Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Father/son marriage 69

Journal by smitty_one_each
Just had an interesting discussion on Twitter. Subject topic came up, and I'm all, "If it's legal, why not?"
"Oh, this is absurd/illogical/fallacy/distraction," came the blowback from the "modern" marriage proponent.
I can't figure out why. Is it even incestuous, if the arrangement is biologically incapable of achieving anything in the way of offspring?
Just to refine my point, I was dead to the discussion at homosexuality. Once "anything goes" is fully legal, I'm not tracking any objections to whatever coupling/geometry/number/species feels good to all of the mucous membranes in question.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Father/son marriage

Comments Filter:
  • http://pudge.net/glob/2009/05/maine-continues-centuries-of-marriage-discrimination.html [pudge.net]
    http://pudge.net/glob/2011/06/new-york-reinforces-marriage-discrimination.html [pudge.net]
    http://pudge.net/glob/2012/10/everything-but-marriage-was-a-lie.html [pudge.net]

    If you say you want marriage equality, you should not only allow father/son or brother/brother marriage, you should welcome it. After all, you care about equality.

    I've written many posts on it, and none of the answers against incest, but for "marriage equality," are reasonable.

    • This is what I call the sex with animals argument, you chose a slightly different form, but it's really the same argument. I get the feeling you think if beastiality were legalised tomorrow at least 30% of the population would be at it with their pets tomorrow. And I just dont feel that.

      And frankly I dont really care if some sick freak somewhere is doing his horse or his dog. I dont believe any significant portion of the population would ever have anything but a negative response to it, and I am not afraid

      • My advice is to never marry any species that can't sign a prenuptial. It's nothing but trouble.

      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        This is what I call the sex with animals argument, you chose a slightly different form, but it's really the same argument.

        So you're comparing two loving human beings having sex with each other, to bestiality.

        Wow. Still, in 2013, people are still saying such vile things. Amazing.

        I get the feeling you think if beastiality were legalised tomorrow at least 30% of the population would be at it with their pets tomorrow.

        Nothing I said could possibly have given you that feeling. I simply believe that government's purpose is not to secure rights isn't for large groups, but for individuals, and when a law says "any two people can get married ... unless they are closely related," that is obviously and facially discriminatory, and further, that there is no sense in which

        • by Arker (91948)
          OK I obviously misunderstood you. I agree that the state should get out of marriage entirely. Why is polygamy a problem?
          • Well, the State loves to fanny about with the population via the tax code.
            If peoples' crotches are private, why not their wallets?
            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              Frankly, I think the implementation of the income tax is unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment is valid, but it doesn't explicitly or implicitly repeal the 4th Amendment. I see no legal justification for requiring me to say where I got all my money, with backing paperwork, but only the amount of income I got. If they want the rest -- maybe because they disbelieve me -- they should be required to get a court order.

              Yes, it would make the system unwieldy. But the 4th Amendment doesn't provide an "unwieldy"

              • Irrespective of any legal argument you could construct, the stare decisis will fall on the side of the State.
                After the first rape, it was all deemed consensual.
                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  Oh no question that no Court would overturn some of our income tax laws that require us to fork over our economic privacy, despite lack of constitutional authority. You might get a single justice on your side for that one.

        • anyhow, why is polygamy a problem?

          And why do we even need the concept of 'civil union' to begin with?

          We are as a society conflating a bunch of different things as an obligatory mega-bundle, for many centuries. Until very recently, church and state were essentially one (and the state parts were much less advanced and powerful in comparison) and this was a key means by which the church maintained control. Very recently, in some regions, church and state became disentangled.. and the state kept the entire bund

          • Darn slashdot needs an edit...

            I will forever curse the day when that happens. A second post is always sufficient for making corrections. Comments set in stone is Slashdot's last remaining value to the internet, despite all the spambots crapflooding the journal system.

          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            anyhow, why is polygamy a problem?

