Why Are Liberals So Supportive of Incest?

No… that is not a map of Democratic States vs Republican states, that is a map of states that allow first cousins to marry (blue), versus the prohibition (red). No… I didn’t mix those colors backwards.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibi … ted_States

So my question to the Hillary Supporters on the forum… what exactly is your family reunion like? Is everyone using it as a dating opportunity?

I don’t even get why this is as it is. This can only happen, if someone on the left at some point in the past wrote a philosophy book, on why sexing your first cousin fell in line with liberalism… which presidential candidate ran with this one as a campaign promise.

How do you even propose this bill in state senates without everyone staring at you like your insane. Usually there is a period in legislation, when people can speak up… did no ssnator walk up, and say “You know, I just notice this bill is about legalizing marrying your first cousins. Thats like, some creepy close kin fucking, and your children are going to be born with two heads and a hunchback if we allow this. Why in the hell is this even being brought forth? Is there a pressing need to marry ones nearest relatives that I’m not aware of?”

Indeed… that’s my position. Why?

Somebody convinced the left that fucking your first cousin is a swell idea. That map doesn’t just pattern that way unless it’s along party lines, in the state legislator. What is the absurd rational for this?

I am honestly at a lost of words on this one. This completely caught me off guard.

My advice is get back on your meds. You really need them.

Kropotkin

Well, the map obviously represents a long-standing state of affairs, so I don’t know about that. But recently liberals are supportive of incest because the arguments that they used to push for homosexual acceptance force them to be.

It will be fun in the next few years as the whole ‘dumb incestuous redneck’ thing has to be walked back as incest becomes the hip new lifestyle of the coastal elites.

Peter, I challenge you to point out where I am wrong here. What I said is 100% factual, as far as my limited evidence, which I presented here, shows… it’s all I really know of this bizarre phenomena, only found it today.

If you think I’m playing some sort of trick, ask Carleas to look over the documents I have shown, and if there is something intrinsically wrong with my believing they are legit. These are cold hard facts, seen in the dry light of day. Its very sobering.

And I don’t think it’s something ancient… look at Virginia and West Virginia… West Virginia became independent in 1863 if I recall correctly… so since 1863, Virginia decided that Incest is awesome, or West Virginia decided it sucked.

These states mostly hit modern party lines. The big exception being Illinois, but it is slowly moving towards blue on the map above.

This is gonna be a very high coincidence if these states coincidentally turned left AFTER having Incest laws on the books taken off back in the old days. It would suggest modern US Democracy has a hidden pattern nobody noticed before… we vote left in states that have Incest, vote right in states that ban it. If the Republican minority in California managed to ban Incest, would California thereby start turning republican?

I dunno… just doesn’t sound right.

However, the opposite sounds off too… that the left has a Incest Agenda.

As far as I can see, it has to be one or the other.I can’t think of a third alternative, open to suggestions.

I remember someone made a is Morality (or Ethics) About Incest or Something Else thread… I can’t recall who, as I never actually clicked on it, as I’m opposed to Incest. I gotta find it, maybe the mindset of the author would explain why so many Hillary Clinton Supporters have the hots for close relatives.

Who here supports Hillary 2016?

You may as well ask why conservatives are so supportive of Trump.

This in my view speaks volumes.

He challenges you to show where he is wrong. Yet he can’t be wrong because what he said is 100% factual. But then he admits that his evidence is limited. And that this limited evidence is all he really knows.

So, one can only conclude that he misses this point or that the whole point itself is tongue in cheek.

As for incest itself, the objectivist minds [of conservatives] will insist that there is but one and only one rational manner in which to construe it: their way.

As though there could not possibly be a reasonable argument in favor of incest: answers.yahoo.com/question/inde … 058AAQmOJQ

Of course, many who oppose incest do so for reasons other than those that might be probed philosophically; instead they do so for religious reasons: God is against it.

And so they are too.

