Could the Supreme Court embrace incest?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, but quite a few states repealed or otherwised abandoned their laws on the matter many years ago (60's and 70's mostly.) Enforcement was very limited even in states with the laws on their books.

I doubt criminalizing it would get anywhere near a majority at present.

The same can be said in much part for state sactioned religion and slavery. Many states changed these with no impetus from the federal government. How ever the question posed was about SCOTUS not the congress ie the people. SCOTUS if it has the authority to say making sodomy illeagal is inconstitutional must also declare the same of incest or not be consistant. I say they dont have the right to make either illegal bye the way. Isnt the only reason incest is illegal because their worried about the children of such a union? If they are gay or one is infertile this risk is removed or if the use birth control the chances are extremely small. The only reason this doesnt happen is there are not enuff people who are incestus and wish to fight for their sexual rights .They dont have 40 years of propaganda and money behind them like homosexuals. Hey I want the right to scew my sister. Sounds pretty stupid right? I hate to admit it but id rather screw my sister if I had one than my best friend or any guy.

[ichi]

I beg to differ. Its common sense that if you can outlaw incest for health related issues you could do the same with homosexulaity.

You've totally ignored the argument that incest has adverse effects on those who did not consent, and plowed on with the same thing you've been supporting.

By the same reasoning if you make one of them legal it follows the same should be said for the other.

These are very different things, and require very different governmental approaches. The reasoning is flawed so the conclusion is incorrect.

This is commn sense my friend and the way the law works or is supposed to work over here.

Common sense? Common sense indicates that they are different and unrelated.

Incest is just an old taboo like homosexuality.

Incest allows the expression of faulty recessive genes, there's a clear medical and moral reason to prohibit it.

Open you mind and stop judging and catorgorizing other people by their sexual prefferences. Some of you it appears dont believe in or realize the slippery slope we always talk about here.

OK, I'll open my mind up. Gay incest, as perverse as I think it is, probably isn't within the purview of governmental control, as long as it is between two consenting adults.

and there are two slippery slopes, not one. One, the one you describe, leads us to immoral behavior, while the other, the one I'm more concerned with, leads us to an insane amount of governmental intrusion into the lives of citizens.

ichi

BTW, this is all sophistry

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You've totally ignored the argument that incest has adverse effects on those who did not consent,

Apples and oranges. Im discussing incest your discussing rape.

These are very different things, and require very different governmental approaches.

Please explain to me the difference. You cannot because there is none other than our own built in prejuduces.

Common sense? Common sense indicates that they are different and unrelated.

I dont think you know what incest is then. It is merely sex between close relatives. It has nothing to do with rape or pedophilia. Those are seperarte issues.

OK, I'll open my mind up. Gay incest, as perverse as I think it is, probably isn't within the purview of governmental control, as long as it is between two consenting adults.

So then you would support gay sex over heterosexual sex. Is this common sense or fair?

Incest allows the expression of faulty recessive genes, there's a clear medical and moral reason to prohibit it.

Again its far moe dangerous to be homosexual than incestual. Even if legal just how many do you think will engage in this practice and how many children will they have? Less than there will be of gays who died from aids that year.

and there are two slippery slopes, not one. One, the one you describe, leads us to immoral behavior,

And you just went over the cliff. What makes incest anymore immoral than homosexuality?

the one I'm more concerned with, leads us to an insane amount of governmental intrusion into the lives of citizens.

Again you cant call one immoral and the other not just because thats how you feel. I find homosexuality more repugnant but who am I to tell others how to live. The government has no place in these matters. They only should have say when it comes to marriage as that is licensed by the state. Look Im more liberal here than you are for once.

[Red Harvest]

The same can be said in much part for state sactioned religion and slavery. Many states changed these with no impetus from the federal government.

I must not be reading this right... The Feds indeed had quite a fight on their hands with several of these issues. Seems like we had a little thing called the American Civil War that led to the emancipation proclamation. The seceeding states chose to withdraw and go to war when they lost control of enough of the govt that they could no longer control who was president and as a result *might* lose the ability to force slavery into new territories/states. This is the poster child for states not being able to fix problems/do the right thing in their own state.

And post slavery the South instituted a sort of race based caste system backed by its constituent states that lasted a hundred years. It took Federal intervention to finally crush that.

