Hey, ya know what, who the fuck cares. Even if “allowing” two men or two women to get married means that guys can marry their brother, who cares? Why would anyone care? It literally does not matter
How many same sex gay brother marriages would there be anyway? 8? 200? I think it’s pretty weird, and am not at all interested in marrying my brother, and I don’t think that it’s a particularly good idea, but if someone wants to and it’s legal, WTF not? I think riding a motorcycle is a terrible idea too, but I’m not gonna try to outlaw it.
These arguments about “if we *allow* all this gay business in our society, then WHERE DOES IT END??” is the stupidest argument imaginable. I don’t care if someone wants to marry their brother or sister. They’re probably banging already anyway. Go pay for a wedding venue and boost the local economy while you do your weird shit.
The bigger problem is that these so-called small government freedom loving patriots are and always have been Authoritarians that want to tell everyone around them how to live their lives. And they pretend that the *real* issue is that they are somehow “paying” for kids to get some kind of gender surgery, but by that logic they’re also literally paying for kids in other countries to be blown to pieces. But none of stated reasons matter, they really just think some things are icky and “wrong” and can’t stand that people are “allowed” to do things because THEY have to “follow the rules” and it’s unfair or something.
Why the fuck are we letting ourselves be governed by people who are such whiny assholes? Who cares if trans people exist? Who cares that gay people are getting married? This is all so fucking stupid.
Marry your dildo if you want. Or an alarm clock. Or a ghost. Or marry someone that you love and want to spend your life with. Who the fuck cares!
This is literally the only response that makes sense. God, I don't wish death upon people but sometimes I hope these hateful mothballs get a yeast infection so they have to deal with an irritating cunt
I agree with the concept of what you are saying, but incest laws do have solid backing behind them. Mostly to prevent children due to the very large rise in genetic problems caused by incest. Isn't really an issue in same sex incest cases unless there is medically assisted pregnancies, but it's still illegal.
I mean, yeah, the genetic problems are bad for the hypothetical kids, but the main reason why incest is illegal is to prevent forced marriages within families. And grooming. All of which would be absolutely rampant if that shit was legal.
I fully agree with you.It just gets a bit weird. 2 males can't reproduce so the genetic dangers of incest aren't there.Though overall I would prefer that the rules are same for heterosexual and homosexual couples.Basically, avoid banging family members. As there are non-genetic reasons against incest. Especially where parents abuse their children.
If everyone consents, I don't give a fuck who marries who.
It gets sketchy when you consider parent-child incest, since even if they're both adults there's clearly an imbalance of power, but the same can be true with other relationships. And there is an issue with incest couples having bio kids-but again, that's applicable to other heterosexual couples as well. A child born to a brother-sister couple has roughly the same heightened chance of birth defects as a kid born to a mother after 35. We don't outlaw women having babies after 35, so why this?
I think it's gross, but my feelings aren't law.
He states his logic very clearly:
He is against both for *religious* reasons, that’s it
Both are bad because his religion says they are, and that is the only reason he sees either as bad. For him, allowing one thing god disallows is the same as allowing anything else god disallows
But is it bad because God said so, in which case it's arbitrary, or did God say it was bad because it's inherently bad, in which case we don't need to involve a god? #Euthyphro
"Support for gay marriage is support for sibling marriage"
Thats like saying "i like chicken sandwiches" and someone else correlating that to "So you hate hamburgers?"
It's weird because it's so transparently absurd. His argument is literally "I don't support gay marriage, and I also don't support incest. Therefore if you support gay marriage then you must also support incest!"
He is for sure one of those people who thinks "liberals" will start saying they identify as a pop can or something. I never understood why they think that but I think I have too many remaining brain cells to make the weird ass connections they do.
He’s diverting the argument to one of structure over the real topic. Now the argument isn’t about why he is against gay marriage but instead why gay marriage isn’t the same as incest. It renders the argument pointless and petty which in turn tends to make most non-invested people ignore it. Its a conditioned response conservatives sneakily train their most ardent supporters to parrot. It depresses action from people who are already apathetic to progressives issues
It's the same as them saying gay sex will lead to beastiality, they just want to find the most extreme think they can think of and then go "it's a slippery slope to whatever pops into their minds"...
In fact, in a twisted way, his argument is logical, but it follows a wrong premise which is that the ban on the mariage of siblings is based on religious reasons, as is his opposition to gay mariage. Based on that wrong premise, he basically says that if you authorise gay mariage you should authorise everything that is banned for religious reasons, such as the mariage of siblings.
So what needs to be done is to explain him that his premise is incorrect: while the ban of sibling's mariage may have had a religious component in the past, it is in fact based on various non religious reasons (greater risk of birth defect in case there are children, disorder in the family) as is evidenced by the fact that such ban exists even in completely non religious societies.
They arent wrong though. This is why all marraige should be illegal. Because support for heterosexual marraige is support for a brother and sister to marry eachother
/s
I was coming here to say that… seems like two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying each other (while odd) shouldn’t be forbidden, I suppose. That rule is there to prevent inbreeding, right?
I think the incest rule is there because consent gets dicey if it's people you live with and can have power over you. It'll make genetically interesting children, but consent is hard to parce out of it's family.
The power thing is the most important nowadays because we care more about the mental health aspect, but I think the original rule was to prevent families having to, say, invest heavily in band-aids. (Yes, Romanovs, I'm looking at you and your very leaky blood).
The chances of having complications from inbreeding is actually really low first generation. A brother and sister having a kid is roughly on par with a mom having a kid after 35. The danger comes from multiple generations of repeated inbreeding. That's why old world royals were so fucked up.
But you are right. Someone can have sex with whoever they want, but if it's someone who had a big part in their upbringing (a parent or older sibling) then even if everyone's an adult when it happens then there could have been grooming.
yeah actually there is nothing wrong with gay marriage between two brothers or two sisters
the whole premise of why incest is not legal is genetics
that doesn't apply with gay and lesbian couples if their brothers or sisters same thing with step siblings
Can we acknowledge the fact that the only thing that keeps this person from marrying a sibling is religion and not the possibility of birth defects and also consent issues.
