AYG

ricksang

Okay would people be weirded out by two twins who are male and female having sex and reproducing? Or is it only okay for same sex couples who can't reproduce?

AllAboutTheBenjamin

Omg you guys, Hitler?  Ew.

Blueyed228

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:3cc3313d-9229-41ea-bb17-c20c6ad8a97d">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]Wait, did I miss the homophobe reference?  Because I'mma freak out if someone says that because I think it's wierd two siblings are banging I'm a homophobe. 
Posted by NuggetBrain[/QUOTE]

Sb said twins banging upsets nuclear family

Celles said thats the same argument that people make against gay marriage.

So:
Against twin fvckin= against gay marriage.

YWIA

cheeseandrice

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:3cc3313d-9229-41ea-bb17-c20c6ad8a97d">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]Wait, did I miss the homophobe reference?  Because I'mma freak out if someone says that because I think it's wierd two siblings are banging I'm a homophobe. 
Posted by NuggetBrain[/QUOTE]

It was kind of implied, yeah.

ZombieNates

I think Celles was the only one who used the opposition to gay marriage in conjunction with the sibling fuckery in a totally serious manner. She said finding the sibling fuckery weird reminded her of the slippery slope that people use to oppose gay marriage (it will eventually lead to mass incest).  I'm just making fun of that because I find it laughable.  But I don';t think anyone else used it seriously, right?

allisong23

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:722ce77b-2e28-4fe6-ad3e-7780ced78ebf">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]Okay would people be weirded out by two twins who are male and female having sex and reproducing? Or is it only okay for same sex couples who can't reproduce?
Posted by ricksang[/QUOTE]

I think it is weird in any and all cases.

sb9411

Clarification- I said that it was *not* a slippery slope because they weren't related... and I said that the "nuclear family" I was referencing could be a gay couple, transgendered, single mom, etc.

ricksang

Me too Alli and gross.

cheeseandrice

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:722ce77b-2e28-4fe6-ad3e-7780ced78ebf">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]Okay would people be weirded out by two twins who are male and female having sex and reproducing? Or is it only okay for same sex couples who can't reproduce?
Posted by ricksang[/QUOTE]

People did say it was 'less weird' because at least the two male twins couldn't reproduce.

NuggetBrain

Celles, I'm going to have to ask that you explain a little bit further, because I really REALLY hope that's not the connection you were making (and in my defense I read the post and can see how people think it is). 

ZombieNates

Ricks, I think effing your sibling is gross/weird/whatever in any case.  What I did say in that thread, was that I can see legislation prohibiting that more than in the 2 men twins' case, because that does have the possibility of producing a child. If your actions are going to mess with someone else, then I think that's wrong. If you just want to bang it out with your sibling (but have no way of reproducing), then I think it's weird, but I don't care.

ricksang

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:6a9d3731-08fd-4ad9-9168-c6748b0d73b7">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]Celles, I'm going to have to ask that you explain a little bit further, because I really REALLY hope that's not the connection you were making (and in my defense I read the post and can see how people think it is). 
Posted by NuggetBrain[/QUOTE]
I hope not either

Ahh Steph I see.. hmmmmm

allisong23

I thought Celles was refering to the ":homesexuality is wrong because gay sex can't make babies" argument (not that I think she agrees with it). Twin sex would either not result in babies if it is gay sex, or make two-headed babies if it was boy-girl sex.

ZombieNates

Oh, I bet Celles would say that she didn't mean being grossed out by sibling fuckery is the same as opposing gay marriage. But the fact that she lumped them in together is annoying, IMO, because Celles is a smart lady.  I'm sure she realizes how linking those two together in a deliberately open-ended manner would IMPLY a connection. That's lame.

chelseamb11

I saw this pic on FB and it made me giggle.

sb9411

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:34461da6-d598-4ff1-b67c-59d2a6513c46">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]I thought Celles was refering to the ":homesexuality is wrong because gay sex can't make babies" argument (not that I think she agrees with it). Twin sex would either not result in babies if it is gay sex, or make two-headed babies if it was boy-girl sex.
Posted by allisong23[/QUOTE]

So the same people that argue "homosexuality is wrong because they can't make babies" should technically (but probably not morally) be in support of two brothers being incestuous, as long as they were doing it with each other and not their sister.Twisted.

ricksang

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:99827633-a105-4d17-88fe-6f3cc0333b41">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: AYG : So the same people that argue "homosexuality is wrong because they can't make babies" should technically (but probably not morally) be in support of two brothers being incestuous, as long as they were doing it with each other and not their sister.Twisted.
Posted by sb9411[/QUOTE]
Haha mind blowing

Celles

Sorry, I was in a meeting.  HR wanted to discuss the results of a confidential employee survey in an incredibly awkward roundtable discussion.  (I admit, I'm also feeling fairly raw as a result.  I have some personal issues that our HR business partner was pushing me to share in the roundtable, and ... no.  Just no.)

