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.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

welll as outrageous as it sounds.................... you do bring up a point.

so i agree, govt shouldnt interfere with personal affairs, yes even if that includes 5 men marrying each other..

but thats just my opinion

I just think the right wingers are homophobes. Who says they shouldn't have the right to be as miserable as any married hetero couple?

It's not like marriage is the holy of the holy that it used to be sold as... more than half of them end in divorce now anyways.

KFLO, your statistics are pretty dead-on, but this post wasn't about the homo-phobic tendencies of the conservative crowd. It was my posting seemingly absurd, yet relevant scenarios, and asking for the why nots.

Looking forward to hearing from you open-minded, progressive thinkers.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Good night nurses! It's been close to 14 hours and even the jobless denizens who do little more than post on these forums haven't posted a reply. It does make sense though...if you smell a trap, just leave it be.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

You do make a point...But there are still laws against polygamy and incest.

i honestly dont think that gay/lesbian marriage should be illegal. i have gay and lesbian freinds and what is it our right or the governments right to say they cant be happy. IMO its bull@!#$ that the government thinks they can interfeer with everyones personal lives.. just my .02

Laws against polygamy and incest? And that justifies holding these people back? Aren't there laws against gay marriages? No, that argument doesn't hold any water. WHY NOT? And yes yes yes, we all know the government, aka "They" should keep there noses out of people's private lives.

Last time Please.... Can someone give an explanation as to why the scenarios I mentioned in the initial post should not be allowed?


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Polygamy? I have no problem with that... but I think any man that actually want MORE than one wife should quickly be declared legally insane - because he surely is.

Incest? Look, if 2 hot twin sisters wanna do some dirty things with each other in front of me while I break out the popcorn and an old betamax camera, is that really so bad? Anything else besides that, is rather gross but I don't really care. Why the whole state of Arkansas would be in flames by rioters if you really tried to put a stop to this!! In any case, I don't have any hot family members so this really is a non-issue for me.

I don't know why anyone would really care about any of that really. I mean at this point, no matter who sleeps with and/or marries who, this world couldn't get much more screwed up. The whole "sanctity of marriage" thing is a joke anyways. Right now I could go to Las Vegas, get coked up with some stripper/prostitute/whatever that I just met, get married within the hour, get divorced the next hour. Marriage is SO SACRED now anyways... I fail to see where letting Adam and Steve marry is gonna make things any worse than it already is.

Marriage isn't even a solely Christian thing anyways (despite how many like to see it). Jews, Samaritans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Native Americans, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Scientologists, Hubologists, Spaghetti Monster-ists, etc, etc, etc. They all have some form of Marriage. So how does just one religion(or rather should I say one NARROW INTERPRETATION of one religion) get to define marriage for everyone?!

Truth is, In America and much of the world at least, the "sanctity" of marriage has been long dead. It died when divorces became much more accessible. "Til death do we part" is what people say, but that really is a hollow oath now-a-days, and people accordingly do take it far too lightly. People who really shouldn't get married do. And if it isn't "meant to be," then they just take back their oath. It should read "Til boredom or changing whims do we part." Of course the commonplace cheating on your spouse doesn't exactly help the "sanctity of marriage" either.

Defending the "Sanctity of Marriage" at this point is kinda like putting up Anti-Aircraft guns now to protect the World Trade Center. Your only fooling yourself if you really think there is anything left to defend.

Oh and BTW - I am a Christian... just not a terribly "conservative" one.

KFLO wrote:Who says they shouldn't have the right to be as miserable as any married hetero couple?

So true. I don't know why the hell a gay couple would be crazy enough to complain about not being able to get married!! They have the PERFECT EXCUSE not to get married!! If I where gay, I'd push that constitutional amendment though ASAP!! Then they'll never have someone pushing them into a marriage they don't want or just aren't ready for.

I've seen too many guys get pushed into it because his girl says "marry me or I'm gone" etc. I'm sure it occasionally happens the other way around too. No doubt that factors into the divorce rate alot but that isn't my point. It hasn't happened to me yet, but if straight marriage where illegal I'd never have to worry about that, would I? I think gay people should STFU and enjoy the blessing-in-disguise you have. But that aside, I think they should have the same right to be as miserable as anyone else... just be careful what you wish for.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

There really isn't a reason why people shouldn't be allowed to do these things, aside from the fact that the majority of people simply don't want to.

