Sibling/Parental Marriage and Moral Progress/Evolution

[Phatscotty]

But that is only partly what this is about, since it's also about what it means that so many before guaranteed this wouldn't happen, wrote it off as 'slippery slope'. Why couldn't they even accept the thought of this coming? got an opinion there?

You were misinterpreting that argument at the time, and you're still misinterpreting it now. The argument was never that this would not happen. It was that it had nothing to do with, and would not be caused by, the legalization of gay marriage. The reasons that people had (have) for disagreeing with gay and incestuous relationships was generally different, so one has nothing to do with the other.

Well, actually, some people charged with incest say it has everything to do with it, using the exact same arguments...all of them. I think you mean you did not intend for it to be a doorway for legal incest. Hey, love is love. So long as they are consenting, right? No person should be denied the 'right' to marry the person they love. Doesn't it at least say something that only now we are actually debating incest seriously?

Here is just one specific case of a man charged with incest using the gay marriage defense directly. Oh, hey, what do ya know? This man just so happens to be, super coincidentally, an elite uber-Leftist College Professor! Weird, right?

The revelation that David Epstein, a 46-year-old professor of political science at Columbia, was charged last week with having a 3-year sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter has, over the weekend, raised new questions about cultural incest taboos. The relationship began in 2006 and involved “twisted text messages” as well as sexual intercourse. Epstein was charged with third-degree incest; if convicted, he could face up to four years in prison.

The issue, for most people, is that we have no reason to think the relationship was not consensual. Epstein’s daughter was over the age of 18 when the relationship began, which should mean that according to New York law, she should be equally culpable. But strangely enough, she hasn’t been charged with incest. And although for some, the sordid details are more important, I’m interested by the many feminist bloggers who have questioned why our immediate reaction is to see Epstein’s daughter as the victim, and what exactly makes us see this relationship as immoral.

On Broadsheet, Tracy Clark-Flory explained some of the rationale, after talking to a law professor who has a significant background with legal aspects of the incest taboo. The professor explained that for the courts, the typical reaction is to assume that the parent is the perpetrator and the child is the victim. “We don’t normally prosecute a person falling within the protected class, and you remain a member of the protected class even above age of consent,” he explained.

“Regardless of the age of the child,” he continued, “there’s still a theory that a parent is always a parent, a child is always a child and, as a result, there truly can’t be a consensual sexual act.”

In other states, both parties would be charged. Writing for Jezebel, Sadie Stein explains why our legal system is even involved in a case like this, where the sex (as taboo as it may be) took place between two (apparently) consenting adults. The threat is genetic mutation, which seems like a mask for a deep cultural distaste for incest, one which I’m not sure should be legislated.

The case, needless to say, is raising more questions than it’s answering – especially the extent to which incest should be a subject for public, legal morality. What do you think? Should the state be involved in a relationship like this, and if so, should the daughter be charged too? What’s the role of child protection, and at what point is the daughter responsible for her own decisions? And how would the conversation change, if at all, if the child was a son and the parent was his mother? Especially because incest is often invoked as a taboo that will fall if we permit gay marriage, this is a conversation we need to be having.

The lawyer representing a professor charged with incest with his 24-year-old daughter has questioned why the alleged affair has been made public.
David Epstein was charged last week with one count of incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his daughter.
The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.
He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.
‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.
‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?
‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.’

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/columbia-pr ... z3HhixEnS5

[Phatscotty]

Prohibiting sexual relations between or among siblings is a form of eugenics.

Is Phatscotty supporting eugenics ITT?

Sexual relations between sibling/parents is also a form of a few other things. Can you name some?

[BigBallinStalin]

Prohibiting sexual relations between or among siblings is a form of eugenics.

Is Phatscotty supporting eugenics ITT?

Sexual relations between sibling/parents is also a form of a few other things. Can you name some?

Let's currently focus on your support of eugenics.

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race") is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population.

If PS supports laws/social customs against sexual relations between/among siblings, then PS is supporting eugenics in this thread.