            I don't have a problem with others doing it, per se. But it is a difficult problem to fit into our existing "civil union" system. There are legal challenges and so on.

            So my proposal is that each government-recognized union has exactly two consenting adults, and each consenting adult is in exactly 0 or 1 unions. Just do that. It takes pretty much no changes in our existing systems to get that done.

            After that, interested parties can try to work out how to make multiple-partner unions, or multi-union partn

            • by Arker (91948)

              " We could just have every married couple work out their own contracts and details ... but that is just wasteful and silly. It should remain an option for couples, of course, but we should just have a standard union that government recognizes to make our system more efficient."

              You do realise it is NOT currently an option, right?

              I mean pre-nups exist but they are an arcane and specialised area of law. It is in no way straightforward or just reasonably obtainable, for the average person who cannot afford to p

              • "But someone that should be legally insulated from the government, not someone that should be licensed and regulated by them."

                In what pre-Progressive era do you live?
              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                And even for those that CAN afford such high costs, the options are still very limited.

                So you agree the options exist.

                That's all I was saying. They exist, and should remain existing.

                I would propose that you are still being slightly too timid in your libertarianism. There is no need for governments to even recognise these unions, indeed, it taints and lessens a sacred union to be licensed and 'recognised' by the state.

                I live in the real world. This is what people want: government recognition for the purpose of streamlining the process of recognizing visitation rights, parental rights, and so on.

                But these are all places where government is already way more involved than it needs to be.

                Probably, but that isn't going to change. I am not laying out vain hopes, but a realistic plan.

    • You Conservatives. It's so passe to analyze things objectively in terms of principles and strive for such antiquated values as consistency and coherency in positions. Your Constitutional republic is dead, boys, it's now a democracy, where a thing is right if it can be made popular. (Or if you can get a court to foist/force it.) You guys have such laughably American ways of looking at things. America is almost dead, but Americanism died a long time ago.

      TL;DR: Why would you even try to think about larger ramn

  • Currently homosexual relationships in many states enjoy far less protection than a father/son relationship. I cannot say it has never happened (indeed it is likely that in human history at some point it has) but I have never known of a romantic father/son relationship. Nonetheless, the only privilege that a father/son relationship would gain by going to marriage (if it were legally recognized) would be the tax rate. They already have inheritance, they already have the ability to make decisions for each o
    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      Currently homosexual relationships in many states enjoy far less protection than a father/son relationship. I cannot say it has never happened (indeed it is likely that in human history at some point it has) but I have never known of a romantic father/son relationship. Nonetheless, the only privilege that a father/son relationship would gain by going to marriage (if it were legally recognized) would be the tax rate.

      Your comment is almost completely irrelevant. You're speaking as though tangible benefits are the point of gay marriage. If that were true, WA would not have gay marriage, because we already had a law providing gay couples with every state right and privilege of marriage (obviously DOMA supercedes for federal stuff). But they didn't think it was sufficient, for purely symbolic reasons. Why would that be any different for a blood-romance relations?

      • It's important for the homosexual marriage crowd both to point out that
        divorcing heterosexuals are already denigrating marriage to the point of worthlessness, but that
        there is still enough value (tax and privilege &c) so that fruitless pairings should still qualify for weddings.
        If your goal was the demolition of our existing societal norms, why wouldn't you use every available nihilistic wrecking ball?
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          I think that is part of it down deep, but really, I think they don't think it through that much. I think they are statists who, because they are statists, crave the attention and recognition of the state, even when they say they don't. So they may say "keep the state out of my bedroom," but what they really mean is "I want the state to officially approve of what's going on in my bedroom." Some of the reason for this may be nihilism, but I think more of it is just statism, in every facet of everyone's lif

      • Your comment is almost completely irrelevant.

        False.

        You're speaking as though tangible benefits are the point of gay marriage.

        No.

        If that were true, WA would not have gay marriage, because we already had a law providing gay couples with every state right and privilege of marriage

        False.

        But they didn't think it was sufficient, for purely symbolic reasons.

