Skip to comments.
My Modest Proposal (If homosexual marriage, then why not incest?)
The Toronto Sun ^
| March 13, 2003
| Michael Coren
Posted on 03/13/2004 9:58:11 AM PST by quidnunc
Gay couples all across North America are getting married. What a great symbol of tolerance.
In the name of that same tolerance, however, I believe we should go further and allow brothers and sisters to marry. In other words, incest should be not only allowed but recognized and affirmed by the state.
If you're not tolerant of this, quite clearly you should not be tolerated. Those of you who are shocked at first glance should take some time to consider what I'm saying.
Remember, there were at one time frightened and reactionary people who objected to marriage between homosexuals.
Sometimes progress can leave some wounded souls in its midst. That doesn't mean we can stand still.
When we come down to the core of this, it's about love. And when love is involved, nothing else really matters. Love is divine, love is all, love is everything. The love I have for my dog, for my favourite sports team, for my favourite food. If a brother and sister genuinely love one another, who are we to say they cannot be married?
Imagine the pain of Jane and John, in love since childhood. Then a thoughtless and cruel society tells them that because of some archaic tradition they should not be allowed to be happy. Jane's and John's feelings come first. If the majority is in some way offended, it is the majority that has to look within and adapt.
History is on my side on this one. Ancient cultures routinely encouraged incest and, indeed, used it to preserve aristocratic clans. It was only that hateful and outdated book known as the Bible that forbade such activities, and we all know that nobody takes Judeo-Christian values seriously any longer. Thank God. No, forget that. Thank my magic crystal.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at canoe.ca ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: anarchy; civilrights; homosexualagenda; incest; lawrencevtexas; marriage; prisoners; slipperyslope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
1
posted on
03/13/2004 9:58:12 AM PST
by
quidnunc
To: quidnunc
Sexualization of familial relations would be a disaster for children and the state should in no way permit or promote this.
To: quidnunc
I wish that a freeper pair of same-sex siblings would get in line to get married, where ever licenses are being handed out to gays. It would provide a great bit of media, and put the stupidity of "gay marriage" into context. The judge would either allow the siblings to be married, or forbid it on the grounds of incest. Either way, traditional marriage would win the ensuing debate.
3
posted on
03/13/2004 10:01:35 AM PST
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: quidnunc
For once the State of Arkansas is in the forefront of societal evolution,
4
posted on
03/13/2004 10:02:07 AM PST
by
Jeff Chandler
(Why the long face, John?)
To: Unam Sanctam
I don't think he means it.
5
posted on
03/13/2004 10:03:28 AM PST
by
Jim Noble
(Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
To: quidnunc
I assume you saw that The Netherlands (I believe) recently enacted legislation making beastiality illegal -- after some stranger was found in the middle of the night naked in a horse's pen. This is the natural progression of where the "gay marriage" movement is taking us.
To: quidnunc
San Francisco Marriage Stuffs
( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)
"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love
each other. Besides, we don't have any other
prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and
lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection
under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married
to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry
a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight
doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry
Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to
discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license.
Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June
Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love
Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves
Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of
us getting married together is the only way that we
can express our sexual preferences in a marital
relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and
lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of
marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage
to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand
our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees
equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage
license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality,
so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file
a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a
mockery of marriage!!"
7
posted on
03/13/2004 10:05:24 AM PST
by
WKB
(3!~ Term Limits: Because politicians are like diapers., need to be changed for the same reason.)
To: quidnunc
Does this mean I can now marry my favorite sheep? But wait - there's more - how about a polygamous marriage with sheep - would that qualify?
Naaaaaaaah.
8
posted on
03/13/2004 10:07:29 AM PST
by
M. Peach
(eschew obfuscation)
To: quidnunc
Well if gays can marry, why not anyone? My wife has been driving me crazy for most of the 32 years we have been married so I believe I shall divorce her and marry my daughter. My daughter is a good cook, very attractive and is much nicer to me than my wife. Besides she is adopted so no big deal ..... right?
............ may God forgive us this and all such foolishness ....
9
posted on
03/13/2004 10:07:43 AM PST
by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
To: WKB
Got that by email last night, it must be moving fast! ;-)
10
posted on
03/13/2004 10:09:11 AM PST
by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
To: quidnunc
There would be NO logical reason NOT to allow incest. If you didn't the perversion of incest would be discriminated against. Same would apply to polygamy and pedophilia if the age of consent is lowered.
11
posted on
03/13/2004 10:09:14 AM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: HoustonCurmudgeon
I got it a few days ago but have been waiting for just
the right time to post it. This seemed to be it. :>)
12
posted on
03/13/2004 10:10:52 AM PST
by
WKB
(3!~ Term Limits: Because politicians are like diapers., need to be changed for the same reason.)
To: quidnunc
He left out an obvious argument in favor of incestuous marriage: we don't screen couples for latent genetic abnormalities that could patently affect their children. Why should brother-sister pairings be any different?
I fear the reductio ad absurdum argument simply doesn't work in a society where the absurd is triumphant. Then again, if absurdity is the norm, no argument whatsoever can prevail.
13
posted on
03/13/2004 10:11:28 AM PST
by
Dumb_Ox
To: quidnunc
I asked that question of a gay guy who was doing a survey on gay marriage. His answer: I incest is against the law. I answered that gay marriage is against the law too.
14
posted on
03/13/2004 10:12:15 AM PST
by
BunnySlippers
(Help Bring Colly-fornia Back ...)
To: little jeremiah
15
posted on
03/13/2004 10:12:59 AM PST
by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
To: quidnunc
I was listening to The Savage Nation a couple of weeks ago. A lesbian called in to say homosexual "marriage" should be legal. When Savage started asking her, should you allow a brother and sister to marry? She said no. A father and a son, etc.. she said no to all except which one.. she thought 2 sisters should be allowed to marry!
It's a pity I don't remember it word for word, but wow.. it just shows the mental state they are in.
16
posted on
03/13/2004 10:13:01 AM PST
by
Trillian
To: quidnunc
In the name of that same tolerance, however, I believe we should go further and allow brothers and sisters to marry. In other words, incest should be not only allowed but recognized and affirmed by the state. Wrong. There are no genetic issues to deal with when speaking of homosexuals marrying.
However, allowing brothers and sisters to marry would go a long way towards eliminating the usury Estate Tax.
17
posted on
03/13/2004 10:15:54 AM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(If you can read this...you're too close.)
To: Unam Sanctam
Sexualization of familial relations would be a disaster for children and the state should in no way permit or promote this. That's the point. If marriage is about family, then homosexual marriages don't make sense. If it is NOT about family, then it is about anything and everything we want it to be. Everything is up for grabs -- Gender, quantity, familial relationship, species. Why only 2? Seems arbitrary to me. Me and my wife and my other wife, who is my sister, and our beloved dog, Skipper, have nothing but love -- it is that arbitrary and caprecious State that is not allowing us to have the legal relationship that matches our love.
18
posted on
03/13/2004 10:17:23 AM PST
by
freedumb2003
(Everyone is stupid! That is why they do all those stupid things! -- H. Simpson.)
To: quidnunc
19
posted on
03/13/2004 10:21:10 AM PST
by
jwalburg
(Gimli supports Bush)
To: HoustonCurmudgeon
Haven't seen much discussion of how young a person can be and get married. I remember a girl in Michigan that got married at 14 with her parents permission. ("Had to.") Could two 14 year old boys marry each other with their parents permission? How about a 14 year old boy and a 55 year old man? That's where this is all headed, is it not?
20
posted on
03/13/2004 10:24:31 AM PST
by
Poincare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson