Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage

[Steinlight]

Matt Bevin suffers cognitive dysfunctionalism.

The issue is consent of adults. Children can't consent.

But you can marry your child when he or she is of age right? I mean, they can consent after all...

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

So your standard isn't based on consent between adults, your standard is what types of relationships you think are "necessary". Gotcha.

Well my position is that same sex marriages aren't necessary.

 

[Nosmo King]

But you can marry your child when he or she is of age right? I mean, they can consent after all...

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

So your standard isn't based on consent between adults, your standard is what types of relationships you think are "necessary". Gotcha.

Well my position is that same sex marriages aren't necessary.

Marriage, for the purposes of this discussion is contract law. The state issues licenses to two individuals to enter the contract through which a new entity is established. That new entity is the legal conjoining of the two individuals. Because it is a legal contract, the state also provides a legal manner to break the contract. That's called divorce court.

Contact law requires al parties involved be consenting to the provisions of the contract, that they beof age of majority, and they have no previous blood relationship because marriage establishes such a relationship.

What possible reason would the state have to exclude sober, responsible adults from accessing contracts? So long as the provisions of age, consent and no prior blood relationship are maintained, excluding citizens from the legal protections provided through the state under legal contracts is the real injustice.

 

[Steinlight]

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

So your standard isn't based on consent between adults, your standard is what types of relationships you think are "necessary". Gotcha.

Well my position is that same sex marriages aren't necessary.

Marriage, for the purposes of this discussion is contract law. The state issues licenses to two individuals to enter the contract through which a new entity is established. That new entity is the legal conjoining of the two individuals. Because it is a legal contract, the state also provides a legal manner to break the contract. That's called divorce court.

Contact law requires al parties involved be consenting to the provisions of the contract, that they beof age of majority, and they have no previous blood relationship because marriage establishes such a relationship.

What possible reason would the state have to exclude sober, responsible adults from accessing contracts? So long as the provisions of age, consent and no prior blood relationship are maintained, excluding citizens from the legal protections provided through the state under legal contracts.

I don't think they are necessary, like you said that marrying your adult children isn't necessary.

Also, what if the adult child isn't your blood, is your adopted child, is that type of marriage necessary?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hope not...On the other hand if you're adult = you should have the right to marry other adults!

Right now, brothers and sisters cannot marry. Fathers and daughters cannot.

But incest is the new gay.

In the 60's, the move was for acceptance of homosexual. In the 90's, the move was for normalization of homosexuals. Now, the open promotion of homosexuality is everywhere.

Incest is following the same pastern - we currently are in the acceptance stage, with Hollywood showing nice portrayals of healthy incest for us all, so that we can learn that incest is just another choice.

Ignorant nonsense and rightist demagoguery.

Marriage law is written to accommodate only two equal partners, same- or opposite sex couples. Consequently no one is seeking to ‘change’ or ‘redefine’ marriage law – the marriage contract law same-sex couples access is identical to the marriage contract law opposite-sex couples access.

Allowing same-sex couples to access the marriage law they’re already eligible to participate in will have no effect on current prohibitions with regard to marriage and incest, or ‘plural marriage,’ or any other lawful, appropriate restrictions.

 

[Nosmo King]

So your standard isn't based on consent between adults, your standard is what types of relationships you think are "necessary". Gotcha.

Well my position is that same sex marriages aren't necessary.

Marriage, for the purposes of this discussion is contract law. The state issues licenses to two individuals to enter the contract through which a new entity is established. That new entity is the legal conjoining of the two individuals. Because it is a legal contract, the state also provides a legal manner to break the contract. That's called divorce court.

Contact law requires al parties involved be consenting to the provisions of the contract, that they beof age of majority, and they have no previous blood relationship because marriage establishes such a relationship.

What possible reason would the state have to exclude sober, responsible adults from accessing contracts? So long as the provisions of age, consent and no prior blood relationship are maintained, excluding citizens from the legal protections provided through the state under legal contracts.

I don't think they are necessary, like you said that marrying your adult children isn't necessary.

Also, what if the adult child isn't your blood, is your adopted child, is that type of marriage necessary?

Adoption, by definition, establishes a blood relationship.

As to the necessity of same sex marriage, consider the rights of the homosexuals desiring to enter into the marriage contract. Why would you think that denying tax paying, sober, responsible, consenting adult American citizens should not have access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract? Because you disapprove of their lifestyle? Is that reason enough to repress and exclude citizens from contracts?

Social Conservatives rail against same sex marriage, but aside from their personal hang ups over someone else's lives, they have yet to proffer a legitimate reason why same sex marriage should be excluded through law.

