Phil & Duck Dynasty- UPDATE: A&E Caves

[zibazinski]

They never were illegal and it was done for centuries. Only when certain religious people started making a stink did intermarriage become illegal. Think ancient Egyptians and not so ancient Hawaiians. That being said, I think the less govt is involved in anyone's business, the better. Those that can't or don't teach, make laws regarding teaching is an example of govt run amok.

[vandalshandle]

Whatever, Zipper. Anarchists unite!

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Siblings (biological sister & brother - or even cousins) should not be married if children are in their future.

The medical problems/repercussions for any offspring are far too serious to even risk a union between blood relatives if they plan to reproduce.

[Tennesseer]

[zibazinski]

Unless you have some terrible hereditary disease, not really. It's disgusting to us because we've been taught its disgusting. That being said, most siblings want nothing to do with each other that way anyway. Sometimes any other way as well! 

[AGB]

Dec 28, 2013 18:03:58 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Dec 28, 2013 17:56:09 GMT -5 AGB said:

Why should they be illegal? Why should states have no laws regarding same sex marriage, but should have laws against other marriages between consenting adults?

I suspect that you are baiting me, AGB. Surely you are not so obtuse that you do not know the consequences and cost to society of interbreeding within a family. One only needs to study the decendents of Queen Victoria's children and grandchildren to find hemophilia, birth defects and geneticly inherited disease that was directly resulting from interbreeding within the royal families of Europe.

As I said, not a concern that cannot be solved. Couples decide not to have children all the time, and for those who do decide on trying, science has provided medical testing as well as abortion. In the event that the two consenting adults are both male, inbreeding is not even an issue. That leaves no reason why sibling marriages or parent/child marriages "should be" illegal in all states.

[vandalshandle]

Ok, guys, I guess that you really do not understand the consequences of inbreeding. Read and learn:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

"Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[7] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
Increased genetic disorders
Fluctuating facial asymmetry
Lower birth rate
Higher infant mortality
Slower growth rate
Smaller adult size
Loss of immune system function"

[billisonboard]

Dec 29, 2013 13:50:58 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Ok, guys, I guess that you really do not understand the consequences of inbreeding. ...

The government using the issue of potential effects on potential off-spring of a marriage to deny the right to a marriage license opens up interesting possibilities for intervention. Besides, if she wants to be both mommy and grandma, the state issuing a license isn't necessary.

[Opti]

"As I said, not a concern that cannot be solved. Couples decide not to have children all the time, and for those who do decide on trying, science has provided medical testing as well as abortion. In the event that the two consenting adults are both male, inbreeding is not even an issue. That leaves no reason why sibling marriages or parent/child marriages "should be" illegal in all states. "


To me it still leaves several. I agree two brothers marrying on the face of it
is just icky and not harmful to the gene pool just like two sisters marrying.
However since we can't force people to not have kids, I still think it is in
society's best interest to keep inbreeding illegal. Inbreeding happens intentionally
among some breeders of animals but they usually do so very carefully and
keep extensive family trees to minimize the effects of inbreeding.

I'm not sure how this became a point to discuss. Is Phil planning to marry
a genetically related family member?

[Miss Tequila]

Dec 29, 2013 17:15:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

"As I said, not a concern that cannot be solved. Couples decide not to have children all the time, and for those who do decide on trying, science has provided medical testing as well as abortion. In the event that the two consenting adults are both male, inbreeding is not even an issue. That leaves no reason why sibling marriages or parent/child marriages "should be" illegal in all states. "


To me it still leaves several. I agree two brothers marrying on the face of it
is just icky and not harmful to the gene pool just like two sisters marrying.
However since we can't force people to not have kids, I still think it is in
society's best interest to keep inbreeding illegal. Inbreeding happens intentionally
among some breeders of animals but they usually do so very carefully and
keep extensive family trees to minimize the effects of inbreeding.

I'm not sure how this became a point to discuss. Is Phil planning to marry
a genetically related family member?

