Warren: An Excellent Choice for the Invocation

[gdnp]

Thank you for you doing here EXACTLY what Rick Warren did in that Beliefnet interview and then lied about doing. You have equated incest and gay relationships. Keep your bigotry to yourself. I've no need to listen to it and you're embarrassing yourself far more than you realize.

Also, if you enjoy your slippery slide, you have fun with it in your own backyard. I don't feel any obligation to indulge.

Sorry, explain to me why marriages between related adults should not be allowed and same sex marriage should? Incest laws vary from country to country and from state to state. IIRC in some states first cousins cannot marry and in some states they can. I can't see any rhyme or reason for these laws. Except bigotry and/or the ick factor.

 

[boloboffin]

Sorry, explain to me why marriages between related adults should not be allowed and same sex marriage should? Incest laws vary from country to country and from state to state. IIRC in some states first cousins cannot marry and in some states they can. I can't see any rhyme or reason for these laws. Except bigotry and/or the ick factor.

First I'll need for you to explain why anyone's relationship should be granted exclusive recognition by the state. Please omit all religious language.

 

[Dr Adequate]

He didn't. He compared RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGES to RECOGNIZING INCESTUAL MARRIAGES. That is not at all the same thing as saying gays are the same as those who commit incest.

Yes, it's as though he compared electing a Jew as president to electing a monkey as president. Obviously he wouldn't be saying that Jews are the same as monkeys, he'd just be saying that in both cases it's contrary to what Jesus wants people to do.

Naturally, you would take no offense.

So much for "diversity" and "respect".

Yes, and we wouldn't extend religious tolerance to people whose religion required them to burn dissenters at the stake, or political freedom to those whose political beliefs required them to engineer a military coup, what hypocrisy.

Sheesh, how long can conservatives go on dribbling out this sort of crap before you start laughing at yourselves?

But long experience showed me I shouldn't be surprised -- that's the way the "progressive" mind tends to work, with "diversity" and "respect" being a totally one-way street: everybody is supposed to "respect" (= never disagree with) the progressive's "diverse" view ( = whatever newfangled nonsense is "in" this year).

You do tell a lot of silly lies, don't you?

 

[drkitten]

Ah, of course.

"The person who will not respect you" = people who oppose gay marriage. Clearly, ONE AND ONLY ONE view about gay marriage is to be allowed. Any dissenting view is "disrespectful" towards, well, supporters of gay marriage -- it makes them feel they might be wrong, or annoys them, or makes them feel bad, etc., etc. and we can't have that, can we?

So such a view is naturally to be "disrespected": shouted down, abused, and expelled beyond the pale of reasable discourse by the "diversity and free speech" crowd.

Typical.

Skeptic, if I posted this kind of drivel and attributed it to "conservatives" generally, you would criticize me for promulgating negative stereotypes. I know, because you've done it before.

I'm sure that there are conservatives out there with critical thinking skills. But you're sure not helping the search.

 

[gdnp]

Yes, there are absolutely no other arguments against mother-son incest than an emotional ick factor .

See, unlike homosexuality, social science and psychology still say a lot of bad things about incest.

Aren't these the same people who used to say a lot of bad things about homosexual relationships? Are you sure this group is the best arbiter of what "normal" human behavior is? If two first cousins wish to marry, or two half brothers, can you tell me that some theory about potential psychological harm should override their free choice?

First I'll need for you to explain why anyone's relationship should be granted exclusive recognition by the state. Please omit all religious language.

Why?

You seem to think that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot (what this has to do with fear of homosexuals I don't know--I assume you use this term to mean prejudiced against gays). I, on the other hand, do not think the government has the right to interfere in the decisions of consenting adults about who they have sex with, whether these relationships are polyamorous, homosexual, or incestuous. So if you think gay marriage should be allowed and incestuous marriages not, I think that you are an incestuophobic bigot and a polyamorophobic bigot. I hope the majority of the gay community is more inclusive than you. Why should I support expanding your rights if you wish to turn around and discriminate against others equally worthy? I don't think Rosa Parks would have had as much sympathy if she had said that she wanted a seat in the front of the bus but the Hispanics should stay in the back where they belong.

 

[boloboffin]

Why?

Because in any discussion worth having, a meeting of minds over the terms is worth achieving. Go ahead and describe why any relationship whatsoever should be encoded within civil law as deserving of any special benefits, and I'll be happy to show why gay couples deserve the sanction of that civil union.

You seem to think that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot (what this has to do with fear of homosexuals I don't know--I assume you use this term to mean prejudiced against gays).

Well, in that they are. Of course there are degrees. Barack Obama is being a homophobic bigot by opposing gay marriage, but his bias stops at that one expression. Rick Warren goes a dang sight further.

I, on the other hand, do not think the government has the right to interfere in the decisions of consenting adults about who they have sex with, whether these relationships are polyamorous, homosexual, or incestuous. So if you think gay marriage should be allowed and incestuous marriages not, I think that you are an incestuophobic bigot and a polyamorophobic bigot.

Actually, I'd be willing to discuss polygamous unions that involved the consent of every partner. I confess to being a bigot against incestuous relationships. Having been molested by my father and my uncle, the institution has soured on me.

I hope the majority of the gay community is more inclusive than you. Why should I support expanding your rights if you wish to turn around and discriminate against others equally worthy?

Equally worthy. Gays and incestuous couples. How nice it is when you display your ignorance so openly.

I don't think Rosa Parks would have had as much sympathy if she had said that she wanted a seat in the front of the bus but the Hispanics should stay in the back where they belong.

Now you're equating Hispanics and incestuous couples. Very nice. Enjoy the wrong side of history. You can get a cookie, too.

 

[eeyore1954]

Equally worthy. Gays and incestuous couples. How nice it is when you display your ignorance so openly.

How is he showing his ignorance. What is different with an incestuous relationship between two consenting adults than a homosexual one. You are displaying the same bigotry which you condemn from others. The argument about physchology and social science doesn't hold water to me because I am pretty sure you could have found lots of similar materials 50 years ago against homosexuality. Did that mean it was wrong then but ok now and if society changes again and studies are done which show homosexualty is damaging to individuals will it then be wrong.

Just as aside my inlaws were first cousins although I never considered that to be incestuous. A fairly common practice in Italy 70 years ago.
Also I know of a relationship between a brother and a sister (not sexual) where the sister had not worked for years and the brother had been supporting her. He tried to get her covered under his insurance ,could not , she got seriously ill and she lost her life savings and he lost a lot.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm reasonably sure that genetics has something to say. Maybe.

 

[Skeptic]

See, unlike homosexuality, social science and psychology still say a lot of bad things about incest.

Oh, we can get over THAT. The same way "science and psychology" had "advanced" to the point where homosexuality is considered to not be abnormal.

Let's use the same methods, shall we?

1). We shall start by showing that in nature, contrary to the "far-ranging prejudice" in our "racist society", incest is actually quite common. (It is, in fact.)

Repeatedly assure those who doubt your motives that you just want "scientific truth", and absolutely will NOT ever demand incestual marriage.

2). We will continue by showing that the idea that incestual couples lead to more birth defects is an urban legend. This doesn't have to actually be TRUE, you know: just embrace the studies that claim incest causes no damage, and shout down sudies that claim the opposite as "reactionary", "biased", etc., something no right-thinking person would accept.

Continue to assure those who doubt your motives that you only want the "scientific truth", and will absolutely will NOT demand incestual marriage.

3). Moving on to psychology, we then claim -- as it was done with homoseuxality -- that the ONLY reason incestual couples are often pathological and unhappy is society's unjust, evil rejection of their alternative way of life. Again, as with homosexuality, this dogma need not have the slightest connextion to the truth.

It DOES, however, have the "advantage" that the only way to disprove it is to first remove all legal, ethical, or social barriers to incest, and THEN see if indeed incest is perfectly normal in a "non-discriminating" society.

Continue to assure opponents... etc.

4). Using (3)'s dishonest conclusion, we start a media blitz with sad, sad stories about incestual couples "facing discrimination" -- that is, shunned or disliked -- by primitive (preferably Christian) neighbors; happy, happy stories of the "contrary to what society thinks, I'm living with my mother for the last 25 years and it never did either of us any harm"; as well as the usual "all families are equal" nonsense.

We shall use the word "incestophobic" a lot in this media blitz, too. We shall apply it, as is done with "homophobic", to any and all opponents of incestual marriage.

Contrary to all your previous claims, now demand incestual marriage.

5). After a few years of (4), social acceptance of incestual marriage in the "progressive" part of society will be a fait accompli, while social opposition to it will be seen as more and more eccentric, primitive, even evil and "incestophobic".

Incestual marriage, here we come!

Yes, this process might seem to you absurd, terribly unfair to opponents of incestual marriage, and little more than social brainwashing that's planned in advance to end in the desired conclusion, despite lies to the contrary in the early stage.

But this is -- more or less -- the way "homosexual marriage" became inceasingly acceptable, too.

So I ask again, as one "homophobe" (opponent of gay marriage) to another "incestophobe" (opponent of incestual marriage): Why the whole rigamarole? Let's just accept incest as marriage and get it over with.

 

[Skeptic]

See, unlike homosexuality, social science and psychology still say a lot of bad things about incest.

Oh, we can get over THAT. The same way "science and psychology" had "advanced" to the point where homosexuality is considered to not be abnormal.

Let's use the same methods, shall we?

1). We shall start by showing that in nature, contrary to the "far-ranging prejudice" in our "racist society", incest is actually quite common. (It is, in fact.)