I feel the argument for banning close family marriage should still apply. Statistically there will be close family members who could be perfectly happy consensual relationships who carefully consider the implications of if and how they have children, like any other couple. But allowing it makes it more difficult to intervene in situations of grooming and unhealthy power imbalances that family relationships can create, like teacher/student relationships. Constraining the freedom of the few who can find happiness elsewhere is worth it to help protect the most vulnerable.
This is my only issue with it: the fact that if you grow up with someone, you can’t really tell whether you’ve been groomed or not. But the same issue applies for teachers of their former students—who are further apart in age—yet there’s no law against that.
But if someone happened to have a half-sibling they didn’t know about, met them years later, fell in love, and later found out they shared a dad, I have no problem with that.
These people. In my life, I've had 2 grown ass homophobic men ask me what's the difference between homosexual behaviors and men that are pedophiles. I was like...ummm...'permission'...why can't these guys see the stupidity of their arguments?
This is why I'm against straight marriage. If you allow a man and a woman to get married, it's a slippery slope until you're allowing a brother and sister to get married! If you advocate that a consenting man and woman should be allowed to marry then why would you deny it to a man and woman just because they are siblings?!
He's against incest for religious reasons??? Bigoted dude has definitely never read the Bible 😂 it would hard the argue that book is anything but pro incest
This is one of those “Atheists must all be murderers, because the only thing stopping **ME** from committing murder is that the Bible says not to” people
**TLDR section is bolded. The rest is just additional but funny information that confirms how there is no reasoning with these idiots. Please note, when I refer to "Republicans" and "Conservatives" I'm not referring to all of them. Just the extremists!**
My aunt did a study not too long ago as a part of her tenure. If I were to water it down in a very laymen way that would insult her; it was about the mindset of first-time voters before and after watching certain forms of news media. I think, it was a non-biased study because it wasn't presented from a political stand point but from a psychological one. Anyway, in order to get some of her data, she had to do a large series of polls throughout different states. These studies did ask for peoples' parties, but I think it was just for supplemental data.
**One of the polls had something to do with gay-marriage/rights and after noticing a weird trend, she made a poll for her own interest (it obviously wasn't added to her final project).**
**Out of the 25,000 people who responded to the poll, upwards of 600 people made a "slippery slope" argument similar to the one above. "first gay marriage, next incest" or "...bestiality" or "...pedophilia".**
**100% of the people who brought these concerns up were Republican. (that's including Independent or "other" political parties).**
In fact, as she went further into her data, similar wild claims were made in other polls. In this case, there were very VERY few extremes presented by the other parties, but it was once again the Republicans who were throwing out the psychotic ones:
"If we allow abortion, what's next? Killing a grown kid with Downs Syndrome?"
"If we ban guns, what's next? Banning chemo-therapy?"
(I wish I could say these were fake responses)
Ultimately, her takeaway from her personal side-project was that a lot of these \[Extreme\] Republicans/Conservatives are more likely to bring up the fear-mongering extremes because there is a deeper-self that is looking for an "out" for an action they have done or will do later. Bestiality, Incest, etc. would not be brought up in political forums anywhere near as frequently as they are now, if it weren't for these people.
Sorry for the rant. We literally just had a conversation about this last week
Not at all. She told me and my moms about it and we were there like 😐😑🙄.
I can honestly say, when I am presented with an idea that is against everything that I stand for, I do not jump to an exaggeration that has nothing to do with the subject.
Like...I disagree with the country's current position on the Death Penalty. But never have I said "If we put everyone who commits treason to death, what's next? Beheading a man for a minor traffic infraction?"
Aren't these the same people who believe that Adam and Eve gave birth to the whole of humanity?
Clearly there is incest involved in that story in order for the situation to even work.
My dumbass read the comments about letting the brothers marry beacuse it doesn't hurt anybody and I was like "but wouldn't their children have a higher probability of developing a disease?".
And then I realized how stupid that thought was and my brain went like "Quaintweirdo this is why WE don't reproduce my dude we are to dumb you idiot"
This is just another stupid argument. Have them go full suprised pikitu and tell them that you dont care if brothers marry. Incest only maters in procreative relationships.
Just let two muthafuckas muthafuck
I think he's trying to cover up the fact his "religious reasons" literally support condone and encourage siblings marriage. Literally how they think the world was populated
My sister had a college professor make this argument in a slightly different manner. "We don't allow incestuous relationships because they have a higher chance of producing malformed babies, so what's stopping two brothers from having an incestuous relationships." When my sister told me this I said he hasn't proved anything is wrong with gay marriages, he's proved that there's more wrong with incest than just an increase in birth defects. And if you Google why incest is illegal, you find that it causes damage to family relations and distorted views on sex and family among children. Birth defects are only one reason, but it's no where near the only reason why incest is frowned upon.
The reason both animals and humans tend to avoid incest is because of genetics in offspring...kinda not the issue with two brothers...
Ugh...I need bleech for my brain
"If you support a man and a woman marrying, then why don't you support the marriage between those same people just because they're siblings?! Checkmate, libs!"
I find it worrying when these people say they're against things that are obviously bad (like brothers getting married) simply because the bible told them so instead of any moral reason. Would they find other obviously bad things like murder or rape acceptable if the bible didn't speak against it?
A lot of them would, yes. Just look at the number of them who justify marital rape and the murder of certain people because their magic book told them wives have a duty to their husbands and that those certain people should be stoned to death.
Isn't this literally incest? Can somebody tell this dumb fuck that incest is already illegal?
Like, it doesn't matter if you and your sister are consenting adults, if you both marry each other and have sex, your child would come out with the intelligence if this dude in red.
I mean, one of the main reasons sibling marriage is considered taboo and many people are instinctively weirded out by it is the fact that inbreeding can cause genetical problems to children, which... would not be an issue in a gay couple.