        False.

        Why would that be any different for a blood-romance relations?

        No.

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          ISWYDT, but I -- unless the person I am responding to is not being responsive to my points -- always actually provide arguments. You didn't. We know why.

          • I -- unless the person I am responding to is not being responsive to my points -- always actually provide arguments.

            Stop lying.

            You didn't.

            No.

            We know why

            False.

  • To the government, it's about taxes, contracts, visitation rights, etc, and everybody has the same rights to the same contract, which no other species can be part of, so save your breath on that. The religion angle does not apply, and the wall between state and religion must stand firm. What's legal for some must be made legal for all. If you are for equal protection under the law, then you must accept this. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

    You got way too much Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson on the brai

    • That's right. To shred Martin Luther's context: "Sin boldly". Just spray those fluids as far and wide as legally possible, say I.
      • I guess my whole point is that you all are obsessed in meddling with other peoples' private lives, which are not yours or anybody else's business. Try bitching about something useful, like, oh, I don't know, ending the wars, or prohibition maybe? I mean, if you're gonna be all pro-life and stuff, that would be a good place to start. Get that giant Sequoia out of your eye, stop catapulting the boulders, and practice a bit more introspection. Everybody has the same rights, even the 'sinners' you fixate on. Do

        • Well, as long as we're blowing the scope of the discussion out of the water, what we're really about here is whether an ideal existential model exists, and how best to encourage people to grow toward that model, if encouraging people is indeed worth doing.
          • Encouraging and guiding is very different from legislating and condemning. While I am all for allowing you the former, the politicians you vote for are perpetrating the latter. Their laws are the same as burning crosses, worse actually, more like lynching, and not always figuratively. It's plain old oppression. The scope of your argument extends far beyond the spoken or written words, and you seem to be unaware of the consequences of forceful meddling. Like MH_42 said, I focus on the results. The authoritar

            • Well, burning a cross isn't the same as inflating the currency and using it to bribe people into giving up their liberty. To the extent the victims play along with the authoritarians, all are culpable.
              How to break the cycle? I say you reign in the Federal Reserve, and deal with the ripple effects.
              • To the extent the victims play along with the authoritarians, all are culpable.

                Very true, I've been saying that for a long time, but we need to realize they don't know any better, and they are lulled into believing they can get a piece. Ignorance, apathy, and lechery are powerful enablers. All part of the show

                How to break the cycle? I say you reign in the Federal Reserve, and deal with the ripple effects.

                A very nice sentiment that I don't disagree with, though I prefer to eliminate it, but none of that take

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          I guess my whole point is that you all are obsessed in meddling with other peoples' private lives, which are not yours or anybody else's business.

          I wouldn't bother commenting, except you don't seem to understand that this whole issue is about the gay marriage proponents making their private lives the public's business. Literally and explicitly, that is what they are doing.

          Your comment in its full context is tragically comic nonsense.

          Everybody has the same rights, even the 'sinners' you fixate on.

          So you are in favor of eliminating anti-incest marriage laws?

          • See earlier comment on nihilistic wrecking balls.
          • I had no reason to respond until I saw a most appropriate quote, to paraphrase:

            *You are allowed to belong to any hate group you want. But the rest of us are allowed to say it's a group of bigoted fucks.*

            And I will add that, even as you try to play the victim card, it is not persecution to demand that your bigotry be removed from the law books. Try to remember, "What happens on tour stays on tour". Keep that shit in your church.

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              This is what y'all do.

              Nothing I've said is hateful or bigoted, nor did I imply victimhood in any way. At all. You dishonestly took my criticism of your comments as though they were some proxy for some completely different opinions.

              I have simply pointed out the fact that your argument was stupid: you're saying we should stay out of private business, as an argument for saying that our government of the people should officially and explicitly recognize that private business.

              That is completely stupid.

              If you w

              • This is what y'all do.

                Keep on projectin', bro.