Repeatedly assure those who doubt your motives that you just want "scientific truth", and absolutely will NOT ever demand incestual marriage.

2). We will continue by showing that the idea that incestual couples lead to more birth defects is an urban legend. This doesn't have to actually be TRUE, you know: just embrace the studies that claim incest causes no damage, and shout down sudies that claim the opposite as "reactionary", "biased", etc., something no right-thinking person would accept.

Continue to assure those who doubt your motives that you only want the "scientific truth", and will absolutely will NOT demand incestual marriage.

3). Moving on to psychology, we then claim -- as it was done with homoseuxality -- that the ONLY reason incestual couples are often pathological and unhappy is society's unjust, evil rejection of their alternative way of life. Again, as with homosexuality, this dogma need not have the slightest connextion to the truth.

It DOES, however, have the "advantage" that the only way to disprove it is to first remove all legal, ethical, or social barriers to incest, and THEN see if indeed incest is perfectly normal in a "non-discriminating" society.

Continue to assure opponents... etc.

4). Using (3)'s dishonest conclusion, we start a media blitz with sad, sad stories about incestual couples "facing discrimination" -- that is, shunned or disliked -- by primitive (preferably Christian) neighbors; happy, happy stories of the "contrary to what society thinks, I'm living with my mother for the last 25 years and it never did either of us any harm"; as well as the usual "all families are equal" nonsense.

We shall use the word "incestophobic" a lot in this media blitz, too. We shall apply it, as is done with "homophobic", to any and all opponents of incestual marriage.

Contrary to all your previous claims, now demand incestual marriage.

5). After a few years of (4), social acceptance of incestual marriage in the "progressive" part of society will be a fait accompli, while social opposition to it will be seen as more and more eccentric, primitive, even evil and "incestophobic".

Incestual marriage, here we come!

Yes, this process might seem to you absurd, terribly unfair to opponents of incestual marriage, and little more than social brainwashing that's planned in advance to end in the desired conclusion, despite lies to the contrary in the early stage.

But this is -- more or less -- the way "homosexual marriage" became inceasingly acceptable, too.

So I ask again, as one "homophobe" (opponent of gay marriage) to another "incestophobe" (opponent of incestual marriage): Why the whole rigamarole? Let's just accept incest as marriage and get it over with.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh, we can get over THAT. The same way "science and psychology" had "advanced" to the point where homosexuality is considered to not be abnormal.

Let's use the same methods, shall we?

1). We shall start by showing that in nature, contrary to the "far-ranging prejudice" in our "racist society", incest is actually quite common. (It is, in fact.)

Repeatedly assure those who doubt your motives that you just want "scientific truth", and absolutely will NOT ever demand incestual marriage.

2). We will continue by showing that the idea that incestual couples lead to more birth defects is an urban legend. This doesn't have to actually be TRUE, you know: just embrace the studies that claim incest causes no damage, and shout down sudies that claim the opposite as "reactionary", "biased", etc., something no right-thinking person would accept.

Continue to assure those who doubt your motives that you only want the "scientific truth", and will absolutely will NOT demand incestual marriage.

Er.. how does this relate?

3). Moving on to psychology, we then claim -- as it was done with homoseuxality -- that the ONLY reason incestual couples are often pathological and unhappy is society's unjust, evil rejection of their alternative way of life. Again, as with homosexuality, this dogma need not have the slightest connextion to the truth.

It DOES, however, have the "advantage" that the only way to disprove it is to first remove all legal, ethical, or social barriers to incest, and THEN see if indeed incest is perfectly normal in a "non-discriminating" society.

So.. homosexual people ARE pathological and unhappy? Proof?

Continue to assure opponents... etc.

4). Using (3)'s dishonest conclusion, we start a media blitz with sad, sad stories about incestual couples "facing discrimination" -- that is, shunned or disliked -- by primitive (preferably Christian) neighbors; happy, happy stories of the "contrary to what society thinks, I'm living with my mother for the last 25 years and it never did either of us any harm"; as well as the usual "all families are equal" nonsense.

We shall use the word "incestophobic" a lot in this media blitz, too. We shall apply it, as is done with "homophobic", to any and all opponents of incestual marriage.

Contrary to all your previous claims, now demand incestual marriage.

5). After a few years of (4), social acceptance of incestual marriage in the "progressive" part of society will be a fait accompli, while social opposition to it will be seen as more and more eccentric, primitive, even evil and "incestophobic".

Incestual marriage, here we come!

Yes, this process might seem to you absurd, terribly unfair to opponents of incestual marriage, and little more than social brainwashing that's planned in advance to end in the desired conclusion, despite lies to the contrary in the early stage.

But this is -- more or less -- the way "homosexual marriage" became inceasingly acceptable, too.

