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

[NYcarbineer]

Homophobia is the mental disorder.

Homosexual is the naturally occurring sexual orientation present in many species including man.

LOL, so this is the next iteration. So if it's natural have you done it?

Why would he if that was not his orientation.

There are more married men cheating on their wives in America than there are gay man, period.

Does that make cheating on your wife a more 'natural' lifestyle than homosexuality?

 

[Nosmo King]

"Incest is the new gay"?

40 years off.

What a stupid notion to posit!

Incest at this moment is treated by Hollywood EXACTLY as homosexuality was 40 years ago. We are in the acceptance conditioning phase.

Incest does not mean consensual sex. It is not sex between adults.

????

Of course it is.

Incest is responsible for emotional damage that lasts a lifetime. None of those despicable qualities are applicable to homosexuality.

Remember, the key words are "consensual" "adult" and "emotional damage".

Again, just as with homosexuality, incest is being normalized. It won't be glorified for a couple of decades, but already Hollywood is featuring incest in shows like Dexter, The Bourgas, Boardwalk Empire, the L.A. Complex, etc.

In all these cases, the participants are "consenting adults." Just as with homosexuality, child sex is not featured or promoted, though in both incest and homosexuality, it is fairly common.

Brother sister sex is what Hollywood is promoting.

Doesn't Hollywood also make movies about murderers, arsonists, con men, thieves, brutes and thugs, baseball executives, mathematicians, the elderly, the mafia, slum dog millionaires, confused singles, bridesmaids, boxers, Wall Street tycoons, cartoon dogs, Ancient Greek armies, Abraham Lincoln, escaped slaves, car jackers, and politicians?

Do you see anything conspiratorial in any of those story lines, or are your antennae tuned to incest for your own personal reasons?

I remember a lot of movies that had as part of the story, a lot of unsavory behavior. But that does not mean that such behavior was championed or promoted as normal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

That is excluded by the 14th, as is marriage between blood kin.

Step along.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexuality or incest.

The issue here is your hypocrisy. You claim that men should be able to marry men, and women marry women, because they are consenting adults. However, when we take this to the next step, allowing adult children to marry their parents, the standard of consent no longer applies. And you are engaging in moralizing against incestuous couples, the kind moralizing you condemn amongst homosexual couples.

Steinlight, you outed yourself by your comments.

The issue of consent will be decided by leges and courts.

Certainly not by the likes of you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Doesn't Hollywood also make movies about murderers, arsonists, con men, thieves, brutes and thugs, baseball executives, mathematicians, the elderly, the mafia, slum dog millionaires, confused singles, bridesmaids, boxers, Wall Street tycoons, cartoon dogs, Ancient Greek armies, Abraham Lincoln, escaped slaves, car jackers, and politicians?

A valiant effort on you part, but Hollywood generally does normalize anti-social roles.

Do you see anything conspiratorial in any of those story lines, or are your antennae tuned to incest for your own personal reasons?

This too is a rehash of techniques used in the promotion of homosexuality. If anyone questions the program accuse them of being a homosexual.

So your accusation that if I question the promotion of incest, I must be involved is expected, part of the playbook.

I remember a lot of movies that had as part of the story, a lot of unsavory behavior. But that does not mean that such behavior was championed or promoted as normal.

Normalization is the portrayal of deviant behavior as an acceptable norm. As was done in the campaign to make homosexuality an accepted and now celebrated faction of society, and is now pursued in regard to incest.

Defining deviancy down.

 

[Steinlight]

That is excluded by the 14th, as is marriage between blood kin.

Step along.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexuality or incest.

The issue here is your hypocrisy. You claim that men should be able to marry men, and women marry women, because they are consenting adults. However, when we take this to the next step, allowing adult children to marry their parents, the standard of consent no longer applies. And you are engaging in moralizing against incestuous couples, the kind moralizing you condemn amongst homosexual couples.

Steinlight, you outed yourself by your comments.

The issue of consent will be decided by leges and courts.

Certainly not by the likes of you.

Outed myself, as what?

The issue of your intellectual inconsistency, which you have continued to avoid here, has nothing to do with court rulings.

 

[Nosmo King]

Doesn't Hollywood also make movies about murderers, arsonists, con men, thieves, brutes and thugs, baseball executives, mathematicians, the elderly, the mafia, slum dog millionaires, confused singles, bridesmaids, boxers, Wall Street tycoons, cartoon dogs, Ancient Greek armies, Abraham Lincoln, escaped slaves, car jackers, and politicians?

