Incest rears its ugly head

[mbills2223]

 

[HoughMade]

I left this topic a while ago, but keep seeing it pop to the top of the list....I'm left believing that there is more interest in incest than I would have thought.

Good news: In Indiana it is legal to marry your first cousin as long as you are both over 65. It's something.

 

[printcraft]

I left this topic a while ago, but keep seeing it pop to the top of the list....I'm left believing that there is more interest in incest than I would have thought.

Good news: In Indiana it is legal to marry your first cousin as long as you are both over 65. It's something.

Who do we have to write to get that changed!?

 

[mrjarrell]

Wow.

Will someone provide Cliffs Notes, or even just a list of the the pro-incest INGO whackjobs so I can go ahead and file them under "people I want nothing to do with". I really don't feel like sifting through this entire thread.

I think you should read through the thread. While you won't find any pro-incest people, there are plenty of others in it that you'd likely want nothing to do with.

 

[HoughMade]

Who do we have to write to get that changed!?

What....to lower it to 15?

 

[jamil]

The shifting morals is not because, well, "liberty". The people who want to grant gays the right to marry aren't doing it for the cause of liberty. I'm sure libertarians have very little impact on it at all. It's happening because of shifting morality.

Society isn't a monolithic organism. We can't conceive the dynamics of the interactions of the many parts so we use an aggregate term like "society" and talk about it as if it's a self-interested personhood rather than many self-interested persons interacting with each other.

Society doesn't have morals because there's no such thing as a society. The aggregate morality of a set of people is the collective standard they're all willing to force upon others and live by themselves. That the standards change is due to the fact that many of the individuals that make up the aggregate changed first. Morals reflect the people.

We're seeing a fairly rapid philosophical shift in attitudes and morality as more and more people think the standards set by earlier generations are irrelevant to them. And the major drivers of that shift are not libertarians.

So to the point, I've not seen much real evidence that most people even give a **** about liberty. Or maybe a better way of saying it, most people's definition of liberty is steeped in positive rights, such that actual free will is undesirable to them. And that's the point. Just because people have changing moral standards doesn't mean they won't impose the new ones on you.

You no longer have the right to serve or not serve anyone you want. That kind of liberty is the old way. The coming new liberty is the freedom you'll have to make others serve you. Aggregate morality will have no more problem forcing you to bake that cake than you have in banning gays or incest or whatever. So no, it's not because "liberty". It's essentially because the moonbeans who elect people like Nancy Pelosi are ****ing crazy.

 

[hornadylnl]

I left this topic a while ago, but keep seeing it pop to the top of the list....I'm left believing that there is more interest in incest than I would have thought.

Good news: In Indiana it is legal to marry your first cousin as long as you are both over 65. It's something.

So when a lawyer defends a client, it's because he agrees with the clients actions, not because he's defending a larger principle. Got it.

 

[HoughMade]

So you would conclude that after 367 posts in this thread there's no interest in incest? Lot of conversation for something no one cares about.

 

[hornadylnl]

So you would conclude that after 367 posts in this thread there's no interest in incest? Lot of conversation for something no one cares about.

Oh there's a definite interest in controlling others.

So what abhorrent behavior have you condoned by representing your clients?

 

[jamil]

So you would conclude that after 367 posts in this thread there's no interest in incest? Lot of conversation for something no one cares about.

Weren't we talking about facial hair for awhile? Or was that another thread?

 

[Dean C.]

I'm currently reading an ebook called Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves, Arkansas Narratives, Part 4.

The interviews are shown as being conducted in the late 1930's and those interviewed were either born right before, during or after the civil war. The questions aren't in the book but it's pretty obvious the same basic questions were asked of all those interviewed. One of them was what did they think of the youth today (i.e., late 1930's). Almost all of them have said that the young move too fast today and a good part of them said that the youth are wild. That seems kind of strange because all of those who complain about today's youth harken back to the 50's or before and lament the respect that they youth had back then.

I bet if you could find a book of interviews from older people from any cross section of society from any time period that commented on the current youth, the majority would think they're heathens. I'd bet a cold one that the same attitude would be shared regarding morality.

But..... but being a "heathen" is fun. It makes people think we actually want to legalize incest, bestiality, polygamy and other things. And then I love this part the most the whole Adultery is worse than incest!!! And if someone could please come up with a legitimate scientific source proving that assertion I would be shocked. (and for clarification using something that is not supposed to be discussed on this nice forum is not a scientific source).

 

[hornadylnl]

But..... but being a "heathen" is fun. It makes people think we actually want to legalize incest, bestiality, polygamy and other things. And then I love this part the most the whole Adultery is worse than incest!!! And if someone could please come up with a legitimate scientific source proving that assertion I would be shocked. (and for clarification using something that is not supposed to be discussed on this nice forum is not a scientific source).

Nobody has said adultery is worse than incest. It's the pro control crowd twisting words to try to discredit one side of the debate. If you don't agree with their ideal legal utopia, you diddle your sister.

 

[HoughMade]

Oh there's a definite interest in controlling others.

So what abhorrent behavior have you condoned by representing your clients?

You have no idea...but there a fairly thorough Vanity Fair article about one of them....and "Dateline"...and an "American Greed".

Anyhoo, interest is interest. You're the one throwing around terms like "condone" and "agrees".

 

[hornadylnl]

You have no idea...but there a fairly thorough Vanity Fair article about one of them....and "Dateline"...and an "American Greed".

Anyhoo, interest is interest. You're the one throwing around terms like "condone" and "agrees".

So rather than defending your position, you just want to accuse others of incest.

 

[Dean C.]

Nobody has said adultery is worse than incest. It's the pro control crowd twisting words to try to discredit one side of the debate. If you don't agree with their ideal legal utopia, you diddle your sister.

Roger that I was mildly confused apparently. This thread has gotten really weird.

 

[HoughMade]

But....It makes people think we actually want to legalize incest, bestiality, polygamy and other things...

I will grant that I've see no one claiming to want to engage in incest....though there seems to be a deplorable lack of a sense of humor around here...., but I think you missed the several posts where people were making the argument that these things (with the exception of beastiality for some reason) should be legalized, so if you think that's crazy, that's on you.

 

[hornadylnl]

I will grant that I've see no one claiming to want to engage in incest....though there seems to be a deplorable lack of a sense of humor around here...., but I think you missed the several posts where people were making the argument that these things (with the exception of beastiality for some reason) should be legalized, so if you think that's crazy, that's on you.

The laws banning these behaviors do nothing to stop them and only serve to make those opposed to these actions feel like they've done something.

The act of incest is abhorrent. If the father and daughter were caught in the act, what would happen to them? Will one or both be locked away permanently so that it can't happen again? No, they will not. So it does nothing to prevent it. And heaven forbid someone want to do away with unenforceable laws.

The supporters of these laws have been asked multiple times and have refused to answer multiple times this: If laws against immoral actions such as gay marriage, incest, etc are good, why don't we have laws against adultry, etc?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I left this topic a while ago, but keep seeing it pop to the top of the list....I'm left believing that there is more interest in incest than I would have thought.

Good news: In Indiana it is legal to marry your first cousin as long as you are both over 65. It's something.

Definitely a lot of interest in what other people do in their bedroom and how we can insert government to stop insertions we disagree with, certainly.

 

[printcraft]

What....to lower it to 15?

That's a little ageist....... Why do you hate freedom?

9 seem like a nice even number.... precedent endorsed across the world.

 

[HoughMade]

So rather than defending your position, you just want to accuse others of incest.

Who did I accuse of that?

What I will do is reiterate the lack of a sense of humor around here. People need to relax a little and not take these discussions so seriously.