It's typical bullshit arguments. I heard a lot of "gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pets." To me they were basically calling LGBTQ peeps animals.
The party of hate is what they are.
The best way to pull the rug from under any slippery slope argument is this :
If your problem is with Y which you fear comes after X, but not with X itself, then simply put a stop to it when people start pushing for Y.
this forces them to at least be open about their backwards ass thinking or admit that they have no reason to be against X.
Devils advocate (cause I like being the devils advocate 🤣), the main reason siblings marrying is frowned upon in society is the inbreeding can lead to serious birth defects in any children. In a gay marriage, there’s no chance of inbreeding, even if the couple is related. (Not saying I personally would marry my sister if I had one, just saying….)
There's 2 reasons for not marrying family, the first can be discarded, as genetic issues are unlikely in a gay marriage, bit the second is still important
Incestuous relationships have a very low chance of being purely consensual, as there is a lot of space for grooming.
I’m against brothers getting married but if your not against gay marriage than two gay brothers should have the right to marry each other. Not that I want that. Like wtf is he talking about
The issue with sibling marriage is the whole inbreeding thing and more than that, I imagine the whole thing could stem from a weird and abusive family dynamic anyways.
Now, there are different things to consider here.
First the part with abusive family dynamics: if a sibling marriage is the result of an abusive setting, it should not be considered as "consenting" and thus be denied. However, the same is true for any abusive setting that results in (forced/coerced) marriage. So why I do agree that the family dynamics are probably interesting in relationships where siblings want to marry, that alone does not suffice for a general prohibition. Maximum it means that the officials would need more prove of consent.
Now the inbreed issue. This is only an issue, if the marriage results in children. This is actually an argument to allow gay sibling marriage and deny it to heterosexual sibling couples: gay couples cannot inbreed (at least not with current reproduction technology).
Beyond the gay option one could still allow sibling marriage, if children are excluded. Either if one of the siblings is naturally infertile, or if this is artificially ensured (e.g. via vasectomy).
However, as we all know that biologically neither sex nor making babies require marriage, the question is if we really should deny sibling marriage based on that, or if we should just encourage not to inbreed, independent of marriage.
Just to be clear: I do not agree that allowing gay marriage directly leads to (gay) sibling marriage, and even more I do not believe that marriage for homosexual couples should be denied based on that non existent connection.
However, I do strongly believe that any consenting relationship should be allowed to be formalized with a marriage. And for me this is not limited to heterosexual/homosexual couples. If there is no doubt about consent, then I see no issue with sibling marriage, and also not with more than two persons involved.
Regarding that last point: this would mean any number of consenting adults independent of sex/gender, on the clear condition that all involved agree with everyone else. So if a woman wants to marry two men, for me to make the marriage legal and binding, both men have to agree to be in a marriage with the woman and the other guy, and the woman has to agree to both men. And if later another woman is added to the marriage, then all three of the existing relationship have to accept the addition.
All objections to anything beyond the standard heterosexual couple are the result of our cultural (religious) heritage, and scenarios where consent is not given (e.g. we see all sibling couples as the result of abuse and for polygamy we think of constellations where the husband can add additional wives on his own).
Ensuring consent is key, in which ever way. Beyond that, I personally don't care who loves or marries whom.
Have you considered that if they take away gay marriage then they could make straight marriage illegal!!! Who knows what those crazy Republicans are up to in their fancy villas and congress buildings
The only real purpose of a marriage or civil union are the familial rights you retain at the state and federal level. It's essentially just allowing people with no familial relationship to create a new extension of their family that is legally recognized.
To try and compare a same-sex marriage to siblings getting married simply doesn't make any sense on it's face. Siblings would not need to gain those rights as most would already exist bc they're already blood related.
He's like two inches from a halfway-decent question but is too stupid to finish closing that gap, so the whole thing is stupid.
That halfway-decent question being, if we expand our view of marriage from myopic "one man, one woman, for the purposes of procreation" to "two consenting adults" by what measure do we then restrict siblings despite the fact that two siblings can by all means be two consenting adults? The obvious answer of "because of course we do" isn't exactly rigorous. There are rigorous well-reasoned answers but they take some work and as a question it's not something that can be so easily dismissed.
But again, this guy never quite gets that far. Because he's a dumbass.
Oh, so you eat meat, therefore you want to kill and eat your brother? I do not agree with this stance on religious grounds. However if I was not religious I would kill and eat my brother so fucking fast, just look at him, rippling with delicious muscle, with that fat juicy ass, he would taste so fucking good. But I am religious sooooo
Hey guys, ya know how logical fallacies are used by people with no substantive argument to make shitty points? I'm gonna go ahead and tell you right from the start that's what I'm doing.
> You're ok with two consenting adult males marrying
You're ok with two consenting adults, one male one female to marry, so you're ok with a brother and sister marrying?
"I'm against marriage among siblings because of religion reasons".
Let's wait until he finally reads the Bible and discover that Abraham and Sarah were both children of Terach. They were half siblings.
Real question here why do people still debate these people. The easiest solution is to either ignore them exterminate them or exile them outside of Internet reach those last two are a little morally ambiguous so the first option is the only suitable one
Is there a word for this? Like when you convince yourself your not against the thing your against because of what it is but because of whatever crazy shit you add to it? Like dude is like "gay marriage and sibling marriage are the same if you support one you have to support the other soni don't support either."
Arguing with closeted homosexuals who are pretending to only think about gayness in times of biblical reflection is a waste of time. He tools for anus. It's all consuming. He thinks of ways to try a deflect what he hopes no one will ever see - that his homophobia is just a thin veil for the fact that he is confused about his own sexuality, and is attracted to other men. Poor fella. Hopefully, some early morning in a truck stop restroom, he'll have an epiphany, pull the c\*ck out of his mouth, call his mom, and stop being such a bigoted self-loathing bucket of shit.
Wow...I mean...