A valiant effort on you part, but Hollywood generally does normalize anti-social roles.

Do you see anything conspiratorial in any of those story lines, or are your antennae tuned to incest for your own personal reasons?

This too is a rehash of techniques used in the promotion of homosexuality. If anyone questions the program accuse them of being a homosexual.

So your accusation that if I question the promotion of incest, I must be involved is expected, part of the playbook.

I remember a lot of movies that had as part of the story, a lot of unsavory behavior. But that does not mean that such behavior was championed or promoted as normal.

Normalization is the portrayal of deviant behavior as an acceptable norm. As was done in the campaign to make homosexuality an accepted and now celebrated faction of society, and is now pursued in regard to incest.

Defining deviancy down.

I'm not accusing you of anything incestuous. My, but you are a sensitive person! I'm merely wondering why the obscure topic of incest first, has any bearing on homosexuality and secondly, why you seem convinced that Hollywood is actively promoting incest as normal. Especially considering the vast array of subjects Hollywood makes movies about.

As incest is criminal behavior, and as incest inevitably leads to significant emotional problems, I cannot conceive that incest would be 'promoted', or championed as normal behavior by anyone, particularly Hollywood. Was Nathaniel Hawthorne promoting adultery? Was Charles Dickens promoting regicide? Was Anthony Burgess promoting ultra violence? Was Sergi Nabakov promoting child abuse?

Just because a work of literature or cinema uses unsavory behavior as part of a plot line, it does not equate to a 'promotion' of that behavior. Jimmy Cagney wasn't promoting robbery in White Heat any more than Faye Dunaway was promoting child abuse in Mommie Dearest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Doesn't Hollywood also make movies about murderers, arsonists, con men, thieves, brutes and thugs, baseball executives, mathematicians, the elderly, the mafia, slum dog millionaires, confused singles, bridesmaids, boxers, Wall Street tycoons, cartoon dogs, Ancient Greek armies, Abraham Lincoln, escaped slaves, car jackers, and politicians?

A valiant effort on you part, but Hollywood generally does normalize anti-social roles.

Do you see anything conspiratorial in any of those story lines, or are your antennae tuned to incest for your own personal reasons?

This too is a rehash of techniques used in the promotion of homosexuality. If anyone questions the program accuse them of being a homosexual.

So your accusation that if I question the promotion of incest, I must be involved is expected, part of the playbook.

I remember a lot of movies that had as part of the story, a lot of unsavory behavior. But that does not mean that such behavior was championed or promoted as normal.

Normalization is the portrayal of deviant behavior as an acceptable norm. As was done in the campaign to make homosexuality an accepted and now celebrated faction of society, and is now pursued in regard to incest.

Defining deviancy down.

There is no good reason for homosexuality not to be acceptable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexuality or incest.

The issue here is your hypocrisy. You claim that men should be able to marry men, and women marry women, because they are consenting adults. However, when we take this to the next step, allowing adult children to marry their parents, the standard of consent no longer applies. And you are engaging in moralizing against incestuous couples, the kind moralizing you condemn amongst homosexual couples.

Steinlight, you outed yourself by your comments.

The issue of consent will be decided by leges and courts.

Certainly not by the likes of you.

Outed myself, as what?

The issue of your intellectual inconsistency, which you have continued to avoid here, has nothing to do with court rulings.

You are neither intellectually or morally consistent, Steinlight.

Your own words condemn you.

You are clearly outside the boundaries of your knowledge, as are most homofascists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored does not have the ability to comprehend all that, Nosmo King.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no good reason for homosexuality not to be acceptable.

I support the legalization of drugs. I support the legalization of prostitution and gambling. It is not the right of a society to impose restrictions on behaviors that do not injure uninvolved parties.

If a man wants to pay for sex, and a person is willing to accept payment, this is no ones business save the two involved.

But to try and peddle this as "normal and healthy" is a perversion of reality.

The same is true in regard to homosexuality. It is a vice, a victimless activity that is the business of no one save those engaging in it. But it is not, nor will it ever be, the equivalent to a legitimate family structure.

Now what is your reason for denying the right to marry to a brother and sister over that age of 18? How does that differ from arguments that homosexuals have their relationships honored?