OK, he is 100% correct and yet 100% wrong.
I live in California and I used to live in ILL. and FLA.
born Minnesota and spent much time in the Midwest, Iowa and
Wisconsin. At no point in any of my travels was incest ever, EVER
talked about. You are talking about laws and laws are 100% correct
and I am talking about reality where the fact is you are much more likely
to see marriage in cousins in the southern bible belt than in the “Liberal”
area’s. This disconnect between the law and the reality of the situation
must give one pause. You posited that the law matches the reality and
the law doesn’t match reality. For example, in Utah, (I have personally seen this)
a bartender cannot directly serve a customer sitting at a bar. The bartender gives
the drink to the waitress and she gives the customer the drink even though the
bartender is two feet away and she is not. The customer cannot order a second
drink if the first drink has any, any, liquid in it at all. The glass must be completely empty
before they will take a second order for drinks. The customer cannot carry any
alcohol across the floor of the bar. It must be carried by the waitress even if moving
from table to table. You cannot be on the floor of a bar carrying any alcohol.
Now these laws are insane but they are laws. Just because something is law doesn’t make
right or normal or reality. Laws are quite often divorced from reality. So to say, this
is a law and thus a reality is a false way to look at it. Don’t mistake a law for reality.

Kropotkin

I don’t think the left has an incest agenda. Remember they didn’t have a gay agenda until very recently- Hillary and Obama both being anti-gay marriage as recently as Obama’s first term. A lot of this stuff is (initially) unintended consequences of the things they advocate. Another example would be the left’s fascination with casual hookups and guilt-free divorce. It’s not that they started off aggressively in favor of single-parenthood, but it was inevitable that they’d have to be sooner or later to stay consistent, since they caused an epidemic of it.

So I think you’d want to look at indirect causes- incest being a consequence of leftist practice, not so much something they directly endorse.

Do you think it should be legal for first cousins to marry?

K: From a genetic standpoint, probably not. I do know first cousins who have married
(they are from Portugal in case you were wondering) and their children seem fine with
no issues, but we know from genetics that you can’t have first cousin marriage
because the long term genetic damage is ugly. The Hapsburg dynasty that married
and intermarried for generations was pretty damaged genetically by the end.
So from a genetic standpoint, no. From a moral issue, I don’t see why not, but
the overriding concern is and should be the medical genetic problem of first cousin
marriage. So it depends on how you look at it, morally or genetically? Therein lies your
answer. My answer is genetics and thus you have my answer.

Kropotkin

What if they’re gay?

Well, if they’re gay then there is absolutely no possibility of defective births. So, that’s all the more reason for particular gays inclined in this direction to embrace it. Unless, of course, you know for a fact that homosexuality is inherently immoral and irrational.

Or a sin against God?

Turd, you’re better than this.

K: I seriously, seriously doubt he is better than this.

Kropotkin

K: Iambiguous said it better than I could.

Kropotkin

OK, PK.

Do you think your lack of moral objection to (cousin level) incest is a product of your liberal values, or does it run counter to them?

EDIT: Follow-up question. Do you think that other sorts of couples who have a high chance of producing disabled offspring should be prohibited from breeding, or do you single out cousins for some reason or another?

All that matters, is what do Jews think about wearing two fabrics and incest… Nobody matters but a Jew !!! Who are we to question the unapologetic chosen ones who can murder and slander and still go to heaven?? Were just fuck head Goya !!

Japanese and royals marry closer than even first cousins as a regular thing…

Wanna here a Jewish joke that isn’t racist , but accurate???

2+2=4 , no, I’m Jewish so it doesn’t have to for me! But if it does, I invented that!

Ask them about relatives having sex… They’re the only race on the planet that calls themselves the holder of all facts forever and ever. " the chosen "

Uccisore: OK, PK.
Do you think your lack of moral objection to (cousin level) incest is a product of your liberal values, or does it run counter to them?

K: I refuse to get worked up about the small number of gay incest couples that might happen somewhere
in the world. In the over all scheme of things, for me, gay incest couples ranks about as high as the stuff
that I clean from between my toes. About 357 or so, of things I think about. So frankly, I have no idea
if my moral lack of moral objections is a product of liberal values. I just don’t care enough about the
subject matter to think about it.

UCC: EDIT: Follow-up question. Do you think that other sorts of couples who have a high chance of producing disabled offspring should be prohibited from breeding, or do you single out cousins for some reason or another?

K: I didn’t single out cousins for a reason, I simply answer the question as it was presented. I know
of down syndrome couples who have children and I have no problem with that. The problem you present
however is how do we decide which couples should have children and which shouldn’t? Who decides and
how do they decide? I would be hesitant to answer until all questions are answered about who and how.
To make blanket statements about they should or they shouldn’t have children is premature until we work
out all the details.

Kropotkin

Males with down syndrome are near universally sterile, only two cases in history are known where they managed to reproduce.

I would like to know more about these couples you know of, so we can dispatch a team of scientist to study them.