Quote:Well, this isn't something that anyone would call a savoury relationship. If it produced children they would have a higher likelihood of birth defect. I'm not going to judge if it were accidental, but with knowledge? Who's to say: I do not personally think that the son could consent because that is his mother you're talking about.
Since we are talking about consenting adults here, with the part of the villain being played by various religious right-wingy groups, shouldn't we now explore the next step?
Should it be legal for a grown son to engage in sexual intercourse with his mother, marry her, and add her as a dependent to his insurance policy?
Quote:Again, who's to say: but there is a precedent in British courts where twins who were separated at birth had grown to love and married eachother, only to find out later, and the marriage was annulled. I haven't heard of it happening though, in the case of an older brother, there's the control factor there.
How about two brothers, who just can't keep their hands off each other, and decide to tie the knot, and get added to the others insurance policy?
Quote:No because there's no CONSENT, again. The grandfather in that case was taking advantage of the child and her handicap.
What about a virile grandfather who just enjoys having a good ol' time with his slightly mentally handicapped granddaughter, who nevertheless, is a legal adult, ruled by the courts to have the rights to her own decisions. Should she be allowed to get it on with gramps, get married to the old-timer, and of course, sign of with his Blue Cross Blue Shield?
Quote:I'd have to evaluate on that particular situation. In most cases of rampant polygamy where children under 14 are married off to MUCH older men (like in their 40's and 50's), there is an undue element of control exerted on the younger ones, and then you also include the paedophilia.
And since (horror of horrors), any right-wingish oppressive religious cult should suggest that marriage be between one man and one woman, why not allow a loving legal marriage between one man and 14 women? Who are you to oppress me with your definition of a nuclear family? How dare you use your Judeo-Christian values and pigeon hole me into some cookie cutter family unit.
Quote:In the case of marriage, it's been defined in law as being only 2 people being joined. Otherwise, it's up to the insurer.
Hey, since we've gone this far, since the traditional arguments are largely moral-religous based, why not permit 5 or more men to marry, get on all 5 insurance policies, have quintuple coverage, and never pay a copay again!
Quote:
Now please, instead of telling my why this scenarios wouldn't work, or how it doesn't happen that way in the Netherlands, please tell me Why people shouldn't be allowed to do these things.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Aside from the fact that Incest is a crime in which there is at least one party that is not capable of consenting (ie, mother and son/daughter, there is a degree of control on the part of the mother) or at least one party has more control over the situation than the other, you show that you're not fully capable of understanding the words "consenting adults."If they're both adults, its still incest - but with your objection removed. In any case I think its gross but have no objection to people doing this if they really want to.
Quote:Apparently you don't read much Shakespeare. I'm sure someone out there is quite attracted to their mother. Not my cup of tea but whatever. I see no reason that there would be no consent(unless the son is too young) although that is gross IMO
Quote:Well, this isn't something that anyone would call a savoury relationship. If it produced children they would have a higher likelihood of birth defect. I'm not going to judge if it were accidental, but with knowledge? Who's to say: I do not personally think that the son could consent because that is his mother you're talking about.
Since we are talking about consenting adults here, with the part of the villain being played by various religious right-wingy groups, shouldn't we now explore the next step?
Should it be legal for a grown son to engage in sexual intercourse with his mother, marry her, and add her as a dependent to his insurance policy?
Quote:Are you kidding me GAM?! The "older" twin aka the one that came out 15 minutes before the other twin is "controlling" the other by their so called age difference?! No matter their age - this is a ridiculous notion.
Quote:Again, who's to say: but there is a precedent in British courts where twins who were separated at birth had grown to love and married eachother, only to find out later, and the marriage was annulled. I haven't heard of it happening though, in the case of an older brother, there's the control factor there.
How about two brothers, who just can't keep their hands off each other, and decide to tie the knot, and get added to the others insurance policy?
Quote:No because there's no CONSENT, again. The grandfather in that case was taking advantage of the child and her handicap. Well here I agree that the grandfather thing is a non-issue since being mentally handicapped, she likely isn't capable of giving consent - legality aside though, I think that does depend on her level of handicap. Some mentally handicapped people are still capable of making decisions and leading completely normal lives. Hell, some are capable being president of the USA for 2 terms. Many people who are mentally handicapped to some degree probably aren't even diagnosed because of this.
What about a virile grandfather who just enjoys having a good ol' time with his slightly mentally handicapped granddaughter, who nevertheless, is a legal adult, ruled by the courts to have the rights to her own decisions. Should she be allowed to get it on with gramps, get married to the old-timer, and of course, sign of with his Blue Cross Blue Shield?
Quote:I think you misread him. He didn't say a 14 year old girl - he said marry 14 legal age girls. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's clinically insane!! I wonder enough about people crazy(or maybe brave/foolish) enough who marry even one...