 

[Nosmo King]

There is no good reason for homosexuality not to be acceptable.

I support the legalization of drugs. I support the legalization of prostitution and gambling. It is not the right of a society to impose restrictions on behaviors that do not injure uninvolved parties.

If a man wants to pay for sex, and a person is willing to accept payment, this is no ones business save the two involved.

But to try and peddle this as "normal and healthy" is a perversion of reality.

The same is true in regard to homosexuality. It is a vice, a victimless activity that is the business of no one save those engaging in it. But it is not, nor will it ever be, the equivalent to a legitimate family structure.

Now what is your reason for denying the right to marry to a brother and sister over that age of 18? How does that differ from arguments that homosexuals have their relationships honored?

Let's talk about a legitimate family structure. The nuclear family of the 1950s, 2.7 children, a stay at home Mom and a breadwinner Dad is all but obsolete. Blended families of divorced parents, single Moms, or Dads, an elderly relative living in the home with their children and a committed homosexual couple all make up families. Do you think the state should be the arbiter of what makes a family and what does not? Gone is the Conservative mantra that government should not interfere in your personal life if you believe that one family is 'legitimate' while another is not.

And again, for the umpteenth time, siblings already enjoy a next of kin relationship. The next of kin relationship is established by the marriage contract. Why would siblings require a seciondary next of kin relationship?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only one answer to "But it is not, nor will it ever be, the equivalent to a legitimate family structure": horse shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's talk about a legitimate family structure. The nuclear family of the 1950s, 2.7 children, a stay at home Mom and a breadwinner Dad is all but obsolete.

The human race as we know it, has been around about 100,000 years. Certain behaviors and attributes have developed over time. In relationship to offspring, about 3 models have arisen and endured. The first is the nuclear family. This is found on every continent on Earth. This is the most civilized and stable of the models and encourages a stable society. Counter culture appears to have the attention span of a goldfish, though the reality is that the counter culture is a deliberately destructive force. Civilization learned long ago that a society functions best if the males are enticed into the rearing of children. The family unit encourages the male to engage in the family unit by linking sex with family structure.

The second model is the tribal model, an alpha dominates and creates a harem of females. Strife is inherent as lesser males compete for females.

The final model is unstructured, animalistic encounters, generally found in failing and crumbling societies, such as ours. Always a short lived situation.

Blended families of divorced parents, single Moms, or Dads, an elderly relative living in the home with their children and a committed homosexual couple all make up families.

All are signs of a destabilized society.

Do you think the state should be the arbiter of what makes a family and what does not? Gone is the Conservative mantra that government should not interfere in your personal life if you believe that one family is 'legitimate' while another is not.

Who said anything about the state?

Let me ask you, do you think Water Polo should include golf?

And again, for the umpteenth time, siblings already enjoy a next of kin relationship. The next of kin relationship is established by the marriage contract. Why would siblings require a seciondary next of kin relationship?

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's talk about a legitimate family structure. The nuclear family of the 1950s, 2.7 children, a stay at home Mom and a breadwinner Dad is all but obsolete.

The human race as we know it, has been around about 100,000 years. Certain behaviors and attributes have developed over time. In relationship to offspring, about 3 models have arisen and endured. The first is the nuclear family. This is found on every continent on Earth. This is the most civilized and stable of the models and encourages a stable society. Counter culture appears to have the attention span of a goldfish, though the reality is that the counter culture is a deliberately destructive force. Civilization learned long ago that a society functions best if the males are enticed into the rearing of children. The family unit encourages the male to engage in the family unit by linking sex with family structure.

The second model is the tribal model, an alpha dominates and creates a harem of females. Strife is inherent as lesser males compete for females.

The final model is unstructured, animalistic encounters, generally found in failing and crumbling societies, such as ours. Always a short lived situation.

Blended families of divorced parents, single Moms, or Dads, an elderly relative living in the home with their children and a committed homosexual couple all make up families.

All are signs of a destabilized society.

Do you think the state should be the arbiter of what makes a family and what does not? Gone is the Conservative mantra that government should not interfere in your personal life if you believe that one family is 'legitimate' while another is not.

Who said anything about the state?

Let me ask you, do you think Water Polo should include golf?

