


Honibaz

[SultanOfSurreal]

Actually it doesn't make enough sense to suck. Sounds pretty though.


Honibaz

it means that your grandchildren will be utterly ashamed of you

hope this helps

[GabonX]

you know five years ago this shit would have made me pretty angry let me tell you

but now that i know you awful throwbacks are fighting a clearly losing battle over gay marriage, both legally and with respect to the public at large, i'm fine with your shrill handwringing over what the future holds, nay, i think it's awesome to behold

you and your ilk will be utterly broken across the fields of history. how does that feel? it must suck

I wonder if they said things like this in Ancient Rome, perhapse on this very subject...

[SultanOfSurreal]

you know five years ago this shit would have made me pretty angry let me tell you

but now that i know you awful throwbacks are fighting a clearly losing battle over gay marriage, both legally and with respect to the public at large, i'm fine with your shrill handwringing over what the future holds, nay, i think it's awesome to behold

you and your ilk will be utterly broken across the fields of history. how does that feel? it must suck

I wonder if they said things like this in Ancient Rome, perhapse on this very subject...

probably not, they were too concerned with whipping slaves and keeping the peasant class down to worry about egalitarianism

but thanks for the most limp-wristed and cliche defense of your backwards beliefs possible, i was worried i might actually have to cite a study or quote a figure or something. instead i get to laugh at your spluttering "but them ancient romans fucked them boys" idiocy

[GabonX]

Come on, we all know you don't read studies.

Seriously though, that's a good one

Ahem. I was making the point that your claims about "history" and "losing battle" are clearly ungrounded. Nobody knows what the final social ruling on homosexuality will be.

I don't take a strong personal stance on the issue, but I will say that the people who are in support of gay rights in the West can not protect anyone or anything including percieved social progress such as gay rights. These people are weak physically and psychologically and there are many strong people in the world who oppose homosexuality.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I don't take a strong personal stance on the issue, but I will say that the people who are in support of gay rights in the West can not protect anyone or anything including percieved social progress such as gay rights. These people are week physically and psychologically.

say what

[GabonX]

[Snorri1234]

Ahem. I was making the point that your claims about "history" and "losing battle" are clearly ungrounded. Nobody knows what the final social ruling on homosexuality will be.

Actually, odds are in a few years it will pretty much be allowed.

[xelabale]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh nipples, make it go away.................................

[thegreekdog]

you know five years ago this shit would have made me pretty angry let me tell you

but now that i know you awful throwbacks are fighting a clearly losing battle over gay marriage, both legally and with respect to the public at large, i'm fine with your shrill handwringing over what the future holds, nay, i think it's awesome to behold

you and your ilk will be utterly broken across the fields of history. how does that feel? it must suck

So, Sultan, you are progressive because you think gay marriage is not only okay, but should be protected by the federal government? Why is GabonX not progressive because he thinks incestious marriage is not only okay, but should be protected by the federal government?

Frankly, I don't agree with GabonX's take on gay marriage, and I certainly don't think incestuous marriage will ever be legal (for health reasons). However, to call someone regressive for his take on gay marriage and then to turn around and not support something like polygamy or bestiality, makes you no different than GabonX. Which is probably Gabon's point, but it's certainly mine. You and liberals like you, who think that gay marriage is okay, but other things are not (for no other reason than that it is gross or wrong to you), are being hypocritical.

[Snorri1234]

you know five years ago this shit would have made me pretty angry let me tell you

but now that i know you awful throwbacks are fighting a clearly losing battle over gay marriage, both legally and with respect to the public at large, i'm fine with your shrill handwringing over what the future holds, nay, i think it's awesome to behold

you and your ilk will be utterly broken across the fields of history. how does that feel? it must suck

So, Sultan, you are progressive because you think gay marriage is not only okay, but should be protected by the federal government? Why is GabonX not progressive because he thinks incestious marriage is not only okay, but should be protected by the federal government?

Because GabonX doesn't think that way. This is just another tactic used by anti-gaymarriage people in a hilariously failing attempt to try to paint people in favor as wrong.

It's bullshit and Gabon is a moron for doing it yet again.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, it's not bullshit. You guys are accusing GabonX of being regressive because he doesn't support gay marriage. However, you won't support polygamy or bestiality or incest. How does that not make you regressive? In other words, why don't you support polygamy or bestiaility or incest? You could say it's because it's a non-issue, but, then why is gay marriage an issue for you? You could say it's because the Bible says those things are wrong, but, the Bible could say that gay marriage is wrong. You could say it's because those things are gross, but, a lot of people think homosexuality is gross.

If supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) are going to call those who are against gay marriage regressive or bigots (which I won't do), they should take a long look in the mirror.

[MeDeFe]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh nipples, make it go away.................................

Confirmed, nipples are porn.

[Snorri1234]

I really don't want to go over this for the zillionth time.

Actually, it's not bullshit. You guys are accusing GabonX of being regressive because he doesn't support gay marriage. However, you won't support polygamy or bestiality or incest. How does that not make you regressive? In other words, why don't you support polygamy or bestiaility or incest?

