Show of HandsShow of Hands

JustBob April 26th, 2016 12:51pm

Many states have gender specific laws on incestial marriage (uncles can't marry nieces). Allowing gay marriage inadvertently allowed uncles to marry nephews. Should we reword the law to squash the newly acquired rights of the uncles?

34 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

alval California
05/07/16 8:22 pm

These laws may have been in place to prevent birth defects ; seeing that there will NOT be an offspring from an Uncle marrying his nephew, this is not the same.

Reply
NDSpencer
05/04/16 1:51 pm

Squash the rights of them, and all homosexual couples at the same time.

Reply
CrimsonEmerald
05/02/16 4:49 pm

Don't care about what you do in the bedroom

Reply
Challenger TX
05/02/16 2:51 am

I said squash rights but honestly I think gay marriage is retarded and uncle/niece marriage is NOT great but definitely not as retarded as "gay marriage." By and large Homos don't want to get married anyway. They only like the weddings. Trying to get them to conform to heterosexual norms is never gonna happen. Look at the promiscuity stats for homosexuals. It is seriously shocking for most heterosexuals

Reply
LogicOverBias
04/30/16 8:52 am

If an incest couple has children, those children will be bullied, not because they may get a disease, (though odds are they will,) but because their parents are FAMILY ON THE FIRST LEVEL

Reply
PresWK Minnesota
04/28/16 6:50 pm

We should get rid of I chest laws in the first place, it's not my business if two hick cousins want to marry and end their bloodline

Reply
schristo
04/28/16 3:21 pm

Not like they can get pregnant! Creeps me out but appears no standards is ok these days!

Reply
ladyniner81 no hope for humanity
04/28/16 12:03 pm

I don't believe in gay marriage
I don't believe in incestuous marriage
I don't believe in marriage between a man or a woman.
I don't believe in marriage, period. Civil unions , maybe.

It's just a piece of paper just telling you you're married. I feel it's stupid to need a a license to show you're with someone. There are those who just live together, or the "common law" thing. As long as they're happy together, what's the difference?

Reply
theNobamist Silicon Valley
04/28/16 2:59 am

Same "oops" that women found when they had to pay alimony to ex-husbands.

Reply
Jeninerd Hoth, AK
04/29/16 9:31 am

I don't know a single woman who would have a problem with this under appropriate circumstances.

theNobamist Silicon Valley
04/28/16 2:58 am

Sometimes equal treatment under the law sucks. Get used to it!

Reply
pietsch Another Adoring Fan
04/27/16 7:58 am

If someone wants to marry their creeper uncle, I say that just takes two creepers off the market so who cares.

Reply
merry13 Saved by Grace
04/27/16 5:49 am

Why stop there? What about marrying children, polygamy, and beastialitry (sp)? 🙄

By the way this is sarcasm. I don't support any of these things.

Reply
dryanmorr
04/27/16 6:23 am

You're just a bigot. Eh

merry13 Saved by Grace
04/27/16 10:01 am

No just like to use common sense.

Michaeli787 Alabama
04/28/16 6:41 am

What a time to be alive. 2016, the year in which we call those against beastiality and child marriage a biot...

thebarr
04/27/16 3:23 am

Bob, you've missed the whole point. Shouldn't we just make all incest legal now? I thought love won.

Reply
Captainbstring Biden is a Clown
04/26/16 9:00 pm

Sick. Just plain sick. Keep your moral relativism to yourself. The majority of us don't give a shit about these stupid issues.

Reply
JustBob Your anger fascinates me
04/26/16 9:10 pm

Hmm, there are several topics that do not interest me. When I scroll past them, I don't vote, let alone comment, announcing how I'm not interested. Curious, why did you?

Captainbstring Biden is a Clown
04/27/16 3:37 pm

I don't owe you an explanation. You see what I thought above. Deal with it.

Captainbstring Biden is a Clown
04/27/16 3:41 pm

Permissiveness like the scenario in the question is what is DESTROYING the social fabric of our country. It is not, cannot be and will never be OK for an uncle to marry his nephew. That is just wrong.

JustBob Your anger fascinates me
04/27/16 6:31 pm

This is true, you don't owe me shit. Looking at your polls, you seem to be really interested in politics, I can't imagine you're having a hard time finding polls about your preferred topic. What you did is like turning to ESPN and yelling at the tv "WHY DO YOU HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SPORTS!!" When you do, it makes me curious

JustBob Your anger fascinates me
04/27/16 6:32 pm

I gotta say, I enjoy your input though

Praetorianus Fair enough.
04/26/16 6:51 pm

Incest laws are supposed to prevent inbreeding. Neither a gay nor a lesbian couple can breed so the law shouldn't apply.

Reply
wetheslaves Live each moment fully
04/26/16 7:28 pm

Yep, look at effective outcome.

PurpleIdeas
04/26/16 6:16 pm

Yeah i hear all you out there bitching "double standard! Double standard" but here's the truth, it's not the same thing. Heterosexual couples can produce offspring. This is a problem when it comes to incest because if two who are closely related make a child, the chances of the offspring being mentally handicapped are exponentially greater. On the other hand, homosexual couples can't produce offspring, so they don't have to worry about this issue. "But incest relationships are gross. Uncle to nephew? Cousin to cousin?" Perhaps, but with two consenting adults, it's nobody's business but theirs and everybody else should get the fuck over it. Government stay out of marriages.

Reply
tjb4
04/27/16 5:55 am

As a women gets older the chances for birth defects increases as well. Should it therefore be illegal for a women to marry in a heterosexual relationship after a certain age?

hsjsickrn
04/26/16 5:56 pm

Since gays can marry it's only a matter of time before this is legalized

Reply
MyRedSkirt Cali
04/26/16 5:46 pm

That was my original argument. If you let gays marry then you have to legalize incest & plural marriage as well.

Reply
AndrewX
04/26/16 5:35 pm

Sure, it's an unintentional loophole. Close it.

Reply
dlaw4570
04/26/16 5:18 pm

Frankly I don't care!

Reply
Wackacrat Harford County
04/26/16 3:47 pm

But what about the two consenting adults?

Reply
jlong105 Indiana
04/26/16 3:21 pm

Incest laws are in place to prevent birth defects. Not an issue in the gay community.

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
04/27/16 7:06 pm

Hypothetical:
Uncle/niece or aunt/nephew if one or both parties is permanently sterile. Would this be acceptable?
Just looking for your opinion.

jlong105 Indiana
04/28/16 3:33 pm

My opinion is that I could care less who is boning who. As long as you don't come to me with your hands out when the baby comes.

If it's not my kid it's not my problem.

dontmakemeover
04/26/16 3:15 pm

The reasons we have rules against incest relationships do not disappear from my mind. Problem unequal power dynamics.

Reply
CudOfCow Oregon
04/26/16 2:39 pm

Abolish the discriminatory government institution of marriage. I am in favor of giving it back to religion and instating a clear boundary between church and state.

Reply
jvc1133 61535
04/26/16 2:33 pm

Scotus settles law with a dart board.

Reply
Shreveport New York
04/26/16 2:18 pm

The word of the law vs the spirit of the law.

Reply
ravenhead
04/26/16 1:47 pm

I 100% disagree with incest and family members being aloud to marry each other... Regardless, they still gave the right to if they wish! That's their decision, and nobody should make that decision for them.

Reply
Mark3
04/26/16 1:29 pm

I had to answer something just to come and say, yuck.

Reply
dryanmorr
04/26/16 1:21 pm

Why not. Gays can marry so why can't uncles and nephews? We can't be so incestoohobic bigoted hate mongers to ban true love. When will this country learn to love and not hate and being peaceful and not pure evil. ...see what I did there?