                You believe that 'straight' privilege is right and proper, and that the law should reflect that. It's a relationship Jim Crow that you want to maintain. Separate but (not really)equal is the bigotry you display. I don't care what you 'recognize'. It's that you have no right to deny the same rights to those individuals who carry on other types of consensual relations you personally don't approve of. It's a good thing that finally enough people are standing up to

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  You believe that 'straight' privilege is right and proper, and that the law should reflect that.

                  You're lying. Not only have I never said that, but I've many times said precisely the opposite (which is not that the law should reflect gay marriage, but that the government should not define marriage at all).

                  So I was right: You dishonestly took my criticism of your comments as though they were some proxy for some completely different opinions.

                  Separate but (not really)equal is the bigotry you display.

                  You're lying. My view is that government should not define marriage, but have the exact same status -- civil unions -- for every consenting couple that wants it.

                  • You're lying...

                    You're funny

                    You're lying...

                    No, really...

                    Keep up the good work...

                    And have a nice day

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      See, when you tell lies about me, and then I prove you lied about me, and all you can do is be snarky in return, you destroy any credibility you may have had.

                      You'd have done much better for yourself if you admitted you were wrong and apologized for dishonestly jumping to conclusions.

                    • :-) A little less Paul, it's rotting your brain

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      So, no honesty from you, then? No retractions or apologies?

                    • No retractions or apologies?

                      Pfft... for what? You espouse bigotry, and apparently you are totally unaware of it, even when its self evidence is pointed out.. So, a small fart will suffice in response.. I've wasted too much time already..

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      You espouse bigotry

                      You're a liar. I never did. The fact that you are unable to quote me saying anything bigoted proves it.

                      You realize everyone who could possibly reading things, including those on the left, knows you're wrong and thinks you're an idiot, right?

                    • You're a liar...

                      :-)

                      Your rants against gay marriage are no less bigoted and despicable than those against interracial or interdenominational marriage. And your mildly humorous attempts to offend me are simply puerile.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Your rants against gay marriage are no less bigoted ...

                      Please show anywhere that I ranted against gay marriage. You're a liar. I said that marriage should be taken out of government institutions, put into social institutions, and made available to every consenting couple. How is that against gay marriage, or bigoted in anyway?

                      You're a liar. You are saying my views are the opposite of what they are.

                    • You're a liar.

                      :-)

                      You're a liar
                      LOL
                      Two words: Visitation rights. I doubt your leading 'social institutions'; the church, mafia, the State of Missouri, and the KKK... no, wait... the NRA... oops, I mean, Pat Robertson will do anything to protect them universally. So, like with other civil rights, we need the feds (even though they are also failing miserably) to step in and do it for them. No more special privileges for those who conform.

                      And, you're proving that you and your hate group are still bigots, now w

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Two words: Visitation rights.

                      In hospitals? What about them? I already said, quite clearly, that the government should make available to any two consenting adults "civil unions." Those would come with all the legal rights currently available to married couples.

                      So, like with other civil rights, we need the feds (even though they are also failing miserably) to step in and do it for them.

                      No. We do not need the feds. We do not even need any government for this. That said, we do currently do this through government, and I explicitly stated that we should continue to do so, just not under the institution of "civil marriage," but "civil unions."

                      And, you're proving that you and your hate group are still bigots

                      You're a liar.

                      You

                    • You're not only a liar, but you're a really *bad* liar...

                      Well, maybe compared to you, that might be true. But since I'm not the one that's lying, I wouldn't know.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      You say you're not lying, but literally everything you've said about my views so far is the opposite of what views actually are.

                      That means you're lying.

                      And anyone reading this discussion can see it. I say all couples should have equal legal rights, you then say that because I don't believe they should have equal legal rights, therefore I'm a bigot. You're a terrible, terrible liar.

                      Maybe you should try harder?

                    • I say all couples should have equal legal rights...

                      Including the right to marriage? Show it to me..

                      You're a terrible, terrible liar.

