Liberals Should Rejoice!

[KingsGambit]

Isn't that just eugenics?

Yes, but it is why incest is illegal.

[Catholicity]

That and it spurs pedophilia a more common type of incest. Its not illegal to date or marry the 1st cousin below the Mason-Dixon line, and in some yankee states. Second cousin marriages are allowed in 47 states. That's hardly crazy its older laws on the books as to where some people believe incest ends. Obviously parent -child and brother sister incest is really disgusting. Salon.com isn't exactly known for scrutiny. As far as it goes to state "liberals should rejoice" because an extremely volatile, open and non-scrupulous blog praises something that I can't even wrap my head around (though I have heard of it happening in other cases), DOES NOT MEAN, that liberally minded people rejoice about this action. The ones I associate with find it disgusting, appalling, not worth the read, don't want to know, believe sex is a closed door affair, and hey if you look hard enough, you might find a pro-life lefty.....but that's too hard to look for isn't it?

[fm93]

Why not? I'm genuinely curious.

A number of reasons:

1) As I mentioned earlier, many same-sex couples who request permission to marry do so because they wish to form a family with each other, to graft two family trees together. Generally, people such as myself who are okay with SSM simply shrug our collective shoulders and say "Why not? As long as both people are of age and consent, go ahead." But a father and daughter are already part of the same family; they can't create a new family in the sense that many gay couples seem to desire.

2) As other posters have noted, incestuous relationships (especially those of a parent and child) tend to carry the risk of power imbalances and raise consent problems, as well as a multitude of other thorny issues. Ordinarily, people will turn to their parents for support if a relationship doesn't work out--but the girl can't turn to her father to help her get over it if, you know, her significant other was her father.

[Darth Executor]

Though I reject the term "marriage equality" as inaccurate and loaded (most people aren't pushing for marriage equality for those who are already married, for one), I think people who support redefining marriage could consistently oppose this because of society's interest in discouraging incest due to its horrible genetic consequences.

As she pointed out in the original article, the genetic consequences would be minimal, if any.

[Darth Executor]

2) As other posters have noted, incestuous relationships (especially those of a parent and child) tend to carry the risk of power imbalances and raise consent problems, as well as a multitude of other thorny issues.

I must have missed the part where people aren't allowed to marry because of "power imbalances".

Ordinarily, people will turn to their parents for support if a relationship doesn't work out--but the girl can't turn to her father to help her get over it if, you know, her significant other was her father.

So someone with dead parents shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

Let's face it, you're just coming up with any differences you can think of even though they're completely irrelevant, just so you can have an excuse not to allow this particular happy couple the same rights everybody else does. Which just shows how hypocritical the homophiles are when it comes to relationships they personally don't approve of.

[seer]

The 'mutual informed consent' idea is not a phoney in my mind. But it is only one condition of a healthy equivalent relationship as far as I am concerned. I'd add to that the idea that informed consent to marriage can only take place in the context of two individuals who have equal power in the relationship. I strongly doubt that a woman who was raised as a daughter by her father can ever give unbiased informed consent to marriage with him. It's an entirely different kind of relationship and one she cannot have by virtue of her existing relationship with him.

But by all means carry on your burning of straw men liberal thinking.

This woman was not raised by her father, see the original link. So what is your objection now?

“What It’s Like to Date Your Dad” is, frankly, a sensational and often-disturbing exchange between the clinical interview questions and the detailed answers of a woman who hadn’t had contact with her father since she was five years old and then began having sex with him when they re-kindled their relationship. She was 17 at the time, he was in his mid-to-late-30s. She tells Science of Us that they are in love, that they are engaged to be married, and that they plan on having children—with the blessing of his parents, even.

[seer]

A number of reasons:

1) As I mentioned earlier, many same-sex couples who request permission to marry do so because they wish to form a family with each other, to graft two family trees together. Generally, people such as myself who are okay with SSM simply shrug our collective shoulders and say "Why not? As long as both people are of age and consent, go ahead." But a father and daughter are already part of the same family; they can't create a new family in the sense that many gay couples seem to desire.

This is just silly, even for you square. Why should the desire to graft two families together have any legal or moral bearing on who should be allowed to marry or not? What if the two people were orphans with no known family?

2) As other posters have noted, incestuous relationships (especially those of a parent and child) tend to carry the risk of power imbalances and raise consent problems, as well as a multitude of other thorny issues. Ordinarily, people will turn to their parents for support if a relationship doesn't work out--but the girl can't turn to her father to help her get over it if, you know, her significant other was her father.

Do you just make this stuff up?

[KingsGambit]

No, he wasn't making it up. It was a reasonable reason why one might oppose this based on the principles of psychology and what leads to abuse. You seem to just be saying THERE'S NO REASON WHY ANY LIBERAL WOULD OPPOSE THIS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

[seer]

No, he wasn't making it up. It was a reasonable reason why one might oppose this based on the principles of psychology and what leads to abuse. You seem to just be saying THERE'S NO REASON WHY ANY LIBERAL WOULD OPPOSE THIS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Principles of psychology is not a legal or moral reason to object since all men do not have the same psychological make up. Some people may handle this kind of relationship quite well. Others not - but that goes for normal marriage too. So the objection is silly.

[Zymologist]

No, he wasn't making it up. It was a reasonable reason why one might oppose this based on the principles of psychology and what leads to abuse. You seem to just be saying THERE'S NO REASON WHY ANY LIBERAL WOULD OPPOSE THIS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Well, when conservatives oppose gay marriage, they get called homophobes, bigots, hateful, fill in the blank. How dare they question the actions of two consenting adults?

[KingsGambit]

Well, when conservatives oppose gay marriage, they get called homophobes, bigots, hateful, fill in the blank. How dare they question the actions of two consenting adults?

Again, a number of reasons have been provided why this sort of thing could reasonably be opposed by anybody, even those out there who support gay marriage... I just don't feel like they're being taken very seriously. I explained one possibility from genetics. square_peg provided another reason based on psychology and abuse and seer's only response was "are you making this up?" That doesn't sound like an attempt for serious dialogue.

[fm93]

Well, when conservatives oppose gay marriage, they get called homophobes, bigots, hateful, fill in the blank. How dare they question the actions of two consenting adults?

As I've explained, the argument for same-sex marriage was never limited to "As long as two adults consent to something, it should be okay."

[Zymologist]

Again, a number of reasons have been provided why this sort of thing could reasonably be opposed by anybody, even those out there who support gay marriage... I just don't feel like they're being taken very seriously. I explained one possibility from genetics. square_peg provided another reason based on psychology and abuse and seer's only response was "are you making this up?" That doesn't sound like an attempt for serious dialogue.

I don't feel like liberals take conservatives' arguments on the subject very seriously. It all seems inconsistent to me.

[KingsGambit]

I don't feel like liberals take conservatives' arguments on the subject very seriously. It all seems inconsistent to me.

All of this is true... but I think that in a Civics section, people should at least try to interact with one another's arguments.

(By the way, just for disclosure, I don't support gay marriage myself but I realize the battle has been lost.)

[seer]

I explained one possibility from genetics. square_peg provided another reason based on psychology and abuse and seer's only response was "are you making this up?" That doesn't sound like an attempt for serious dialogue.

No, I said: Principles of psychology is not a legal or moral reason to object since all men do not have the same psychological make up. Some people may handle this kind of relationship quite well. Others not - but that goes for normal marriage too. So the objection is silly.

And genetics is a non issue, especially if they decide not to have kids.