In terms of incest, I think that's mainly a biological block that most of us have to stop inbreeding, as it has a really good chance of retarding our progeny. Since, biologically speaking, we're programmed to pass on our genes, screwing our relatives doesn't do much for ensuring that our offspring are fit.

In terms of gay people, maybe they just don't want kids, or maybe nature decided those genes shouldn't be passed on.

So, to answer your questions:

Quote:

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?

See my comments on incest. This no doubt happens, but because it's so socially taboo, you won't find many people coming clean with this. Perhaps in time, it will become like the gay issue, but I don't think you'll ever find it as common as being gay.

Quote:

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?

Again, it's an absurd question. I suppose there really isn't a reason other than the insurance companies not liking it.

Quote:

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?

Same as above. But you know that.

Quote:

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.

This one doesn't pose as much of a problem as the other questions. This, outside of our society's values, makes sense, as men try to pass on their genes to as many potential mates as possible. There are men who do this when they're not married. However, I assume you're asking why shouldn't all 15 parties get the benefits of marriage. Well, money.

Quote:

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!

Again, money.

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.

There is no reason that will satisfy you, I'm sure. I suppose there really isn't a reason why people shouldn't be allowed to do these things if they all want to. Other than having a bunch of handicapped, inbred children walking around when it comes to incest. Other than that, it's either money, religious beliefs, or the fact that your questions are akin to me asking you why you shouldn't @!#$ where you eat. Because for the most part, it's dumb.

Ok, so the only reasons so far are "money" and "retarded children".

1) Money- then are my suspicions correct that you think the insurance costs would go haywire if all these people started getting married? Perhaps I should have also asked about "domestic partner" riding on insurace policies.

2) Retards- So you would be in favor of either sterilizing or forcibly preventing the mentally handicapped from having children, or even those normal people whose genes combined would produce, say, a Downs Syndrome Child.

If I follow you correctly, that is what you mean.

You also answered my questions with Thats dumb, absurd, etc. They are not real answers to questions.

I believe the reason why I'm not getting straight talk, is that you know where I'm going with this once you lay your cards down. , and aside from name-calling, and blaming stuff on religon, or Bush, I have a feeling most people ..... well its already happened.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Yeah I probably know what you're trying to say - that once you allow gay marriage you might as well allow everything etc etc. Men with be marrying cars and women will be marrying Rosie 'O Donnell(aka bestiality ). Blah blah blah. Now back in reality lane, I could care less about gay people marrying each other or any of that stuff. I see no issue with it really.

Now I'll ask a question - why not allow gay marriage? What is it about heterosexual only marriage that is so great and how exactly is gay marriage going to ruin that? How exactly is some gay couple getting married gonna affect an otherwise healthy heterosexual couple's marriage?

I've never seen why I as a straight man should mind gays in the slightest. 2 gay men means 2 less men competing for the pussy I want. I call that a win for straight men everywhere. And 2 lesbian(or preferably bisexual) women together is hot - unless they are ugly then I didn't care to start with. Most of the 100% not-at-all-interested-in-men lesbians are fairly ulgy anyways. The hot ones are overwhelmingly bisexual... which is just fine for me!!

So what is the problem... "what if a gay guy hits on me?!" - well assuming that you aren't gay or bi to start with - do the same thing that you do if some fugly old whore hits on you... decline. Its that easy. Just say "no thank you." As is I for some reason do tend to get hit on by a large number of guys - but it isn't a big deal. I just say "no thank you" and move on with my day.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Morality is a human construct. Even though i find the acts you described, Scott, utterly deplorable, it's really none of my business. As such, i look at it like this: Unless there's a true non-consenting victim, I don't see how I would have a say-so in it unless i was party to it....


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I certainly wouldn't consider it the next step after gay marriages being legalized. That makes it sound as if the different situations were somewhat linked, or the fact that we are sloping slowly towards actions which the normal person would consider disgraceful. And although many do not agree with gay people, I don't personally find it to be something of that level. Not even close.

