Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[AiliailiA]

Two siblings having a child would very likely result in the child having malformities and/or defects. I'm not even going to go into what Human/Bonobo intercourse would bring...mostly because I don't think it's good form to talk about the results of bestiality on NSG. Homosexual intercourse, except for various religious reasons, won't cause any defects in a child for obvious reasons.

There is no direct harm by homosexuality. By bestiality and incest, there is.

Homosexuality cannot result in a child...bodily functions won't allow it.

So we should pass laws against adoption too. We should force women who were abandoned by the biological father to abort their pregnancies, and put children to the sword if if either of their legally married parents dies. And put them to the sword if their biological parents legally divorce, or even choose to live separately.

Alternatively, we could recognize that the role of parent is something that people willingly take on, just as they sometimes deliberately walk away from. We could honor the people who choose to be parents in practice and raise a child, with self-sacrifice and love as people have done for all of recorded history whether the child was concieved by them or not.

We could be cynical about families, and declare that the only real family is that which has two biological parents caring for their biological offspring, and scorn adoption, scorn any kind of care for ophans, and scorn homosexual people who volunteer their money love and effort to raise a child.

Or we could be humane about it, and not stand in the way of anyone who has the means and the motivation to raise a child.

It's quite obvious from my rhetoric which side I take. Which side do you take?

[Tsuntion]

In about 10 years, when the Supreme Court takes up the cases of Bestiality, Sibling Marriage and Parent Child marriages, I am sure there will be more people on this forum protecting the traditional definition (If the Supreme Court rules DOMA and Prop. 8 unconstitutional, it will be this: Between two unrelated adult humans)

We will be protecting marriage between consenting beings able to enter into legal contracts. We will be opposing marriage that does not fit this, e.g. human/nonhuman (given that we are unaware of any other animals able to enter into marriage), adult/child, and living/dead.

[Valcouria]

Children can give consent, but the law says they cannot. Laws can be changed on whims like this.

Good luck getting the laws on this changed.

Considering laws have been changed in the past regarding inter-racial marriages and gay marriages, I fear it is not much of a stretch.

[Iosac Kingborough]

I think all this ranting about what can and can't give consent is useless in the long term. It is easy for someone in the future to lower the age of consent (the Greens Party in my country are trying to make the voting age 16 presently for example), meaning what we consider 'minor' could then legally give consent. It wasn't so long ago that marriage at 14 or 16 was the norm in Europe.

As for animals, who knows. Perhaps in the future we'll play out a situation similar to the Uplift novels and make them intelligent.

[Khadgar]

In about 10 years, when the Supreme Court takes up the cases of Bestiality, Sibling Marriage and Parent Child marriages, I am sure there will be more people on this forum protecting the traditional definition (If the Supreme Court rules DOMA and Prop. 8 unconstitutional, it will be this: Between two unrelated adult humans)

I hate to rain on your parade (actually no I don't), but all humans are related.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

Children can give consent, but the law says they cannot. Laws can be changed on whims like this.

Good luck getting the laws on this changed.

I don´t think that´s what he wants.
I´m sure only a very sick person would want consent laws changed.

[Person012345]

The Left won't stop redefining marriage until the society you see today is completely unrecognizable. There are no rules, you just find "unprotected classes" to rally behind in order to buy off their votes. They did it with minorities, they did it with the poor, and now they are doing it with sexual fetishists.

HOLY SHIT, THEY GAVE RIGHTS TO BROWN PEOPLE! WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING?

[Blekksprutia]

Homosexuality cannot result in a child...bodily functions won't allow it.

So we should pass laws against adoption too. We should force women who were abandoned by the biological father to abort their pregnancies, and put children to the sword if if either of their legally married parents dies. And put them to the sword if their biological parents legally divorce, or even choose to live separately.

Alternatively, we could recognize that the role of parent is something that people willingly take on, just as they sometimes deliberately walk away from. We could honor the people who choose to be parents in practice and raise a child, with self-sacrifice and love as people have done for all of recorded history whether the child was concieved by them or not.

We could be cynical about families, and declare that the only real family is that which has two biological parents caring for their biological offspring, and scorn adoption, scorn any kind of care for ophans, and scorn homosexual people who volunteer their money love and effort to raise a child.

Or we could be humane about it, and not stand in the way of anyone who has the means and the motivation to raise a child.

It's quite obvious from my rhetoric which side I take. Which side do you take?

I was speaking of physical defects, like having no lungs, not mental defects. I take the same side as you on this.

[Des-Bal]

Civil liberties sure are slippery slope. First we let people without land vote, then it was the blacks, then women, before you know it we'll have penguins voting and the world will be taken over by semi-aquatic birds.