Reply
AndrewX
04/26/16 5:29 pm

Yeah, real clever. Good luck with your bigotry.

dryanmorr
04/27/16 6:24 am

Thanks. See my point.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
04/26/16 1:10 pm

No, and we should probably revisit the other prohibition as well, while we're at it. If there is a problem with incest at all, it is the potentially negative effect of passing on "bad" genes. There may be a valid reason to prohibit closely related individuals from making babies together, but it needn't adversely their relationships otherwise. It's a left over taboo without a modern justification.

Reply
112112321 pleb
04/26/16 12:48 pm

Really? Come on guys, let them marry.

Reply
southerner
04/26/16 12:47 pm

I vote freely marry because the government should not be involved in marriages.

Reply
thebarr
04/27/16 3:25 am

Fair enough. This is the real answer.

suemac Mountains of Southern CA
04/26/16 11:43 am

What difference does it make! They can't have children's for their own.

Reply
suemac Mountains of Southern CA
04/26/16 11:44 am

They can't have children of their own.

Zheeeem Outer Banks
04/26/16 10:58 am

The word you are looking for is incestuous. An "incestial" relationship is impossible.

Reply
JustBob Your anger fascinates me
04/26/16 10:59 am

You are right, I'm so embarrassed now

JustBob Your anger fascinates me
04/26/16 11:08 am

That does shed some light on why so many people are down voting the question

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 10:38 am

How odd. Are aunts also forbidden to marry nephews (and could now marry nieces)? Assuming so, it's very odd that they would have bothered phrasing it in such gender-specific terms, rather than using gender-neutral terms with examples. And if not, what on earth.

Reply
JustBob Your anger fascinates me
04/26/16 10:46 am

Yes, aunts were also forbidden to marry nephews. The way I've seen it worded was
If you're a man, you cannot marry your:
Son, father, uncle...
Then it was repeated for women. I've always assumed it was written this way to cover all bases and there was no need to be gender neutral because of the already in place same sex restrictions

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 11:49 am

That's really clunky wording. I love the unintended consequences. Maybe people will finally start recognizing how unnecessarily gendered so much of our everyday language is.

thebarr
04/27/16 3:26 am

It could be worse, we could speak Spanish!

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:23 am

Ha! Or just about any other language. Apparently in Hebrew you're even supposed to use different words depending on YOUR gender. Man, I would fuck with people if I spoke Hebrew.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/26/16 10:24 am

Any two adults. No sex act needs witnessing & no genitalia inspection, required. Just proof of age. The laws are not to regulate what type of sex you have, or who you have sex with. They just legalize the benefits & liabilities of a partnership.

Reply
CudOfCow Oregon
04/26/16 3:32 pm

^^ this is the only way I would support government instated marriage. Make it a normal legal contract between two people regardless of gender and relationship.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/26/16 4:56 pm

Almost. Someday it could happen. Equal rights are a goal, not a reality.

Congressman Louisiana
04/26/16 10:17 am

If they're adults and consenting it's nobody's business. Period.

Reply
Jeninerd Hoth, AK
04/29/16 9:37 am

Holy shit, I agree with you.

yeast Story Time
04/26/16 10:06 am

Everyone, Ive got it! We should all marry our parents or family members on paper before they die so we can assume spousal exemptions and skirt inheritance and estate tax laws. That way the government cant get any of the estate.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 10:39 am

If you have enough money to seriously worry about estate tax, you have enough money to set up a workaround already ;)

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/26/16 10:57 am

Bethany what about retirement pensions. If I marry a family member getting payments, when they die the payments won't. Same with SS? The comment may be sarcastic but regulating who benefits in case of death or divorce is what the marriage laws do.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 11:43 am

For a pension, I believe it would depend on the terms of the pension plan. If I die, my 401k doesn't disappear; it's part of my estate. I would think the same would apply for pensions but honestly I don't have much familiarity with pension schemes. They're pretty rare these days except in a handful of professions.