Quote:I'd have to evaluate on that particular situation. In most cases of rampant polygamy where children under 14 are married off to MUCH older men (like in their 40's and 50's), there is an undue element of control exerted on the younger ones, and then you also include the paedophilia.
And since (horror of horrors), any right-wingish oppressive religious cult should suggest that marriage be between one man and one woman, why not allow a loving legal marriage between one man and 14 women? Who are you to oppress me with your definition of a nuclear family? How dare you use your Judeo-Christian values and pigeon hole me into some cookie cutter family unit.
ScottaWhite wrote:You keep bringing up the law....laws against polygamy, incest, etc. You say incest and polygamy are wrong because they are against the law in EVERY state. Ok, so is that why it is wrong?....because of the law. So, if society decides it isn't wrong, changes the law, then it is ok? What about before the law was changed? Was it wrong then? Were the gay people outlaws (sodomy laws) Were their rights being repressed because SOCIETY said what they were doing was wrong? We would say now, that laws against sodomy are wrong, and so we change them. Now what they are doing is LEGAL.No, Incest and Polygamy have a rooting in British Common-Law, basically because incest/inbreeding causes odd effects in the gene pool (like Tay-Sachs Disease, Haemophilia and other mutations). Polygamy usually involves the pluralization of marriages which was a no-no under the Anglican/Episcopalian churches: That's one of the societal constructs you mentioned, but at the time of Magna-Carta when it was addressed it was considered as a separation point from other religions like Islam, Shintoism and from the "filthy" races.
Quote:
So, if SOCIETY changes the law agains polygamy, and allows consenting adults to marry as many husbands/wives or both, will that make it ok? If so, were they wrong it doing it before the law was changed? If you say yes, then the gay men were wrong for cornholing each other when the law was in effect. See what I'm saying.
Quote:
You guys can't have it both ways.
PS. I threw the Netherlands bit in there randomly, but looking back, it shouldn't surprise me that someone here knows many nuances of the laws of the Netherlands.
ScottaWhite wrote:"Anyhow: the answer to your question: No. In law it would have been wrong but again the law changes to reflect the society's values." You did not simply answer the question...you had to leave a segway to explain yourself.
Quote:Posutlating my foot. There's book, chapter and verse notations. It helps when you're arguing a point from the bible's perspective that you actually KNOW the bible. Also, learn to use the quote function: it helps you not confuse your posts.
And somehow, in that entire post, amidst your postulating about examples of incest in the Bible, men walking arm in arm and my perceived predjudices, you still didn't and I don't believe can or will answer the question. If you can't read and respond the the question then I suggest you confine your ideas and opinions to yourself.
Scott A White wrote:Here's 1 question I would like you to answer. 100 years ago, would it have been wrong for two men to have sex with each other in America?
If you say yes, at the time it was, but societies values changed and with it the laws, now making it perfectly ok.......
Scott A White wrote:
And heres the biggie? Who determines right and wrong? Society? Ok, lets say I give you that one and we all bow down and worship the humanist golden calf. If that is the philosophy, then we must respect societal laws in other countries. (honor killings, slavery, apartheid, oppression of women in Islam etc.) If you disagree, then you are placing YOUR societal values above those of others, and that would make YOU the self-righteous oppressor of other peoples' liberties. If a man wants to sell his daughter to his neighbor for 2 cows and 4 goats, then that is his business...his societal mores say it is ok.
GAM wrote:Look, I'll be straight: if it's 2 consenting (as in not unduely influenced) adults doing whatever they want in their own bedroom and keeping it there, I don't care: If it's the brothers... whatever, it's not my business. Where I have the problem is when you're talking about grandfather and retarded child, that's pretty clearly rape. To a lesser extent the Mother and Adult Son idea is pretty clearly rape as well.
Scott A White wrote:The fool hath said in his heart , there is not God. Others run their mouth and publicly identify themselves.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I get to do that, it's an open forum.ScottaWhite wrote:"Anyhow: the answer to your question: No. In law it would have been wrong but again the law changes to reflect the society's values."You did not simply answer the question...you had to leave a segway to explain yourself.
Quote:Posutlating my foot. There's book, chapter and verse notations. It helps when you're arguing a point from the bible's perspective that you actually KNOW the bible. Also, learn to use the quote function: it helps you not confuse your posts.
And somehow, in that entire post, amidst your postulating about examples of incest in the Bible, men walking arm in arm and my perceived predjudices, you still didn't and I don't believe can or will answer the question. If you can't read and respond the the question then I suggest you confine your ideas and opinions to yourself.
Quote:
Here's 1 question I would like you to answer. 100 years ago, would it have been wrong for two men to have sex with each other in America?
If you say yes, at the time it was, but societies values changed and with it the laws, now making it perfectly ok.......
Quote:
THEN....if societies values change to accept all of those bizarre situations as normal, and in turn pass laws to legalize them, then they are ok. Right?