And again, for the umpteenth time, siblings already enjoy a next of kin relationship. The next of kin relationship is established by the marriage contract. Why would siblings require a seciondary next of kin relationship?

WTF are you talking about?

After ignoring the extended family and all the family structures embraced by society and proclaiming the relatively new phenomenon of the nuclear family as de riguer, we find that you consider every other form of family a blight on humanity.

Divorcees finding love and stability are signs of destabilization. Having your elderly parents living with you in their dotage shows just how far we have fallen from the ideal. A single parent household where support, love and nurturing for children is an example of our decline as a people. Even two loving, committed, responsible homosexuals are harbingers of social disintegration, even while ose two homosexuals are seeking the security and stability found in a marriage contract.

Ladies and gentlemen of USMB, I submit that Uncensored has set the bar of morality and social comportment so high that not even the Brady Bunch could satisfy his requirements of a stable family.

And you were the one thrashing about trying to find one more feeble argument questioning the necessity of siblings marrying. Asked and answered. Marriage creates a next of kin relationship. Siblings already have such a relationship. Therefore, there is neither need nor reason for siblings to marry.

 

[Locke11_21]

That is excluded by the 14th, as is marriage between blood kin.

Step along.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with homosexuality or incest.

The issue here is your hypocrisy. You claim that men should be able to marry men, and women marry women, because they are consenting adults. However, when we take this to the next step, allowing adult children to marry their parents, the standard of consent no longer applies. And you are engaging in moralizing against incestuous couples, the kind moralizing you condemn amongst homosexual couples.

Steinlight, you outed yourself by your comments.

Speaking of outing oneself, you've more than outed yourself as a fake Republican.

The issue of consent will be decided by leges and courts.

Certainly not by the likes of you.

And there we have, you like any oppressive tyranny advocate and/or politician could care less what the people think, but only what your hero radical activist politicians and judges want. You're just like that pole-smoker judge who overturned prop. 8 in California and said screw the people, there's an agenda to further.

Your reply is all the more proof you're no Republican.

 

[Uncensored2008]

After ignoring the extended family and all the family structures embraced by society and proclaiming the relatively new phenomenon of the nuclear family as de riguer, we find that you consider every other form of family a blight on humanity.

Relatively new?

ROFL

The Humambra codex describes marriage of man and women, Egyptian texts describe the same arrangements, Hindu texts likewise - virtually EVERY society records a nuclear family structure as far back as humans have recorded history.

Divorcees finding love and stability are signs of destabilization. Having your elderly parents living with you in their dotage shows just how far we have fallen from the ideal. A single parent household where support, love and nurturing for e children is an example of our decline as a people. Even two loving, committed, responsible homosexuals are harbingers of social disintegration, even while ose two homosexuals are seeking the security and stability found in a marriage contract.

Rampant divorce is indeed a sign of a crumbling society. I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to parents and said nothing on the subject. Homosexuals are not breeding couples and are by definition an aberration. My opinion is an evolutionary mechanism to purge unwanted genetic codes from the gene pool. Homosexuals do no pass on their genetic structure. I suspect nature uses this to end certain genetic traits.

Ladies and gentlemen of USMB, I submit that uncensored has set the bar of morality and social comportment so high that not even the Brady Bunch could satisfy his requirements of a stable family.

Again, you engage in irrelevance. I speak of anthropological trends. There will be deviations in any society.

And you were the one thrashing about trying to find one more feeble argument questioning the necessity of siblings marrying. Asked and answered. Marriage creates a next of kin relationship. Siblings already have such a relationship. Therefore, there is neither need nor reason for siblings to marry.

It's not an argument, but an observation. All this has happened before, and is happening again. I simply recognize the pattern.

 

[Nosmo King]

After ignoring the extended family and all the family structures embraced by society and proclaiming the relatively new phenomenon of the nuclear family as de riguer, we find that you consider every other form of family a blight on humanity.

Relatively new?

ROFL

The Humambra codex describes marriage of man and women, Egyptian texts describe the same arrangements, Hindu texts likewise - virtually EVERY society records a nuclear family structure as far back as humans have recorded history.

Divorcees finding love and stability are signs of destabilization. Having your elderly parents living with you in their dotage shows just how far we have fallen from the ideal. A single parent household where support, love and nurturing for e children is an example of our decline as a people. Even two loving, committed, responsible homosexuals are harbingers of social disintegration, even while ose two homosexuals are seeking the security and stability found in a marriage contract.