You're correct about SS; however, I was speaking to the note about estate tax. But if SS would make a significant difference for someone, sure, that could be a reason to get married. I think that's the case for vanishingly few people, though.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/26/16 1:13 pm

These type of benefits are why the Supreme Court heard the case.

yeast Story Time
04/26/16 3:37 pm

It wouldn't be as fun though. AB credit shelter trust, dynasty, ILIT, charitable foundations, FLP's... Just not as fun. Lol

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 5:10 pm

I'm not saying they don't matter or that they are insignificant. I'm saying people are unlikely to get married for that *sole* purpose, which rather tends to underscore why moral panic about same-sex unions is hyperbolic.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/26/16 5:15 pm

People will get married for that sole purpose. The woman whose case was heard wanted to marry her dying partner to receive her benefits. Leave the morals to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which does not require a court license.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 5:32 pm

I said people are unlikely to get married for that *sole* purpose. It's not like she was trying to marry who good friend and it just so happened that neither of them had life partners.

I have no idea why you're bringing up "sacraments" in a discussion about government benefits.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/26/16 7:53 pm

You brought up the moral debate on same sex marriage. My point is that there are no morals, at all involved to debate.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 8:57 pm

I didn't bring up any moral arguments. Moral panic isn't morality.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/26/16 11:52 pm

There is no moral panic. Not in reality. People make up unwarranted issues for no reason. Calling it gay marriage for example. There is no such thing, just invalid ignorance, to great and widespread, to correct. I'm in agreement with you, only more so. Any two adults.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 11:57 pm

Right. We agree then. Just to clarify, "moral panic" really just means mass baseless fear.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/27/16 12:08 am

That is why I said to take it to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony where it belongs, where no binding legal agreement is necessary. Marriage is a legal definition, Matrimony has degrees of right and wrong just not valid in our courts. People can't easily see the separation.

merry13 Saved by Grace
04/27/16 5:31 am

To the person talking about estate tax. What about farmers? It is ridiculously easy for them to hit millions in assets. However selling off their land or equipment puts them out of business. Farm land around here goes for $5000-10000 an acre. To make a mere $50k a year they have to own 500 acres worth close to 4 million dollars. Not to mention the equipment. A new combine costs close to half a million dollars. I personally have a 45 year old one sitting in my barn worth $25k. Everyone seems to hate corporate farms but then wonders why the smaller farms can't stay in business.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:27 am

The idea of land that cheap boggles my mind. Where I live you're looking at over $1000 per *square foot*.

njalstorm
04/26/16 9:54 am

What's the difference. Those laws probably are designed to protect the gene pool.

But, thank god, the natural world won't let natural deviations from replicating.

So,..... Gay it all up Uncle bob and nephew sparky

Reply
cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 9:45 am

Liberals disgust me to no end.

Reply
yeast Story Time
04/26/16 9:57 am

I'm pretty sure that's a rural redneck thing more than a liberal thing.

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 9:58 am

What is? What, on earth, are you babbling about?

yeast Story Time
04/26/16 10:15 am

Incestial marriages

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 10:24 am

Oh. I see. You misunderstood the question. If you're for homosexual marriage, you have to be for incestial marriage between gay family members. Disgusting Liberals did that, not rednecks. So the question, to put it simply for you is; Should there be laws, against homosexual family members, from being married. Or are you a homophobe?

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 10:41 am

What's with all the commas? Invoking your inner Shatner?

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 10:45 am

Should homosexual family members be allowed to marry?

brinrawson Knoxville and DC
04/26/16 11:30 am

I'm a democrat and I don't believe they should be able to. It's usually republicans who are all for incestuous relationships due to keeping the government out of their lives (which is a legitimate argument).

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 11:33 am

Well get ready to be called a hateful homophobe that hates homosexuals and is against love. Name one elected Republican that is for incest. Just one.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 11:47 am

Depends on how you define incest. Rudy Giuliani married his second cousin.

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 11:50 am

You still didn't answer the question, Beth...

yeast Story Time
04/26/16 3:35 pm

Of course there should be laws against that. Doesn't matter what the preference is.