I agree with KOTL though, I certainly cant agree with the acts described although their being adult, willing, parties, theres really no crime therefor there shouldn't be a say in it by any outside parties.

Also, as far as inbreeding theres a slight misconception. Offspring by two related people does not cause specific genetic defects. It can over time and repetitive breeding cause a weakness in that specific families genes to become more prominent. Do not quote me but I believe in England/Europe in the past, royal families married within family's to keep "royal blood"...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, January 07, 2008 11:24 AM

Bastardking3000 wrote:Yeah I probably know what you're trying to say - that once you allow gay marriage you might as well allow everything etc etc. Men with be marrying cars and women will be marrying Rosie 'O Donnell(aka bestiality ). Blah blah blah. Now back in reality lane, I could care less about gay people marrying each other or any of that stuff. I see no issue with it really.

Now I'll ask a question - why not allow gay marriage? What is it about heterosexual only marriage that is so great and how exactly is gay marriage going to ruin that? How exactly is some gay couple getting married gonna affect an otherwise healthy heterosexual couple's marriage?

I've never seen why I as a straight man should mind gays in the slightest. 2 gay men means 2 less men competing for the pussy I want. I call that a win for straight men everywhere. And 2 lesbian(or preferably bisexual) women together is hot - unless they are ugly then I didn't care to start with. Most of the 100% not-at-all-interested-in-men lesbians are fairly ulgy anyways. The hot ones are overwhelmingly bisexual... which is just fine for me!!

So what is the problem... "what if a gay guy hits on me?!" - well assuming that you aren't gay or bi to start with - do the same thing that you do if some fugly old whore hits on you... decline. Its that easy. Just say "no thank you." As is I for some reason do tend to get hit on by a large number of guys - but it isn't a big deal. I just say "no thank you" and move on with my day.

You da man. I shall drink a beer in your name.

Ok, so the only reasons so far are "money" and "retarded children".

Quote:

1) Money- then are my suspicions correct that you think the insurance costs would go haywire if all these people started getting married? Perhaps I should have also asked about "domestic partner" riding on insurace policies.

Well, I don't think so, but I can bet you insurance companies wouldn't like having to pay out more. I doubt they really care about what all these people do, but I do think they care about the number of claims they receive and I can bet you they will use any legal excuse as to not pay.

Quote:

2) Retards- So you would be in favor of either sterilizing or forcibly preventing the mentally handicapped from having children, or even those normal people whose genes combined would produce, say, a Downs Syndrome Child.

If I follow you correctly, that is what you mean.

Didn't even come close to following correctly. I said that it is a generally innate biological imperative to procreate. Doing so with close relatives screws up the gene pool, so generally, people aren't interested in doing it, whether they actually think about it or not. While I am in favour of forcibly preventing certain people from mating, you got your wires crossed on what I'm talking about.

And I do say generally, because there are obvious exceptions to the people who want to procreate.

Quote:

You also answered my questions with Thats dumb, absurd, etc. They are not real answers to questions.

True, but I also answered your questions. There are no reasons why people shouldn't be able to do what they want, provided that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I may not quite like the fact that a grandfather would take advantage of his mentally handicapped granddaughter, but if she can make her own decisions legally, then whatever. Doesn't really affect me. I don't particularly want to hear about it, though.

Same goes with gays. I don't go around telling gay guys how hard I banged my girlfriend last night, so I don't need to know that they're screwing Steve from accounting.

Quote:

I believe the reason why I'm not getting straight talk, is that you know where I'm going with this once you lay your cards down. , and aside from name-calling, and blaming stuff on religon, or Bush, I have a feeling most people ..... well its already happened.

If you want straight talk, Bastardking 3000 gave it to you. Your analogies should be based (strongly) in reality. Again, while the scenarios you proposed have no doubt happened somewhere in the world, you'd be hard pressed to find them as prolific as homosexuality.

I feel ashamed to live in the US cuz of this. I believe the government has no right in restricting who can marry who. I do find the scenarios given disturbing, but again this is the 1st time i have thought about them. And the more i think about i can see his point. Could it be the next step?? Yes and No, we cant predict the future so how do we know.

Some of the other people reasons are beyond my thinking capability right now(been up since 4:30 w/ little sleep) so im sorry if i sound like an idiot. But they do sound convincing.

