Incest is Best?

July 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Incest is Best?

01 July 2015

George Rebane

Berlin – the German Ethics Council recommends that the Bundestag remove the legal prohibition of incest between siblings, citing that “in the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family, nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition.” (more here)

I have no idea of how the Germans got ahead of California on this one, but there is plenty of room for us to take the lead again. We note that the Germans only expanded legal incest to siblings, parents and children having intercourse or making other kinds of whoopee is still prohibited. That is open territory for Sacramento to sweep the field in opening up the pursuit of comprehensive “sexual self-determination”.

LGBTQIA stands for “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, and asexual” according to the Urban Dictionary that also informs us “LGBTQIA people are the only minority not federally protected.” Not knowing what ‘intersex’ is, my immediate concern focuses on whether the existing 'I' covers incest, or do we need another one.

In any case, will marriage be next? Consider the possibilities. Given the SCOTUS rulings and all that, will 2015 be remembered as Springtime for Brave New World?

Posted in Culture Comments, Our World

62 responses to “Incest is Best?”

Steven Frisch

02 July 2015

“On;y people who desire to practice perversion can say normal is not normal.”
Not to mention the decidedly un-Chruchillian turn of a phrase. If one who is a pervert can support same sex marriage. I love it.
When thinking of some people here the quote, ““He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire” comes to mind.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

02 July 2015

Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 04:41 PM
Are you talking about section 8a minority owned business status?
https://www.sba.gov/blogs/8a-certification-minority-business-certification-how-does-business-get-certified

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

02 July 2015

Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 04:42 PM
One thing we can all rely on is Frisch and Paul Emery putting words into others mouths. What a hoot!

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

02 July 2015

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 05:03 PM
We don’t have to put words into other people mouths here, they do a fine job of saying things that appear to be simultaneously crazy and contradictory all on their own.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

02 July 2015

Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 05:14 PM
No you do it all the time. That is why your ilk are not believed. We speak the truth and the facts. Libs make it up.

LikeLike
George Rebane

02 July 2015

StevenF 447pm – I believe so. In the 70s I was helping two (black) colleagues start a minority owned business with what they referred to as Sec 8A financing – loans which the government would guarantee. They were really not ready to follow the stars in their eyes. But I wrote them a business plan that passed muster, as they were spending their funds buying company cars and fancy office furniture. It was kind of sad. They relayed wonderful stories of their friends doing exactly what they were doing. It was a hot time for minority businesses. And then it all came crashing down as they discovered that they had spent their money on the wrong things. But it took about about three years and multiple loans for the feds to finally say ‘No mas!’
I contrast this with an Indian engineer friend who was a magnetic recording specialist. He started an 8A company with non-minority partners and built it into a marvelous business while making himself rich. So the program was definitely not a uniform failure, but more so than not since it didn’t vet the business acumen of the borrowers, only their skin color.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

02 July 2015

Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 06:16 PM
OK so I think we are clear on what program you are referencing. That was a Small Business Administration program that provided loans to 8A qualified borrowers.
The designation under the small business administration still exists but it exists as an assistance program not a direct loan program. Participants get assistance to qualify for government contracts and points towards qualifying for federally guaranteed loans.
The conditions appear to much more exacting than you experienced some years ago.
“Participation in the 8(a) BD Program is divided into two phases over nine years: a four-year developmental stage and a five-year transition stage; the overall goal of which is to graduate 8(a) businesses that will go on to thrive in a competitive business environment.”
https://www.sba.gov/content/about-8a-business-development-program
What I don’t get is the connection between this program, your negative experience with two clearly unqualified borrowers, and the statement:
“…I do not like every chapter and verse of the CRA1964, particularly the Section 8 parts that destroyed the black family and middle class, and has been the fundamental cause of a culture that has taken tens of thousands of black lives, and doomed millions of others.”
At a minimum I must point out that the SBA program is not a part of the CRA of 1964.

LikeLike
George Rebane

02 July 2015

StevenF 630pm – Then I stand corrected, and am referencing the SBA program that with great laxity qualified those ‘benefitting’ from CRA1964. My other statements regarding the fate of black families, black education, and black-on-black murders stand.

LikeLike
joe smith

03 July 2015

Oh Bonnie, you have yet to comment on the source of your UN decree regarding incest. Do your Burgundy stained lips only wriggle with falsehood and innuendo when you think no one will question their source?

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

09 July 2015

You have to get a “marriage license” to have a civil ceremony. It shouldn’t concern you who gets married or why. it’s really none of your business and it will not effect you in any way if the couple next door is living together, married, or a same sex couple. Don’t you have better things to worry about than what your neighbor is doing is his or her bedroom? Marriage is not defined by religion nor is religion defined by marriage.
And all this talk about SCOTUS disavowing your religious freedom by granting same sex marriages, I wonder if you believe that Muslims have the same rights to uphold their beliefs?

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

09 July 2015

Patricia, it is already happening. I knew the SCOTUS decision was a attorney’s wet dream and the suits are flying. Another nail in the coffin of a once great country. Now, anything goes.

LikeLike
George Rebane

10 July 2015

I note with expected dismay that no one wants the language to be expanded to differentiate between hetero and homo marriages, thus weakening the information carrying capacity of that once precise word. I can see why progressives want to muddle this in our Newspeak, but it’s a puzzle why the Right wants to go along with the appended ‘gay marriage’. So now, ‘marriage’ means what? both hetero and homo marriage? But ‘gay marriage’ means only homo marriage? OK, then what will we say when we refer to hetero marriage – ‘straight marriage’, ‘traditional marriage’, ‘regular marriage’, ‘hetero marriage’, …??
As ‘marriage’ begins to be confused across the landscape of sexual orientation, I and many like me want to respond precisely when asked ‘Are you married?’, or should the question from now on be ‘Are you homo/hetero married?’ so as to avoid ambiguity? And we understand this to be only a temporary fix until ‘married’ will also cover the spousal relationship between siblings, and then parents and children, and then … .

LikeLike