Go to Messages To Liberals, Atheists And Other Dummies
- Add a comment
- Go to Gomedome, Many “Consenting-Adult” Siblings Are Having Sex With Each Other
mighty
Your comment to smartdog is encouraging. It means you are interested in hearing what other people say and think. I agree that simply ridiculing another with whom you disagree, is counterproductive and simple-minded; but don't you see how much of that you do? What, indeed, has smartdog given you to think about? I'd like to see you express that, without anger and without rancor toward others--such as Canadians and homosexuals. You do have literary skills. I regret when skilled people use blunt objects to express themselves. Hemlocker
posted by
Hemlocker
on July 29, 2005 at 9:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Dennison_Mann -- I wasn't suggesting that we worry about a small religious
sect but more use them as a living example of the pitfalls of incestuous relationships. You are right in saying that there is no guarantee that children born of these unions will have birth defects but the odds are greatly stacked against them and become incrementaly so with each passing generation. Then there are two other minor issues to consider. If we can agree that sex should only take place between consenting adults... is true consent given in all cases of inter-family realationships? It certainly isn't using the Mennonites as an example again. With indoctrination beginning at birth, community and family pressure as well as a host of ostracising practices it is not consent by any stretch of the imagination. We can reasonably assume that many of these same parameters exist in situations outside of this sect. Then there is each and every citizen's self responsibility as members of any society. To knowingly pro-create when the risk of birth defects in your offspring is very high, is irresponsible, not only for those who would be involved in an incestuous relationship but for anyone who is carrying a bad gene. We do not stop those who are legally married and knowingly do this but maybe we should re-think this. Ultimately society as a whole is victimized when a practice that is capable of drawing extensively on our health care resources and perpetuating itself within mainstream society is needlessly allowed to proliferate. Especially when one considers that it is not widespread now and the demand to make it so is not widespread either. Normalization of this practice hurts everyone.
posted by
gomedome
on July 28, 2005 at 1:47 PM
| link to this | reply
MHW --
I detest even validating your juvenile comments with a response. But, here goes nothing.
SEE MY ORIGINAL COMMENT AS I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT NON-STARTER.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on July 28, 2005 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison, I guess that means that you should have the right to date a cute
little pit bull bitch, right?
posted by
Feenix
on July 28, 2005 at 12:35 PM
| link to this | reply
MHW --
I have no doubt that you find it difficult to have an intelligent discussion.
Thanks for confirming that.
If you'll read carefully, I never stated that I personally think it's okay for mothers to bag their daughters or anything else. But I refuse to stand down while you promote your ignorance regarding American freedom.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on July 28, 2005 at 12:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison, are you nuts? How can I, or any other sane person, have an
intelligent conversation with someone who believes that it is OK for guys to bed down their own mothers?
posted by
Feenix
on July 28, 2005 at 12:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome...
With six billion healthy souls roaming an evermore crowded planet, I really don't think we have to worry about a small religious sect "poisoning the gene pool." What's more, the offspring of incestuous relations do not come with a guarantee of birth defects. There might be an increase in likelihood only if both parents carry the gene. What's more, where do we draw the line in our definition of "poison?" If two people want to marry and the blood test shows that they might produce offspring that will have birth defects, do we routinely prohibit them from marrying? Nope.
Still no practical reason to prohibit incestuous marriages.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on July 28, 2005 at 12:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, you're right about that inbreeding. Just look at Bill Clinton.
posted by
Feenix
on July 28, 2005 at 12:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Oh, MHW...
Stop acting like a child, and actually answer my challenge.
Produce one practical reason why you object to incestuous marriages and maybe I'll listen. (Your contrived sense of forced morality doesn't count.)
And big hairy deal....you pretend to speak a foreign language.
I speak Korean fluently...care to spar like juveniles or would you prefer answering the challenge?
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on July 28, 2005 at 12:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison_Mann -- not all ancient societal taboos must be overturned in the
name of progressive thought. There is one very valid reason to not accept incestuous relationships and that is birth defects. It gets progressively worse from generation to generation if no gene variety is introduced to the bloodline. This is an indisputable fact. No one has the right to leave our species a poisoned gene pool as their legacy. There are unfortunately many examples of this in today's modern world. One hour North of the city I live in there is a Mennonite community that has interbred for generations. Average height of males is barely 5 ft., children are born routinely with only a few teeth, impaired vision and hearing as well as limited intellect. This problem is easily solved via leaving our old traditions of marrying outside of the family in place.
posted by
gomedome
on July 28, 2005 at 12:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison, Ise jes' a po' ol' ignant niggro. I don't be knowin' nut'n.
posted by
Feenix
on July 28, 2005 at 12:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Nice, MHW...