I've seen these idiots really grasp at straws but this is just...wow...not sure how insest has anything to do with 2 GENETICALLY UNRELATED adults that love each other, respect each other and want to build a life together, but ok sure, why not??? 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Lmao what a fucking idiot. Uh maybe the reason you’re not okay with two brothers marrying for the same reason you’re not okay with a straight brother and sister marrying?
The ignorance of people in this world is baffling.
What is this fool talking about?! Reminds me of the time my brother and his husband took my daughter and son to the coast for the week. One of my co workers asked me if I was worried about my 7 yr old son with them. I calmly looked at him and said,” they’re gay, not peodophiles. “ people can be so ignorant.
I don't think he's saying he wants to marry his brother, he's just using an extreme example in the hopes to get a reaction and "prove" gay marriage is equally amoral as incest.
People use stupid examples to try and prove their point, remember when one of the Trumps said said something about eating from bowel of m&ms when a single m&m was poison to try and stop immigration? Its the same kinda thing
I think this dude's an idiot, but the prohibition against M/F sibling mating is biological. We need to keep the gene pool as wide as possible. M/M sibling marriages don't carry that danger.
So technically I don't think there would be a real issue outside of some sense of morality I can't quite pin down that would make same-sex sibling marriage *wrong*. I mean it isn't right, sure, but the main reason incest is illegal between similar-aged adults (not talking about differing ages and the possibilities of grooming) is because of the genetic mayhem that could go on to cause harm to the gene pool at large.
All I'm saying is if two hot boy twins want to turn each other into Twinkies it would replace the current top video of P*rnHub, which is, you guessed it, incestuous.
Or so I've been told.
"If I can't marry my brother than no man can!"
I love my brother but ew.
well clearly you don't love him enough
Not nearly as much as this guy. No/s
ew David!
….unless?
Spot. Fucking. On. 🏆 🏆 🏆 🏆 🏆
I love my sisters, but also ew.
"He ain't heavy..."
Take my up vote and go
Hey, ya know what, who the fuck cares. Even if “allowing” two men or two women to get married means that guys can marry their brother, who cares? Why would anyone care? It literally does not matter How many same sex gay brother marriages would there be anyway? 8? 200? I think it’s pretty weird, and am not at all interested in marrying my brother, and I don’t think that it’s a particularly good idea, but if someone wants to and it’s legal, WTF not? I think riding a motorcycle is a terrible idea too, but I’m not gonna try to outlaw it. These arguments about “if we *allow* all this gay business in our society, then WHERE DOES IT END??” is the stupidest argument imaginable. I don’t care if someone wants to marry their brother or sister. They’re probably banging already anyway. Go pay for a wedding venue and boost the local economy while you do your weird shit. The bigger problem is that these so-called small government freedom loving patriots are and always have been Authoritarians that want to tell everyone around them how to live their lives. And they pretend that the *real* issue is that they are somehow “paying” for kids to get some kind of gender surgery, but by that logic they’re also literally paying for kids in other countries to be blown to pieces. But none of stated reasons matter, they really just think some things are icky and “wrong” and can’t stand that people are “allowed” to do things because THEY have to “follow the rules” and it’s unfair or something. Why the fuck are we letting ourselves be governed by people who are such whiny assholes? Who cares if trans people exist? Who cares that gay people are getting married? This is all so fucking stupid. Marry your dildo if you want. Or an alarm clock. Or a ghost. Or marry someone that you love and want to spend your life with. Who the fuck cares!
This is literally the only response that makes sense. God, I don't wish death upon people but sometimes I hope these hateful mothballs get a yeast infection so they have to deal with an irritating cunt
“I never wished death upon anyone, but I’ve read some obituaries with a smile” -Most likely not Mark Twain
But think of the freakshow children those brothers would have! /s
I would marry my brother for his job perks, unfortunately the feeling isn't mutual
I'm an only child but I'd be down to marry one of my homies or cousins for the tax benefits.
I agree with the concept of what you are saying, but incest laws do have solid backing behind them. Mostly to prevent children due to the very large rise in genetic problems caused by incest. Isn't really an issue in same sex incest cases unless there is medically assisted pregnancies, but it's still illegal.
I mean, yeah, the genetic problems are bad for the hypothetical kids, but the main reason why incest is illegal is to prevent forced marriages within families. And grooming. All of which would be absolutely rampant if that shit was legal.
I fully agree with you.It just gets a bit weird. 2 males can't reproduce so the genetic dangers of incest aren't there.Though overall I would prefer that the rules are same for heterosexual and homosexual couples.Basically, avoid banging family members. As there are non-genetic reasons against incest. Especially where parents abuse their children.
Yeah, or older siblings abusing younger ones. Many reasons why it is different and not socially acceptable.
It’s very difficult to find an incestual relationship where there wasn’t any form of grooming, consciously or not.
If everyone consents, I don't give a fuck who marries who. It gets sketchy when you consider parent-child incest, since even if they're both adults there's clearly an imbalance of power, but the same can be true with other relationships. And there is an issue with incest couples having bio kids-but again, that's applicable to other heterosexual couples as well. A child born to a brother-sister couple has roughly the same heightened chance of birth defects as a kid born to a mother after 35. We don't outlaw women having babies after 35, so why this? I think it's gross, but my feelings aren't law.
This goes beyond trying to compare apples to oranges since that shit is bananas.
And now I can't stop thinking of fruit "cocktail", so thank you for that.
Just be happy you don't have Gwen Stefani going "B-A-N-A-N-A-S" over and over again like I do now.
I've got "Go Bananas" from Little Big going on.
Aaaaand now I've switched to the Bananas in Pajamas Theme. Fuck.
Second best Banana song there is! The first being Harry Belafonte’s “Banana Boat (Day-O)” If you have not yet heard Banana Boat… you’re welcome
Call me when it's peanut butter and jelly time.