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 4:51 pm

Why do you hate love?

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 5:08 pm

What question did you ask me?

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 5:11 pm

Should homosexual family members be allowed to marry?

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 5:19 pm

Of course they should; nothing about being gay or having a family is reason to tell you you can't be married to someone - but I presume that what you're actually asking is whether family members of the same sex should be permitted to marry *each other*. In that case, my answer is that they should be permitted to do so to the same extent family members of the opposite sex are permitted to marry each other. No more, no less.

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 5:22 pm

You want rules against love? How dare you!

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 6:39 pm

You want to deny marriage for minorities? That's awful.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 6:56 pm

Are you talking to someone else?

cowboy Here and There
04/26/16 7:21 pm

Nope. Just you.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/26/16 7:40 pm

Well, you're saying things that make zero sense.

How about we try this: you quote me the part of my comment that leads you to ask your bizarre questions and we'll see if we can't clear up your confusion that way.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 5:18 am

Of course it makes zero sense. They're knee-jerk Liberal responses...

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:23 am

Except that you're the only one making them. Does that mean you're a liberal now?

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 7:25 am

Lol. Now you know how ridiculous you people sound.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:32 am

Except we don't. You're the only one speaking nonsense. You're claiming "liberals" say these things but you're the only one saying them. I certainly haven't said them. You tried and failed to set a trap for me. Are you just living in denial then?

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 7:35 am

Lol. So you've never heard any Liberal say that if someone is against gay marriage, that they're against love? Really?

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:45 am

What does that have to do with incest? Conservatives are the ones I usually see bringing invest into the discussion, which is kind of weird and creepy.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 7:55 am

So you have heard that argument. Now you know how silly it sounds, right?

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:57 am

I have never heard a liberal make the argument that same-sex marriage has something to do with incest, no.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:57 am

I *have* heard conservatives like you make it, and yes, it does sound quite silly, if I'm being generous.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 7:58 am

And you discriminate against incest, you bigot.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 7:59 am

You make that assessment based on what thing that I've said?

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 8:01 am

How does it feel denying someone their Constitutional rights based on your prejudices?

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 8:04 am

Haha you couldn't find anything so now you're trying to obfuscate.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 8:07 am

You're going to sit there and deny someone who was born a certain way their Constitutional rights based on discrimination? For shame.

brinrawson Knoxville and DC
04/27/16 8:23 am

Bethany, don't worry, cowboy is just defending his mom and dad.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 8:24 am

Alright! A brand new troll to play with! Welcome brin!

brinrawson Knoxville and DC
04/27/16 8:25 am

I guess I'm trolling the troll.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 8:26 am

So you would discriminate against love too, huh? Shameful.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 8:37 am

Just in the nick of time for you, cowboy. How fortuitous! May I expect you'll now pretend to be occupied with our new friend rather than continue trying to maintain the weak charade you've got going on?

Of course I'm not suggesting anyone's constitutional rights should be denied. Please quote something I've said that would give you that ridiculous impression.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 8:41 am

"my answer is that they should be permitted to do so to the same extent family members of the opposite sex are permitted to marry each other." So what gives you the authority to say who can marry and who can't, huh?

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 9:49 am

Where in there do I say anything about denying anyone constitutional rights? I'm not supporting a specific position with respect to who should be allowed to marry whom; merely clarifying that, whatever the right is, it should be the same regardless of the genders of the people marrying.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 9:51 am

Right. Your denying someone Constitutional rights based on prejudice and discrimination, you bigot.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 11:22 am

What constitutional rights am I denying? To whom?

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 11:26 am

You're denying the right for Americans to marry who they love.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 12:09 pm

"my answer is that they should be permitted to do so to the same extent family members of the opposite sex are permitted to marry each other."

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 12:55 pm

Ok. Let me type slowly. Whose. Rights. Would. Be. Infringed. Question mark.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 2:08 pm

"my answer is that they should be permitted to do so to the same extent family members of the opposite sex are permitted to marry each other."