 

[Locke11_21]

I noticed the OP's link is "Right-Wing Watch", I didn't even waste the time to click the link. No objectivity there, that's for sure, just another hactivist idealogue site.

It is most interesting communist zealots like hazlnut and Jake "The Fake" Starkey are so panicked about Bevin, they are going with attacks on Bevin in hopes it can persuade people to vote for that big government commie, Mitch McConjob. I know exactly what is going on here, commies like Jake and hazlnut are hoping McConjob wins because it gives the Democrat candidate a better chance of winning. Oh, here is a little something to back what I believe on this matter:

Democrats, for once, are rooting for McConnell in Senate primary | TheHill

As I close this out, is it just me, or does Mitch McConjob look and sound like the result of a genetic mutation experiment that went drastically wrong?

Matt Bevin suffers cognitive dysfunctionalism.

The issue is consent of adults. Children can't consent.

You suffer from pathological lying syndrome, as evidenced by your multitude of posts in which you lie about being a Republican. I would also diagnose you as having a severe inferiority complex, anyone who has to lie like you do in a political forum for blatant deception clearly has a long list of issues with words that have a lot of letters in them and are difficult to pronounce.

I have a suggestion for you Jake, how about start now by ending your lying, that way if you have any decency about you; you will hopefully make a New Year's resolution to quit lying about being a Republican and will be able to follow through with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So your standard isn't based on consent between adults, your standard is what types of relationships you think are "necessary". Gotcha.

Well my position is that same sex marriages aren't necessary.

Marriage, for the purposes of this discussion is contract law. The state issues licenses to two individuals to enter the contract through which a new entity is established. That new entity is the legal conjoining of the two individuals. Because it is a legal contract, the state also provides a legal manner to break the contract. That's called divorce court.

Contact law requires al parties involved be consenting to the provisions of the contract, that they beof age of majority, and they have no previous blood relationship because marriage establishes such a relationship.

What possible reason would the state have to exclude sober, responsible adults from accessing contracts? So long as the provisions of age, consent and no prior blood relationship are maintained, excluding citizens from the legal protections provided through the state under legal contracts.

I don't think they are necessary, like you said that marrying your adult children isn't necessary.

Also, what if the adult child isn't your blood, is your adopted child, is that type of marriage necessary?

More irrelevant demagoguery.

Again, allowing same-sex couples to access the marriage law they’re already eligible to participate in has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘marrying’ one’s adult child – ‘blood’ or ‘adopted.’

It has no bearing on the merits of the issue.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage | Right Wing Watch


Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Tea Party-aligned primary challenger Matt Bevin jumped on the ruling and criticized McConnell over his ties to the judge:

I'm deeply disappointed in Judge Heyburn's decision to overturn Kentucky's right to determine the definition of marriage within its own borders. This type of judicial activism hurts America's democratic process.

It is no surprise that Judge Heyburn was Mitch McConnell's general counsel and McConnell recommended him for the federal bench. Kentucky deserves better.
Yesterday on The Janet Mefferd Show, Bevin continued to rail against “judicial activism” and told the anti-gay talk show host that he would be a strong opponent of marriage equality in the Senate.

“Where do you draw the line?” Bevin asked. “If it’s all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repressions and things that come with it — so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise. Where do you draw the line?”

I don't get the inference your title suggests at all. The left and the right are guilty of twisting words for their political benefit. Even your snippet does not suggest what your article claims.


Here is the entire conversation in context though.

During the interview, Mefferd brought up recent court battles in Utah over the legality of a same-sex marriage ban in the state. The host suggested that federal intervention on the issue is prompting people to “say this lawlessness is driving us crazy.”

That comment elicited a long, rambling response from Bevin that included the suggestion that same-sex marriage could lead to a slippery slope redefining marriage, including opening up the possibility of parent-child marriages for financial purposes.

“Where do you draw the line, even on that? At what point, if it’s alright to have same sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repercussions and things that come with this — So a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise,” Bevin said.


He added: “Where do you draw the line? And if in fact, a person can arbitrarily draw it here, why not could someone else draw it arbitrarily somewhere else? There needs to be rule of law. Marriage has for millennia been defined as that between a man and a woman, universally.”

Mefferd replied “absolutely” as the Bevin’s appearance concluded.

Bevin said that while he believes marriage should be the “sovereignty of the states,” he said if elected to the Senate he will “absolutely” weigh in as a strong supporter of defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Read more: Spox denies Matt Bevin linked gay marriage, parent-child unions - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

Perhaps attack his stance that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman only but don't put words in his mouth.

