Gay Bar Owner Shows Intolerance

[mal]

I don't know about stats but I have seen a brother and sister that were produced from an incestous marriage before, and they were all kinds of wrong physically, wish I had pics to show you.

I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.

Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.

With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.

It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.

Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.

Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.

Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.

When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.



peace...

Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.

Definitely because of Offspring...

But hey, Homosexuals can't ProCreate but they can Adopt...

Why would they want to Deny (2) Siblings that same Choice and "Right" to Marriage?

What if the Siblings Offered to get Sterilized if they were Opposite Sex?...

Or if they are in their 70's or 80's?...

Why are people trying to Expand "Rights" to the Exclusion of some in this Society based on Bigotry?...



peace...

 

[mal]

The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.

The backwoods of Appalachia and the South would disagree with you.

^Feel the Hate...



peace...

 

[bodecea]

The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.

The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.

Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations. The relationships were not the problem. The biological issues were. Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects. Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though. Or of having kids.

And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.

 

[Pho_King]

I don't know about stats but I have seen a brother and sister that were produced from an incestous marriage before, and they were all kinds of wrong physically, wish I had pics to show you.

I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.

Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.

With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.

It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.

Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.

Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.

Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.

When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.



peace...

Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.

The issues with offspring are the foundation of the proscriptions. However many states also define incest as between unrelated persons within a marriage.

my point is, proponents of gay marriage undercut their arguments by labeling incestuous relationships as harmful, and therefore undeserving of marital status. An incestuous relationship need not involve child-bearing. Two parents genetically dispossessed to osteoarthritis have an elevated risk of having kids that suffer terribly from it. So what?

 

[mal]

The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.

The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.

Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations. The relationships were not the problem. The biological issues were. Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects. Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though. Or of having kids.

Age of the Female is one.

Yet there is no Denying Women the "Right" to try to get Pregnant at any point in their Lives.



peace...

 

[mal]

I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.

Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.

With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.

It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.

Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.

Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.

Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.

When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.



peace...

Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.

The issues with offspring are the foundation of the proscriptions. However many states also define incest as between unrelated persons within a marriage.

my point is, proponents of gay marriage undercut their arguments by labeling incestuous relationships as harmful, and therefore undeserving of marital status. An incestuous relationship need not involve child-bearing. Two parents genetically dispossessed to osteoarthritis have an elevated risk of having kids that suffer terribly from it. So what?

It's Obvious that they don't want their Deviation Compared to others... Doesn't help the Agenda.



peace...

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.

Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.

With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.

It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.

Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.

Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.

Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.

When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.



peace...

Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.

Definitely because of Offspring...

But hey, Homosexuals can't ProCreate but they can Adopt...

Why would they want to Deny (2) Siblings that same Choice and "Right" to Marriage?

What if the Siblings Offered to get Sterilized if they were Opposite Sex?...

Or if they are in their 70's or 80's?...

Why are people trying to Expand "Rights" to the Exclusion of some in this Society based on Bigotry?...



peace...

If the siblings were not to have kids I would be ok with it I guess.

 

[Pho_King]

The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.

Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations. The relationships were not the problem. The biological issues were. Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects. Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though. Or of having kids.

And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.

Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.

 

[bodecea]

Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations. The relationships were not the problem. The biological issues were. Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects. Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though. Or of having kids.

And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.

Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.

That's interesting. Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws? TIA

 

[Pho_King]

And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.

Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.

That's interesting. Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws? TIA

I will not do a state-by-state analysis for you, but in Alabama relations between a step-parent and step-child. adopted siblings, and half-blood relatives are prohibited under section 13A-13-3 of the criminal code.

 

[Katzndogz]

The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.

The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.

No since royal brothers did not marry royal sisters. However the pharonic dynasties of Egypt would agree right away.

Children of incestuous marraiges are expected to be aborted anyway! Of more concern than the childen of incestuous marriage should be the many children born in insular inner cities where children generally have no idea who their fathers are, and in some cases mothers either. There are no reliable birth records and no marriage records at all.