[Phatscotty]

lol.... BBS 2 can play... 'BBS, How does a pedophile marrying a young teenage boy affect your marriage? Oh it doesn't? Okay all your opinions are invalid.' BOOM! Hopefully nefarious talking points are not the only thing to have suffered from a lack of evolution

Just wanted to make a statement in respect to CrispyBits n others, as I feel it's wrong to keep joking around in other threads and ignore the incest/first amendment/pedophilia sexual orientation/gender doesn't matter threads, but in all honesty I just can't keep consuming these topics on an everyday basis, nor do I want to. I'll address them every other day or couple days.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol.... BBS 2 can play... 'BBS, How does a pedophile marrying a young teenage boy affect your marriage? Oh it doesn't? Okay all your opinions are invalid.' BOOM! Hopefully nefarious talking points are not the only thing to have suffered from a lack of evolution

Just wanted to make a statement in respect to CrispyBits n others, as I feel it's wrong to keep joking around in other threads and ignore the incest/first amendment/pedophilia sexual orientation/gender doesn't matter threads, but in all honesty I just can't keep consuming these topics on an everyday basis, nor do I want to. I'll address them every other day or couple days.

That's not similar to my argument because I never mentioned anything about Marriage X affecting Marriage Y, so you're failing at 'playing my game.'

Anyway, the definition of eugenics is clear. Why do you support policies which result in eugenics?

You do. Now, why do you proclaim to be about freedom when faced with this contradiction? *(How will PS wiggle outta this one!?)

[Metsfanmax]

Anyway, the definition of eugenics is clear. Why do you support policies which result in eugenics?

You do. Now, why do you proclaim to be about freedom when faced with this contradiction? *(How will PS wiggle outta this one!?)

I don't think you'll gain traction with this line of questioning. It's just a feature of the set of values of many American conservatives that in addition to valuing personal freedom, they value purity and strength of American society, and so they also value eugenics -- broadly considered. And there's nothing wrong with valuing eugenics in the abstract sense. So, asking why is the wrong question.

[Phatscotty]

lol.... BBS 2 can play... 'BBS, How does a pedophile marrying a young teenage boy affect your marriage? Oh it doesn't? Okay all your opinions are invalid.' BOOM! Hopefully nefarious talking points are not the only thing to have suffered from a lack of evolution

Just wanted to make a statement in respect to CrispyBits n others, as I feel it's wrong to keep joking around in other threads and ignore the incest/first amendment/pedophilia sexual orientation/gender doesn't matter threads, but in all honesty I just can't keep consuming these topics on an everyday basis, nor do I want to. I'll address them every other day or couple days.

That's not similar to my argument because I never mentioned anything about Marriage X affecting Marriage Y, so you're failing at 'playing my game.'

Anyway, the definition of eugenics is clear. Why do you support policies which result in eugenics?

You do. Now, why do you proclaim to be about freedom when faced with this contradiction? *(How will PS wiggle outta this one!?)

I don't support them, no wiggling needed. But now I can complete the circle-jerk in your words and not mine. I never mentioned anything supporting eugenics, but I have mentioned many things many times that are the opposite of supporting eugenics. You don't have to play any games to know that, you just have to be an adult about it (or at least somewhat humorous) and read previous posts in this very thread.

[Phatscotty]

Anyway, the definition of eugenics is clear. Why do you support policies which result in eugenics?

You do. Now, why do you proclaim to be about freedom when faced with this contradiction? *(How will PS wiggle outta this one!?)

I don't think you'll gain traction with this line of questioning. It's just a feature of the set of values of many American conservatives that in addition to valuing personal freedom, they value purity and strength of American society, and so they also value eugenics -- broadly considered. And there's nothing wrong with valuing eugenics in the abstract sense. So, asking why is the wrong question.

Sure, there is that, as well as you could more easily point out that BBS is just reaching for things that are not there, but the truth wouldn't fit into your agenda now would it? In other words, make sure to only point out strawman arguments you don't like while sitting back and even lending crafty credence to strawman arguments you do like.