Someone said he government should have no say in who marries whom. I brought up the siblings. You're welcome!

[Value Buy]

We have reached the slippery slope of marriage laws.

It will be a fast trip down the slippery slope.

Rubber body suits for everyone

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 27, 2013 22:58:24 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Dec 27, 2013 22:44:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I guess no one can prove any right winger from P&M advocated this because the Teletubbies were off television before this board ever existed.

Earlier this evening WCP stated "Oddly enough roughly 13 yrs ago when IT was at its peak, I predicted that it was the low paying shit work of the (near) future."  Should we believe WCP as P&M as we know it didn't exist 13 years ago so we don't know if he ever really predicted it.

Are you talking about Windy City Paul, or someone else? Did he (she) claim that this prediction was made on the MSN Boards, or did it go back to the old CNBC Boards where he and I were both members, if WCP is Windy City Paul.

The CNBC board might have gone back to 2000, maybe a year or two before that. I cannot remember when the CNBC Boards were actually around on MSN, and then were picked up by MSN when CNBC dropped out of the message board maintenance.

Windy City Paul had a huge crush on Maria Bartiroma as I remember

[AGB]

Dec 29, 2013 17:15:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

"As I said, not a concern that cannot be solved. Couples decide not to have children all the time, and for those who do decide on trying, science has provided medical testing as well as abortion. In the event that the two consenting adults are both male, inbreeding is not even an issue. That leaves no reason why sibling marriages or parent/child marriages "should be" illegal in all states. "


To me it still leaves several. I agree two brothers marrying on the face of it
is just icky and not harmful to the gene pool just like two sisters marrying.
However since we can't force people to not have kids, I still think it is in
society's best interest to keep inbreeding illegal. Inbreeding happens intentionally
among some breeders of animals but they usually do so very carefully and
keep extensive family trees to minimize the effects of inbreeding.

I'm not sure how this became a point to discuss. Is Phil planning to marry
a genetically related family member?

No more "icky" than gay marriage is to some people, and the response to that is to stay out of their bedroom, to get out of the way of two consenting adults loving each other, and that marriage is a right. Of course we can't force people not to have kids, my body, my choice, after all. No different than any other couple who has a child with medical defects, so we should make it illegal for parents who are disease carriers to have children as well.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

There is a much greater risk of a child being born with serious health issues or birth defects if blood relatives reproduce.

Bringing gay marriage into the discussion is irrelevant. Two people of the same sex are not going to have a child "the natural way". What they do behind their bedroom door is NOMB and I don't care.

If blood relatives want to wed/have intercourse, then precautions should be taken that no child is conceived. The risk of a child with serious health issues is too big a chance to take.

If a couple of the same gene pool wants to have children, there are thousands upon thousands up for adoption who need loving homes and families.

(My brother and SIL could not have children - due to a medical issue with SIL - they adopted two beautiful children at infancy.)

(Rosy O'Donnell, openly gay, also adopted 2 children - as have many singles or gay/hetero couples besides her).

[AGB]

Dec 29, 2013 20:22:00 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

There is a much greater risk of a child being born with serious health issues or birth defects if blood relatives reproduce.

Bringing gay marriage into the discussion is irrelevant. Two people of the same sex are not going to have a child "the natural way". What they do behind their bedroom door is NOMB and I don't care.

If blood relatives want to wed/have intercourse, then precautions should be taken that no child is conceived. The risk of a child with serious health issues is too big a chance to take.

If a couple of the same gene pool wants to have children, there are thousands upon thousands up for adoption who need loving homes and families.

(My brother and SIL could not have children - due to a medical issue with SIL - they adopted two beautiful children at infancy.)

(Rosy O'Donnell, openly gay, also adopted 2 children - as have many singles or gay/hetero couples besides her).