Nugget -- I was referring to the fact that some people who oppose gay marriage claim to do so because they think gay marriage represents a "slippery slope": i.e., if you let a guy marry another guy, then you also have to let him marry his brother, a sheep or (apparently) the exhaust pipe of his car.  Obviously, it's a logical fallacy because there is no connection between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing incest or bestiality.  I've argued against the slippery slope argument many, many times.  It's misleading.  It's offensive.  And I personally have a hard time believing that anyone actually believes it, since it strikes me as a fairly transparent deflection coming from people who simply don't want to own up to their own bigotry.

I honestly thought this all went without saying, which is why I didn't bother saying it.  Clearly, that was a mistake.
 
What I was actually saying to Mara back on Page 1 (or, rather, what I was trying to say) was that the incest thread made me think of the slippery slope argument, which is premised on the idea that gay marriage is wrong because it's one step removed from legal incest (WHICH IT ISN'T).  However, it was the fact that homosexuality and incest are linked in this very common argument that made me question my own feelings regarding incest in the first place, and eventually come to the conclusion that I don't actually have any.  This in turn made the slippery slope argument even weaker, because whereas before my typical response was "But it doesn't!", my response became "But it doesn't! And if it did, so what?"  

I hope that makes some sense.

I mentioned gay marriage again in response to SB's "mutlitiered psychological damage" argument, where she said that incest is wrong because it damages the nuclear family, etc.  She was very vague and didn't provide any specific examples of how it damages the family or why it does.  It honestly seemed to me that she just was throwing out random pseudo-psychological terms in the hopes that people would take her "expertise" at face value without looking any deeper into her actual argument. 

So my point was NOT to link the act of incest with acts of homosexuality, but to point out the danger inherent to that kind of circular logic ("It's bad because it hurts the family!  It hurts the family because it's bad!") as a blanket response to any kind of perceived deviance.  Like I told SB, I'm positive that someone could build an argument for the inherent immorality of incest, but I didn't feel that she had done so because, at least in my opinion, she was repeating arguments that have already been made and debunked against gay marriage (or interracial marriage, for that matter).  

At any rate, I apologize if I was unclear -- and given how many people I confused, I probably was.  I am truly sorry to anyone who thought I was equating being weirded out by incest to being opposed to gay marriage.  I assure you, that was neither my meaning nor my intent.

Celles

... Sorry, that got really long.

ricksang

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:58084d0e-0026-4300-80d7-89088e3e6a22">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]Sorry, I was in a meeting.  HR wanted to discuss the results of a confidential employee survey in an incredibly awkward roundtable discussion.  (I admit, I'm also feeling fairly raw as a result.  I have some personal issues that our HR business partner was pushing me to share in the roundtable, and ... no.  Just no.) Nugget -- I was referring to the fact that some people who oppose gay marriage claim to do so because they think gay marriage represents a "slippery slope": i.e., if you let a guy marry another guy, then you also have to let him marry his brother, a sheep or (apparently) the exhaust pipe of his car.  Obviously, it's a logical fallacy because there is no connection between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing incest or bestiality.  I've argued against the slippery slope argument many, many times.  It's misleading.  It's offensive.  And I personally have a hard time believing that anyone actually believes it, since it strikes me as a fairly transparent deflection coming from people who simply don't want to own up to their own bigotry. I honestly thought this all went without saying, which is why I didn't bother saying it.  Clearly, that was a mistake.   What I was actually saying to Mara back on Page 1 (or, rather, what I was trying to say) was that the incest thread made me think of the slippery slope argument, which is premised on the idea that gay marriage is wrong because it's one step removed from legal incest (WHICH IT ISN'T).  However, it was the fact that homosexuality and incest are linked in this very common argument that made me question my own feelings regarding incest in the first place, and eventually come to the conclusion that I don't actually have any.  This in turn made the slippery slope argument even weaker, because whereas before my typical response was "But it doesn't!", my response became "But it doesn't! And if it did, so what?"   I hope that makes some sense. I mentioned gay marriage again in response to SB's "mutlitiered psychological damage" argument, where she said that incest is wrong because it damages the nuclear family, etc.  She was very vague and didn't provide any specific examples of how it damages the family or why it does.  It honestly seemed to me that she just was throwing out random pseudo-psychological terms in the hopes that people would take her "expertise" at face value without looking any deeper into her actual argument.  So my point was NOT to link the act of incest with acts of homosexuality, but to point out the danger inherent to that kind of circular logic ("It's bad because it hurts the family!  It hurts the family because it's bad!") as a blanket response to any kind of perceived deviance.  Like I told SB, I'm positive that someone could build an argument for the inherent immorality of incest, but I didn't feel that she had done so because, at least in my opinion, she was repeating arguments that have already been made and debunked against gay marriage (or interracial marriage, for that matter).   At any rate, I apologize if I was unclear -- and given how many people I confused, I probably was.  I am truly sorry to anyone who thought I was equating being weirded out by incest to being opposed to gay marriage.  I assure you, that was neither my meaning nor my intent.
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]
That makes sense to me.

Johan&Kimmie

I flame HappyMaddie for jumping all over Duds when she suggested that Maddie let her FI pick his own shoes.