[Phatscotty]

Also, if I remember correctly, the two that were being trotted out most often as the consequences of the slippery slope were bestiality and peadophilia.

not exactly. I have never focused on the bestiality consequence, and at the time I noted how bestiality was a distraction from the real issue at hand and shouldn't be taken seriously as there were far more much more legitimate avenues on which to navigate the issue.

Bestiality

It was the supporters of redefining marriage who brought up bestiality again and again and again. Here's an example of how that works and why. I'm sure you heard a lot about Obama's birth certificate and how Republicans 'most often trotted out' that Obama was born in Kenya, right? That isn't the full truth though, because it was Progressives who trotted out the certificate and Kenya most often. Why? Because it was an effective way to ridicule and ignore any criticism of Obama whether the critiques were valid or not. As you have seen me point out most often in the responses I get from Progressives, when I ask them a direct question, they think they are really giving an answer about what they think by focusing on me and what I think in their response. That is their logical process to ignore reality and continue attempting to live out their perceptions for as long as possible.

So, in the same way a Progressive would deal with the question - 'Republicans are saying Obama is a Socialist and is promoting redistributionist policies intent on spreading the wealth at the expense of the pillars of Freedom that suggest, for one, the anti-slavery principle that people are entitled to the fruits of their own labor and no slave owners may make a claim on that fruit. What do you think?' to which the Progressive deals with the question and all the concepts within it 'Well, Republicans think Obama was born in Kenya, so.....lulzers" which dovetailed nicely into the 'most often trotted out' narrative that anyone who says anything not positive about Obama is a racist.

Likewise with bestiality, that was a concept the crowd set on redefining marriage told themselves and joked about with like minded individuals by fully accepting the false narrative 'Traditional marriage supporters base their opposition to same sex marriage because they think it will lead to bestiality, and that's dumb so they are dumb' It allows them to continue making decisions based on emotions while justifying to themselves that it truly is such a no-brainer that the mind isn't even needed on this one.

'Love is love' - "well, who would argue with that? must be hate in their hearts. NO H8!!!! "
'well, what about when a pedophile makes the case that he loves an 8 year old boy, and that love is love' - "well, it's not like bestiality is gonna happen tomorrow.....okay I gotta go"

the way to influence human being's minds has been broken down to a science on how to manipulate. That's why whenever I see emotions ruling people's judgement I always start looking at their material and their sources. But 3/4 of the time they are so confident in their hearts that they not only do not need to provide any sources or examples, but they do not need to listen to any speech that doesn't agree with how they see or more accurately 'feel' an issue personally. Most of the time they just conclude it's best not to talk with me at all about anything, and go back to bury their head in the sand and try to forget what they heard.

Another one of these I have seen recently and often; when an example is provided, a person thinks it's okay to discard the entire point/reality brought to the forefront based on the simple fact the one who brought the new reality to the forefront 'has an agenda'....as if it matters who showed the example, or as if the truth perhaps the person bringing the example 'has an agenda' somehow changes the facts of the example?

[mrswdk]

Phats, I'm getting kinda confused trying to work out what your views actually are. Do you support or oppose:

1) the freedom to f*ck someone of the same gender?
2) the freedom to marry someone of the same gender?
3) the freedom to f*ck your parents or siblings?
4) the freedom to marry your parents or siblings?

A one word answer for each will suffice.

[Phatscotty]

Phats, I'm getting kinda confused trying to work out what your views actually are. Do you support or oppose:

1) the freedom to f*ck someone of the same gender?
2) the freedom to marry someone of the same gender?
3) the freedom to f*ck your parents or siblings?
4) the freedom to marry your parents or siblings?

A one word answer for each will suffice.

1) support
2) support*
3) support**
4) oppose***

[PLAYER57832]

lots of porn out there with hot twin sisters making out.

That you associate porn with marriage is ... disgusting.

Its not the physical, visual aspect that makes porn bad or wrong, its the fact that it turns people, particularly women, into mere objects. It turns an act into merely gratifying other people's pleasure.