 

[Steinlight]

Marriage, for the purposes of this discussion is contract law. The state issues licenses to two individuals to enter the contract through which a new entity is established. That new entity is the legal conjoining of the two individuals. Because it is a legal contract, the state also provides a legal manner to break the contract. That's called divorce court.

Contact law requires al parties involved be consenting to the provisions of the contract, that they beof age of majority, and they have no previous blood relationship because marriage establishes such a relationship.

What possible reason would the state have to exclude sober, responsible adults from accessing contracts? So long as the provisions of age, consent and no prior blood relationship are maintained, excluding citizens from the legal protections provided through the state under legal contracts.

I don't think they are necessary, like you said that marrying your adult children isn't necessary.

Also, what if the adult child isn't your blood, is your adopted child, is that type of marriage necessary?

More irrelevant demagoguery.

Again, allowing same-sex couples to access the marriage law they’re already eligible to participate in has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘marrying’ one’s adult child – ‘blood’ or ‘adopted.’

It has no bearing on the merits of the issue.

If you believe consenting adults should be allowed to marry, than it has to include parents being allowed to marry adult children. Otherwise, consent is no longer the standard, the justification for advocating same sex couples having the ability to attain marriage licenses.

The standard becomes arbitrary, based on what you feel is "icky" or "immoral". So in reality you would be imposing your morality through law, it is just a different moral code than that of a Christian who opposes same sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

But what if they are in love and want to have sex together and be married that way? Like what I saw just today..

 

[Nosmo King]

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

But what if they are in love and want to have sex together and be married that way? Like what I saw just today..

Marriage is a legal contract. LEGAL CONTRACT!

Love, sex, incest, what have you is not germane to the discussion of contract law. You can 'but what if...' all day, so long as it concerns the state licensed institution provided in the legal contract.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe the consensus of conservative thinking around here, all that a man and daughter would have to do is claim that such a marriage between them is part of their religious beliefs,

and therefore protected by the Constitution.

 

[Freewill]

The title of the thread is mis-leading. You either intentionally, or accidentally imply that the Tea Party Candidate is in favor of parents marrying children, when in fact he's against that, and changing the definition of marriage.

No, it isn't. Nowhere in that title does the OP say anything about support, and in fact, the teabagger specifically implies exactly what the OP states.

Once again we see the true underbelly of the lying liberal left. The term teabagger refers to a homosexual act and you damn well know it. So you use something you SAY you support as an insult. But that is the liberal/democrat way. I would argue this topic with you but I might as well go to the dailykos first to see what your reply will be.

 

[Freewill]

If you believe the consensus of conservative thinking around here, all that a man and daughter would have to do is claim that such a marriage between them is part of their religious beliefs,

and therefore protected by the Constitution.

Isn't that exactly what the those who support gay marriage do? Are you saying that those who think marriage, as historically been defined, should take a play out of the liberal playbook? No, we won't because that would be not telling the truth, the right of marriage is defined no where because it isn't a civil right unless defined by law. In other words marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and woman. Therefore marriage so defined can not be restricted in in interracial marriage that would be a civil rights violation as defined by law. But to change that definition as we are doing seems to me to be opening the Pandora's box. Gays say the only reason they want marriage not civil unions is because they want the same benefits of marriage. Of course they are not telling the truth but let's say they are. So say there is a man and his daughter that want those same benefits what would stop them from marrying? There is no need for them to consummate the marriage they don't need to because society has now defined marriage as more or less a economic contract not a moral commitment. So yes, marriage between a man and his daughter can not be stopped nor should a marriage between many women and a man, or visa versa.

 

[Freewill]

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

But what if they are in love and want to have sex together and be married that way? Like what I saw just today..

Why does someone need to have sex to be married? It is now an economic legal contract that has nothing to do with sex as it used to be defined. The definition has changed so anything should be legal. Unless the liberal left wants to discriminated against a man and his daughter, or a woman and her son.

 

[Freewill]

I noticed the OP's link is "Right-Wing Watch", I didn't even waste the time to click the link. No objectivity there, that's for sure, just another hactivist idealogue site.

It is most interesting communist zealots like hazlnut and Jake "The Fake" Starkey are so panicked about Bevin, they are going with attacks on Bevin in hopes it can persuade people to vote for that big government commie, Mitch McConjob. I know exactly what is going on here, commies like Jake and hazlnut are hoping McConjob wins because it gives the Democrat candidate a better chance of winning. Oh, here is a little something to back what I believe on this matter:

Democrats, for once, are rooting for McConnell in Senate primary | TheHill

As I close this out, is it just me, or does Mitch McConjob look and sound like the result of a genetic mutation experiment that went drastically wrong?