Religion and other culture issues are interesting, particularly when you look into the various Mormon wars and the rocky start with Utah. Can't say I've studied the archaic religious laws and rulings.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Feds indeed had quite a fight on their hands with several of these issues. Seems like we had a little thing called the American Civil War that led to the emancipation proclamation.

I said many not all. In fact many southern states were also working on ridding themselves of slavery. They just didnt think it was the jurisdiction of the federal government to mandate.

This is the poster child for states not being able to fix problems/do the right thing in their own state.

No this is what happens when the federal government over steps its bounds and ignores the constitution.

And post slavery the South instituted a sort of race based caste system backed by its constituent states that lasted a hundred years. It took Federal intervention to finally crush that.

Exactly . It caused bad feelings between southern whites and blacks that would not have been there. They caused the problem and then had to step in to fix it.

Religion and other culture issues are interesting, particularly when you look into the various Mormon wars and the rocky start with Utah. Can't say I've studied the archaic religious laws and rulings.

Many of the original 13 statess had a state religion for years before and after the constitution was signed . They on their own removed them.

[ichi]

Apples and oranges. Im discussing incest your discussing rape.

I never mentioned rape. You must be confusing me with another.

Please explain to me the difference. You cannot because there is none other than our own built in prejuduces.

Sex between consenting adults carries risks to those who engage, incest presents burdens on the offspring, who had no say in the whole affair.

I dont think you know what incest is then. It is merely sex between close relatives. It has nothing to do with rape or pedophilia. Those are seperarte issues.

LOL I know what incest is

So then you would support gay sex over heterosexual sex. Is this common sense or fair?

As I've stated before, I find gay sex (and incest) to be abhorrent. But your assertion that there is no distinguishing difference between the two is incorrect, for reasons that I've stated.

Again its far moe dangerous to be homosexual than incestual. Even if legal just how many do you think will engage in this practice and how many children will they have? Less than there will be of gays who died from aids that year.

Its far more dangerous to those having gay unprotected sex, but far more dangerous to the offspring of incest. Even if one child is born with birth defects as a result of the expression of recessive genes resulting form incest, that's one too many. What people stick up their butt is their business.

And you just went over the cliff. What makes incest anymore immoral than homosexuality?

The adverse impacts on the offspring.

Again you cant call one immoral and the other not just because thats how you feel. I find homosexuality more repugnant but who am I to tell others how to live. The government has no place in these matters. They only should have say when it comes to marriage as that is licensed by the state. Look Im more liberal here than you are for once.

They are both inappropriate IMHO, but only one deserves the intervention of government. It is not the duty of big nanny guv to protect me from taking risks, but it is within the scope of government to protect children from being harmed by others.

ichi

[Red Harvest]

I said many not all. In fact many southern states were also working on ridding themselves of slavery. They just didnt think it was the jurisdiction of the federal government to mandate.

You have absolutely no understanding about what was going on with slavery leading up to the war. The slave states were working to entrench it deeper and deeper. Bleeding Kansas came from those efforts as did the Fugitive slave act. There had been ideas about phasing out slavery, they were all rejected. The South had become increasingly militant about EXTENDING slavery to other territories and states rather than ridding themselves of it.

The South had locked itself into a death grip (or spiral) with its own institution. The South had no practical way of removing themselves from it, because about 40% of the population was negro. They had no way of absorbing 3.5 million freedmen, nor any desire to. Slavery had been justified on religous and moral grounds as saving the barbarian souls of those inferior negroes (as ridiculous as that sounds today.) Slavery was used primarily in the fertile areas to grow cash crops. It was the basis of the southern economy and as such they feared anything that might disrupt it. Southern and northern white laborers alike feared the labor competition of freed slaves. So while the average person might have had no stake in slavery, many had a self preservation desire not to face the consequences of ending it.

No this is what happens when the federal government over steps its bounds and ignores the constitution.

Wrong. Quite the opposite. The Feds had not overstepped their bounds. South Carolina issued an ULTIMATUM to the Union that if Lincoln was elected, it would secede. That is exactly what happened, and others followed. Why? Because Lincoln had vowed not to allow the *spread* of slavery to new territories or newly admitted states. Also, the Republicans were a northern party (never mind that the Democrats had also split into regional parties...) They didn't even wait for him to take office or do anything, they began secession as a pre-emptive move.

Do you actually believe states have the right to issue such ultimatums AGAINST the electoral process? The war for the north was not so much about abolition as it was preservation of the country. Having a clearly hostile nation on your border and restricting access of the Midwest to waterways like the Mississippi created problems. There was also the inevitable conflict that would arise from territories. The Kansas incidents had already shown that pro-slavery southerners would invade en masse to alter elections.

Another factor is that there were large pro-Union pockets in the Confederacy: West Virginia, East Tennessee, and the Vicksburg region of Mississippi among them (ironic with respect to Vicksburg.) They were not so keen on leaving the U.S.

As R.E. Lee said, secession was wrong and such a loose confederation was not envisioned by the founding fathers. The idea that whenever a state disagreed on some fundamental issue, it could remove itself from the Union is a nonsensical approach. It is anarchy.

The vast majority of the population of the United States of the time was in the north. The South had been over represented for some time, but that hold on power was being broken. That change was recognized, but the South was unwilling to accept anything approaching an equal footing.

It caused bad feelings between southern whites and blacks that would not have been there. They caused the problem and then had to step in to fix it.

Convenient nonsense. No, the Feds didn't create the mess. Racism from the institution of slavery created the problem. What you are saying is completely preposterous. You completely ignore centuries of racism before the war, and the racism of the time to claim the war created the racism. You have to be kidding. The intellectual honesty quotient of the claim is exactly 0%. The truth is the South was still trying to subjugate its slave population, even though they were no longer slaves. No doubt such laws would have been used even had the South miraculously freed itself from the "peculiar institution."

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sex between consenting adults carries risks to those who engage, incest presents burdens on the offspring, who had no say in the whole affair.

Again then use birth control or abortion if the fetus is deformed. Again what of infertile or same sex incest. Theres no risk at all there.

As I've stated before, I find gay sex (and incest) to be abhorrent. But your assertion that there is no distinguishing difference between the two is incorrect, for reasons that I've stated.

Of course theres a difference or they would be called the same thing. The difference is rather small though.

Its far more dangerous to those having gay unprotected sex, but far more dangerous to the offspring of incest. Even if one child is born with birth defects as a result of the expression of recessive genes resulting form incest, that's one too many. What people stick up their butt is their business.

As is one person getting aids through gay sex. Again at least you can abort the fetus. Its not a person remember.

The adverse impacts on the offspring.

Dont allow any offspring then. Make it a crime for close relatives to beget children then. What they do in their bedroom is none of our buissiness .

They are both inappropriate IMHO, but only one deserves the intervention of government. It is not the duty of big nanny guv to protect me from taking risks, but it is within the scope of government to protect children from being harmed by others.

Again abort them before they become children.

[A.Saturnus]

beg to differ. Its common sense that if you can outlaw incest for health related issues you could do the same with homosexulaity.

Not at all. You cannot bring common sense into this thread. What you were trying to do is a counter-example. You wanted to show that the logical structure that is used in the decision against a ban of homosexuality would lead to absurd consequences if used in a less obvious case.
When you said you wanted to screw your non-existent sister, then it´s not common sense at all. It´s an absurdity. And that is your point!
A counterexample is an entirely valid and common form of a logical argument, if and only if, the counterexample is logically equivalent to the reasoning of your opponent.
And that is not the case here! Incest and homosexuality differ in details that are relavant for the issue at hand. Because of that, your counterexample is not convincing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

.And that is not the case here! Incest and homosexuality differ in details that are relavant for the issue at hand. Because of that, your counterexample is not convincing.

It will be to SCOTUS. Maybe you dont understand how US law works and just how slippery the slippery slope is.

PS I want you all to notice that on this page alone I have 10 consecutive posts without a cut and paste. Your are all correct I dont have any positons of my own.

[ichi]

Dont allow any offspring then. Make it a crime for close relatives to beget children then. What they do in their bedroom is none of our buissiness .

Good point.

Again abort them before they become children.

Since the government has no business telling women they can't have abortions (unless the fetus is developed sufficiently for it to survive) then it follows that the guv shouldn't be able to mandate abortions.

The difference is rather small though.

Small, but sufficient to cause us to treat them differently under the law. As far as I know, laws prohibiting incest haven't been struck down, but laws against homosexual behavior have. The courts seem to have found the ability to stop on the slippery slope

ichi

Your are all correct I dont have any positons of my own.

and its a blast discussing the positions that you don't have

[A.Saturnus]

It will be to SCOTUS. Maybe you dont understand how US law works and just how slippery the slippery slope is.