Also, I've looked up several lists of abbreviations and haven't been able to figure out what AYG means.  Is anyone willing to help me out?

ZombieNates

Air Your Grievances.


That makes more sense, Celles.  It was confusing at first.

sb9411

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:58084d0e-0026-4300-80d7-89088e3e6a22">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]Sorry, I was in a meeting.  HR wanted to discuss the results of a confidential employee survey in an incredibly awkward roundtable discussion.  (I admit, I'm also feeling fairly raw as a result.  I have some personal issues that our HR business partner was pushing me to share in the roundtable, and ... no.  Just no.) Nugget -- I was referring to the fact that some people who oppose gay marriage claim to do so because they think gay marriage represents a "slippery slope": i.e., if you let a guy marry another guy, then you also have to let him marry his brother, a sheep or (apparently) the exhaust pipe of his car.  Obviously, it's a logical fallacy because there is no connection between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing incest or bestiality.  I've argued against the slippery slope argument many, many times.  It's misleading.  It's offensive.  And I personally have a hard time believing that anyone actually believes it, since it strikes me as a fairly transparent deflection coming from people who simply don't want to own up to their own bigotry. I honestly thought this all went without saying, which is why I didn't bother saying it.  Clearly, that was a mistake.   What I was actually saying to Mara back on Page 1 (or, rather, what I was trying to say) was that the incest thread made me think of the slippery slope argument, which is premised on the idea that gay marriage is wrong because it's one step removed from legal incest (WHICH IT ISN'T).  However, it was the fact that homosexuality and incest are linked in this very common argument that made me question my own feelings regarding incest in the first place, and eventually come to the conclusion that I don't actually have any.  This in turn made the slippery slope argument even weaker, because whereas before my typical response was "But it doesn't!", my response became "But it doesn't! And if it did, so what?"   I hope that makes some sense. I mentioned gay marriage again in response to SB's "mutlitiered psychological damage" argument, where she said that incest is wrong because it damages the nuclear family, etc.  She was very vague and didn't provide any specific examples of how it damages the family or why it does. <strong> It honestly seemed to me that she just was throwing out random pseudo-psychological terms in the hopes that people would take her "expertise" at face value without looking any deeper into her actual argument.  </strong>So my point was NOT to link the act of incest with acts of homosexuality, but to point out the danger inherent to that kind of circular logic ("It's bad because it hurts the family!  It hurts the family because it's bad!") as a blanket response to any kind of perceived deviance.  Like I told SB, I'm positive that someone could build an argument for the inherent immorality of incest, but I didn't feel that she had done so because, at least in my opinion, she was repeating arguments that have already been made and debunked against gay marriage (or interracial marriage, for that matter).   At any rate, I apologize if I was unclear -- and given how many people I confused, I probably was.  I am truly sorry to anyone who thought I was equating being weirded out by incest to being opposed to gay marriage.  I assure you, that was neither my meaning nor my intent.
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]

I thought I was pretty clear in my point. I really didn't think that I was vague. I definitely wasn't wanting people to take my "expertise" at face value, which is why I never said that I was an expert, I was just explaining my viewpoint and why I think incest is not healthy for families.

whitsy

I said I didn't know who you were because that all happened a while ago, and I just didn't remember seeing your SN around until that post.

I feel random because I have nothing else to contribute. I feel like those random lurkers that pop in and don't have anything of value to post about. I don't even have an AYG, other than some non-TK related ones.

Smash Adams

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:699878b6-3156-43df-b5af-e59af83b0b9d">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]I said I didn't know who you were because that all happened a while ago, and I just didn't remember seeing your SN around until that post. I feel random because I have nothing else to contribute. I feel like those random lurkers that pop in and don't have anything of value to post about. I don't even have an AYG, other than some non-TK related ones.
Posted by whitsy[/QUOTE]
Totally.  Makes sense.  I was reaching for something to flame to divert from the Dot/Steph debacle.

polichik

Since this thread is pretty much dead, I'm not going to bother throwin in my two cents about much, except that I'm glad Celles came back to explain- that was what I thought you meant, and you explained it well/summed up my thoughts on the matter. I think people have the right to do what they will with other consenting adults in the privcy of their own home, and I think everyone else has the right to be weirded out by it, as long as they don't try to make it illegal. And I get thatvCelles and SB weren't doing this, but the BS in Psych topic reminded me of how pissed off I get when laypeople call themselves therapists/psychologists or attempt to diagnose people. Trust me, buddy, if you really knew what antisocial personality disorder was, you wouldn't throw it around so quickly. Owning a copy of the DSM doesn't make you cool.

whitsy

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_ayg-26?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:52a958fd-b513-4ca6-b71f-cd1a9c49d5d9Post:a19dded8-8267-433c-a3da-e7892c338b15">Re: AYG</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: AYG : Totally.  Makes sense.  I was reaching for something to flame to divert from the Dot/Steph debacle.
Posted by Smash Adams[/QUOTE]

Oh it's ok, I'm just an explainer. I can't help myself!

JoelandLeann

What does AYG and FFF stand for? I suck at acronyms.