Matt Bevin suffers cognitive dysfunctionalism.

The issue is consent of adults. Children can't consent.

You suffer from pathological lying syndrome, as evidenced by your multitude of posts in which you lie about being a Republican. I would also diagnose you as having a severe inferiority complex, anyone who has to lie like you do in a political forum for blatant deception clearly has a long list of issues with words that have a lot of letters in them and are difficult to pronounce.

I have a suggestion for you Jake, how about start now by ending your lying, that way if you have any decency about you; you will hopefully make a New Year's resolution to quit lying about being a Republican and will be able to follow through with it.

Never happen. It would require a democrat operative to blow his cover. It would also require a liberal to tell the full truth. Besides, the insane really do believe the sky is pink.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe the consensus of conservative thinking around here, all that a man and daughter would have to do is claim that such a marriage between them is part of their religious beliefs,

and therefore protected by the Constitution.

Isn't that exactly what the those who support gay marriage do? Are you saying that those who think marriage, as historically been defined, should take a play out of the liberal playbook? No, we won't because that would be not telling the truth, the right of marriage is defined no where because it isn't a civil right unless defined by law. In other words marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and woman. Therefore marriage so defined can not be restricted in in interracial marriage that would be a civil rights violation as defined by law. But to change that definition as we are doing seems to me to be opening the Pandora's box. Gays say the only reason they want marriage not civil unions is because they want the same benefits of marriage. Of course they are not telling the truth but let's say they are. So say there is a man and his daughter that want those same benefits what would stop them from marrying? There is no need for them to consummate the marriage they don't need to because society has now defined marriage as more or less a economic contract not a moral commitment. So yes, marriage between a man and his daughter can not be stopped nor should a marriage between many women and a man, or visa versa.

We changed the definition of marriage when we outlawed polygamy. Did that lead to outlawing monogamy?

 

[Silhouette]

No. You cannot marry your child. The marriage contract, above requiring consenting adults, establishes a 'blood relationship' between two individuals. As parents and their children already have that blood relationship, establishing a secondary relationship through marriage is not necessary.

But what if they are in love and want to have sex together and be married that way? Like what I saw just today..

Marriage is a legal contract. LEGAL CONTRACT!

Love, sex, incest, what have you is not germane to the discussion of contract law. You can 'but what if...' all day, so long as it concerns the state licensed institution provided in the legal contract.

In California, the state licensing forbids marriage between other than a man and a woman because that's what the constitution there still says to this very minute is only legal. So strictly, contractually speaking in the driest interpretation of law, gay marriage is illegal in California. Only sedition of rogue officials and emotions are saying it's "legal" there..

And since the emotions saying "gay marriage is legal" in places where it patently is not, what stops the emotion of other adults in love who don't fit the one man one woman not related laws? Answer: nothing. Because the yardstick used for this sedition is "do not deny consenting adults in love the "right" of marriage". And that yardstick doesn't arbitrarily stop at just people in the church of LGBT...

 

[Silhouette]

If you believe the consensus of conservative thinking around here, all that a man and daughter would have to do is claim that such a marriage between them is part of their religious beliefs,

and therefore protected by the Constitution.

Isn't that exactly what the those who support gay marriage do? Are you saying that those who think marriage, as historically been defined, should take a play out of the liberal playbook? No, we won't because that would be not telling the truth, the right of marriage is defined no where because it isn't a civil right unless defined by law. In other words marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and woman. Therefore marriage so defined can not be restricted in in interracial marriage that would be a civil rights violation as defined by law. But to change that definition as we are doing seems to me to be opening the Pandora's box. Gays say the only reason they want marriage not civil unions is because they want the same benefits of marriage. Of course they are not telling the truth but let's say they are. So say there is a man and his daughter that want those same benefits what would stop them from marrying? There is no need for them to consummate the marriage they don't need to because society has now defined marriage as more or less a economic contract not a moral commitment. So yes, marriage between a man and his daughter can not be stopped nor should a marriage between many women and a man, or visa versa.

Those are most excellent points. And I strongly encourage you to find a way to include them in an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court when one of the "rogue officials and Harvey Milkers vs [insert state's name here who has legally disallowed gay marriage]" makes it to be Heard in the near future.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Logically, then, if the premise in the OP were correct, which it isn't, shouldn't we be amending the Constitution to permit the reinstatement of laws criminalizing gay adult consensual sex?

Doesn't that 'redefine' what sort of adult sex is permissible, and thus isn't that leading to legalizing adult/child sex?