When you put pleasure, the pursuit of pleasure above the feelings of other people, it is wrong... and leads to a lot of other wrongs. In fact, the pursuit of pleasure without regard to other's feelings could be said to be the epitome of evil itself.

But.. since I can see this thread eroding into "oh yeah.. well, let me just SHOW you" garbage, I think I will just exit here.

[KoolBak]

It please me to win a game of risk. Many times, I do not give a squirt of piss about my opponents' feelings re: their bad luck / loss.

My pleasure acquisition comes before their feelings; I am evil?

[BigBallinStalin]

lol.... BBS 2 can play... 'BBS, How does a pedophile marrying a young teenage boy affect your marriage? Oh it doesn't? Okay all your opinions are invalid.' BOOM! Hopefully nefarious talking points are not the only thing to have suffered from a lack of evolution

Just wanted to make a statement in respect to CrispyBits n others, as I feel it's wrong to keep joking around in other threads and ignore the incest/first amendment/pedophilia sexual orientation/gender doesn't matter threads, but in all honesty I just can't keep consuming these topics on an everyday basis, nor do I want to. I'll address them every other day or couple days.

That's not similar to my argument because I never mentioned anything about Marriage X affecting Marriage Y, so you're failing at 'playing my game.'

Anyway, the definition of eugenics is clear. Why do you support policies which result in eugenics?

You do. Now, why do you proclaim to be about freedom when faced with this contradiction? *(How will PS wiggle outta this one!?)

I don't support them, no wiggling needed. But now I can complete the circle-jerk in your words and not mine. I never mentioned anything supporting eugenics, but I have mentioned many things many times that are the opposite of supporting eugenics. You don't have to play any games to know that, you just have to be an adult about it (or at least somewhat humorous) and read previous posts in this very thread.

So PS is completely fine (legally) about having no laws against marriage and/or sex between siblings and cousins.

Thank you, PS.

[BoganGod]

Incest a game the entire family can play

[Phatscotty]

Incest a game the entire family can play

Where is the son's other hand? Why is his mom smiling? Does the father know but pretend not to?

[thegreekdog]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

You know the answer to that better than anyone, as I have always stated 'no government permission slips for marriage' and that 'marriage is an ecclesiastic institution'.....just as well as I know better than anyone you do believe it is the role of the state to make sure no person is denied their human right to marry who they love, and to make sure nobody and nothing can discriminate against or interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults regardless, and that all relationships must be recognized,accepted, tolerated, and embraced by all governments, NGO's, charities religious or otherwise, small businesses and corporations, regardless. Love is love.

I take it you voted yes then?

PS - I read this and do not know whether you answered Mets's question "yes" or "no." Can you please provide a yes or no answer? Just one word will do.

[notyou2]

Greek, I assumed the asterisks are for his qualifications to follow.

[crispybits]

Phatscotty: regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of incestuous relationships, do you believe it is the role of the State to interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults?

You know the answer to that better than anyone, as I have always stated 'no government permission slips for marriage' and that 'marriage is an ecclesiastic institution'.....just as well as I know better than anyone you do believe it is the role of the state to make sure no person is denied their human right to marry who they love, and to make sure nobody and nothing can discriminate against or interfere in the romantic and sexual activities of consenting adults regardless, and that all relationships must be recognized,accepted, tolerated, and embraced by all governments, NGO's, charities religious or otherwise, small businesses and corporations, regardless. Love is love.

I take it you voted yes then?

Actually, marriage was always a social institution until the church grabbed control over it in the early dark ages. There was no ceremony, no ritual, couples simply agreed (often wthout even needing witnesses depending on the culture). It wasn't until Ignatius of Antioch decided that they should be done only with the permission of the church that they became ecclesiastic matters, and even then I would suggest only because of the power of the church during that period to cause massive trouble for anyone not doing what it said they should. In Ancient Greece, Rome, Germany, China and India there were no religious connotations to marriage at all before the various churches imposed themselves on the institution.

So when you decry government involvement, just remember that the church has no business being involved in people's marriages either if they do not want it there. The church did not invent marriage, and no religious institution owns it.