Rampant divorce is indeed a sign of a crumbling society. I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to parents and said nothing on the subject. Homosexuals are not breeding couples and are by definition an aberration. My opinion is an evolutionary mechanism to purge unwanted genetic codes from the gene pool. Homosexuals do no pass on their genetic structure. I suspect nature uses this to end certain genetic traits.

Ladies and gentlemen of USMB, I submit that uncensored has set the bar of morality and social comportment so high that not even the Brady Bunch could satisfy his requirements of a stable family.

Again, you engage in irrelevance. I speak of anthropological trends. There will be deviations in any society.

And you were the one thrashing about trying to find one more feeble argument questioning the necessity of siblings marrying. Asked and answered. Marriage creates a next of kin relationship. Siblings already have such a relationship. Therefore, there is neither need nor reason for siblings to marry.

It's not an argument, but an observation. All this has happened before, and is happening again. I simply recognize the pattern.

You said in post#93 that all the examples I provided are signs of a destabilizing society. Divorcees re-marrying, single parents, having an elderly relative move in were all included.

And the nuclear family is relatively new. In the 19th century, extended families were the norm so as to provide labor in an agricultural society. In anindustrialized society, the mobility of the nuclear family became the norm. And as our society evolves from industrial to service/information, the family structure evolves in kind.

You said:
Homosexuals are not breeding couples and are by definition an aberration.

Should post menopausal women be denied marriage licenses? Can an elderly couple beyond the physical ability to reproduce be shunned as an aberration?

And the argument against the wedding of siblings is a point of law, not an opinion.

You are flailing to make a cogent point. You have not provided a legal basis for denying same sex marriage. You present straw man arguments and warped perceptions as unassailable logic. You have utterly failed to convince anyone but yourself of your narrow views and faux morality.

 

[Steinlight]

Steinlight, you outed yourself by your comments.

The issue of consent will be decided by leges and courts.

Certainly not by the likes of you.

Outed myself, as what?

The issue of your intellectual inconsistency, which you have continued to avoid here, has nothing to do with court rulings.

You are neither intellectually or morally consistent, Steinlight.

Your own words condemn you.

You are clearly outside the boundaries of your knowledge, as are most homofascists.

Homofascist? LOL. Now to avoid your intellectual inconsistency, you are making up words to slur me. You lost the debate right there.

 

[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.

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

So finally a liberal agrees that the definition is being changed. Thanks. Polygamy as practiced was between a man and women. I think the laws came in effect when there were 1 women to 10 men. I am not sure why polygamy is against the law and with the change of the definition I don't see how that law can stand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You said in post#93 that all the examples I provided are signs of a destabilizing society. Divorcees re-marrying, single parents, having an elderly relative move in were all included.

Single parenting and divorce are indeed signs of a crumbling society. The nonsense about parents is just a straw man you have erected.

And the nuclear family is relatively new. In the 19th century, extended families were the norm so as to provide labor in an agricultural society. In anindustrialized society, the mobility of the nuclear family became the norm. And as our society evolves from industrial to service/information, the family structure evolves in kind.

You seem quite confused by terms.

The nucleus in no way excludes extension. Extended family must, by definition, build upon nuclear family structures.

You said:
Homosexuals are not breeding couples and are by definition an aberration.

Should post menopausal women be denied marriage licenses? Can an elderly couple beyond the physical ability to reproduce be shunned as an aberration?

Are you just reading talking points from GLAAD?

Can't you do better than utterly stupid slogans?

Marriage encourages the male to remain and raise children. The people get old does not alter this. I always found that one of the more stupid talking points - even 30 years ago when people still thought it was a "gotcha."

And the argument against the wedding of siblings is a point of law, not an opinion.

So is homosexual union. A concerted effort has been made by those with sinister motives toward the health and well being of our society to change not just the law, but the culture, to promote this.

Given that identical techniques are already deployed in the case of incest, it is difficult to claim that the move is not underway to "normalize" incest.

Fact is, incest is the new gay.

You are flailing to make a cogent point. You have not provided a legal basis for denying same sex marriage. You present straw man arguments and warped perceptions as unassailable logic. You have utterly failed to convince anyone but yourself of your narrow views and faux morality.

Oh, I've made my point quite effectively.