This isn't a fucking slope. This is a straight goddamned line. Saying that in pursuit of civil liberties we're going to end up with children having sex with animals is like saying if you drive to California you'll just keep going until you fall into the ocean and drown.

[Arrakis]

What is more important and realistic than siblings, parents and animals is plural marriage.

Myself and two others are in a plural relationship and we all want to be able to marry. But we can't. We support marriage rights for LGBTQ peoples (because we are bi-sexual), but our plural relationship is called unnatural and treated with disgust (once discovered) even by LGBTQ people I thought were our friends. One of my girlfriend's cousins, who is a married lesbian and whose wedding we were invited to, afterwards called our relationship "disturbing" and later said plural relationships should never be granted marriage.

What about our rights?

[Norstal]

Ooh, let's add loitering to that list.

So they should all be illegal.

That actually wouldn't be unheard of.

Well, yeah. Loitering, spitting, and poking your ears with qtips are all actions that people find disgusting and the whole rational behind those laws you just posted is because of just that.

I mean, this is why I said spitting is illegal in Singapore. It's up to you to decide whether it should be or not. I KNOW it's illegal to do such things, but if you think lollygagging should be a federal offense, then something's wrong with you.

[Iosac Kingborough]

What is more important and realistic than siblings, parents and animals is plural marriage.

Myself and two others are in a plural relationship and we all want to be able to marry. But we can't. We support marriage rights for LGBTQ peoples (because we are bi-sexual), but our plural relationship is called unnatural and treated with disgust (once discovered) even by LGBTQ people I thought were our friends. One of my girlfriend's cousins, who is a married lesbian and whose wedding we were invited to, afterwards called our relationship "disturbing" and later said plural relationships should never be granted marriage.

What about our rights?

A very good point Arrakis. If we're going to argue about a slippery slope, then the next thing on our descent should be plural marriages - we're a long way from most of the issues such as dog-man marriages. However plural marriages are not as far away and ridiculous.

[Big Jim P]

And as long as there are microwaves, the meat can always be warm. Not that there is anything wrong with cracking a cold one now and then.

That's a big microwave oven you have there. If I ever visit your house, I will be very particular about the exact directions to the lavatory.

Why? don't you trust me?

[AiliailiA]

In about 10 years, when the Supreme Court takes up the cases of Bestiality, Sibling Marriage and Parent Child marriages, I am sure there will be more people on this forum protecting the traditional definition (If the Supreme Court rules DOMA and Prop. 8 unconstitutional, it will be this: Between two unrelated adult humans)

We will be protecting marriage between consenting beings able to enter into legal contracts. We will be opposing marriage that does not fit this, e.g. human/nonhuman (given that we are unaware of any other animals able to enter into marriage), adult/child, and living/dead.

I'm with you up to living/dead.

I have no objection to anyone doing anything to human corpses, providing it was allowed in the dead person's written will. If the will did not specify, then the family or others specified as executors in the written will should rule yay or nay.

It's quite simple really: a dead human body is property and nothing more. It is meat. The written will of the dead person apportions that property, just as it apportions any other property the person owned before their death. If they expressed no will about the divestment of that property, then their named executor decides. And if they died without a written will, a public notary decides.

I will grant a default clause, that when the will does not decide or the executors of the will do not specifically allow someone to have "sex" with the corpse, it should be illegal for anyone to do so. But I insist that it should be legal to have sex with a corpse if that was specifically allowed in the written will.

Personally I would put that in my will. Along with organ donation and turning over my corpse to medical education, I want to make the most of the meat that's left after I die.

I hope to live to 100. I'm 59. It's probably about time I wrote a will. That really shouldn't cost money but it does.

Ailialia (deceased): "fuck yeah. Best sex I've had in sixty years! Only sex I've had in sixty years!"

[Big Jim P]

The Left won't stop redefining marriage until the society you see today is completely unrecognizable. There are no rules, you just find "unprotected classes" to rally behind in order to buy off their votes. They did it with minorities, they did it with the poor, and now they are doing it with sexual fetishists.

HOLY SHIT, THEY GAVE RIGHTS TO BROWN PEOPLE! WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING?

Please. I am still trying to come to terms with allowing women to vote. How the HELL does one vote from the kitchen?

[Mistelemr]

One of two options

1: Make marriage legal between anything which can demonstrate an understanding of the consequences, and can consent (In this way it might be better to administer a test to people before they are allowed to get married so you don't have people getting married at an all night drive-through and the like, but as well to prevent idiots who would ruin their lives from ruining their lives)

2: Remove marriages status as something the state has to arbitrate and leave it up to the religion in question to decide the kinds of marriage it wants to allow (Hey, you wanna make that argument about marriage being a religious institution again? Why the hell is it incentivized by the government when there's supposedly separation between church and state?)