So I ask again, as one "homophobe" (opponent of gay marriage) to another "incestophobe" (opponent of incestual marriage): Why the whole rigamarole? Let's just accept incest as marriage and get it over with.

And hello false equivocation and slippery slope. I didn't miss you at all.

 

[gdnp]

Actually, I'd be willing to discuss polygamous unions that involved the consent of every partner. I confess to being a bigot against incestuous relationships. Having been molested by my father and my uncle, the institution has soured on me.

I am sorry for that. However, what you describe is pedophilia and/or rape, not a relationship between consenting adults.

 

[Skeptic]

I confess to being a bigot against incestuous relationships. Having been molested by my father and my uncle, the institution has soured on me.

Well, yes, but surely you realize this is a PERSONAL prejudice, a SPECIFIC instance, and no reason for you to DENY OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. So let's have incestous marriage legalized nevertheless! After all, you wouldn't think much of somebody who opposes gay marriage because he personally was abused by an homosexual, would you?

Insert here the usual "sexual abuse can occur in all relationships", "we want only consensual incest", etc., etc., etc. excuses. After all, the same sort of dishonest argumentation was used to dismiss the expression of any negative experiences with homosexuality as "prejudice", while retaining all positive ones as a "role model" for "tolerance".

Why not in the case of incest, too?

 

[boloboffin]

Well, yes, but surely you realize this is a PERSONAL prejudice, a SPECIFIC instance, and no reason for you to DENY OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. So let's have incestous marriage legalized nevertheless! After all, you wouldn't think much of somebody who opposes gay marriage because he personally was abused by an homosexual, would you?

Insert here the usual "sexual abuse can occur in all relationships", "we want only consensual incest", etc., etc., etc. excuses. After all, the same sort of dishonest argumentation was used to dismiss the expression of any negative experiences with homosexuality as "prejudice", while retaining all positive ones as a "role model" for "tolerance".

Why not in the case of incest, too?

Because that is where I draw the arbitrary line. Which is all that it is, an arbitrary line.

The various municipalities in the United States draw it today as a de facto establishment of religion. It's a holdover from the mumbo jumbo of two becoming one, let no man put asunder, etc. The miracle of a man and a woman making a baby doesn't stop the infertile or past-fertile from marrying. The idea that it should is laughable. That means the union is granted based on an mutual attraction, not the ability to attain a result.

The civil institution of marriage gives society stability by granting special legal benefits and enforceable accountability (and thereby stability) to the chief and primary relationship in a person's life. There is no reason on earth to deny this status to two consenting adults not related to each other.

Prove that incest has a connect to genes and biology and I'll support your arguments for granting incestuous relationships the status of marriage. I suppose a biological and genetic tendency for incest could be found, and so much for falsifiability. But until then, the incestuous should look to another person to satisfy their attraction to the sex of their preference. I don't have any problems with saying that, and your slippery slope and false equivalency is noted again for the record.

 

[KingMerv00]

Because that is where I draw the arbitrary line. Which is all that it is, an arbitrary line.

Legal lines should not be arbitrary. I prefer to draw lines by considering consent, harm, and consistency.

 

[boloboffin]

Legal lines should not be arbitrary. I prefer to draw lines by considering consent, harm, and consistency.

And why are you including those criteria (which I do approve of)? It's not turtles all the way down -- somewhere, someone arbitrates the rationale. Right now it is turtles all the way down. The Invisible Guy in the Sky is the de facto arbiter of this mystical definition of marriage. A more rational arbitration is necessary.

 

[dudalb]

I think some people here would attack the choice of ANY evangelical, no matter whom.
One of the problems I have with the "New Atheism", "New Secluarism" or whatever is not it's basic beliefs...I am a total skeptic on religon...but that they often seem as intolerent and close minded as the "religionists" they despise.

 

[boloboffin]

I think some people here would attack the choice of ANY evangelical, no matter whom.
One of the problems I have with the "New Atheism", "New Secluarism" or whatever is not it's basic beliefs...I am a total skeptic on religon...but that they often seem as intolerent and close minded as the "religionists" they despise.

Who have you got deejaying that pity party?

 

[KingMerv00]

A more rational arbitration is necessary.

But you've admitted that you are unable to be rational in this matter:

I confess to being a bigot against incestuous relationships. Having been molested by my father and my uncle, the institution has soured on me.

(BTW, I applaud your ability to self-analyze.)

What RATIONAL reason is there to ban incestous marriage?

 

[boloboffin]

But you've admitted that you are unable to be rational in this matter:



(BTW, I applaud your ability to self-analyze.)

What RATIONAL reason is there to ban incestous marriage?

I was molested. However, my admission to being irrational about this was sarcastic.

I find myself unable to communicate to people who can find no rational reason to ban incestuous marriage on their own. Consider that a flaw of mine, if you prefer. I consider it a blessing.