                      :-) And you are a most excellent one. Are you considering running for political office? I believe you would be very successful.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      I say all couples should have equal legal rights...

                      Including the right to marriage?

                      I say all couples should have the equal legal right to civil unions, and no couples should have their "marriages" explicitly recognized by government. Every couple is exactly equal under the law. In every way possible. So yes, the right to marry in whatever social institution you choose and will have you, and the fully equal right to recognition by government. Government would recognize no distinction between "marriage" and not, just "civil union" or not.

                      That's what I said over and over again in this di

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Oh, and here's a journal entry I wrote on this almost nine years ago:

                      http://slashdot.org/~pudge/journal/89435 [slashdot.org]

                    • I was born with a hot temper. I got it from my mother. That doesn't mean it is OK to act on it...

                      :-) Oh! You forked tongue devil, you... You're little game doesn't fool me one bit. Cleverness won't get you off the hook, the spectacle that it is. You're still being a bigot. Your deceitful 'affirmation' of equality is backhanded at best.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      You're still being a bigot.

                      You're a liar. Quote me in any way being bigoted. Simply saying I think homosexuality is wrong is not bigoted. Bigotry starts with such disagreements, but those disagreements alone are not bigotry. I'd have to first convert my disagreements into negative feelings, and then I'd have to in some way act on those feelings. You're, as usual, just lying about me.

                      Your deceitful 'affirmation' of equality is backhanded at best.

                      You're a liar. My "affirmation" is not in the least bit deceitful. I am totally and completely up front about my views and the reasons for them, a

                    • You're a liar.

                      Uh huh..

                      You're a liar.

                      qui moi?

                      ...most gay marriage proponents, including yourself, who are out for benefits for their particular favored groups...

                      :-)

                      Thank you! You have been most helpful and confirmed everything I said... I knew you could it eventually... I love hearing you call it gay marriage.. I bet you call the voting rights act 'racial entitlements', don't you Mr. Scalia? Your fear for your privileged status is very revealing, and even understandable from a mechanistic point of view. Yo

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      qui moi?

                      Yes. Continually, you have falsely claimed that I am a bigot and in favor of inequality in marriage. You have provided no evidence to back up either claim, because, for years, I've been so completely consistent that none exit. But you continue to claim it anyway. Therefore, you are a liar.

                      I love hearing you call it gay marriage.

                      But ... that's the issue. Gay marriage, explicitly. I've read the laws. They explicitly add gay marriage to the types of legal marriages, while explicitly keeping other types of marriage illegal (mostly, marriages b

                    • Your view, on the other hand, is that certain couples -- incestuous ones -- should have a lesser status.

                      It is?? I did not know that.. Thanks for pointing out something that wasn't even implied, much less said by me.

                      You cannot twist that into me wanting anyone, let alone myself, to have a privileged status.

                      You said it outright. I twisted nothing..

                      ...you are a liar.

                      :-)

                      You have have convinced me that you become sexually aroused when you say that. You dirty boy you... Is that a projector in your pocket, or a

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Your view, on the other hand, is that certain couples -- incestuous ones -- should have a lesser status.

                      It is?? I did not know that.. Thanks for pointing out something that wasn't even implied, much less said by me.

                      Then you are in favor of legalizing incestuous marriages. Your words didn't seem to imply that. That's good, insofar as you're being consistent (which is weird, because consistency is about honesty, and you are grossly dishonest, as has been proven over and over), but it puts you at odds with most gay marriage proponents.

                      But at least now we can say conclusively that you are in favor of legalizing incestuous marriages.

                      You cannot twist that into me wanting anyone, let alone myself, to have a privileged status.

                      You said it outright.

                      No, I said no such thing, you did. I never stated or implied in any way that I or anyone

                    • :-) You define passive-aggressive so perfectly. Thanks again for the laughs.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      You obviously do not know what "passive-aggressive" means.

                      Whatever. You still lied about me. Over and over. And then doubled down on your lies ... over and over.

                      You haven't an honest bone in your body.

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...