Note: Option one is all inclusive to things that can give consent, thus this may include animals, but only if they are of sufficient intelligence. And so, as such we can all marry aliens when they finally land on earth/ we finally meet them in the stars. You're welcome.

[Evil Siamese Cats]

Frankly, I don't know why we're expanding the right to marry or why we're giving it to anybody new. People have proven themselves to be too fucking short-sighted and irresponsible to handle marriage. If anything, we need to start taking that right away.

I propose the following Constitutional amendment, the application of which should be spread to all modernized nations and then to all developing nations:

1. No governing body shall recognize the right to marriage or civil union for any person or persons.

2. All persons over the age of majority shall delegate personal, property, and inheritance rights as they see fit, and all governing bodies shall make laws to enable persons to do so.

3. Absent a last will and testament, all inheritance rights shall be delegated to the offspring of the deceased, by birth, marriage, or adoption; if no such person exists, all inheritance rights shall be delegated to the parents of the deceased, by birth or adoption, and then by marriage. Absent offspring or parents, all inheritance rights shall be given to the state to sell at auction, pay the debts of the deceased, and benefit impoverished citizens.

4. All persons legally married or in a civil union at the time of this Amendment's passage shall have their marriage rights recognized for the duration of the marriage or civil union. No new marriages will be recognized.

5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this Amendment by appropriate legislation.

[Big Jim P]

We will be protecting marriage between consenting beings able to enter into legal contracts. We will be opposing marriage that does not fit this, e.g. human/nonhuman (given that we are unaware of any other animals able to enter into marriage), adult/child, and living/dead.

I'm with you up to living/dead.

I have no objection to anyone doing anything to human corpses, providing it was allowed in the dead person's written will. If the will did not specify, then the family or others specified as executors in the written will should rule yay or nay.

It's quite simple really: a dead human body is property and nothing more. It is meat. The written will of the dead person apportions that property, just as it apportions any other property the person owned before their death. If they expressed no will about the divestment of that property, then their named executor decides. And if they died without a written will, a public notary decides.

I will grant a default clause, that when the will does not decide or the executors of the will do not specifically allow someone to have "sex" with the corpse, it should be illegal for anyone to do so. But I insist that it should be legal to have sex with a corpse if that was specifically allowed in the written will.

Personally I would put that in my will. Along with organ donation and turning over my corpse to medical education, I want to make the most of the meat that's left after I die.

I hope to live to 100. I'm 59. It's probably about time I wrote a will. That really shouldn't cost money but it does.

Ailialia (deceased): "fuck yeah. Best sex I've had in sixty years! Only sex I've had in sixty years!"

Agreed. After I am dead, if someone wants to have sex with whatever is left of my corpse (after the organs are harvested and the scientists get through with it), then I will no longer exist to care or object.

[Person012345]

HOLY SHIT, THEY GAVE RIGHTS TO BROWN PEOPLE! WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING?

Please. I am still trying to come to terms with allowing women to vote. How the HELL does one vote from the kitchen?

Yeah but dude... They're BROWN. That's like, totally the wrong colour. If they're the wrong colour then how can they possibly vote properly? They might vote... DEMOCRAT. Then before you know it we'll have... cars having sex with children!

[Big Jim P]

Please. I am still trying to come to terms with allowing women to vote. How the HELL does one vote from the kitchen?

Yeah but dude... They're BROWN. That's like, totally the wrong colour. If they're the wrong colour then how can they possibly vote properly? They might vote... DEMOCRAT. Then before you know it we'll have... cars having sex with children!

Wrong color? They are letting people with the wrong PARTS vote!

[Blekksprutia]

Oh my god, stop it! Stop it, it hurts!

[Purpelia]

HOLY SHIT, THEY GAVE RIGHTS TO BROWN PEOPLE! WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING?

Please. I am still trying to come to terms with allowing women to vote. How the HELL does one vote from the kitchen?

The internet.

[Big Jim P]

Please. I am still trying to come to terms with allowing women to vote. How the HELL does one vote from the kitchen?

The internet.

First the vote and now someone went and taught women to use computers?

Where will it END!

[Arglorand]

Yeah but dude... They're BROWN. That's like, totally the wrong colour. If they're the wrong colour then how can they possibly vote properly? They might vote... DEMOCRAT. Then before you know it we'll have... cars having sex with children!

Wrong color? They are letting people with the wrong PARTS vote!

You forget that they let PLEBS vote.

Really, only the top 1 percent should vote.

[The New Earth Coalition]

Places with legal bestiality, polygamy and incest often tend to be places that also oppose gay marriage.

Actually, thats not true...

Its actually the opposite. Places with illegal bestiality, polygamy, and incest tend to be the places that oppose gay marriage. Places that have legal all of the above tend to be openly homosexual-suuportive.