Incest is a non-issue because almost no one wants incestious marriage.
Polygamy is in theory okay but in practice it always seems to be about a man having the right to more than one woman and that the women have less rights than him. So uhm...we're ignoring it because it's something that only crazy sects seem to want.
Bestiality is easy because an animal can't give consent (like kids and inanimate objects) so you can't actually marry one.

This is not about us being regressive, it's about Gabon equating gay marriage with things that are not the same.

You could say it's because it's a non-issue, but, then why is gay marriage an issue for you? You could say it's because the Bible says those things are wrong, but, the Bible could say that gay marriage is wrong. You could say it's because those things are gross, but, a lot of people think homosexuality is gross.

Yeah I could say that but why would I?

If supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) are going to call those who are against gay marriage regressive or bigots (which I won't do), they should take a long look in the mirror.

That's just bullshit though.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Actually, it's not bullshit. You guys are accusing GabonX of being regressive because he doesn't support gay marriage. However, you won't support polygamy or bestiality or incest. How does that not make you regressive? In other words, why don't you support polygamy or bestiaility or incest? You could say it's because it's a non-issue, but, then why is gay marriage an issue for you? You could say it's because the Bible says those things are wrong, but, the Bible could say that gay marriage is wrong. You could say it's because those things are gross, but, a lot of people think homosexuality is gross.

If supporters of gay marriage (of which I am one) are going to call those who are against gay marriage regressive or bigots (which I won't do), they should take a long look in the mirror.

i have no problem with consenting adults who practice polygamy, but polygamy is in many cases used to control women, even children, in cult groups so there has been a legitimate cultural reason to find the idea morally wrong. that all being said, and as i've said before, allowing for polygamy would require an honest to god redefinition of marriage because while you can't arbitrarily limit cogent adults from entering into a cotnract on the basis of sex or some other discriminatory factor, you CAN limit the number of participants in a contract without violating the 14th amendment

i don't know what you mean by bestiality. marrying animals or just fucking them silly? because there are good reasons for the illegality of both, namely that animals are incapable of consent. also you are a giant dolt and i'm penalizing you 15 yards for equating homosexuality and bestiality

incest, well -- there's the "defective children" issue. there are also good arguments to be made that any incestuous relationship is inherently abusive because it exploits the power/trust relationship amongst family members. if a father wants to marry his adult daughter, that sort of strongly implies abuse went on at some point, or at least that he considered abuse.

this being said if a brother and sister really want to get their bone on i see no real reason to stop that, provided both are consenting adults over the age of majority. sure they're irredeemably fucked in the head but we let people do crazy shit all the time in this free society of ours

i think the real reason incestuous marriage hasn't come up is because it really is a non-issue. how many siblings want to marry each other? there hasn't been a push for it in the same way there's been a push for gay marriage, and i see no reason to fight a battle no one cares about winning

[thegreekdog]

No, snorri, it's not bullshit. It's not bullshit just because 95% of the people in this country think it's bullshit. After all, 200 years ago 95% of the people in this country thought that it wasn't okay for a black man and a white woman to marry. We know now that they were being, as Sultan would probably put it, ignorant, racist, regressive assholes.

Generally speaking, supporters of gay marriage want the US Supreme Court to determine that gay marriage is a protected right under the Constitution. If they do that, they need to consider other forms of coupling to be constitutionally protected. The argument is absolutely valid, and is totally ignored or called bullshit by 95% of the people that support gay marriage. The Constitution wasn't meant as a vehicle to support broad public changes through the use of the Supreme Court. That's what it is used for now because of FDR and a long line of cases since he packed the Supreme Court.

So, while I'll argue that gay marriage should be legalized everywhere, I won't argue that it's protected by the Constitution, because it's not. Do I think that the Supreme Court will determine that it is protected? Yeah, probably, depending on how things shake out. However, I don't think this should be fought in the Supreme Court. I think gay rights' advocates should educate and try to change minds and then get these laws passed in states like New Hampshire, and others.

[thegreekdog]

but polygamy is in many cases used to control women, even children, in cult groups so there has been a legitimate cultural reason to find the idea morally wrong.

Some may argue that homosexuality is wrong for a "legitimate cultural reason." I mean, c'mon man, there are so many cultural arguments against homosexuality in this country. They aren't just illegtimate because you say they are. There shouldn't be any argument for a "cultural reason" for anything that is supposed to be protected by the Constitution. Culture shouldn't come into play at all. Think of it this way - Some may have argued that the marriage of a black man and a white woman was wrong for "legitimate cultural reasons."

that all being said, and as i've said before, allowing for polygamy would require an honest to god redefinition of marriage because while you can't arbitrarily limit cogent adults from entering into a cotnract on the basis of sex or some other discriminatory factor, you CAN limit the number of participants in a contract without violating the 14th amendment

Well, if homosexuality is constitutionally protected without being in the Constitution, polygamy can be constitutionally protected without being in the Constitution too. Further, as I have indicated before, polygamy has its roots in religion, a SPECIFICALLY protected right under the Constitution; which is further support for polygamy being constitutionally protected.

