Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
66 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Here's a Debate Topic For You rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ben Stanley
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is for the advocates of same-sex marriage, but anyone is welcome to join in:

Why is incest wrong?

Take the following hypothetical: Bob has fallen madly in love with his biological brother, Mike. When Bob fell in love with his sister, Sally, the state denied him a marriage license given the close relation. As he argued in the court systems that he was being denied equal treatment under the law and a victim of intolerance, outdated views of "morality", and unfair taboos that simply repressed people and treated them badly without legitimate or compelling governmental interest, the state's lawyer was finally able to convince a judge that the state did have a legitimate interest in avoiding the biological abnormalities and genetic mutations that could arise in the offspring of brother-sister unions.

Fortunately for Bob, a single unelected rogue activist federal judge appointed by an inept and corrupt president overturned the repeatedly expressed overwhelming will of the majority of the sovereign citizens of Bob's state and the explicit language of their state constitution to impose a fundamentally flawed and incorrect personal agenda driven interpretation of implied and disputed concepts in the federal constitution to allow same-sex marriages in Bob's state.

The unethical judge falsely contended that the state had no legitimate interest advanced by heterosexual unions by ignoring the obvious interest of a state in its own preservation by acknowledging the two basic biological elements required for the creation of life.

To Bob's great joy, that flawed argument allowed him to now decide he was in love with his brother, and there were no biological complications (the potential creation of life that might have genetic mutations, since the creation of life is not a possibility at all in his new proposed marriage with just those two participants in the marriage).

Given the flawed legal opinion preceding Bob's second marriage proposal, what legitimate basis do you now have for denying the man's true love story from being achieved in his happy union with his brother Mike?

What kind of monster would be so intolerant as to deny Bob's marriage to Mike in a state that has already rejected traditional morality, custom, religion, and biological science as bases for respecting the rule of law and the will of the people in defining marriage?
4 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kiren Maelwulf
Canada
Richmond
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Missed you, baby. Ain't no sunshine when you're gone. kiss
13 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kirenx wrote:
What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?


I think he assumes that same-sex marriage advocates would object to him fucking his brother, but I say if Ben Stanley wants to fuck his brother, he's welcome to.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Burt
Canada
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Kirenx wrote:
What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?


I think he assumes that same-sex marriage advocates would object to him fucking his brother, but I say if Ben Stanley wants to fuck his brother, he's welcome to.


What does his brother want?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Xlyce wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Kirenx wrote:
What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?


I think he assumes that same-sex marriage advocates would object to him fucking his brother, but I say if Ben Stanley wants to fuck his brother, he's welcome to.


What does his brother want?


Well, I assume Ben wants good Christian consensual fucking with his brother. Ben, you wouldn't fuck your brother against his will, would you? You should only fuck your brother with his permission.

Anyway, it's nice that you came here to work out your issues. I'm glad to see you opening up. It was pretty lame when you just came in here to post asinine bullshit that sounded clever and tricky in your head to "gotcha" those silly libtards. I'm happy you're finally engaging on a personal level. I want you and your brother to be happy together.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
Oddly enough, we are probably more free with a ban on incest than without one. Where incest gets very strange isn't in the adult relationship of individuals of similar ages who grew up with a strong incest taboo, but in the incentives for parents and older siblings in a society in which incest is legal. Any time the people who help form your character stand to benefit directly from the choices that character will bring about, there's a potential for that character-formation process to become too limiting, so as to ensure the desired outcome. It would also further complicate the prosecution of incestuous rape, making such rape (as well as what we might call rape-by-indoctrination) much more likely.

Not that the OP was a serious question rather than a way to (fail to) make a point.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Missed you, baby. Ain't no sunshine when you're gone. kiss


It ain't warm when he's away.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey...

If it was good enough for Cain and his Wife...
Abraham and Sara
Amnon and Thamar
Lot and his Daughters

It was good enough for me!


Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
It's good enough for me

Makes me love everybody
Makes me love my sisters
Makes me love my brothers
It's good enough for me

Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
It's good enough for me

It was good for Hebrew children (hmmm. okay 18+ today)
it was good for Hebrew children
It was good for Hebrew children
And it's good enough for me

Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
It's good enough for me

---

I don't have a problem with incest in some situations. Not being able to have kids is high on the list and an equal power relationship is also important. Sibling incest seems less of a problem. Parental incest seems bad to me. I can't see how it wouldn't be abusive and there are significant problems with the power imbalance.

So I guess two gay brothers would be like, "I think I'll stay the fuck out of this situation. Nothing good will come of getting involved."

The basis of the incest taboo is bad genetics. Everything else is sort of arbitrary.

It seems insane to enforce the incest taboo on adopted siblings... so I guess I would feel similar for same sex sibling incest as long as there wasn't a power imbalance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Incest is illegal because of the disparate power relationships within families make it rife for abuse. It is, for instance, just as illegal in adoptive families.

It compares to the illegality of teacher-student relationships. It doesn't compare with same-sex marriage.
23 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am for same sex marriage but by mother is too old for me and I find my sister way too skinny. and should I marry my brother, we'll the incest related risks would be zero anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As others have said there are issues of exploitation and abuse that do not exist in gay relationships.

In addition to make the analogy work, you would also have to allow for heterosexual incest (after all gay marriage is about giving the same rights to people), thus you do also have the issue of medical complications. Of course you could argue that we are only discussing a gay incestuous relasionship, but then we are not talking about equal rights. We are then not talking about giving someone a right that someone else enjoys, but giving them a right that no one else enjoys.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Modern medicine allows for two women to conceive a child together (with some help). How long before it allows for two men to have a part in the conception of the same child (obviously there would need to be a woman involved as, at the very least, a surrogate)?

What about incest between cousins? Illegal in several US states.

I understand the power relationship issue, but surely that could be resolved through some kind of screening process.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simple


Apples have a skin and are of the genus Malus.

Oranges are segmented, have a rind and are the genus Citrus.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Same as every other law since ever: because we say so.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael
United States
Lincoln
NE: NEBRASKA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Blue Steel wrote:

Fortunately for Bob, a single unelected rogue activist federal judge appointed by an inept and corrupt president overturned the repeatedly expressed overwhelming will of the majority of the sovereign citizens of Bob's state and the explicit language of their state constitution to impose a fundamentally flawed and incorrect personal agenda driven interpretation of implied and disputed concepts in the federal constitution to allow same-sex marriages in Bob's state.

The unethical judge falsely contended that the state had no legitimate interest advanced by heterosexual unions by ignoring the obvious interest of a state in its own preservation by acknowledging the two basic biological elements required for the creation of life.



I really like how unbiased the language is in this story.
15 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Stanley
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, as I read some of the more intelligent comments in the debate so far, it sounds like a couple of you feel that the answer to the original question (why is incest wrong) view the answer as: it is because of disparate power relationships, undue influence, potential for exploitation, and the like.

So now the follow-up question: obviously we as a society should be concerned about undue influence in non-related marriages, too. Right? So, should we simply deny marriage licenses in cases where the individuals applying are not truly consenting adults as they assert, but one has actually unduly influenced the other, while not concerning ourselves (as a society) with how closely they are related, what their respective sexes are, and so forth?

In other words, a simple yes or no straw poll for forum-goers with courage of their convictions (please post your answer below):

A fair society should allow and issue a marriage license to any two individuals who request one so long as (1) both consent, (2) both are adults - the age of majority in the jurisdiction and thus able to legally consent, (3) both are mentally competent, (4) neither has actually or potentially "unduly influenced" the other -- perhaps (by way of illustration and not an exhaustive list) by holding a position of influence during the other's formative years through living in the same home, being a teacher, being an authority figure in contexts of employment or various social settings, and (5) neither has defrauded the other by misrepresenting facts -- about finances, identity, presence of contagious diseases, or the like.

True or false?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
False

1-3, yes
4, too broad
5, doesn't make sense, it sounds more like grounds for divorce
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Taylor S

Nebraska
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Blue Steel wrote:

What kind of monster would be so intolerant as to deny Bob's marriage to Mike in a state that has already rejected traditional morality, custom, religion, and biological science as bases for respecting the rule of law and the will of the people in defining marriage?