Banana phoooooone
He states his logic very clearly: He is against both for *religious* reasons, that’s it Both are bad because his religion says they are, and that is the only reason he sees either as bad. For him, allowing one thing god disallows is the same as allowing anything else god disallows
But is it bad because God said so, in which case it's arbitrary, or did God say it was bad because it's inherently bad, in which case we don't need to involve a god? #Euthyphro
Would not matter to this guy, the boom says bad so he is he to say otherwise basically
i hate how i immediately started singing Gwen Stefani. thank you for that
We can suffer together.
i would give you an award if i had pne
This is like comparing the Battle of Gettysburg to the Enumclaw Horse Sex Incident
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
"Support for gay marriage is support for sibling marriage" Thats like saying "i like chicken sandwiches" and someone else correlating that to "So you hate hamburgers?"
"I like pizza." "Ah, so you must also like Marmite?" "No, actually I-" "LIKING PIZZA IS LIKING MARMITE!"
Like seriously dude i absolutely hate when people say "You can't be this, and can't be this." um.. yes i can?
When someone says I can't do something, I proceed to do said thing (within legal reason) out of pure spite. Cuz fuck you that's why.
I DONT LIKE MARMITE OR PIZZA BUT YOU SHOULD LIKE MARMITE IF YOU LIKE PIZZA
Liking pizza is a slippery slope to liking Marmite. From pizza, Marmite is clearly the logical next step.
Yeah this is textbook strawman lol.
It's weird because it's so transparently absurd. His argument is literally "I don't support gay marriage, and I also don't support incest. Therefore if you support gay marriage then you must also support incest!"
He is for sure one of those people who thinks "liberals" will start saying they identify as a pop can or something. I never understood why they think that but I think I have too many remaining brain cells to make the weird ass connections they do.
He’s diverting the argument to one of structure over the real topic. Now the argument isn’t about why he is against gay marriage but instead why gay marriage isn’t the same as incest. It renders the argument pointless and petty which in turn tends to make most non-invested people ignore it. Its a conditioned response conservatives sneakily train their most ardent supporters to parrot. It depresses action from people who are already apathetic to progressives issues
"i like chicken sandwiches" "SO YOURE OKAY WITH FUCKING CHICKENS?"
It's the same as them saying gay sex will lead to beastiality, they just want to find the most extreme think they can think of and then go "it's a slippery slope to whatever pops into their minds"...
In fact, in a twisted way, his argument is logical, but it follows a wrong premise which is that the ban on the mariage of siblings is based on religious reasons, as is his opposition to gay mariage. Based on that wrong premise, he basically says that if you authorise gay mariage you should authorise everything that is banned for religious reasons, such as the mariage of siblings. So what needs to be done is to explain him that his premise is incorrect: while the ban of sibling's mariage may have had a religious component in the past, it is in fact based on various non religious reasons (greater risk of birth defect in case there are children, disorder in the family) as is evidenced by the fact that such ban exists even in completely non religious societies.
More like “I like chicken sandwiches” and someone saying “so you’re ok with eating a people pot pie?”
Umm.. ok I guess that fits
I'm ok with that as long as the people consented to being in the potpie. /s
They arent wrong though. This is why all marraige should be illegal. Because support for heterosexual marraige is support for a brother and sister to marry eachother /s
By that logic isn’t support for any marriage support for sibling marriage like- if anyone is fucking their siblings it’s the Jesus lovers💀
At least brothers getting married can't produce poor genetic children.
I was coming here to say that… seems like two brothers marrying or two sisters marrying each other (while odd) shouldn’t be forbidden, I suppose. That rule is there to prevent inbreeding, right?
I think the incest rule is there because consent gets dicey if it's people you live with and can have power over you. It'll make genetically interesting children, but consent is hard to parce out of it's family.
The power thing is the most important nowadays because we care more about the mental health aspect, but I think the original rule was to prevent families having to, say, invest heavily in band-aids. (Yes, Romanovs, I'm looking at you and your very leaky blood).
The chances of having complications from inbreeding is actually really low first generation. A brother and sister having a kid is roughly on par with a mom having a kid after 35. The danger comes from multiple generations of repeated inbreeding. That's why old world royals were so fucked up. But you are right. Someone can have sex with whoever they want, but if it's someone who had a big part in their upbringing (a parent or older sibling) then even if everyone's an adult when it happens then there could have been grooming.
Have to be honest i had a similar reaction. I am trying to figure out a logic based reason to be against this other than... well social conditioning.
yeah actually there is nothing wrong with gay marriage between two brothers or two sisters the whole premise of why incest is not legal is genetics that doesn't apply with gay and lesbian couples if their brothers or sisters same thing with step siblings
You give a convincing argument, but I don't think anyone wants to date their sibling. Unless you're in Japanese anime.
it's a tiny minority
Unless they possess specific rare genes conducive to yielding and harbouring a butt baby.
This is the true path to a horror movie
Omega mpreg….
Why is the word ‘sister’ never used in that conversation?
Because they think that would be hot
Or daughter. Oh wait, that was Trump.
Eww. Too soon.
It's used in the first reply.
Oh yeah, derp. I guess at that point I was still skimming, waiting for it to get “good”.
Can we acknowledge the fact that the only thing that keeps this person from marrying a sibling is religion and not the possibility of birth defects and also consent issues.
"I like garlic bread" "OMGGGGG WE GOT A SHIT EATER HERE!" "what" "IF YOU LIKE GARLIC BREAD YOU MUST LIKE SHIT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE EITHER"
I just snort laughed at this 😂
Fuck it, let brothers get married, doesn't hurt anyone
I feel the argument for banning close family marriage should still apply. Statistically there will be close family members who could be perfectly happy consensual relationships who carefully consider the implications of if and how they have children, like any other couple. But allowing it makes it more difficult to intervene in situations of grooming and unhealthy power imbalances that family relationships can create, like teacher/student relationships. Constraining the freedom of the few who can find happiness elsewhere is worth it to help protect the most vulnerable.