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 2:33 pm

So in other words, you're unable to articulate your own opinion. No stunners here.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 2:39 pm

I've been accused of many things but that one has to be a first. Lol. Don't be angry because I exposed your desire to discriminate against Americans.

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 4:15 pm

I'm not angry. I'm just trying to figure out if you're intentionally dishonest or genuinely struggling with basic concepts like how to make a non-circular argument.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 4:21 pm

Lol. You're struggling with being exposed to your own discriminatory actions.

RPossTheBoss Top kek
04/27/16 6:31 pm

can you guys continue, i was enjoying this

bethanyq Ess Eff
04/27/16 8:06 pm

Eh. I'm busy today and his delusions are getting boring.

cowboy Here and There
04/27/16 8:10 pm

Oh I'm sorry exposing your discriminating tendencies are boring, sweetheart. That's a you problem.

ladyniner81 no hope for humanity
04/28/16 11:49 am

Sorry, I'm still chuckling @ "invoking your inner Shatner" LOLOLOL

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
04/26/16 9:43 am

The reason incest is illegal is because of genetic issues. Two dudes can't really procreate so it doesn't even matter. If gay marriage is legal this is a nonissue

Reply
GlockMan1 Alabama
04/26/16 9:25 am

Hey ...if you embrace same sex marriage, you might as well drop all the way into the moral abyss and allow polygamy and incest. I mean...aren't we all about being INCLUSIVE and TOLERANT?

Reply
shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 9:25 am

Morals aren't real anyway lmao

GlockMan1 Alabama
04/26/16 9:27 am

If there is No God, all things are permissible.

StilettoMiss SF med law, meme queen
04/26/16 9:33 am

Mankind has, at various points throughout history, had around 3,000+ separate concepts of a supernatural entity. Even if 1 of them was right, and that's a big if, it means that around 2,999+ are horrifically wrong. So who's to say that anyone's belief is accurate? Statistically speaking and all...but the interesting part is that adherents of various faiths will ALL quite vehemently insist theirs is the "one, true" belief out of literally thousands. And that's hilarious.

StilettoMiss SF med law, meme queen
04/26/16 9:39 am

if I had only a 0.000333333333333 chance of being right, I wouldn't act like a self-righteous asshöle. Just saying.

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 10:22 am

I think you meant "morals are relative", shnibby. But we didn't expect more so...

PrinceOberyn Vive LEmpereur
04/26/16 11:33 am

Homosexual marriage, yes. Polygamous marriage, yes. Incestuous marriage, yes. What two or more consenting adults do for happiness is none of your fucking business, Glock.

StilettoMiss SF med law, meme queen
04/26/16 12:17 pm

me any time someone mentions their version of God

m.imgur.com/VIOFHwF

PocketNotebook Libertarians Unite
04/26/16 1:06 pm

Marriage was never defined by anyone. (Real) sex is between a man and a woman. God or science, whatever you believe, invented that. Marriage, however, is a personal decision established by human culture not too long ago in the scheme of things. Nobody, especially not the US government, ever had the right to define what marriage is or isn't. It is a choice between yourself. In my personal opinion, marrying your blood relatives is crazy and wrong. But that's just me. Who am I to decide what other adults can do with their lives? Nephews marrying uncles isn't going to hurt society, so why bother making a big deal of it? Frankly, I'm fine with people marrying 30 people, as long as they are legal adults who have made that choice themselves. Human, legal adults should be able to marry whoever the hell they want.

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 1:42 pm

Why stop at adults? Why can't men marry children? They do in Muslim countries. We just need to catch up to the times.

shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 2:03 pm

@kscott No I meant exactly what I said. Debate me.

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 2:11 pm

Lol, ok. Prove morals aren't real.

shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 2:19 pm

You prove that they are

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 2:32 pm

You can't be serious?! You made the claim that they aren't real so the onus is on you.

But since you asked:

Morals - considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior

There you go.