Your idea is interesting but your throwing in a lot of needless other debates in here.
Traditional Custom: When marriage first began same sex couples were allowed. Modern custom has changed that somewhat.
Religion: Many religions oppose, many support. You can't lump them all together.
Biological science: This one really isn't on your side. Biologically some dudes like other dudes. Not sure what you meant by that.
Morality: This one doesn't work either for obvious reasons.

You slip in some claims about Obama, certain judges, etc. Why not just boil it down to;

If genetic defects are the reason incest marriages are not legal, why couldn't two relatives unable to reproduce (such as two males) be allowed to marry?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
spoon wrote:
False

1-3, yes
4, too broad
5, doesn't make sense, it sounds more like grounds for divorce
I would agree, how do you prove undue influence? Unless you have a blanket ban on any one who is in any position of authority it is far to open to abuse.

A fair society would not have a legal concept of marriage. It would confer the same rights to all person irrespective of a single ceremony.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Blue Steel wrote:
A fair society should allow and issue a marriage license to any two individuals who request one so long as (1) both consent, (2) both are adults - the age of majority in the jurisdiction and thus able to legally consent, (3) both are mentally competent, (4) neither has actually or potentially "unduly influenced" the other -- perhaps (by way of illustration and not an exhaustive list) by holding a position of influence during the other's formative years through living in the same home, being a teacher, being an authority figure in contexts of employment or various social settings, and (5) neither has defrauded the other by misrepresenting facts -- about finances, identity, presence of contagious diseases, or the like.

True or false?


Mostly true, but (4) is very dependent on details (for example, I have no problem with the current status quo where a teacher can marry a former student), as is (5) to some extent (for example, 'he told me he liked playing boardgames when we met, and turns out he didn't', is misrepresenting facts, but obviously shouldn't be treated the same as 'he was already married and didn't say'). (5) should also include attempts to defraud others, for example marriage for the sake of immigration.

The other important thing I would add is a need for the benefits that marriage provides within the relationship, and for those benefits to simply make sense within that context. Example might include close family members in the first instance (where those benefits largely already exist) and animals or inanimate objects in the second.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Same as every other law since ever: because we say so.


Yes, but.

The but is because there's an attempt to make laws align with the principle of if it doesn't hurt someone (else) it should be legal.

You can see this in that a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments are presented in terms of harm to society. I think they make no sense and are usually fraudulent in that they started with the position, then attempted to find a reason why what they wanted illegal was harmful (and presented their least bad attempt as if true). But that they found it necessary to argue that way tells you a lot about how widely that principle has become a basis for what people say so.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Blue Steel wrote:
A fair society should allow and issue a marriage license to any two individuals who request one so long as (1) both consent, (2) both are adults - the age of majority in the jurisdiction and thus able to legally consent, (3) both are mentally competent, (4) neither has actually or potentially "unduly influenced" the other -- perhaps (by way of illustration and not an exhaustive list) by holding a position of influence during the other's formative years through living in the same home, being a teacher, being an authority figure in contexts of employment or various social settings, and (5) neither has defrauded the other by misrepresenting facts -- about finances, identity, presence of contagious diseases, or the like.


I could quibble on details, but it is a pretty good start.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
I have a cunning plan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
Blue Steel wrote:
A fair society should allow and issue a marriage license to any two individuals who request one so long as (1) both consent, (2) both are adults - the age of majority in the jurisdiction and thus able to legally consent, (3) both are mentally competent, (4) neither has actually or potentially "unduly influenced" the other -- perhaps (by way of illustration and not an exhaustive list) by holding a position of influence during the other's formative years through living in the same home, being a teacher, being an authority figure in contexts of employment or various social settings, and (5) neither has defrauded the other by misrepresenting facts -- about finances, identity, presence of contagious diseases, or the like.


I could quibble on details, but it is a pretty good start.


Sure, I can go along with that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Blue Steel wrote:
In other words, a simple yes or no straw poll for forum-goers with courage of their convictions (please post your answer below):

What's your answer?
5 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.