I don't understand the concept that states should not outlaw same sex marriages, but should outlaw marriages between blood relatives. I find it confusing why one is none of my business but the other one is. Presumably these consenting adults are aware of the risks and will either take the necessary precautions or the appropriate measures afterwards. Thanks to science, we no longer need to worry about negative effects of inbreeding. Either we're in favor of consenting adults marrying the partner(s) of their choice, or we're not.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 29, 2013 20:47:06 GMT -5 AGB said:

Dec 29, 2013 20:22:00 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

There is a much greater risk of a child being born with serious health issues or birth defects if blood relatives reproduce.

Bringing gay marriage into the discussion is irrelevant. Two people of the same sex are not going to have a child "the natural way". What they do behind their bedroom door is NOMB and I don't care.

If blood relatives want to wed/have intercourse, then precautions should be taken that no child is conceived. The risk of a child with serious health issues is too big a chance to take.

If a couple of the same gene pool wants to have children, there are thousands upon thousands up for adoption who need loving homes and families.

(My brother and SIL could not have children - due to a medical issue with SIL - they adopted two beautiful children at infancy.)

(Rosy O'Donnell, openly gay, also adopted 2 children - as have many singles or gay/hetero couples besides her).

I don't understand the concept that states should not outlaw same sex marriages, but should outlaw marriages between blood relatives.

they are based on totally different principles.  the former is based on the concept of sodomy, which can't (by definition) produce offspring.  the latter can absolutely produce offspring, and if sufficiently close in relation, there can be some serious genetic consequences.

I find it confusing why one is none of my business but the other one is. Presumably these consenting adults are aware of the risks and will either take the necessary precautions or the appropriate measures afterwards. Thanks to science, we no longer need to worry about negative effects of inbreeding.

so long as abortion exists, i agree entirely.  however, i seem to recall you being adamantly opposed to abortion in all circumstances.

Either we're in favor of consenting adults marrying the partner(s) of their choice, or we're not.

no, there is a possibility of harm to non-consenting others in the case of incest that doesn't exist in the case of "sodomy".  the government has no business getting involved in the latter, imo- but there is some measure of a case that can be made for the former.

[EVT1]

Dec 29, 2013 20:47:06 GMT -5 AGB said:

Dec 29, 2013 20:22:00 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

There is a much greater risk of a child being born with serious health issues or birth defects if blood relatives reproduce.

Bringing gay marriage into the discussion is irrelevant. Two people of the same sex are not going to have a child "the natural way". What they do behind their bedroom door is NOMB and I don't care.

If blood relatives want to wed/have intercourse, then precautions should be taken that no child is conceived. The risk of a child with serious health issues is too big a chance to take.

If a couple of the same gene pool wants to have children, there are thousands upon thousands up for adoption who need loving homes and families.

(My brother and SIL could not have children - due to a medical issue with SIL - they adopted two beautiful children at infancy.)

(Rosy O'Donnell, openly gay, also adopted 2 children - as have many singles or gay/hetero couples besides her).

I don't understand the concept that states should not outlaw same sex marriages, but should outlaw marriages between blood relatives. I find it confusing why one is none of my business but the other one is. Presumably these consenting adults are aware of the risks and will either take the necessary precautions or the appropriate measures afterwards. Thanks to science, we no longer need to worry about negative effects of inbreeding. Either we're in favor of consenting adults marrying the partner(s) of their choice, or we're not.

And you are correct. Some states you can marry your cousin, some you cannot- why? Seems the south is really split on that one

I remember a case a while back where a married couple found out they were brother and sister- both were adopted and had no idea.  I agree YIKES- but what do they do?  Kind of hard to put that cat back in the bag.

I don't really care- it should not be up to the government.  And really if you buy the whole Adam and Eve thing humans would have died off a long time ago if not for banging your siblings, so....

One time I agree the government caused this problem in the first place.

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2013 22:55:53 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Dec 27, 2013 22:33:02 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Please excuse the slight deversion of the conversation. I just found it highly amusing and ironic about the Right wing Bible thumpers demanding that A&E should allow Phil to speak his piece on homsexuality condemnation when it wasn't long ago that they were demending that Twinky Winky should have his diapered butt kicked off the air because they had decided that he was gay...