I knew you couldn't generate a mature response.
And the fact that you shrink from my challenge indicates that you really haven't thought this all the way through.
Good day. Have fun languishing in your ignorance. You represent well.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on July 28, 2005 at 12:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala, Jerry Springer ... yeah. Great idea. I'm gonna be filthy rich.
posted by
Feenix
on July 28, 2005 at 12:12 PM
| link to this | reply
WOW, Dennison, you must be tokin' on some of that baaad Jamaican shit. Got
any left?
posted by
Feenix
on July 28, 2005 at 12:08 PM
| link to this | reply
You all better take this to the Jerry Springer show.
posted by
Ariala
on July 28, 2005 at 12:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Please...
Why do you care if a brother and sister marry one another? As long as both can consent to the marriage you cannot name one practical reason why they shouldn't marry. I challenge you to produc ONE reason why a mother cannot marry her son...or any other form of incestuous marriage.
The only barrier sensible people need to remember is that animals and children cannot consent to marriage; so such unions should always remain illegal.
But, if a 49 year-old woman really wants to marry her 30 year-old daughter, then your personal disapproval of the marriage only violates their American guarantee to pursue happiness.
I'll remind you that in the early Seventies interracial marriages were illegal. I'm sure every Derek Jeter fan is happy that wise Americans put an end to that brand of ignorance.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on July 28, 2005 at 12:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, all I know is that about 10% of the residents of the NYC neigh-
borhood that I live in are lily-white Canadians -- and all of the ones I know express that they have no intention of living in Canada again.
What I hear all the time is something like, "I got sick and tired of Ottawa taking away more than half of my earnings and watching the gay sideshow that is taking place in Toronto."
posted by
Feenix
on July 28, 2005 at 11:18 AM
| link to this | reply
mightyholywarrior -- your comment about Canadian immigration to your
country may be your best attempt at humour yet. Do you think that the border is a one way street? There are disenfranchised citizens in every country. Some leave seeking supposed and sometimes real greener pastures and for a sweeping variety of reasons. Your broad depicition of your neighborhood being approx. 10% comprised of expatriated Canadians is misleading. I get invited regularly to a neighbourhood near Ft. Myers Florida that is probably 90% comprised of Canadians but so what? Both are meaningless and unsubstantiated figures with no datum to qualify the percentage to a hard number from. The truth of the matter is that numbers alone are misleading and you are in error if you are suggesting that per capita immigration from Canada (across the entire demographic spectrum) to the USA is somehow increasing when the opposite is true. Canada to USA immigration averaged around 33,000 persons per year over the last 3 decades but the vast majority were of retirement age with warm weather being the main determinent factor. The only noticeable increase in immigration is in direct corellation with the increasing number of our citizens reaching retirement age. USA to Canada immigration has averaged about 6,000 persons per year with personal economic considerations being the main determinent factor. This number has seen some upturns, most noticeably during the Vietnam war and currently there are a record number of USA to Canada immigration applications in the system. There are many reasons for this increase. Sure I may have to eat my words when I said that no great influx of Democrats have crossed our borders as a result of the fall election but there are certainly other reasons.
posted by
gomedome
on July 28, 2005 at 11:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Smartdog, thank you for welcoming me back and for your very thoughtful
comment.
And do you know what? It made a whole lot of sense to me.
Smartdog, you are a smart person -- and that is quite obvious because instead of trying to ridicule me for expressing an opinion that differs from yours, you took the time to intelligently explain your side of the argument, and gave me a lot to think about, as a result.
Thanks for getting in touch, friend.
posted by
Feenix
on July 27, 2005 at 9:36 PM
| link to this | reply
MHW
First, welcome back. I see your R&R time has reinvigorated your opinions - good to see.
However, I disagree with your opposition to same sex marriages. But I do so from a libertarian perspective; not a moral one.
In regards to "legalizing" same sex marriages, Congress, in my opinion, has no right whatsoever to either condone or prohibit a union of anysort between any two people. That is a personal decision for free citizens to make on their own. It was not so long ago that "royal" families actually preferred marrying cousins or even siblings in order to keep the blood line pure.
I also believe that those who ardently argue to pass such an act are primarily concerned with the legal and tax benefits available to married heterosexual couples in this country; I don't see advocates of such a bill as "shove it in your face" homosexuals who want change your sense of morality; I see them as free citizens demanding equal consideration under the law - and they have a valid point.