The flaws of the US legal system are no excuse to marginalize homosexuals. If the purpose of this thread is to lament the shortcomings of a precedence-based tradition of juristical ruling, I take back any objection.

[Don Corleone]

Well, that has been my point in all of this, but I can't speak for everyone.

Because we're precedence based, and have shown a propensity for expanding the original intent of a decision well beyond any sane bounds of reason, we need to be very careful when establishing new precedent. I don't think incest being recognized by the courts is anywhere near as far-fetched as you non-Americans would think.

[A.Saturnus]

Because we're precedence based, and have shown a propensity for expanding the original intent of a decision well beyond any sane bounds of reason, we need to be very careful when establishing new precedent.

That is not the right conclusion. If bending your arm hurts, you don´t stop bending your arm. You see a doctor and try to fix the problem. Avoiding dangerous precedences is the avoidance-based way of coping. Better coping is problem-based.
Conclusion: get rid of your silly legal system.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The flaws of the US legal system are no excuse to marginalize homosexuals.

The flaws of the US legal system are no excuse to marginalize incetous couples.

[Don Corleone]

That is not the right conclusion. If bending your arm hurts, you don´t stop bending your arm. You see a doctor and try to fix the problem. Avoiding dangerous precedences is the avoidance-based way of coping. Better coping is problem-based.
Conclusion: get rid of your silly legal system.

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in this country, with authority over Congress (has the right to determine if the laws they pass are valid, or order them to pass new ones) and the Executive Branch. They even have jursidiction over the Constitution, because it says what they say it says. The only way to reform the Supreme Court is a revolution.

To continue with your analogy, if bending your arm hurts, you don't keep bending it while you're waiting for a cure. You only bend it when necessary. And you don't chop your arm off to solve the problem.

[A.Saturnus]

The flaws of the US legal system are no excuse to marginalize incetous couples.

That´s no point.

[A.Saturnus]

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in this country, with authority over Congress (has the right to determine if the laws they pass are valid, or order them to pass new ones) and the Executive Branch. They even have jursidiction over the Constitution, because it says what they say it says. The only way to reform the Supreme Court is a revolution.

To continue with your analogy, if bending your arm hurts, you don't keep bending it while you're waiting for a cure. You only bend it when necessary. And you don't chop your arm off to solve the problem.

That may be as it is. But it has no bearing on homosexuality. The decision that homosexuality must be allowed is not bad in itself. It is fair and good. But unfortunately, due to the failings of your legal system this decision might lead to successive wrong decisions. Do you suggest making wrong decisions in the first place that are 'safe'? Even if, what would be safe? How can you avoid that a completely sensible decision gets later abused as a precendent for nonsense?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That may be as it is. But it has no bearing on homosexuality. The decision that homosexuality must be allowed is not bad in itself. It is fair and good. But unfortunately, due to the failings of your legal system this decision might lead to successive wrong decisions. Do you suggest making wrong decisions in the first place that are 'safe'? Even if, what would be safe? How can you avoid that a completely sensible decision gets later abused as a precendent for nonsense?

Is incest in and of itself any worse than homosexuality? There are so many pitfalls here I dont know where to begin. The courts and government have no buissnes regualting what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. I thought this was pretty much everyones postion. Again if your worried about the children than make a law against incestous couples bearing children not out law the whole practice of incest.

[Don Corleone]

That may be as it is. But it has no bearing on homosexuality. The decision that homosexuality must be allowed is not bad in itself. It is fair and good. But unfortunately, due to the failings of your legal system this decision might lead to successive wrong decisions. Do you suggest making wrong decisions in the first place that are 'safe'? Even if, what would be safe? How can you avoid that a completely sensible decision gets later abused as a precendent for nonsense?

I would argue that people seek other avenues then the courts. First, I haven't completely discounted the will of the unwashed masses everyone seems to be so afraid of. Second, I would stop taking trying to swat flies with a sledgehammer. Rather than dealing with one particular application of the law with a broad stroke of 'no religious or moral views allowed', how about you simply say 'allowing for heterosexual marriage and not granting the same privelege to homosexuals is not congruous with the Constitution'. But oh no, in an effort to leverage this one decision to increase their power base, they've now declared themselves to be, legally, the only true arbiters of acceptable morality in this country. Bullshit.

[bmolsson]

The flaws of the US legal system are no excuse to marginalize incetous couples.

If your sister really is this hot, I would say: GO FOR IT !!!