So if the determining factor is the current law of the land, then gay marriages are wrong. And until societies elected officials pass laws making it legal, it will still be wrong.
Quote:
And heres the biggie? Who determines right and wrong? Society? Ok, lets say I give you that one and we all bow down and worship the humanist golden calf. If that is the philosophy, then we must respect societal laws in other countries. (honor killings, slavery, apartheid, oppression of women in Islam etc.) If you disagree, then you are placing YOUR societal values above those of others, and that would make YOU the self-righteous oppressor of other peoples' liberties. If a man wants to sell his daughter to his neighbor for 2 cows and 4 goats, then that is his business...his societal mores say it is ok.
GAM wrote:Look, I'll be straight: if it's 2 consenting (as in not unduely influenced) adults doing whatever they want in their own bedroom and keeping it there, I don't care: If it's the brothers... whatever, it's not my business. Where I have the problem is when you're talking about grandfather and retarded child, that's pretty clearly rape. To a lesser extent the Mother and Adult Son idea is pretty clearly rape as well.
Quote:
The fool hath said in his heart , there is not God. Others run their mouth and publicly identify themselves.
ScottaWhite wrote:Let us all go on the assumption that the United States should allow it, embrace it, and dare I say, even encourage it?
Since we are talking about consenting adults here, with the part of the villain being played by various religious right-wingy groups, shouldn't we now explore the next step?
Should it be legal for a grown son to engage in sexual intercourse with his mother, marry her, and add her as a dependent to his insurance policy?
How about two brothers, who just can't keep their hands off each other, and decide to tie the knot, and get added to the others insurance policy?
What about a virile grandfather who just enjoys having a good ol' time with his slightly mentally handicapped granddaughter, who nevertheless, is a legal adult, ruled by the courts to have the rights to her own decisions. Should she be allowed to get it on with gramps, get married to the old-timer, and of course, sign of with his Blue Cross Blue Shield?
And since (horror of horrors), any right-wingish oppressive religious cult should suggest that marriage be between one man and one woman, why not allow a loving legal marriage between one man and 14 women? Who are you to oppress me with your definition of a nuclear family? How dare you use your Judeo-Christian values and pigeon hole me into some cookie cutter family unit.
Hey, since we've gone this far, since the traditional arguments are largely moral-religous based, why not permit 5 or more men to marry, get on all 5 insurance policies, have quintuple coverage, and never pay a copay again!
Now please, instead of telling my why this scenarios wouldn't work, or how it doesn't happen that way in the Netherlands, please tell me Why people shouldn't be allowed to do these things.
.
AGuSTiN wrote:That's EXACTLY what will happen if we let a Liberal in the White House in 2008!! Of course Obama is just gonna open negotiation with Skynet instead of mounting a human race defensive strategy. Then after eradicating all humans except Muslims, Skynet will enact a Socialist health care system for all robots. After that Skynet announces it will allow marriage for all robots - even GAY robots!! Worse still is that Al Gore will finally be announced as the OFFICIAL robot ambassador to all humankind(as opposed to his current de-facto position).
Example - Let's say I don't maintain my car. My engine could freeze up w/o oil on the highway, causing me to go out of control, fly into oncoming traffic, the car I hit is John Conner's, and now the Terminators are assured to take over in 2011.
ScottaWhite wrote:Let us all go on the assumption that the United States should allow it, embrace it, and dare I say, even encourage it?
Since we are talking about consenting adults here, with the part of the villain being played by various religious right-wingy groups, shouldn't we now explore the next step?
Should it be legal for a grown son to engage in sexual intercourse with his mother, marry her, and add her as a dependent to his insurance policy?
How about two brothers, who just can't keep their hands off each other, and decide to tie the knot, and get added to the others insurance policy?
What about a virile grandfather who just enjoys having a good ol' time with his slightly mentally handicapped granddaughter, who nevertheless, is a legal adult, ruled by the courts to have the rights to her own decisions. Should she be allowed to get it on with gramps, get married to the old-timer, and of course, sign of with his Blue Cross Blue Shield?
And since (horror of horrors), any right-wingish oppressive religious cult should suggest that marriage be between one man and one woman, why not allow a loving legal marriage between one man and 14 women? Who are you to oppress me with your definition of a nuclear family? How dare you use your Judeo-Christian values and pigeon hole me into some cookie cutter family unit.
Hey, since we've gone this far, since the traditional arguments are largely moral-religous based, why not permit 5 or more men to marry, get on all 5 insurance policies, have quintuple coverage, and never pay a copay again!
BINGO I could not agree more. When do you say enough is enough?
Now please, instead of telling my why this scenarios wouldn't work, or how it doesn't happen that way in the Netherlands, please tell me Why people shouldn't be allowed to do these things.
.
Quote:
... ...everything since ... ...