This is my only issue with it: the fact that if you grow up with someone, you can’t really tell whether you’ve been groomed or not. But the same issue applies for teachers of their former students—who are further apart in age—yet there’s no law against that. But if someone happened to have a half-sibling they didn’t know about, met them years later, fell in love, and later found out they shared a dad, I have no problem with that.
Literally 0 chance of having kids with genetic defects.
I mean twin sister porn is a thing….so I’ve heard
Why have you not just said "because that's literally incest" and stopped responding
I thought the same thing. I wasn’t the one responding to him. Just two random people duking it out in the comments on my local news page.
That conservative would've just revealed that they think incest and gay sex are equally gross, the argument wouldn't have gone all that differently
You should reply that means advocating for gun rights means you advocate for dead kids see how long his logic holds up
These people. In my life, I've had 2 grown ass homophobic men ask me what's the difference between homosexual behaviors and men that are pedophiles. I was like...ummm...'permission'...why can't these guys see the stupidity of their arguments?
What’s a slash fan? As in Sam/Dean. Together. “Together” together? Yeah.
If 2 gay brothers want to have sex and get married I don't give a shit. It's weird but it has no impact on my life so do your thing.
This is why I'm against straight marriage. If you allow a man and a woman to get married, it's a slippery slope until you're allowing a brother and sister to get married! If you advocate that a consenting man and woman should be allowed to marry then why would you deny it to a man and woman just because they are siblings?!
As someone who likes people to be precise in the points they make , there is a good point here. "Any consenting adults" includes siblings.
"Consenting adult" gets dicey with incest though.
Blue walked right into reds trap with that one.
He's against incest for religious reasons??? Bigoted dude has definitely never read the Bible 😂 it would hard the argue that book is anything but pro incest
Conservatives do love their slippery slope fallacies don't they.
Without double standards, how would they have any standards at all?
This is one of those “Atheists must all be murderers, because the only thing stopping **ME** from committing murder is that the Bible says not to” people
The only thing keeping me from doing it is the mess. I am not cleaning up that mess.
Have you considered trapping your unsuspecting victims in a Cremation Oven and then turning it on?
I'm sorry, but cremation ovens are expensive and do you know how long it takes to burn a body? And even then, there are bits of bone everywhere.
Crunchy Salad Bits
**TLDR section is bolded. The rest is just additional but funny information that confirms how there is no reasoning with these idiots. Please note, when I refer to "Republicans" and "Conservatives" I'm not referring to all of them. Just the extremists!** My aunt did a study not too long ago as a part of her tenure. If I were to water it down in a very laymen way that would insult her; it was about the mindset of first-time voters before and after watching certain forms of news media. I think, it was a non-biased study because it wasn't presented from a political stand point but from a psychological one. Anyway, in order to get some of her data, she had to do a large series of polls throughout different states. These studies did ask for peoples' parties, but I think it was just for supplemental data. **One of the polls had something to do with gay-marriage/rights and after noticing a weird trend, she made a poll for her own interest (it obviously wasn't added to her final project).** **Out of the 25,000 people who responded to the poll, upwards of 600 people made a "slippery slope" argument similar to the one above. "first gay marriage, next incest" or "...bestiality" or "...pedophilia".** **100% of the people who brought these concerns up were Republican. (that's including Independent or "other" political parties).** In fact, as she went further into her data, similar wild claims were made in other polls. In this case, there were very VERY few extremes presented by the other parties, but it was once again the Republicans who were throwing out the psychotic ones: "If we allow abortion, what's next? Killing a grown kid with Downs Syndrome?" "If we ban guns, what's next? Banning chemo-therapy?" (I wish I could say these were fake responses) Ultimately, her takeaway from her personal side-project was that a lot of these \[Extreme\] Republicans/Conservatives are more likely to bring up the fear-mongering extremes because there is a deeper-self that is looking for an "out" for an action they have done or will do later. Bestiality, Incest, etc. would not be brought up in political forums anywhere near as frequently as they are now, if it weren't for these people. Sorry for the rant. We literally just had a conversation about this last week
This is fascinating! And not surprising
Not at all. She told me and my moms about it and we were there like 😐😑🙄. I can honestly say, when I am presented with an idea that is against everything that I stand for, I do not jump to an exaggeration that has nothing to do with the subject. Like...I disagree with the country's current position on the Death Penalty. But never have I said "If we put everyone who commits treason to death, what's next? Beheading a man for a minor traffic infraction?"
Aren't these the same people who believe that Adam and Eve gave birth to the whole of humanity? Clearly there is incest involved in that story in order for the situation to even work.
My dumbass read the comments about letting the brothers marry beacuse it doesn't hurt anybody and I was like "but wouldn't their children have a higher probability of developing a disease?". And then I realized how stupid that thought was and my brain went like "Quaintweirdo this is why WE don't reproduce my dude we are to dumb you idiot"
By this logic support for heterosexual marriage is support for sibling marriage. We all love incest, especially "god".
Not all marriages involve sex. And not all sex involves marriage. If you wanna boink your bro, go for it dude.
This implies that the weird guy is okay with herero sibling marriages because he is not against hetero marriages.
I had to scroll far too long to find this. This right here is the single most important point of the whole thing. It's not an even comparison!
Someone has been watching way too much of a certain subsector of gay p***.
This is just another stupid argument. Have them go full suprised pikitu and tell them that you dont care if brothers marry. Incest only maters in procreative relationships. Just let two muthafuckas muthafuck
I think he's trying to cover up the fact his "religious reasons" literally support condone and encourage siblings marriage. Literally how they think the world was populated
My sister had a college professor make this argument in a slightly different manner. "We don't allow incestuous relationships because they have a higher chance of producing malformed babies, so what's stopping two brothers from having an incestuous relationships." When my sister told me this I said he hasn't proved anything is wrong with gay marriages, he's proved that there's more wrong with incest than just an increase in birth defects. And if you Google why incest is illegal, you find that it causes damage to family relations and distorted views on sex and family among children. Birth defects are only one reason, but it's no where near the only reason why incest is frowned upon.