I'm not a bible thumper but I thought A&E was wrong in suspending Phil. I imagine I'm not the only non-bible thumper who supported Phil.

you arent

lots of us around.....

[AGB]

Dec 29, 2013 23:21:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 29, 2013 20:47:06 GMT -5 AGB said:

I don't understand the concept that states should not outlaw same sex marriages, but should outlaw marriages between blood relatives.

they are based on totally different principles.  the former is based on the concept of sodomy, which can't (by definition) produce offspring.  the latter can absolutely produce offspring, and if sufficiently close in relation, there can be some serious genetic consequences.

No offspring for same sex blood relative marriages, so we can stop regulating those then.

I find it confusing why one is none of my business but the other one is. Presumably these consenting adults are aware of the risks and will either take the necessary precautions or the appropriate measures afterwards. Thanks to science, we no longer need to worry about negative effects of inbreeding.

so long as abortion exists, i agree entirely.  however, i seem to recall you being adamantly opposed to abortion in all circumstances.

I am, on a personal level. On a political level, it is not my choice to make for anyone but me, up to the point where science supports the baby's viability/personhood/whatever you want to call it. Even then, termination for birth defects should be up to the parents to decide. FYI, I'm against gay marriage as well... and blood relatives marrying.

Either we're in favor of consenting adults marrying the partner(s) of their choice, or we're not.

no, there is a possibility of harm to non-consenting others in the case of incest that doesn't exist in the case of "sodomy".  the government has no business getting involved in the latter, imo- but there is some measure of a case that can be made for the former.

There is no such thing when it is father/son, brother/brother, yet we still outlaw such marriages.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Dec 30, 2013 17:09:49 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Dec 27, 2013 22:55:53 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm not a bible thumper but I thought A&E was wrong in suspending Phil. I imagine I'm not the only non-bible thumper who supported Phil.

you arent

lots of us around.....

Yes.  There are.  I didn't support Mr. Robertson because I agree with his views.  I thought much was said that was unnecessary.  I believe he apologized for the "coarse language".  I supported him because he is entitled to his opinion and just because some group doesn't like it doesn't mean he can be silenced.

I also supported him because I fully believe what he said was purposely embellished by people who just wished to be offended about something.  I did the same thing here the other night.  I was looking to be offended at what I imagined for a minute was an intentional slight.  It wasn't at all.  It was just my deliberate interpretation of it.  I was wrong.  And these groups are wrong.  Making up shit pisses me off...even when I do it.

[Deleted]

There is more video out there of him supposedly being humorous about marrying young girls. It is said to be humorous but we know he did date a 14 year old then marry her when she was 16 I am not sure how tongue in cheek he really was being.

[frankq]

Thank you Jesse Jackson for delivering the ultimatum that shook ...........nobody! "


Does anyone actually know about this ultimatium besides you and Jesse?
Perhaps you could share a link with this ultimatium with the board?

Yeah, I think that anybody that has been watching a broadcast news program between 12/25 and 12/28 heard about the "demand to sit down with A&E, representatives of the gay organization that started this whole thing, and Cracker Barrel, and he demanded said meeting within 72 hours......72 hours came and went with no response to JJ from A&E. The announcement was then made that Phil would be back. Try CNN, CBS and CNBC.....But if you insist, here you go..

Rev. Jesse Jackson has gotten involved with the ongoing "Duck Dynasty" saga, demanding a meeting with A&E network executives and Cracker Barrel officials.

www.accessatlanta.com/weblogs/buzz/2013/dec/26/jesse-jackson-weighs-duck-dynasty/

Jesse Jackson Demands Meeting With A&E, Calls Phil Robertson “More Offensive” Than Rosa Parks' Bus Driver
Fox News (blog) ‎- 4 days ago

By: The Daily Mail Reverend Jesse Jackson has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty, comparing Phil Robertson to the ...
Jesse Jackson calls 'Duck Dynasty' dad 'more offensive' than Rosa Parks' bus driver
Chicago Tribune‎ - 4 days ago

Jesse Jackson -- Phil Robertson Is WORSE Than Rosa Parks Bus Driver
TMZ.com‎ - 3 days ago

Jesse Jackson Demands Meeting With A&E to Discuss Duck ...
newsbusters.org › Blogs › Noel Sheppard's blog‎

4 days ago - I guess we should have expected this. According to a Christmas Day report at ABCNews.com, race hustler Jesse Jackson on Monday ...
Jesse Jackson Demands Meeting With A&E, Calls Phil Robertson ...
nation.foxnews.com/.../jesse-jackson-demands-meeting-ae-calls-phil-rob...‎

2 days ago - By: The Daily MailReverend Jesse Jackson has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty, comparing Phil Robertson to the ...
Jesse Jackson demands meeting with A&E, Cracker Barrel ... - Twitchy
twitchy.com/.../jesse-jackson-demands-meeting-with-ae-cracker-barrel-e...‎

www.examiner.com/.../jesse-jackson-glaad-demand-meeting-with-a-e-cra...‎

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2013 17:12:10 GMT -5 AGB said:

Dec 29, 2013 23:21:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no, there is a possibility of harm to non-consenting others in the case of incest that doesn't exist in the case of "sodomy".  the government has no business getting involved in the latter, imo- but there is some measure of a case that can be made for the former.

There is no such thing when it is father/son, brother/brother, yet we still outlaw such marriages.

indeed.  your views are pretty consistent on this- but just to reiterate:

you don't think the government has any business in this stuff, no matter how you feel about it personally, right?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2013 17:24:14 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Dec 30, 2013 17:09:49 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

you arent

lots of us around.....

Yes.  There are.  I didn't support Mr. Robertson because I agree with his views.  I thought much was said that was unnecessary.  I believe he apologized for the "coarse language".  I supported him because he is entitled to his opinion and just because some group doesn't like it doesn't mean he can be silenced.

nobody has a "right" to be broadcast on a for-profit media channel.  A&E is a private company.  if they wanted to fire every moderate and have wall-to-wall 24/7 marxist theology on their channel, that is 100% their prerogative.

I also supported him because I fully believe what he said was purposely embellished by people who just wished to be offended about something.  I did the same thing here the other night.  I was looking to be offended at what I imagined for a minute was an intentional slight.  It wasn't at all.  It was just my deliberate interpretation of it.  I was wrong.  And these groups are wrong.  Making up shit pisses me off...even when I do it.

don't worry about it.  we all make mistakes.  takes gumption to admit them.

[EVT1]

Dec 30, 2013 23:02:04 GMT -5 frankq said:

Thank you Jesse Jackson for delivering the ultimatum that shook ...........nobody! "


Does anyone actually know about this ultimatium besides you and Jesse?
Perhaps you could share a link with this ultimatium with the board?

Yeah, I think that anybody that has been watching a broadcast news program between 12/25 and 12/28 heard about the "demand to sit down with A&E, representatives of the gay organization that started this whole thing, and Cracker Barrel, and he demanded said meeting within 72 hours......72 hours came and went with no response to JJ from A&E. The announcement was then made that Phil would be back. Try CNN, CBS and CNBC.....But if you insist, here you go..

Rev. Jesse Jackson has gotten involved with the ongoing "Duck Dynasty" saga, demanding a meeting with A&E network executives and Cracker Barrel officials.

www.accessatlanta.com/weblogs/buzz/2013/dec/26/jesse-jackson-weighs-duck-dynasty/

Jesse Jackson Demands Meeting With A&E, Calls Phil Robertson “More Offensive” Than Rosa Parks' Bus Driver
Fox News (blog) ‎- 4 days ago

By: The Daily Mail Reverend Jesse Jackson has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty, comparing Phil Robertson to the ...
Jesse Jackson calls 'Duck Dynasty' dad 'more offensive' than Rosa Parks' bus driver
Chicago Tribune‎ - 4 days ago