PrinceOberyn Vive LEmpereur
04/26/16 3:02 pm

Kscott, you claim they're real. Burden of proof is on you. And yes morals are real, being cultural constructs that vary by geography and by time. It's absolute morality that is absolutely bullshit.

GlockMan1 Alabama
04/26/16 5:49 pm

Prince is CORRECT. Morals are very elusive to most atheists. Look at homosexuals. Most are atheists and live a life of sexual perversion that is morally corrupt. Other famous atheists that lacked a moral compass-- Pablo Escobar, Ted Bundy, Joran Vandersloot, Karl Marx, Casey Anthony, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wayne Gacy, James Earl Ray, Scott Peterson, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Whitey Bulger, Heinrich Himmler, Cho Seung-Hui, Richard Kuklinski....and the list goes on and on of atheists who lack any moral compass.

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 7:23 pm

Wrong, ober. The burden of proof lies with the person making the initial claim. If someone said love isn't real, it's not my job to prove it is. Stupidity doesn't get a pass.

dxstap Bloomington, Indiana
04/26/16 9:24 am

Except for age I don't care who marries who.

Reply
jab004
04/26/16 9:09 am

It's getting too confusing. People can marry, regardless of orientation. No problem. But let's not cross the familial line. I'd like to keep romance out of family reunions.

Reply
shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 9:25 am

Why do your personal preferences get to deny happiness for other people who aren't hurting anyone else?

jab004
04/26/16 9:28 am

I stated my opinion. Is that wrong? Should I defer my opinions and vote to you?

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 10:24 am

Since when doesn't incest hurt anyone else? Do you think the rest of the family is ok with it even if you and your sister are sickos?

shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 2:02 pm

How exactly does that physically hurt them? Unless now we are making laws to prevent people from being offended.

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 2:10 pm

By that logic, why do we care how transgenders feel about using the bathroom of their sex?

shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 2:21 pm

Why do we care about bakeries feelings about homosexuals? Why do we care about churches being able to refuse to perform a same sex wedding?

kscott516 EB rules
04/26/16 2:22 pm

You don't have to care about their feelings. They have the 1A right to freedom of religion.

shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 9:03 am

Why the fuck is it anyone's business who marries who? I know that incest can cause birth defects yeah yeah that's fine, but what you're talking about is throwing people in prison for who they love. How can you call this a free country if you imprison people for who they love?

Reply
jab004
04/26/16 9:29 am

Somebody got too many participation trophies

shnibbydawhale Nihilist
04/26/16 2:01 pm

That's a fantastic argument. You really got me there. Jackass

jab004
04/26/16 2:51 pm

Strong response. Resorting to name calling when somebody has a different opinion? Nice. You're good at whining and insulting, you aren't worth a damn at supporting a position or fostering a dialogue.

jab004
04/26/16 2:53 pm

Here's a couple of points. You and I just disagree about where the line is. Should you be able to marry your sister? Clearly not. Do you have to know the person (have physically met them?) yes. I say no to an uncle marrying a nephew. I never said throw anybody in prison. Just don't perform the ceremony. See there, we can have a civil debate before you start calling me names.

StilettoMiss SF med law, meme queen
04/26/16 8:48 am

What two consenting adults do is their business, I wouldn't care or try to dictate how other people live. It changes my life an absolute zero amount either way

Reply
smacc DunningKruger
04/26/16 8:19 am

I don't care. Those laws are to protect the gene pool. I don't think it applies here.

Reply
Cannibal
04/26/16 8:18 am

Nice troll

Reply
Nemacyst No Lives Matter
04/26/16 9:25 am

This user is currently being ignored

Cannibal
04/26/16 3:47 pm

I'm glad you keep up on all the SOH posts. I bet you love trucks and Facebook too.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
04/26/16 4:43 pm

This user is currently being ignored

TopsQueen Oregon Coast
04/26/16 8:07 am

Two males or two females cannot produce a child naturally. Thus there is not a genetic match between close relations.

Reply