Im not scared of gay people, hell if a gay guy hit on you take it as a compliment, that you are attractive enough that people from the same sex "like" you. If people were comfortable with their sexuality the there shouldn't be a problem. I always find it funny to act gay and freak out the homophobes. If the whole .org wants to believe im gay, thats fine, i know im not and thats all that matters.












Im gonna stop, cuz im really starting to ramble on.

There is another thing that hasn't been addressed here. One, is that the a man and a woman in love married with children thing... as much as everyone would like to pretend otherwise, is fairly new. In Greece and Rome, for example, men would be married to women but only to procreate. It was seen as inherently wrong to "love" a woman because she was considered totally different from a man and incapable of truly understanding him. Might as well have loved a horse. So men had male lovers, sometimes platonic, to woo and romance. Even the tough Spartans (who were actually tougher and meaner than shown in the movie 300) had young boys as their lovers. In Egypt marriage again was between a man and a woman, but you could marry your cousin, stepdaughter, aunt, even your sister. Although that last one was rare outside of royalty, who were descendants from the Gods and needed to mate only with the purest blood.

Marriage, to be blunt, has always always ALWAYS been a possession ritual. The idea is that a man has to ask God or the Gods before he takes ownership of a woman for the purpose of breeding him an heir, because you can own an animal or a slave (both of which were pretty much interchangable in the minds of people up until verrrrrrrrrrry recently) but you can't just take a woman and force her to bear you children, the Gods would be angry. So you ask permission first and perform the ritual of marriage.

This doesn't even take into account the concepts of arranged marriages and multiple wives that still survive today.

The idea that a woman was an equal is less than a hundred years old, the idea to marry for love and that she's not a form of property isn't much older. As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, gay marriage is about as "radical" as oatmeal. In fact, it's basically an extention of the "Marry for love" belief that modern Western society created.

Degenerated said: "Well, I don't think so, but I can bet you insurance companies wouldn't like having to pay out more. I doubt they really care about what all these people do, but I do think they care about the number of claims they receive and I can bet you they will use any legal excuse as to not pay."

So who's insurace premiums go up when gay marriages, hetero domestic partners, etc are allowed to be added on to insurance policies? This is a big deal. Never mind the much higher occurrence of AIDS in the gay community. (its everyone's problem, but more so in gay comm) What do you think would happen if gay marriages etc were legalized and next day, every insurance company in the country dropped AIDS treatments?

Not to mention, the lawsuits from people who weren't gay, or didn't have a live in lover, or from BF and GF that lived separately. When does it stop?

Where is the end?

Even the premiums (ie taxes) of our socialist neighbors to the North will go up. All it will take is for a couple of precedent setting lawsuits by people feeling left out of the "free insurace" loop, and you have disaster.

Now leave off of how crooked the companies are, and how it would serve them right. Not even the topic here.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

The case for that, ScottAWhite is simple. You check out ALL couples for Herpes, AIDS, or other lifetime diseases before they are married that can only be aquired by sexual contact. if they are clean, you cover them. If they get the disease you find the fector and determine if it was gotten by infidelity or "risky behavior" or not.

Cover them if, say, it was an issue of lack of cleanliness while donating blood (and sue the living, dead, and undead @!#$ out of the clinic that took the blood).

Don't cover them if it was gotten from a tainted needle or infidelity.

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Actually, our taxes in the North wouldn't go up. Number one, who's going to sue to have free healthcare when it's free (well... free-ish) for all citizens?

But if you're gonna exclude people from getting married because of AIDS/HIV might as well also exclude junkies, cripples, anyone with a birth defect, people with a history of mental illness... ect. I mean, they cost a crapload to take care of too right?

But it's ridiculous to say something shouldn't be because it costs money. Just imagine if *I* got to decide what could be done and what couldn't be. It'd be HELL for everyone else. I don't have kids so I don't think I should pay school tax, ever. And on top of that I don't want busing of any kind or any kind of schooling past 6th grade. I'm not here to educate someone else's brat. Not my business. Also, I don't go hunting so I don't think it should be legal anymore. Well, you know, all those injuries and the need for game wardens. It costs me in taxes and I don't want it no more. The same goes for biking, snowboarding, parachuting, mountain climbing, sailing and swimming. Those should all be illegal because all the injuries are a drain on Health care and eventually cost ME money. Camping and fishing, those I'd keep legal because I like to do them. So obviously I don't want them to stop.