 

[mal]

Age is the other Issue...

Back in the Stonewall Days the Gays not only Allowed NAMBLA to March with them in thier "Rights" Parades, they were so Directly Associated with them up until 1994 that they finally had to cut all ties after being removed from World Conference on Disease and Population.

At the time, that was the ILGA, the foremost group of the Agenda.

It was front page News when it happened.

Since then they haven't been outwardly Supportive of their Brothers and Sisters in Arms as they were in the 70's and 80's.

They like to Act as if they don't Support it these days because a Child can't Consent, but you can see more than a few Liberals in our Higher Institutions of Learning who argue FOR "Adult/Child Sex".

Harmful to Minors

Here is a purged Story that WAS in the Star Tribune:

University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia

Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002

Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota

Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it.

Those making the case aren't just fringe groups, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, but a handful of academics at mainstream universities.

Members of this school of thought stress that they don't condone coercing children into sex, and that they are not pro-pedophilia, as the term is commonly understood. But several contend that minors are capable of agreeing to and even initiating sex with adults.

These academics seek to change the language, moving away from "pedophilia," which often evokes a charged negative response, particularly in light of the priest-pedophile cases challenging the Roman Catholic Church. In its place would be more neutral terms such as "intergenerational sex" or "adult-child sex."

With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.

"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Edited, read entire article using the link-Meister
© Copyright 2002 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.


^Every Professor in mentioned in that Article are Unapologetic Liberals.



peace...

 

[Pho_King]

And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.

Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.

That's interesting. Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws? TIA

Here is a link to a state-by state analysis of incest laws. Hopefully, when you are asked to support your oft-bizarre statements, you will be likewise generous.

statelaws

 

[Katzndogz]

Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.

That's interesting. Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws? TIA

I will not do a state-by-state analysis for you, but in Alabama relations between a step-parent and step-child. adopted siblings, and half-blood relatives are prohibited under section 13A-13-3 of the criminal code.

Somehow, the name Woody Allen comes to mind.

 

[mal]

Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.

Definitely because of Offspring...

But hey, Homosexuals can't ProCreate but they can Adopt...

Why would they want to Deny (2) Siblings that same Choice and "Right" to Marriage?

What if the Siblings Offered to get Sterilized if they were Opposite Sex?...

Or if they are in their 70's or 80's?...

Why are people trying to Expand "Rights" to the Exclusion of some in this Society based on Bigotry?...



peace...

If the siblings were not to have kids I would be ok with it I guess.

It's the only Honest and Logical Conclusion that anyone who Supports Gay Marriage can come to.

I Support Civil Unions by the way.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Sure, that happens. But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.

No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.

What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner? Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong. And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy. And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships. Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.

Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.

When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?

 

[bodecea]

Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.

That's interesting. Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws? TIA

Here is a link to a state-by state analysis of incest laws. Hopefully, when you are asked to support your oft-bizarre statements, you will be likewise generous.

statelaws

Thank you...and whenever anyone has asked for links from me, I've always been happy to oblige.

 

[bodecea]

That's interesting. Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws? TIA

I will not do a state-by-state analysis for you, but in Alabama relations between a step-parent and step-child. adopted siblings, and half-blood relatives are prohibited under section 13A-13-3 of the criminal code.

Somehow, the name Woody Allen comes to mind.

Interestingly enough...that was totally legal.

 

[mal]

No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.

What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner? Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong. And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy. And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships. Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.

Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.

When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?

It's not Tradition... It's the FACT that Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal.



peace...

 

[mal]

That's interesting. Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws? TIA

Here is a link to a state-by state analysis of incest laws. Hopefully, when you are asked to support your oft-bizarre statements, you will be likewise generous.

statelaws

Thank you...and whenever anyone has asked for links from me, I've always been happy to oblige.

You mentioned Incest at least in passing... How about the Stats on Birth Defects from it.



peace...