[SultanOfSurreal]

The Constitution wasn't meant as a vehicle to support broad public changes through the use of the Supreme Court. That's what it is used for now because of FDR and a long line of cases since he packed the Supreme Court.

oh hey there's historical event #3,401 that greek knows precisely null about but shoots his mouth off on anyway

anyway, gay marriage is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right in and of itself; the constitutionally-guaranteed right is equal protection. from that stems gay marriage, wherever marriage is offered. this doesn't apply to bestiality, because animals can't consent, and it doesn't apply to polygamy because you can limit the number of people in a contract. and as to incest... i'm sure there's some legal argument to be made but i don't know it off the top of my head, nor do i particularly care one way or the other.

Well, if homosexuality is constitutionally protected without being in the Constitution, polygamy can be constitutionally protected without being in the Constitution too. Further, as I have indicated before, polygamy has its roots in religion, a SPECIFICALLY protected right under the Constitution; which is further support for polygamy being constitutionally protected.

this is on the short list for winning dumbest comment of the week

[thegreekdog]

The Constitution wasn't meant as a vehicle to support broad public changes through the use of the Supreme Court. That's what it is used for now because of FDR and a long line of cases since he packed the Supreme Court.

oh hey there's historical event #3,401 that greek knows precisely null about but shoots his mouth off on anyway

anyway, gay marriage is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right in and of itself; the constitutionally-guaranteed right is equal protection. from that stems gay marriage, wherever marriage is offered. this doesn't apply to bestiality, because animals can't consent, and it doesn't apply to polygamy because you can limit the number of people in a contract. and as to incest... i'm sure there's some legal argument to be made but i don't know it off the top of my head, nor do i particularly care one way or the other.

Meh, you're not getting what I'm saying. I've made this argument before with no legitimate responses and no changing of minds. I don't know why I try, it's not like polygamy is going to be determined to be constitutionally protected (not for any legal reason, but, rather because "there is a legitimate cultural reason"). It's not like gay marriage won't get constitutional protection in the next five years.

Love how you disregarded my "legitimate cultural reason" arguments. Also, love the "greek knows precisely null about but shoots his mouth off anyway." Try this one -

oh hey there's historical event #3,401 that greek knows precisely null about but shoots his mouth off on anyway

oh, hey, there's quote # 3,402 that shows how Sultan likes to sidestep arguments by saying "ur stoopid" without giving any actual factual background because he can't be bothered with idiots.

[SultanOfSurreal]

The Constitution wasn't meant as a vehicle to support broad public changes through the use of the Supreme Court. That's what it is used for now because of FDR and a long line of cases since he packed the Supreme Court.

oh hey there's historical event #3,401 that greek knows precisely null about but shoots his mouth off on anyway

anyway, gay marriage is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right in and of itself; the constitutionally-guaranteed right is equal protection. from that stems gay marriage, wherever marriage is offered. this doesn't apply to bestiality, because animals can't consent, and it doesn't apply to polygamy because you can limit the number of people in a contract. and as to incest... i'm sure there's some legal argument to be made but i don't know it off the top of my head, nor do i particularly care one way or the other.

Meh, you're not getting what I'm saying. I've made this argument before with no legitimate responses and no changing of minds. I don't know why I try, it's not like polygamy is going to be determined to be constitutionally protected (not for any legal reason, but, rather because "there is a legitimate cultural reason"). It's not like gay marriage won't get constitutional protection in the next five years.

Love how you disregarded my "legitimate cultural reason" arguments. Also, love the "greek knows precisely null about but shoots his mouth off anyway." Try this one -

i just said that polygamy has historically led to abuse of women and children on large scales in the past, this is a lot different than an alabaman's heartfelt concern re: them niggers dating my girl

oh hey there's historical event #3,401 that greek knows precisely null about but shoots his mouth off on anyway

oh, hey, there's quote # 3,402 that shows how Sultan likes to sidestep arguments by saying "ur stoopid" without giving any actual factual background because he can't be bothered with idiots.

let's start with how fdr's court packing scheme failed, first off. then move on to how it had precisely nothing to do with the current state of constitutional scholarship. then finally, if there's time, we can swing around to examples of the supreme court causing great social change with constitutional interpretation throughout history, before and after roosevelt.

[thegreekdog]

let's start with how fdr's court packing scheme failed, first off. then move on to how it had precisely nothing to do with the current state of constitutional scholarship. then finally, if there's time, we can swing around to examples of the supreme court causing great social change with constitutional interpretation throughout history, before and after roosevelt.

Did it fail because the bill was not passed? Or did it succeed because FDR pressured the Court into going along with the New Deal? If you studied the law, you'd know that there were two camps (much as there is now), one calling for a living and malleable Constitution, the other calling for a nonmalleable Constitution. These approaches existed prior to FDR, probably only be a few years. So, while I don't blame FDR for the current "malleable" Constitution, he was one of the most, if not the most, responsible for it.

Also, I'd love to know when the Supreme Court was involved in "great social chnage with constitutional intepretation throughout history" before the 1920s. Was is the Dred Scott decision? To use a phrase of yours, "enlighten me."