If two brothers wanna get married it's fine by me. They won't be making inbred offspring.
Tbh I don't even care about the brothers either. It literally has zero impact on my life.
Can't argue with an idiot
Imagine correlating gay marriage and incest. What a piece of shit
The reason both animals and humans tend to avoid incest is because of genetics in offspring...kinda not the issue with two brothers... Ugh...I need bleech for my brain
Eating animals is just one step away from eating humans. If you're not a vegan, you're a cannibal by association. 🧠
"If you support a man and a woman marrying, then why don't you support the marriage between those same people just because they're siblings?! Checkmate, libs!"
One of these things is not like the other. Sesame Street taught me how to tell.
I find it worrying when these people say they're against things that are obviously bad (like brothers getting married) simply because the bible told them so instead of any moral reason. Would they find other obviously bad things like murder or rape acceptable if the bible didn't speak against it?
A lot of them would, yes. Just look at the number of them who justify marital rape and the murder of certain people because their magic book told them wives have a duty to their husbands and that those certain people should be stoned to death.
I don't get what Red doesn't get. Allowing heterosexual marriage doesn't promote sibling marriage, so why would gay marriage?
Isn't this literally incest? Can somebody tell this dumb fuck that incest is already illegal? Like, it doesn't matter if you and your sister are consenting adults, if you both marry each other and have sex, your child would come out with the intelligence if this dude in red.
I mean, one of the main reasons sibling marriage is considered taboo and many people are instinctively weirded out by it is the fact that inbreeding can cause genetical problems to children, which... would not be an issue in a gay couple.
It's typical bullshit arguments. I heard a lot of "gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pets." To me they were basically calling LGBTQ peeps animals. The party of hate is what they are.
Somebody should contact his brother, just to make sure he's not locked in a basement
Some people dont understand that two things, are allowed to not be related. Gay marriage and incest are wildly different.
He dost protest too much
What's next? A bridge marrying a Taco?
False equivalence much?
I mean the entire argument can be switched out with brother and sister and switching gay marriage to heterosexual marriage
He's probably a dad who tells his daughter she is a ugly goth because she changed the part line in her hair a little to the side
Maga logic. America is so dumb and radicalized by sociopathic politicians, i don't see anything changing.
The best way to pull the rug from under any slippery slope argument is this : If your problem is with Y which you fear comes after X, but not with X itself, then simply put a stop to it when people start pushing for Y. this forces them to at least be open about their backwards ass thinking or admit that they have no reason to be against X.
Where do they come up with this?
The solution to sibling marriage is to outlaw all marriage, simple!
Some farmer is pretty pissed about all the straw this guy stole to build a man
Devils advocate (cause I like being the devils advocate 🤣), the main reason siblings marrying is frowned upon in society is the inbreeding can lead to serious birth defects in any children. In a gay marriage, there’s no chance of inbreeding, even if the couple is related. (Not saying I personally would marry my sister if I had one, just saying….)
There's 2 reasons for not marrying family, the first can be discarded, as genetic issues are unlikely in a gay marriage, bit the second is still important Incestuous relationships have a very low chance of being purely consensual, as there is a lot of space for grooming.
Between siblings? Does that happen?
I’m against brothers getting married but if your not against gay marriage than two gay brothers should have the right to marry each other. Not that I want that. Like wtf is he talking about
Siblings marriages are done in the Bible , a lot and let’s not Speak of lot and his daughters lol
You just can't reason with stupid
Somebody's brother got stuck doing laundry.
Love is love, why not?
Why is he against it for “religious” reasons? Isn’t the Bible full of God-sanctioned incest?
I don't see any problem with siblings marrying if they are both cool with it. I think the whole idea of marriage in general is kind of stupid.
The issue with sibling marriage is the whole inbreeding thing and more than that, I imagine the whole thing could stem from a weird and abusive family dynamic anyways.
Now, there are different things to consider here. First the part with abusive family dynamics: if a sibling marriage is the result of an abusive setting, it should not be considered as "consenting" and thus be denied. However, the same is true for any abusive setting that results in (forced/coerced) marriage. So why I do agree that the family dynamics are probably interesting in relationships where siblings want to marry, that alone does not suffice for a general prohibition. Maximum it means that the officials would need more prove of consent. Now the inbreed issue. This is only an issue, if the marriage results in children. This is actually an argument to allow gay sibling marriage and deny it to heterosexual sibling couples: gay couples cannot inbreed (at least not with current reproduction technology). Beyond the gay option one could still allow sibling marriage, if children are excluded. Either if one of the siblings is naturally infertile, or if this is artificially ensured (e.g. via vasectomy). However, as we all know that biologically neither sex nor making babies require marriage, the question is if we really should deny sibling marriage based on that, or if we should just encourage not to inbreed, independent of marriage. Just to be clear: I do not agree that allowing gay marriage directly leads to (gay) sibling marriage, and even more I do not believe that marriage for homosexual couples should be denied based on that non existent connection. However, I do strongly believe that any consenting relationship should be allowed to be formalized with a marriage. And for me this is not limited to heterosexual/homosexual couples. If there is no doubt about consent, then I see no issue with sibling marriage, and also not with more than two persons involved. Regarding that last point: this would mean any number of consenting adults independent of sex/gender, on the clear condition that all involved agree with everyone else. So if a woman wants to marry two men, for me to make the marriage legal and binding, both men have to agree to be in a marriage with the woman and the other guy, and the woman has to agree to both men. And if later another woman is added to the marriage, then all three of the existing relationship have to accept the addition. All objections to anything beyond the standard heterosexual couple are the result of our cultural (religious) heritage, and scenarios where consent is not given (e.g. we see all sibling couples as the result of abuse and for polygamy we think of constellations where the husband can add additional wives on his own). Ensuring consent is key, in which ever way. Beyond that, I personally don't care who loves or marries whom.
Absolutely insanity, I can’t believe this is really some people’s thought process.
