DrWhoo #fundie

DrWhoo #fundie politics.newsvine.com

Yes. Incest is illegal because it tends to create retarded children etc. Perhaps homosexuals? LOL!!

BUT.

This means I (a man) should be able to marry my brother then!!! Correct? Because we can't have children!!!

I'm secretly getting a lawyer and suing to marry my brother. I'm sure I can convince a constitutionalist state judge to concede. And hey, if we fail, I'll sell a lot of books and get rich!

Why not? I was BORN a homosexual. I LOVE my brother. He loves me. The constitution guarantees our rights and happiness.

Correct?

Reductio Ad Absurdum unfortunately ...

77 comments

old comment by

Incest could still technically occur between consenting adults as simply sexual pleasure and be a positive experience for them. But the key word here is 'consent', that the parties are informed enough to decide whether to do it or not, hence the whole 'adult age'. While 'gross', and bad for reproduction due to the way genes are spread, it is illegal because it is 'icky', not because it is actually a matter of morality. Pedophilia and bestiality on the other hand are illegal because of the problem of 'consent'. It fucks up a child's development, and even if the party 'appears' to consent, it is difficult to determine if the animal/child actually wants sex or it is doing it to please the adult, or simply doing what it is learning from the parent. It's simply too much grey area and possibility for abuse, hence, illegal.

None of this philisophical discussion matters though, it's not like you're knowledgable at all on morality since you're using the slippery slope argument against homosexuality. Here's a tip: THE KEY WORD HERE IS 'CONSENT', FUCKTARD.

Edit: @WMDKitty

Yeah, Oedipus didn't actually know it was his mother. That's pretty much why I find Freud to be a moronic fraud who was merely in it for the fame, I mean honestly, every boy wants to marry their mother? Overgeneralise much? The man was a charlatan who frequently claimed his patients were cured when many, like the Russion 'Wolf Man' (politician/diplomat? can't remember name) stepped forward and said they actually weren't. >:/ /rant

old comment by Moondog

Many many years ago when I was twenty three,
I got married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter
Who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her,
And soon the two were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law
And changed my very life.
My daughter was my mother,
For she was my father's wife.

To complicate the matters worse,
Although it brought me joy,
I soon became the father
Of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became
A brother-in-law to dad.
And so became my uncle,
Though it made me very sad.

For if he was my uncle,
Then that also made him brother
To the widow's grown-up daughter
Who, of course, was my step-mother.

Father's wife then had a son,
Who kept them on the run.
And he became my grandson,
For he was my daughter's son.

My wife is now my mother's mother
And it makes me blue.
Because, although she is my wife,
She's my grandmother, too.

If my wife is my grandmother,
Then I am her grandchild.
And every time I think of it,
It simply drives me wild.

For now I have become
The strangest case you ever saw.
As the husband of my grandmother,
I am my own grandpa!

old comment by Antichrist

20 states allow you to marry your first cousin (Texas just outlawed it last year).

A 2002 research study concluded that the offspring of first-cousin couples "inherited recessive genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, in 7% to 8% of cases." That's 2 to 3% greater than the general population, which is significant but much lower than the overall perception.

Then again the royal families are all inbred, and we see how well that worked out for them.

Oh and I found a good quote on the situation, I can't find anything on sibling marriage, but...
This is the problem with sleeping with your cousin. You can move on from an ex-spouse or ex-lover, but there's no such thing as an ex-cousin. How are your parents and your ex's parents supposed to handle a nasty divorce or a breakup? How can they support their kids without antagonizing their siblings and their siblings' kids? You've wrecked your whole family. It isn't as bad as if you'd slept with a sibling, but it's a lot worse than if you'd slept with a friend or an officemate. We don't ban you from dating people at the office, but we don't tell you it's a great idea, either.

Edit:
I found an article on why you shouldn't marry your sister, nothing on why you shouldn't marry your brother though.
http://eccentricscientist.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/why-shouldnt-you-marry-your-sister/

old comment by JSS

[Yes. Incest is illegal because it tends to create retarded children etc. Perhaps homosexuals? LOL!!]

Nope. Most all homosexuals come from non-incestual relationships. Though I'm thinking you were born with some kind of defect as shown by your fundaMENTALism. Homosexual intelligence vs. fundie intelligence, well, do I even need to continue? I've seen seven-year-olds smarter than you.

[This means I (a man) should be able to marry my brother then!!! Correct? Because we can't have children!!! I'm secretly getting a lawyer and suing to marry my brother. I'm sure I can convince a constitutionalist state judge to concede. And hey, if we fail, I'll sell a lot of books and get rich! Why not? I was BORN a homosexual. I LOVE my brother. He loves me. The constitution guarantees our rights and happiness. Correct?]

Fine, go ahead. If you want to marry your brother go right ahead. But I suggest you talk it over with him first. For some reason I'm getting the impression that he might not be as interested in this as you are.

old comment by Illuminatalie

since it does indeed seem that the only sensible reason for the incest taboo is the genetic defects caused by inbreeding

Actually I read an article (I can't find it now, don't know if anyone reading knows of it) that suggested there was behavioral implanting that took place growing up that made mammals not sexually interested in family members they have shared close quarters with. Possibly as a way of getting those mammals out into the dangerous world to seek a mate and mix up the DNA a bit. An interesting fact was that men who had wet nurses growing up were very likely to be capable of fantasizing about their mothers (I forget exactly how it was defined). Their brains told them who their mothers were on the surface, but deep down they retained memories of just who their 'real' mother was. For this reason it's rather a moot point - if everyone involved is consenting, it's not my biggest concern, whether or not I find it disturbing and disgusting. I'll work on stopping people from shooting, bombing, starving each other on this planet, before I worry about stuff like that.

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

If no children result from the coupling, I really don't give a shit if you marry your brother or your sister. The problem with incest, aside from the ickiness of it and the whole mutant-baby thing, is that the majority of cases involve sexual abuse of young children or teenagers by an older family member. It's very rarely a case of two adult family members hooking up consensually, and the few cases that did involve consenting adults generally are the result of two family members who met AFTER they were adults, having never met one another during childhood.

Long story short, if it's between two consenting adults (both of whom were adults when the relationship began) and they don't create any offspring, I'm not going to waste my time harassing them about it. As usual, the issue comes down to consent.

old comment by Nittany

"Yes. Incest is illegal because it tends to create retarded children etc. Perhaps homosexuals? LOL!! "

I'm getting tired of hearing that incest is illegal due to retardation or any other type of birth defect. Incest is the most widespread of all social taboos and was independently accepted by human societies long before there was knowledge of genetics (or even of any kind of science).

Incest is a universal taboo because it challenges power relationships within families. If a man sleeps with his daughter it threatens the status of the wife/mother. The same applies when a mother sleeps with her son; it challenges the position of the husband/father. A child having sex with a parent would elevate the child to the parent's status. While homosexual incest is rarer (probably due to the fact that homosexual behavior is rarer), the result would still be a threat to the other parent.

The incest taboo seems to be a human-only rule. Even species that practice monogamy (which is extremely rare) still allow siblings to mate.

old comment by Swede

A lot of cases of incest also include pedophilia; fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, uncles/aunts and nephews/nieces. I.e. non-consenting children.
Homosexuality is not a form of retardation, it's merely a natural sexual orientation.

You, a man, might well be able to marry your brother, if you want to live with him permanently and make a home together. Is your brother in on this quest? A marriage, after all, is a contract between two consenting adults.

Nope, the Constitution guarantees your right to pursue happiness, it doesn't guarantee the happiness itself. The Constitution isn't that big on rights, to my knowledge; only financially independent white men had equal rights back then. Women had few rights, black men ever fewer and Native Americans yet even fewer.

You're the absurd one here, dearie. If you and your brother are really attracted to each other, you should be able to marry. Go ahead!

Evolution has made it so that siblings growing up together very seldom feel attraction to each other.

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

The laws regarding incest technically have nothing to do with children. The marriage contract exists to establish ties of kinship between otherwise unrelated persons. Marriage would, therefore, be legally redundant between first degree relatives.

As you might guess, I've had this "argument" come up more than a few times in my debates. It effectively illustrates why the opponents of marriage equality are losing so badly in the courts. They seem to be utterly incapable of viewing marriage as a legal contract. Then, when the issue goes into the forum where legal contracts are judged (i.e., the courts), they are flabbergasted when they lose.

When this happens, their natural tendency is to immediately assume corruption, or bias or satanic influence. The fact that their people came to court unprepared never, EVER occurs to them. And so, the losses pile up.

DrWhoo #fundie politics.newsvine.com

77 comments

Confused?