Welcome back
-smartdog
posted by
smartdog_670
on July 27, 2005 at 9:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, at least 10% of the residents of the NYC neighborhood I live in
are Canadians, and more are arriving each day -- and none of the ones I've met want to go back there to live. They're sick and tired of such things as the sky-high taxes that are levied on you folks up there and the way-out left-wing liberalism that's sweeping across the country.
posted by
Feenix
on July 27, 2005 at 8:51 PM
| link to this | reply
mightyholywarrior -- oooo aah can I come out from under my desk now?
You are too comical, do you really believe that your caveman logic has obliterated my contentions? Reading this posting of yours is entertainment, hence the smile. Canadians wanting to move to the USA en masse? Would that be like all of the Democrats that threatened to move to Canada when Bush was re-elected? Where the heck are they? Geez, not a one showed up. Anyone wanting to leave the country because of an insignificant human rights decision ... I would be glad to drive to the border. Let them pollute some other country's gene pool if they are that simple minded. But think of the possibilities if this were to happen. We could export all of our stupid people to the USA which would virtually ensure that NAFTA would never be renegotiated.
posted by
gomedome
on July 27, 2005 at 8:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, have you ever watched a boxing match in which one of the fighters
knocked the hell out of his opponent -- and in an attempt to conceal that he is getting his ass kicked, the opponent smiles and tries to act like the heavy punch that he just took did not hurt him at all.
Well, that is what you are trying to do here. I knocked the hell out of your little argument and you're trying to conceal that fact by saying that what I wrote is amusing and makes no sense.
And don't get too comfortable with the new law that has caused you to be a "proud Canadian." The Conservative Leader up there, Stephen Harper, has promised that if his party forms the next government, the law will be revisited.
posted by
Feenix
on July 27, 2005 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
mightyholywarrior -- that may be so - I may well lack the literary skills
but I was speaking of lambasting your childlike reasoning. Use this blog headline for an example. "Gomedome, Many “Consenting-Adult” Siblings Are Having Sex With Each Other" Oh yeah really? ..how are you defining "many"? Aside from concocting an imaginary societal epidemic by using such a vague word as "many" I doubt that you even understand what you have just implied with this blog title. Here are some simple and undisputable facts first: The majority of people on this planet are heterosexual, probably in excess of 95%. It is very rare to find more than one homosexual in any given family. So it follows that virtually all of the people that are engaging in incest in the imaginary scenario you invent to self serve your point are heterosexual. Let me encapsulate your contention: Don't let the gays get married because first thing you know heterosexaul sibling adults engaging in incest will want the same thing? I haven't even got past the title and you're cracking me up.....I may never get my posting done.
posted by
gomedome
on July 27, 2005 at 6:44 PM
| link to this | reply
TerpGirl, glad to hear from you. Real glad.
posted by
Feenix
on July 27, 2005 at 5:54 PM
| link to this | reply
I've been underwater with a major trauma going on, sorry, but I
wanted to pop in and say --- Glad you're back! I'm not up for much hellraising these days, so you need to run double time. I think you're good for it.
Kim
posted by
terpgirl30
on July 27, 2005 at 5:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, you do not possess the literary skills to "lambast" me in writing
posted by
Feenix
on July 27, 2005 at 5:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Homegirl, my good friend, think about it. Almost all intimate relationships
between men and women "start out with some inequalities in authority and control" -- and many, if not most, remain that way.
posted by
Feenix
on July 27, 2005 at 5:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Incest...
is victimization and wrong.
I can't imagine a completely mutual incestual relationship where one sibling or parent does not have some type of control over the other. Sure both may eventually consent, but such a relationship will surely start out with some inequalities in authority and control!
posted by
homegirl
on July 27, 2005 at 5:09 PM
| link to this | reply
mightyholywarrior -- what a joke of a response and you are probably not
even embarrased to have these words attributed to you. I'd hoped that you would be up to the challenge but apparently not. Nonetheless you win because this posting deserves a good lambasting which I will post in my own blog a little later this evening.
posted by
gomedome
on July 27, 2005 at 2:52 PM
| link to this | reply
I never understood why "incest"
(among consenting adults) is considered so horrible, anyway. Who cares what people do inside their own bedrooms?
posted by
Mademoiselle
on July 27, 2005 at 11:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Thank God I'm an only child...
posted by
Renigade
on July 27, 2005 at 10:43 AM
| link to this | reply
ummm............
posted by
Vanidad
on July 27, 2005 at 10:32 AM
| link to this | reply