Jesse Jackson -- Phil Robertson Is WORSE Than Rosa Parks Bus Driver
TMZ.com‎ - 3 days ago

Jesse Jackson Demands Meeting With A&E to Discuss Duck ...
newsbusters.org › Blogs › Noel Sheppard's blog‎

4 days ago - I guess we should have expected this. According to a Christmas Day report at ABCNews.com, race hustler Jesse Jackson on Monday ...
Jesse Jackson Demands Meeting With A&E, Calls Phil Robertson ...
nation.foxnews.com/.../jesse-jackson-demands-meeting-ae-calls-phil-rob...‎

2 days ago - By: The Daily MailReverend Jesse Jackson has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty, comparing Phil Robertson to the ...
Jesse Jackson demands meeting with A&E, Cracker Barrel ... - Twitchy
twitchy.com/.../jesse-jackson-demands-meeting-with-ae-cracker-barrel-e...‎

www.examiner.com/.../jesse-jackson-glaad-demand-meeting-with-a-e-cra...‎

So for the record do you at least agree that what he said was offensive when it came to the good ole days of slavery where the black people just sung songs while picking cotton for free? That he never saw mistreatment? That blacks were happy with the arrangement?

Just a coinicidence he used such terms as pre-entitlement, pre-welfare?

He's a racist and he follows that right wing element which is also racist.  Fine- all A&E had to say is we don't agree with this racist, I mean who would have thought some old white guy in the south could be a racist

It's a damn given- just like Paula Deen.  Old, white, south-  not being a racist is rare.  Most of my family is racist- though they do not think they are.  It is funny- the most obvious racists do not think they are racists.  Perfectly normal to lock your car door or clutch your purse when a black person is sighted

[zibazinski]

You have people who aren't related to each other producing children that are ill. It's going to happen, period. The difference is we now keep them alive whereas before nature or medicine didnt or couldn't intervene. We are taught its disgusting so to us it is. We are taught polygamists are disgusting, so to us it is, some of us are taught homosexuality is disgusting, those who can't undo those believes think it is. Others try not to think about anyone but themselves having sex. I'm in that dept. I try not to even think about my kids having sex as well as my parents. 

[zibazinski]

I happen to think the Jessie and Al show is disgusting so I listen to nothing they say. Others think they're  Demi gods and hang onto every word. To each their own.

[Opti]

"I happen to think the Jessie and Al show is disgusting so I listen to nothing they say. Others think they're Demi gods and hang onto every word. To each their own."


Zib, I know you believe this, but do you have any proof that this is true?
I've never met anyone black or white that really followed either. And I
think most black families who get involved with them do so to get justice
they feel they can't get any other way. Kind of like the black version of
those fix it guys who used to be common on TV channels. Have problem,
call them. No worshipping or hanging onto words whatsoever.

[Value Buy]

Dec 31, 2013 9:27:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

"I happen to think the Jessie and Al show is disgusting so I listen to nothing they say. Others think they're Demi gods and hang onto every word. To each their own."


Zib, I know you believe this, but do you have any proof that this is true?
I've never met anyone black or white that really followed either. And I
think most black families who get involved with them do so to get justice
they feel they can't get any other way. Kind of like the black version of
those fix it guys who used to be common on TV channels. Have problem,
call them. No worshipping or hanging onto words whatsoever.

Jesse and Al are both suffering from White House with-drawl.

They have not had any influence in D.C. since Bill Clinton slept there. President Obama to his credit did not bring Jesse to D.C. and Jesse is still fuming he has no pull there.

Just because you have not met anyone who was a follower of them does not mean they do not have "followers"

Al, probably, not so much, unless you count the 50,000 that might watch his MSNBC diatribes.

Jesse still has his loyal Chicago followers, but he is slowing down a little bit.

He no longer is able to hold corporations hostage for monetary shake downs like he used to, but still hits the news locally pointed out racism.

[djAdvocate]

so, can anyone explain the attraction of Duck Dynasty to me?