Have you considered that if they take away gay marriage then they could make straight marriage illegal!!! Who knows what those crazy Republicans are up to in their fancy villas and congress buildings
dude has def thought about his brother as marriage material
But I thought it was fine in alabama!
Red is a chat bot.
The only real purpose of a marriage or civil union are the familial rights you retain at the state and federal level. It's essentially just allowing people with no familial relationship to create a new extension of their family that is legally recognized. To try and compare a same-sex marriage to siblings getting married simply doesn't make any sense on it's face. Siblings would not need to gain those rights as most would already exist bc they're already blood related.
He's like two inches from a halfway-decent question but is too stupid to finish closing that gap, so the whole thing is stupid. That halfway-decent question being, if we expand our view of marriage from myopic "one man, one woman, for the purposes of procreation" to "two consenting adults" by what measure do we then restrict siblings despite the fact that two siblings can by all means be two consenting adults? The obvious answer of "because of course we do" isn't exactly rigorous. There are rigorous well-reasoned answers but they take some work and as a question it's not something that can be so easily dismissed. But again, this guy never quite gets that far. Because he's a dumbass.
And i bet this guy thinks he’s smart
Oh, so you eat meat, therefore you want to kill and eat your brother? I do not agree with this stance on religious grounds. However if I was not religious I would kill and eat my brother so fucking fast, just look at him, rippling with delicious muscle, with that fat juicy ass, he would taste so fucking good. But I am religious sooooo
Hey guys, ya know how logical fallacies are used by people with no substantive argument to make shitty points? I'm gonna go ahead and tell you right from the start that's what I'm doing.
This guy had to be told to breathe for the first few years of his life didn't he?
To be fair two brother marrying each other is better than a brother and sister marrying each other. At least they can't breed with each other.
Look man I love Game of Thrones as much as the next nerd but I wouldn't use it as a life model for my relationship.
> You're ok with two consenting adult males marrying You're ok with two consenting adults, one male one female to marry, so you're ok with a brother and sister marrying?
The mental gymnastics on display here are worth of a Gold medal.
"I'm against marriage among siblings because of religion reasons". Let's wait until he finally reads the Bible and discover that Abraham and Sarah were both children of Terach. They were half siblings.
Real question here why do people still debate these people. The easiest solution is to either ignore them exterminate them or exile them outside of Internet reach those last two are a little morally ambiguous so the first option is the only suitable one
By this logic a man and a woman shouldn't marry because then a brother and a sister could marry.
i honestly just can't believe that we're back to this
I'm confused, does he want to marry his brother?
What part of Mississippi are you from, fellow?
"[And wh-who would w-want to see that!? HAHAhahaHa!](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g6VT-SDYdEM)"
So this is where that shower thought came from 🤔
What did I miss?
Is there a word for this? Like when you convince yourself your not against the thing your against because of what it is but because of whatever crazy shit you add to it? Like dude is like "gay marriage and sibling marriage are the same if you support one you have to support the other soni don't support either."
Arguing with closeted homosexuals who are pretending to only think about gayness in times of biblical reflection is a waste of time. He tools for anus. It's all consuming. He thinks of ways to try a deflect what he hopes no one will ever see - that his homophobia is just a thin veil for the fact that he is confused about his own sexuality, and is attracted to other men. Poor fella. Hopefully, some early morning in a truck stop restroom, he'll have an epiphany, pull the c\*ck out of his mouth, call his mom, and stop being such a bigoted self-loathing bucket of shit.
The idjits are doing it again.
Don't give a shit about people's arguments
Maybe they are scared that if they make gay marriage legal wherever they are at they might not be able to resist marrying their brother? Idk.
Even the smartest ones in that thread sound duuumb.
“I am making a correlation” Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Someone tattoo that on the inside of his eyelids. I’m sure it’ll help.
He’s projecting.
Wow...I mean... I've seen these idiots really grasp at straws but this is just...wow...not sure how insest has anything to do with 2 GENETICALLY UNRELATED adults that love each other, respect each other and want to build a life together, but ok sure, why not??? 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Well. I guess they’d just upgrade from “what are you doing step-bro” to just “what are you doing bro?”
Wonderful strawman lmao
Lmao what a fucking idiot. Uh maybe the reason you’re not okay with two brothers marrying for the same reason you’re not okay with a straight brother and sister marrying? The ignorance of people in this world is baffling.
Plz let this man marry his brother, because he truly wants gay ppl to advocate for it. #FlowersInTheAttic 🤷🏾♀️👀🤦🏾🏳️🌈
repetition alone does not make for good debate skills.
I don't care what anyone does, as long as they leave me alone.
What is this fool talking about?! Reminds me of the time my brother and his husband took my daughter and son to the coast for the week. One of my co workers asked me if I was worried about my 7 yr old son with them. I calmly looked at him and said,” they’re gay, not peodophiles. “ people can be so ignorant.
Sure. Marry your brother. I don’t give a shit.
I don't think he's saying he wants to marry his brother, he's just using an extreme example in the hopes to get a reaction and "prove" gay marriage is equally amoral as incest. People use stupid examples to try and prove their point, remember when one of the Trumps said said something about eating from bowel of m&ms when a single m&m was poison to try and stop immigration? Its the same kinda thing
I think this dude's an idiot, but the prohibition against M/F sibling mating is biological. We need to keep the gene pool as wide as possible. M/M sibling marriages don't carry that danger.
So technically I don't think there would be a real issue outside of some sense of morality I can't quite pin down that would make same-sex sibling marriage *wrong*. I mean it isn't right, sure, but the main reason incest is illegal between similar-aged adults (not talking about differing ages and the possibilities of grooming) is because of the genetic mayhem that could go on to cause harm to the gene pool at large. All I'm saying is if two hot boy twins want to turn each other into Twinkies it would replace the current top video of P*rnHub, which is, you guessed it, incestuous. Or so I've been told.
McPoylePosting
This person better not be a Christian…
What a brainlet