Know what else? Divorce, I don't want that to be legal anymore either. Well, first of all I'm Catholic so it's a sin in my religion. Also, It's a drain on the judicial system. So I don't think divorce should ever be legal in any way. A man and a woman should be married forever and ever and everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Yup, my world rocks. although... judging by the angry mob coming at me with pitchforks and torches, it probably sucks for some of you.

Quote:

So who's insurace premiums go up when gay marriages, hetero domestic partners, etc are allowed to be added on to insurance policies? This is a big deal. Never mind the much higher occurrence of AIDS in the gay community. (its everyone's problem, but more so in gay comm) What do you think would happen if gay marriages etc were legalized and next day, every insurance company in the country dropped AIDS treatments?

My insurance premiums go up because of hypochondriacs, the fat, and people who can't drive, too, what's your point? I'd take my chances with two married gay guys filing less claims per year than Fatty McGee and his fat family coming down with chronic, obesity-caused illnesses that last a lifetime, AIDS or not.

But now that you mention it, I guess we better not insure the elderly anymore, either, what with their high occurrence of death and sickness (it's everyone's problem, but more so in the elderly community).

I don't really need to answer your question, because Knoxfire did for me, but it's the same thing with smokers or male drivers under 24...if you're a high risk category you get charged more. Premiums are going to go up no matter what, because insurance companies are around to make money. You say that's off topic, but for what you're talking about, it's perfectly relevant. Bill and Bob getting hitched isn't going to make that much of a difference.

Knoxfire wrote:Actually, our taxes in the North wouldn't go up. Number one, who's going to sue to have free healthcare when it's free (well... free-ish) for all citizens?

But if you're gonna exclude people from getting married because of AIDS/HIV might as well also exclude junkies, cripples, anyone with a birth defect, people with a history of mental illness... ect. I mean, they cost a crapload to take care of too right?

But it's ridiculous to say something shouldn't be because it costs money. Just imagine if *I* got to decide what could be done and what couldn't be. It'd be HELL for everyone else. I don't have kids so I don't think I should pay school tax, ever. And on top of that I don't want busing of any kind or any kind of schooling past 6th grade. I'm not here to educate someone else's brat. Not my business. Also, I don't go hunting so I don't think it should be legal anymore. Well, you know, all those injuries and the need for game wardens. It costs me in taxes and I don't want it no more. The same goes for biking, snowboarding, parachuting, mountain climbing, sailing and swimming. Those should all be illegal because all the injuries are a drain on Health care and eventually cost ME money. Camping and fishing, those I'd keep legal because I like to do them. So obviously I don't want them to stop.

Know what else? Divorce, I don't want that to be legal anymore either. Well, first of all I'm Catholic so it's a sin in my religion. Also, It's a drain on the judicial system. So I don't think divorce should ever be legal in any way. A man and a woman should be married forever and ever and everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Yup, my world rocks. although... judging by the angry mob coming at me with pitchforks and torches, it probably sucks for some of you.

haha awesome.

Quote:

So I don't think divorce should ever be legal in any way. A man and a woman should be married forever and ever and everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

According to the Bible, this is correct. But apparently, this part isn't important. Where is says not to eat pork, not to cut your hair and/or shave is also not important. Never mind forgiving your brother and nevermind the whole not judging other people thing(that message is only repeated more than anything in the Bible because its supposed to be ignored of course). The only important thing is that men cannot touch other men. Really that is the main point of Christianity. Forget all the other stuff... it doesn't matter.






I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Gay marriages do not last more than 5 to10 years.
I have friends how are gay and they always cheat on each other.

If there is no victim, it should be legal. Obviously these are consenting adults and they should be allowed to do what they want. Don't legalize it because insurance costs might go up from the people that need an use it? This just in, people get insurance to use it. Should we drop people who use the insurance because the premiums may go up? Let's drop cancer patients! Lets stop allowing for prenatal care! Let's cut ALL pay outs! The bottom line is that these people deserve equal rights, consequences be damned.


________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics