Could the Supreme Court embrace incest?

[Proletariat]

...for there is no form of legal reasoning that can distinguish a “right” to commit homosexual sodomy from a “right” to marry your sister and raise a family. Only political reasoning — moral reasoning of the sort the Court condemned as tyrannical in Lawrence — can accomplish such a distinction, if it is possible at all.


link (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/franck200508040812.asp)

[Laridus Konivaich]

Well, let's hope they do, because my sister is pretty hot!!! ~:eek: :embarassed: :help:

there's one

[Proletariat]

*crickets*

[KukriKhan]

We'll allow 3 (three) jokes about rednecks and incest. No more. Just to get it out of your system. Fouth, or subsequent ons will be deleted.

Other posts must speak to the issue of whatever compelling interest the government has in regulating sexual behavior, and whether such subject is a matter worthy of scrutiny in the selection process of US Supreme Court justices.

[Proletariat]

Thanks, Kukri.

Was post #2 a joke?

[Laridus Konivaich]

We'll allow 3 (three) jokes about rednecks and incest. No more. Just to get it out of your system. Fouth, or subsequent ons will be deleted.I hope you weren't refering to my post? Since I didn't mention rednecks (sunburned people?)...

On a more serious note, the Supreme Court will not have the 'pleasure' of reviewing the issue of incest until a powerful special-interest lobby brings it to the front of the political stage.

The government does not have any reason to regulate the sexual habits of the country's citizens.

Edit: Why are you calling my first post a joke about Rednecks and incest? I did not mention Rednecks, which seems to be the main criteria that you specified. Also, for clarification, neither I, nor any member of my family is a Redneck.

[Proletariat]

On a more serious note, the Supreme Court will not have the 'pleasure' of reviewing the issue of incest until a powerful special-interest lobby brings it to the front of the political stage.


That's not how things are brought to the Supreme Court.


...it has been as far as a federal court of appeal already, just last month, and may soon be on the docket of the Supreme Court.



Edit: Why are you calling my first post a joke about Rednecks and incest? I did not mention Rednecks, which seems to be the main criteria that you specified.

So we still get three more? Score.

[Red Harvest]

Ichi won't be happy, GAH! is missing from the poll. ~;)

[Red Harvest]

Might also add that the question and the Supreme Court title reference are separate things. One asks whether it is protected under the constitution, while the other asks if the Supremes will embrace it. The Supreme Court has changed its interpretations of the Constitution over decades.

I don't see such a radical change happening, unless the public as a whole becomes accepting of incest--something I find highly unlikely, fortunately. The SC does tend to follow the public mindset over the long haul. This is not really a surprise since the justices are appointed by an elected President. It does slow the rate of change dramatically.

[Proletariat]

So incest can be kept legal as long as there's no off-spring, thus preventing the gene-pool from becoming stupid?

[Proletariat]

Could the Supreme Court embrace incest? is only the name of the article that I linked, and you're right that it isn't what I'm asking in my poll.

[KukriKhan]

I hope you weren't refering to my post? Since I didn't mention rednecks (sunburned people?)...

On a more serious note, the Supreme Court will not have the 'pleasure' of reviewing the issue of incest until a powerful special-interest lobby brings it to the front of the political stage.

The government does not have any reason to regulate the sexual habits of the country's citizens.

Edit: Why are you calling my first post a joke about Rednecks and incest? I did not mention Rednecks, which seems to be the main criteria that you specified. Also, for clarification, neither I, nor any member of my family is a Redneck.

I used 'redneck' as a generic term to refer to the common North American derisive term for a backwards, backwoods person of questionable moral judgment. Of course you are not a redneck. No one here is. My effort is/was designed to speak to toleration of the natural embarrassment of the subject matter, manifested as humor - such as you displayed, so that we could get such 'humor masking embarrassment' out of the way in order to discuss the actual issues involved. I subjectively decided that 3 such jokes would be enough to get past the embarrassment, and get to the heart of the issues. No offense intended.

One down. Two to go.

[Red Harvest]

So incest can be kept legal as long as there's no off-spring, thus preventing the gene-pool from becoming stupid?

I doubt it. Much incest is statutory rape as well, and I can't see that becoming acceptable...again. I say again, since incest rape and births were probably more uncommon in the "good old days" than they are now. (I actually have had several educated friends point out such interesting facets from branches of their own family trees. Nobody was prosecuted.) That crazy cousin they kept locked in the cellar... Not to mention the truly inbred folks I've personally known.

I guess where it would be challenging would be a non-minor brother/sister or first cousin relationship. That is where I would expect incest laws to be challenged.

[Red Harvest]

Could the Supreme Court embrace incest? is only the name of the article that I linked, and you're right that it isn't what I'm asking in my poll.

Stupid me, I got focused on the quote and not the link, oops, my fault.

[Laridus Konivaich]

Incest hurts everyone by making the gene pool stupid.But if hurting the gene pool can be used as an argument, then couldn't we make it illegal to not have children, because by not reproducing, you are removing your genes from the gene pool, and thus making it less diverse?

[Crazed Rabbit]

It depends on whether they approve gay marriage. All incest-lobbyists need is a big PR machine, how they won't harm anyone, etc., and to call everyone who doesn't want it a bigot, fanatic, etc.

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

Why not allow it... Europe already has lots of Monarchs and they practice it all the time and they are perfectly normal. :guitarist: :mad:

[Red Harvest]

Reading the link it seems that they address the very sticky sort of scenario I envisioned. And with offspring it becomes an even more important issue, because of the rather reckless nature of intentional reproduction through incest, not to mention taking away parents by imprisoning them for the offense.

I differ with the article on the passage, "States enforcing one of Western Civilization’s most ancient prohibitions on sexual deviancy have been declared by the Supreme Court to be acting irrationally, with no conceivable legitimacy granted to any argument they care to advance." They are referring to homosexual sodomy. However, I would challenge the blanket assessment from the start--some Western Civ. (although not Judeo-Christian that I can think of) at one time did accept homosexual sodomy--actually, the very culture from which much of Western Civ. arose.

The article conveniently ignores other sodomy/perversions in heterosexual matters. Those have also been regulated by States so that even heterosexual oral sex performed on a man or woman has been prosecuted at times.

What this boils down to is something the Constitution did not address directly. It is therefore going to work out to be a *judgement call* based on what society as a whole in this country is willing to accept. Otherwise, it is going to take a Constitutional amendment to try to clearly redefine boundaries. That might not be such a bad thing.

[Laridus Konivaich]

The way I see the problem is that 'incest' defines an arbitrary limit for the amount of (political, not genetic, mind you {see below}) relationship between two sexual partners. Why should it be illegal to have sex with your siblings/parents/first cousins, but suddenly be alright to do it with your second cousins?

Statistically, you could be less related to your siblings than to your parents (obviously 50% the same as each parent, but you could get the exact opposite half of each parent's dna from what your sibling's lot). So, incest with your sibling could actually be less heinous than incest with a parent, which would also (most likely) be statutory rape.

[Xiahou]

I doubt it. Much incest is statutory rape as well, and I can't see that becoming acceptable...again.Apparently, a disturbing number of people here think it's fine- so I wouldn't be so sure.


Could the Supreme Court embrace incest?By their own precedents? Yes. And, of course, no- it's not Constitutionally protected.

[Red Harvest]

It depends on whether they approve gay marriage. All incest-lobbyists need is a big PR machine, how they won't harm anyone, etc., and to call everyone who doesn't want it a bigot, fanatic, etc.


What about various laws restricting non-homosexual sodomy...including oral intercourse? There are a lot more extensions to the issue than just gay marriage or even gay sex (which is a separate threshhold altogether compared to marriage.)

At some point you can pass laws to forbid intercourse without the purpose of procreation if you want to take it to the extreme... You can even make masturbation illegal.

It is a damned slippery slope, but in both directions.

[Red Harvest]

Apparently, a disturbing number of people here think it's fine- so I wouldn't be so sure.


That's news to me. Who are these people promoting incest as being just fine? I'm not trying to be a smart-alec, I haven't followed the issue and I've heard of no groundswell of support for incest. What did I miss?

[Red Harvest]

The way I see the problem is that 'incest' defines an arbitrary limit for the amount of (political, not genetic, mind you {see below}) relationship between two sexual partners. Why should it be illegal to have sex with your siblings/parents/first cousins, but suddenly be alright to do it with your second cousins?

Statistically, you could be less related to your siblings than to your parents (obviously 50% the same as each parent, but you could get the exact opposite half of each parent's dna from what your sibling's lot). So, incest with your sibling could actually be less heinous than incest with a parent, which would also (most likely) be statutory rape.

Actually, the level of inter-relation has varied from state to state IIRC. I want to say some states have differed on the limits in the past. They certainly differ on ages.

The limits were set for practicality I suppose. In times not all that far back, many folks did not travel far from home in some rural areas. So finding an unrelated potential mate could get increasingly challenging.

[Xiahou]

That's news to me. Who are these people promoting incest as being just fine? I'm not trying to be a smart-alec, I haven't followed the issue and I've heard of no groundswell of support for incest. What did I miss?
I was speaking to your point on statutory rape.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Incest hurts everyone by making the gene pool stupid. It's not like Gay Marriage, where the only thing hurt is Christian Pride. I don't think they'll accept Incest, and I don't think we even have to remotely worry about the possibility.


that is pretty naive

[Laridus Konivaich]

So finding an unrelated potential mate could get increasingly challenging.However, all humans are related, as shown by various reputable studies that trace all men back to a single ancestor, and all women back to a single ancestor. Since all humans are related, finding an unrelated mate would be impossilbe. This brings us back to the point that incest is an arbitrary line, which is reinforced by the fact that (as you mentioned) the definition of incest varies by state. Si first, I would suggest determining which definition of incest should be used by the law.

[Papewaio]

The way I see the problem is that 'incest' defines an arbitrary limit for the amount of (political, not genetic, mind you {see below}) relationship between two sexual partners. Why should it be illegal to have sex with your siblings/parents/first cousins, but suddenly be alright to do it with your second cousins?

Statistically, you could be less related to your siblings than to your parents (obviously 50% the same as each parent, but you could get the exact opposite half of each parent's dna from what your sibling's lot). So, incest with your sibling could actually be less heinous than incest with a parent, which would also (most likely) be statutory rape.

The chance of having 'no relation' ie no identical gene for siblings is 1 in 2^23. Or one chance in eight million siblings of having no shared genes.

If they do have identical genes then there is a 1/4 chance per same set of genes of having an offspring with two identical genes... and a high chance of a genetic disorder. In all likely hood the siblings are going to have half of the same genes meaning a very very high chance over 23 pairs of any offspring being born with a pair of identical genes.

Each time a generation repeats an incest pairing the odds increase dramatically of the offspring of having identical gene pairs.

[Papewaio]

However, all humans are related, as shown by various reputable studies that trace all men back to a single ancestor, and all women back to a single ancestor. Since all humans are related, finding an unrelated mate would be impossilbe. This brings us back to the point that incest is an arbitrary line, which is reinforced by the fact that (as you mentioned) the definition of incest varies by state. Si first, I would suggest determining which definition of incest should be used by the law.

A pair of totally unrelated parents will have 23 pairs of genes each giving a total pool of 92 genes.

The total number of human genes is between 20,000 and 25,000. So you are playing in a shallow pool with a depth less then 1% of the true human gene pool if you are being incestous.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Pape

I think you are confusing genes with chromosomes. We have 46 pairs of chromosomes (23 from each parent) and on each chromosome there are thousands fo genes. To a first approximation your analysis is correct, but there is a mechanism for genes to swap between chromosome pairs making the chances of siblings having totally different genes even less likely.

[Del Arroyo]

Statutory rape? Meh. Personally I find many aspects of our current feminist-slut culture to be at least as disfunctional and disgusting. But incest is something that I would hope we all could agree upon. I mean, c'mon-- you can't find ANYONE else to mate with?????

DA

[Don Corleone]

I don't think it's fine. I think that the reasoning used in Lawerence opens a lot of doors, and incest is one of them. Lawerence states that moral codes cannot be used unless a direct interest of the state can be invoked. I'm arguing that any so-called interest the state has in banning incest can be linked back to squeamishness stemming from a moral/religious code and is not constitutional.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think it's fine. I think that the reasoning used in Lawerence opens a lot of doors, and incest is one of them. Lawerence states that moral codes cannot be used unless a direct interest of the state can be invoked. I'm arguing that any so-called interest the state has in banning incest can be linked back to squeamishness stemming from a moral/religious code and is not constitutional.


well put, i agree

[Papewaio]

Pape

I think you are confusing genes with chromosomes. We have 46 pairs of chromosomes (23 from each parent) and on each chromosome there are thousands fo genes. To a first approximation your analysis is correct, but there is a mechanism for genes to swap between chromosome pairs making the chances of siblings having totally different genes even less likely.
Oops yes 23 paired sets of genes (chromosomes), was concentrating on getting the numbeer... and it is still 23 pairs...

[Papewaio]

I don't think it's fine. I think that the reasoning used in Lawerence opens a lot of doors, and incest is one of them. Lawerence states that moral codes cannot be used unless a direct interest of the state can be invoked. I'm arguing that any so-called interest the state has in banning incest can be linked back to squeamishness stemming from a moral/religious code and is not constitutional.

A doubling of the rate of handicaped children of incest is a burden to the state.

[Es Arkajae]

I think the High Court of any nation is smart enough not to fly in the face of too much of the country's morals too blatantly even if they wanted to.

Laws are by their nature moral creatures, and a courts job is to interpret law not make its own or throw out morals as unimportant, if it wishes to fly in the face of the legislature AND the people, its asking for itself to be disbanded or somehow taken down a few pegs otherwise.

I can't ever see incest becoming socially acceptable, homosexuality at least doesn't result in inbred offspring.

[Don Corleone]

I think the High Court of any nation is smart enough not to fly in the face of too much of the country's morals too blatantly even if they wanted to.

Laws are by their nature moral creatures, and a courts job is to interpret law not make its own or throw out morals as unimportant, if it wishes to fly in the face of the legislature AND the people, its asking for itself to be disbanded or somehow taken down a few pegs otherwise.

I can't ever see incest becoming socially acceptable, homosexuality at least doesn't result in inbred offspring.

Now this really frightens me. I can understand having a morale base to your legal code. And I can even understand (but disagree with) saying you must purge morality from your legal code. But what you're advocating 'some morality is okay, some isn't' really frightens me. Essentially, what you're advocating is that the Supreme Court will decide what is an acceptable moral stance and what is not. That runs deep chills down my spine.

[Don Corleone]

The chance of having 'no relation' ie no identical gene for siblings is 1 in 2^23. Or one chance in eight million siblings of having no shared genes.

If they do have identical genes then there is a 1/4 chance per same set of genes of having an offspring with two identical genes... and a high chance of a genetic disorder. In all likely hood the siblings are going to have half of the same genes meaning a very very high chance over 23 pairs of any offspring being born with a pair of identical genes.

Each time a generation repeats an incest pairing the odds increase dramatically of the offspring of having identical gene pairs.

I'm not a geneticist, but I believe it's pretty clear you aren't either, no offense Pape.

You're assuming that everyone actually carries these recessive traits in their genetic structure. But as they're not expressed, it's almost impossible to make that determination. It's entirely possible, and I would imagine in most cases more likely, that both siblings are missing the recessive failing gene. Your mathematical analysis assumes that both both siblings would have the genetic markers for these defects, if one did.

Believe it or not, inbreeding doesn't 'cause' genetic defects. What it actually does is distill the expression of recessive traits picked up through outbreeding. If human population ALWAYS inbred, there would be no genetic diseases, assuming those that expressed the undesired traits weren't breeding. Outbreeding is what creates these recessive traits, but it's also what allows for improvement. Inbreeding just purifies what's already there.

In any case, using your argument that the state has a vested interest in seeing to it that 'at-risk' children aren't born, shouldn't the state have the right to sterilize women at age 40, to protect itself from the much more risky scenario of older women giving birth to Down's syndrome children at a much higher rate?

[Bartix]

as long as condescending adulterers, I see no reason why not incestuous relation, but no nothing of constitution.
EUgenics should say many people other than family should not have kids.
Must be up to poor judgement of individual, or have scary fascist state. Like pre WW2 neuter gypsies etc. ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek:

[Es Arkajae]

Now this really frightens me. I can understand having a morale base to your legal code. And I can even understand (but disagree with) saying you must purge morality from your legal code. But what you're advocating 'some morality is okay, some isn't' really frightens me. Essentially, what you're advocating is that the Supreme Court will decide what is an acceptable moral stance and what is not. That runs deep chills down my spine.
!???

I'm trying to figure out just how in the hell you managed to get that out of my post and I'm drawing a blank?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I have a completely off-topic question, though this thread seems a good place to ask: are 'SCOTUS', 'SC' and 'Supreme Court' perfect synonyms? Do they carry any emotional value or are they 'neutral' terminology? Are person's of any political persuasion more likely to use one term for the Supreme Court over the other?

Sorry, but American politics are often a battle over words and definition to, an aspect that is hard to keep up with from abroad.

* I'm just curious, no strings attached *

[Don Corleone]

Supreme Court, and Supreme Court of the United States are the neutral terms.

SC is extreme shorthand. I haven't seen it used very much.

SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States. It was developed by National Review (a right wing policy journal published by William F. Buckley) to give a menacing tone to the body. I freely use it, as I view that body of 9 dictators to be quite menacing.

[Don Corleone]

!???

I'm trying to figure out just how in the hell you managed to get that out of my post and I'm drawing a blank?

You didn't come right out and say it, but who would you appoint as the arbiter of what's acceptable morality and what's unacceptable? I wasn't saying you favor that position, I was saying what you're discussing 'acceptable levels of morality' would necessarily lead to this.

My apologies if that came off as a jab at you. You need to be American to understand just how disengaged from common sense and logic our legal system is. If you set a precedence such as "what's a tolerable amount of morality" as precedent, that's opening a floodgate of rulings where SCOTUS (for you Louis, note the usage) will arbitrarily decide which moral traditions are acceptable and which must be verboten.

[Red Harvest]

I was speaking to your point on statutory rape.

Then I'm really confused since in the "good old days" an "old fart" could marry a 13 or 14 year old girl. Many things that were acceptable not all that long ago would be unacceptable now (and for good reason in my opinion.)

There was a case like this with a not so old fart (about 20) marrying a 13 or 14 year old in Nebraska IIRC and then being charged in Kansas where they both lived or vice versa. It wasn't an incest thing, but age of consent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Supreme Court, and Supreme Court of the United States are the neutral terms.

SC is extreme shorthand. I haven't seen it used very much.

SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States. It was developed by National Review (a right wing policy journal published by William F. Buckley) to give a menacing tone to the body.Is this almost Orwellian fixation on rewriting language limited to the right wing? Or is America's political polarization so complete that both parties feel the need to have two sets of words for every concept?

[Don Corleone]

We both do it, only the Right Wing admits to it.

Let me pick an issue at random from the headlines... okay, I have one...
NY TImes decides to investegate Justice Roberts' adopted kids (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jra.htm)

Let me do my best to describe the story, first in Left speak, then in Right speak...

Left version: In an attempt to get to the bottom of mysterious conditions surrounding ulta-convervative Justice John Roberts' adoption of two central American toddlers, the New York Times bravely met its responsiblity to the American public. It decided to politely, sensitively and carefully see to it that in the adoption of these children, Justice Roberts didn't continue in his well documented, widely known disrespect for the law in his own life.

Right version: In a massive smear campaign, the Democrats' media consultants, aka the NY Times has targeted the 2 adopted children of Justice John Roberts. Having been able to find nothing to smear Justice Roberts with, Leahy and Kennedy apparently ordered their spin doctors at the NY Times to find something on Roberts' kids. Who knows what the Times will out poor little Josie(5) and Jack (4) over... maybe they'll attempt to portray Roberts as a bad father and use the children's toilet training habits. What is known is that regardless of the avenue they choose, the Democrats and the NY Times are out to get Roberts' kids, because they can't get Roberts.

[Es Arkajae]

You didn't come right out and say it, but who would you appoint as the arbiter of what's acceptable morality and what's unacceptable? I wasn't saying you favor that position, I was saying what you're discussing 'acceptable levels of morality' would necessarily lead to this.

My apologies if that came off as a jab at you. You need to be American to understand just how disengaged from common sense and logic our legal system is. If you set a precedence such as "what's a tolerable amount of morality" as precedent, that's opening a floodgate of rulings where SCOTUS (for you Louis, note the usage) will arbitrarily decide which moral traditions are acceptable and which must be verboten.

ALL laws are based on morals, it is laws which the Courts have to work with and interpret.

Laws are made by the elected legislature who are elected by the enfranchised population, thus ultimately it is the people who decide what is morally acceptable.

I think the courts have a certain amount of leeway on the matter of interpretation in the application of laws to cases but they do NOT have the right to override societal morals expressed through legislation or to claim that they do not exist or are irrelevent. The government is not amoral, if it was then the people would have no need to owe it any alleigance and certainly no moral requirement to follow its laws.

[Red Harvest]

Now this really frightens me. I can understand having a morale base to your legal code. And I can even understand (but disagree with) saying you must purge morality from your legal code. But what you're advocating 'some morality is okay, some isn't' really frightens me. Essentially, what you're advocating is that the Supreme Court will decide what is an acceptable moral stance and what is not. That runs deep chills down my spine.

Don,

You are being naive if you don't think the courts throughout our history have not had to make such calls. It is done based on their interpretation of the morality of the time. Like it or not, that's the way the world really works. If you want it spelled out and codified, then you are going to need to amend the Constitution, because it is not directly addressed. Frankly, I would rather have the courts moderating this than those with the black and white views of everything--as I suspect that would leave us truly swinging from one extreme to the next. I would much rather have the Supremes making the call under public scrutiny, than Joe-Bob Podunk's Local Court doing it. The worst decisions I've seen come from the lower level courts and from all ends of the spectrum.

By the reasoning you are using, any state or the Feds could ban any practice hetero, homo, or whatever. That doesn't fit with my ideas of liberty.

What cases like this illustrate is that extreme views on either end are not very well supported. Folks like to castigate moderates for wanting a reasoned approach, but when you start digging into this it is clearly not such a simple black and white issue.

[Don Corleone]

ALL laws are based on morals, it is laws which the Courts have to work with and interpret.

Laws are made by the elected legislature who are elected by the enfranchised population, thus ultimately it is the people who decide what is morally acceptable.

I think the courts have a certain amount of leeway on the matter of interpretation in the application of laws to cases but they do NOT have the right to override societal morals expressed through legislation or to claim that they do not exist or are irrelevent. The government is not amoral, if it was then the people would have no need to owe it any alleigance and certainly no moral requirement to follow its laws.

I agree with you Es Arkajae (what does that mean anyway?) But your comments here show that you still (rightly) consider the role of the courts to be evaluator of law. They are not in America. In America, they issue law in the form of bench edicts. Gay marriage was ordered by the Massachussets Supreme Court. The seizure of personal property by local munical authorities for private gain by 3rd parties was also a law ordered by the US Supreme Court. All I'm trying to say is if you set a precedent of 'Allowing some morality into the legal system is okay, but too much is a bad thing', you're writing a blank check in the states for the Court system to go forward and begin declaring what people are and are not allowed to consider moral. I know it sounds insane, but it's the way things work here.

[Don Corleone]

Don,

You are being naive if you don't think the courts throughout our history have not had to make such calls. It is done based on their interpretation of the morality of the time. Like it or not, that's the way the world really works. If you want it spelled out and codified, then you are going to need to amend the Constitution, because it is not directly addressed. Frankly, I would rather have the courts moderating this than those with the black and white views of everything--as I suspect that would leave us truly swinging from one extreme to the next. I would much rather have the Supremes making the call under public scrutiny, than Joe-Bob Podunk's Local Court doing it. The worst decisions I've seen come from the lower level courts and from all ends of the spectrum.

By the reasoning you are using, any state or the Feds could ban any practice hetero, homo, or whatever. That doesn't fit with my ideas of liberty.

What cases like this illustrate is that extreme views on either end are not very well supported. Folks like to castigate moderates for wanting a reasoned approach, but when you start digging into this it is clearly not such a simple black and white issue.

You are misunderstanding or misstating my position. Of course courts have done it throughout history. But I don't want to formally recognize their power to do so!!! I mean, for Christ's sake Red, you're right, SCOTUS already has de facto power of life, death, property & family over me. They could sieze my children, take my house, toss me in jail, any time they feel like it. And they could claim that anybody that objected on moral grounds was ignorant. But they still have to sell that in the marketplace of public opinion. Why grant them the right to declare what is moral and what isn't? It truly makes them exempt from public opinion which is the last and only hurdle SCOTUS faces.

[Es Arkajae]

I agree with you Es Arkajae (what does that mean anyway?)

Its a phonetic juxtaposition of my initials SRKJ, I like it as it means I can usually use the same online name everywhere.



But your comments here show that you still (rightly) consider the role of the courts to be evaluator of law. They are not in America. In America, they issue law in the form of bench edicts. Gay marriage was ordered by the Massachussets Supreme Court. The seizure of personal property by local munical authorities for private gain by 3rd parties was also a law ordered by the US Supreme Court. All I'm trying to say is if you set a precedent of 'Allowing some morality into the legal system is okay, but too much is a bad thing', you're writing a blank check in the states for the Court system to go forward and begin declaring what people are and are not allowed to consider moral. I know it sounds insane, but it's the way things work here.

Thats not what your courts are at all, thats merely what they've been allowed to get away with. Thats the fault of your Congress.

[Red Harvest]

Don,

I'm not trying to twist what you are saying, but I don't see how you can believe that the courts have not always been the arbiters of such things.
They must rule on whether certain restrictions and apparent contradictions by the States, local, or Federal authorities are Constitutional. E.g. Some folks dislike gays, so they pass a broad sodomy law, it gets applied to various things, the various rulings are appealed to higher and higher courts.

The real enemy here is the highly charged attempts at modern morality legislation and enforcement. On one side you have a push for gay marriage, etc. while on the other end of the spectrum have people trying to force more puritanical religious views on the rest of us. Both of these are backfiring big time, because it is forcing careful scrutiny of legal wording written long ago, when different moral interpretations were in place than the current mainstream. And many things were not considered or addressed in the more Victorian era.

If you want these to be taken out of the hands of the courts, you are going to need some strong Federal legislation or more likely a Constitutional amendment to clarify the modern boundaries. It might not be a bad idea to spell out more clearly where the limits are between personal freedoms and socially imposed limits (through governmental actions.) The same might have to be done with marriage issues.

This reminds me somewhat of the gays in the military issue. It never was a big issue for me pro or con. I agree that an openly gay soldier/officer creates some serious problems in the U.S. military structure, but I don't have a problem with them having their personal privacy...as long as it remains private...when the cat is out of a bag, you have a problem. As such "don't ask, don't tell" makes sense to me as it avoids both the witch hunts and the potential unit cohesion disruptions of openly gay soldiers. It isn't perfect by a longshot, but there will always be villains and victims on both sides.

[ICantSpellDawg]

according to almost all mainstream morality - homosexuality is immoral, incest is immoral, abortion is immoral etc - if one appeals to a superlative morality these things can be legislated against

if morality is not based on a superlative and is, in fact, created by majority consensus - these things are still taken as immoral by the majority today

i wonder where people get the idea that government should circumvent both of these qualifiers of morality?

i'll tell you
they are adhering to a superlative morality of their own creation;
one based on modern beliefs and distrust of everythign from our past. I, personally, do not buy it.

if we are simply animals with no purpose - laws of consequence and nature are the deciders of our "fate". even with these laws as definitive with regards to what should and shouldnt happen, these things would die out as issues

we live in a society with laws based on morality with its roots in the superlative. if it doesnt, the entire concept of "democracy" is not an imperitive and can easily be usurped as our system of government by those who believe that they know better than everyone else

it, like everything, is a viscious and inherently senseless cycle.

to pick and choose what is moral, while practical, is totally contradictory and chops at the roots that sustain ones own legitimacy

[Red Harvest]

TuffStuff,

I might be missing where you are going with this...

Immoral and illegal are not necessarily the same thing. Nor is unethical and illegal. If you want to make everything immoral illegal, then you are going to run into some trouble in a hurry. Just because I find something immoral, doesn't mean that I believe it should be made illegal for others. (And no I'm not defending incest.)

Since moral beliefs do vary from society to society, religion to religion, and by many other variables, there is little in the way of moral absolutes. Since those shift over time, the only way you are going to fix them is to clarify the Constitutional basis where it fails to address them. We could throw polygamy into the mix here for example, considering that many biblical figures had multiple wives it is going to be difficult to say it is absolutely immoral, yet it is illegal.

So if we use the approach you suggest, it seems we get back to some sort of majority religous view--at least the one that is being used today. Of course, the absolutes of various religions have been changing over time as well. This absolute black and white view is itself an illusion.

[ichi]

Ichi won't be happy, GAH! is missing from the poll. ~;)

Absolutely, Gah! is a traditional option on polls at the Org.


...for there is no form of legal reasoning that can distinguish a “right” to commit homosexual sodomy from a “right” to marry your sister and raise a family. Only political reasoning — moral reasoning of the sort the Court condemned as tyrannical in Lawrence — can accomplish such a distinction, if it is possible at all.

There is substantial evidence that there is an increased chance of genetically programmed health problems from incestual reproduction.

Therefore the State has a compelling interest (protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.

Since government has a responsibility to minimize its involvement in the affairs of citizens, it has no duty to dictate the moral values of any particular group (such as the sex of the person with whom one achieves orgasm with) unless there is a compelling social interest that outwieghs government intrusion.

ichi :bow:

[Red Harvest]

There is substantial evidence that there is an increased chance of genetically programmed health problems from incestual reproduction.

Therefore the State has a compelling interest (protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.

Since government has a responsibility to minimize its involvement in the affairs of citizens, it has no duty to dictate the moral values of any particular group (such as the sex of the person with whom one achieves orgasm with) unless there is a compelling social interest that outwieghs government intrusion.


I agree with this approach at least when it pertains to the private affairs of citizens. However, it creates a loophole...the incest approach to it gets complicated if one of the partners is sterile (either by choice or voluntarily.)

[Proletariat]

...(protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.



Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total. *snip* According to CDC estimates, heterosexual contact led to about one third of new AIDS diagnoses and one third of new HIV diagnoses in 2003.

http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

Let's outlaw male-to-male homosexuality then.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Darn you, Proletariot! I saw this article before but let it slide! ~D

Well, what if the two incestees (incesters?) are made to be unable to have children? And the relationship is consensual and say they're both in their thirties. On what grounds can you oppose their... relationship? Or, even better:

Can they marry?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by ichi
There is substantial evidence that there is an increased chance of genetically programmed health problems from incestual reproduction.

Therefore the State has a compelling interest (protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.

Since government has a responsibility to minimize its involvement in the affairs of citizens, it has no duty to dictate the moral values of any particular group (such as the sex of the person with whom one achieves orgasm with) unless there is a compelling social interest that outwieghs government intrusion..

According to this homosexulaity should be outlawed. Its a fact that homosexulas are more likely to die early and contract certain ailments. Don is right making incest against the law is just as unconstitutional as making homosexuality is. This is the slippery slope in US law. If you are going to make an exception for one then sooner or later your going to have to make one for the others.There is no compelling reason to favor homosexuals over incestous people.

[Red Harvest]

Can they marry?

Only if they are homosexuals...and only then in certain states. ~D ~;) Sorry, couldn't pass that one up.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is incest itself against the law or just incestous marriage?

[Red Harvest]

According to this homosexulaity should be outlawed. Its a fact that homosexulas are more likely to die early and contract certain ailments. Don is right making incest against the law is just as unconstitutional as making homosexuality is. This is the slippery slope in US law. If you are going to make an exception for one then sooner or later your going to have to make one for the others.There is no compelling reason to favor homosexuals over incestous people.

And perhaps all sex. ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: Since zero sex = less chance of contracting certain ailments. And childbirth...well that has all sorts of risks and problems associated with it. Not to mention the cost of educating those little wonders. :dizzy2: Indeed it is a slippery slope.

[Proletariat]

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=law&refid=009


Incest laws prohibit sexual activity between family members.

Fwiw. It is UC.

[Strike For The South]

Ive seen pepole whove married there 1st 2nd cousins (nothing servere as the sister mind you) and they are some of the most backwards pepole you can find They shouldnt be allowed to marry because there offspring probaly will have gentic defectes and if we do find a way to elimanate that there children will still have severe social defects.

[A.Saturnus]

Isn´t there some asymmetry between incest and homosexuality? As far as I know, it is currently entirely legal for a man in the US to have sex with another man. But it is not legal to have sex with a sibling. The matter has no reference to gaymarriage, only to homosexual acts. Who of you say that homosexual acts should be illegal? If you think homosexual acts should be legal, than this argument against gay marriage falls apart.

[Red Harvest]

Isn´t there some asymmetry between incest and homosexuality? As far as I know, it is currently entirely legal for a man in the US to have sex with another man. But it is not legal to have sex with a sibling. The matter has no reference to gaymarriage, only to homosexual acts. Who of you say that homosexual acts should be illegal? If you think homosexual acts should be legal, than this argument against gay marriage falls apart.

Until 2003, sodomy was still a crime in some U.S. states, particularly Virginia and Idaho which did not distinguish between hetero or homo sodomy. Texas sodomy law was limited to homosexual sex and was overturned by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote in 2003 which invalidated all of the sodomy laws I believe. Most states had repealed theirs in the '60's and 70's. I think there are still laws on the books making homosexual and heterosexual sex illegal, but they can no longer be enforced since they have been stricken down.

Oral sex was technically illegal under many statutes.

[ichi]

From the Avert site Prol cited


Estimated adult and adolescent HIV diagnoses in 2003 by exposure category
Exposure category Male Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532 - 14,532
Injection drug use 3,189 1,628 4,817
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,224 - 1,224
Heterosexual contact 4,041 6,942 10,983
Other/risk not identified 168 163 331
Total 23,153 8,733 31,886

male/male 14,532 hetero 10,983, or essentially 3/2. Sorry, but HIV is spread by sexual contact, both homo and heterosexual contact. The difference is one of degree.


According to this homosexulaity should be outlawed. Its a fact that homosexulas are more likely to die early and contract certain ailments. Don is right making incest against the law is just as unconstitutional as making homosexuality is. This is the slippery slope in US law. If you are going to make an exception for one then sooner or later your going to have to make one for the others.There is no compelling reason to favor homosexuals over incestous people.

An odd position for a Libertarian to take, that government can outlaw behavior that increases our personal risk or decreases our longevity. Smoking, driving in cars, cell phones, doughnuts, all make us die earlier and contract certain ailments.

and I know you don't support big nanny guv. Incest has been shown to reduce vigor and increase disabilities in offspring. This has the effect of a direct adverse impact on innocents. Homosexual behavior between consenting adults does not. So, there is a compelling reason to make rational distinctions between the two groups.

The problem of health care is really one of the unintended consequences of socialism. We are all paying into the pool, but what role does govenrment have in determining strictures on behvior?

Essentially religious conservatives loath homosexuality because God is alleged to have forbidden it. They can't find a legitimate reason to condone government intrusion into the lives of citizens to enforce their particular brand of morality, so they resort to guilt by association, lumping homosexually with pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and the funniest, necrophilia.

ichi :bow:

[sharrukin]

Essentially religious conservatives loath homosexuality because God is alleged to have forbidden it. They can't find a legitimate reason to condone government intrusion into the lives of citizens to enforce their particular brand of morality, so they resort to guilt by association, lumping homosexually with pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and the funniest, necrophilia.

ichi :bow:

Well I don't think just religious conservatives have difficulties with homosexuality. All sorts of people regardless of political affiliation do.

You raise an interesting point.
I have noticed that incest is condemned based primarily on genetics. What about bestiality, and necrophilia. If morality is not the basis for condemning them, what is? Or should they be allowed?

[Steppe Merc]

I'm not sure if incest is oulawable, though in my eyes, it is totally different from homosexuality. I just have never bought the whole slippery slope argument for it. What is similar about homosexuality and other sexual practices such as incest, pedophillia, bestiality etc.? Nothing, other than they aren't "normal". Many are harmful, thus should be outlawed, though incest isn't harmful, so I don't know if it can be, or should be.

However, I don't think that the Supreme Court could ever embrace incest, as it is too taboo.

Damn it, I've voted wrong. I voted for nope, assuming that it was for the question of the topic. I didn't read the real question. I don't quite get it anyway, so it's ok.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

An odd position for a Libertarian to take, that government can outlaw behavior that increases our personal risk or decreases our longevity. Smoking, driving in cars, cell phones, doughnuts, all make us die earlier and contract certain ailments.

I never said that. I said its ridiculous to say that you can ban incest for those reasons but not homosexuality. I never gave a position one way or the other as to my position on either of these. Im merely saying that they should be treated equally. This again is again illustrates the slippery slope of US law. I will tell you I oppose all of the above except the cell phone one. Thats just common sense like not watching your tv in your car while driving. Its not that hard to pull over or call back.


I have noticed that incest is condemned based primarily on genetics. What about bestiality, and necrophilia. If morality is not the basis for condemning them, what is? Or should they be allowed?

Again you are setting precedent when you start legalizing these things. One will lead to the other becoming legal. Again the only reason these things are illegal is most of us find them disgusting. This in truth why most dont want homosexual marriage. They dont come right out and say it but the thought is repugnant to them. Its the same exact reason.


male/male 14,532 hetero 10,983, or essentially 3/2. Sorry, but HIV is spread by sexual contact, both homo and heterosexual contact. The difference is one of degree.

Yes its wonderful how you can use statistics to make anything you like out of it. I find the statisics you posted alarming to ay the least. The fact that 2% of the population accounts for one 33% of all cases of aids is staggering.

[Red Harvest]

The fact that 2% of the population accounts for one 33% of all cases of aids is staggering.

5-10% are the typical figures I hear for homosexuality. The 2% figures I've seen on the net don't appear to be credible--even looking at my high school graduating class which happened to be rural midwest. There is also a substantial "asexual" population out there (stop your snickering, you know what I mean), people that seem to have zero sex drive or zero sex. I would classify them as "none of the above."

Another observation, female-to-female transmission appears to be non-existent, and they are not some minute segment of the population based on how many I've worked with. So does that mean they would be exempt from a health standpoint?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

5-10% are the typical figures I hear for homosexuality.

So one out of every ten or twenty people are gay. I dont think so. On top of this the vast majority of homosexuals with aids are men. That makes it an even smaller part of the poulation. Even if we took 10% their having 3 to 4 times as many problems as heterosexuals. Thats a far larger risk than incest.

[Divinus Arma]

So one out of every ten or twenty people are gay. I dont think so. On top of this the vast majority of homosexuals with aids are men. That makes it an even smaller part of the poulation. Even if we took 10% their having 3 to 4 times as many problems as heterosexuals. Thats a far larger risk than incest.

Well look who it tis. I couldv'e used you in the political persuaion poll a little while ago leatherneck. ~:cheers:

[Don Corleone]

If the State has a right to restrict people's liberties in order to protect society from high risk pregnancies, why don't we sterilize women at age 40? Once women turn 40, any pregnancies are at elevated risk of Down's syndrome.

[A.Saturnus]

So one out of every ten or twenty people are gay. I dont think so. On top of this the vast majority of homosexuals with aids are men. That makes it an even smaller part of the poulation. Even if we took 10% their having 3 to 4 times as many problems as heterosexuals. Thats a far larger risk than incest.

Nonsense! There are 300 million people in the US. If 2% are homosexual that makes proximately 6 million homosexuals. 14,500 aquired HIV 2003. That means that the chance for a homosexual in the US to aquire HIV per year is 2.5*10E-3. The risk of genetic deficiancies in case of incest is far higher.
And please consider that homosexuality is not the cause of AIDS!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nonsense! There are 300 million people in the US. If 2% are homosexual that makes proximately 6 million homosexuals. 14,500 aquired HIV 2003. That means that the chance for a homosexual in the US to aquire HIV per year is 2.5*10E-3.

Again the rate among homosexual males is far higher tham females so your stats are squewed try doubling it. Anyway the question of which is more dangerous is irrelevant here. Only the fact that they both increase risk.


And please consider that homosexuality is not the cause of AIDS!

No ever said it was. But it is one of if not the largest contributing factor to it. Tell me once more how it is that heterosexuals get aids? Somewhere down the line a gay man was probably involved.

[bmolsson]

I can't see any problems with incest as long as it's between consent adults. For me personally it's a bit weird, but I am not to judge.....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You see there you go. You cant argue with his logic either. Its all or nothing. If couples use birth control whats the problem other than morality here? The same can be said for homosexuals.

[A.Saturnus]

Again the rate among homosexual males is far higher tham females so your stats are squewed try doubling it. Anyway the question of which is more dangerous is irrelevant here. Only the fact that they both increase risk.

We were talking about homosexuals. That includes lesbians.
Both may increase risk, but incest in a far greater amount than homosexuality. Especially, since the dangers of homosexuality can be avoided easily.



No ever said it was. But it is one of if not the largest contributing factor to it. Tell me once more how it is that heterosexuals get aids? Somewhere down the line a gay man was probably involved.

Somewhere down the line an ape was involved. Homosexuality is only contributing more than drug abuse because it is more widespread. And the problem is not homosexuality but the lack of hygiene.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We were talking about homosexuals. That includes lesbians.
Both may increase risk, but incest in a far greater amount than homosexuality. Especially, since the dangers of homosexuality can be avoided easily.


First that a good way to distort statistics by adding a third sexual prefference. Secondly the dangers of incest are just as easily in fact more easily avoided than those of homosexuality. I remember people saying that gay incest is ok. Now is that fair? Theres no risk of them getting pregnant . Use common sense and not all that knowledge theve been pumping into that tremdous brain of yours. ~D

[Red Harvest]

So one out of every ten or twenty people are gay. I dont think so.

I do, considering most homosexuals I have known are in conservative areas (I haven't lived in particularly liberal areas enough to make observations of them) and in the few instances where I can attempt some sort of valid cross section, they have come out in the 5% range--and those are merely the well known ones, who have a same sex partner living with them or otherwise don't make a secret of it. There are likely quite a few who are far more secretive in such conservative communities.

[Red Harvest]

Tell me once more how it is that heterosexuals get aids? Somewhere down the line a gay man was probably involved.

As Saturnus pointed out this disease apparently came from a simian of some sort. The greatest probability is that the human link in the chain was hetero.

Regardless of that my understanding is that the most rampant spread of the disease in the World has been in heterosexual contact in Africa.

However, by your logic, being a homosexual female would be exempt, because the chance of transmission appears to be far less than for hetero females.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I do, considering most homosexuals I have known are in conservative areas (I haven't lived in particularly liberal areas enough to make observations of them) and in the few instances where I can attempt some sort of valid cross section, they have come out in the 5% range-

For once will you back up your claims?


As Saturnus pointed out this disease apparently came from a simian of some sort. The greatest probability is that the human link in the chain was hetero.

So what. The facts are that it is far more prevelant in the gay community. Again almost all those with aids who are homosexual are gays not lesbians. The perentage is even higher than you pretend. Also again this has nothing to do with the topic. If the government can outlaw incest because of health risks it can do the same to homosexuals. Again Im not taking any position here other than if ones ok then so is the other either way. The question posed was is it possible that SCOTUS would say its unconstitutional to make incest illegal. If it cannot make homosexuality illegal I fail to see where it gets the authority to make incest illegal.

[ichi]

so I'll reiterate, to make it clear.

Controlling consenting sex between adults, however risky, is not part of the legitimate purview of representative government. Protecting innocent children is.

Everyone accepts consequences for their acts, but allowing incest forces the consequences on those who did not consent.

ichi :bow:

[Red Harvest]

For once will you back up your claims?

Same old refrain, eh Gawain?

Ok, don't see that this will be of much use to you. My very average rural midwest, conservative, all white high school class had about 100 students on graduation day. I could name two males and two females who are now known to be homosexual. This covers only a portion of the class, mind you, as these are people who are still in contact with the rest of the class at times (about 75% of the total at best.) One of the guys was obvious...the other didn't really know for a few years (although many of us suspected and were not at all surprised). Of the two girls, one was suspected back in high school, but she did date guys at the time and was a very nice, intelligent girl (and a terrific athlete.) The other one was a bit of a surprise to me, but I never knew her that well. Those two really hit it off together at the class reunion--no, I'm not making that up.

I came up with at least one of each sex in the classes above and below mine, but I don't know much about most of the people in each of those classes, so it is a a very incomplete subset to begin with. Again these are only the people who have not kept things hidden.

Off at college...had some friends who were, shall we say, stereotypical female athletes in some regards.

At work, we had many lesbian operators, just going by the ones on shifts that I worked with I would put it at well north of 20%. Male openly homosexual operators were far, far less common. The relative representation among the sexes most likely had a lot to do with job types. (Speaking of job types, I have an in-law who works in theater--she doesn't know that many straight men in theater.)



Also again this has nothing to do with the topic.


Perhaps you should reread the article. They are being directly linked in the article. It does have to do with the topic.



If the government can outlaw incest because of health risks it can do the same to homosexuals.


Or heterosexuals or anyone else. I don't know what the real basis used was for defining and barring incest. I suspect it was moral in nature, but defined at a specific relation level as a compromise of pragmatism and health. However, a number of the laws barring homosexuals also barred hetero oral sex among other things. Those effectively have been thrown out as of 2003--rather late for a modern free nation if you ask me.



Again Im not taking any position here other than if ones ok then so is the other either way. The question posed was is it possible that SCOTUS would say its unconstitutional to make incest illegal. If it cannot make homosexuality illegal I fail to see where it gets the authority to make incest illegal.

That is the question, where should the legislation of morality end? It is not an easy question. My point is not to take a side on this (neither impacts me directly anyway, LOL) but to point out pro's and con's of various approaches. Trying to maintain some intellectual honesty rather than trying to simply brand one group or another makes more sense to me. I fail to see how this is well addressed by the constitution either way.

[bmolsson]

Just a thought on the HIV/AIDS discussion. Wouldn't incest reduce the risk for HIV spread ??? ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That is the question, where should the legislation of morality end? It is not an easy question. My point is not to take a side on this (neither impacts me directly anyway, LOL) but to point out pro's and con's of various approaches. Trying to maintain some intellectual honesty rather than trying to simply brand one group or another makes more sense to me. I fail to see how this is well addressed by the constitution either way.

So we agree.


Everyone accepts consequences for their acts, but allowing incest forces the consequences on those who did not consent.

And abortion doesnt?



Controlling consenting sex between adults, however risky, is not part of the legitimate purview of representative government. Protecting innocent children is.

Protecting what children? If they are geneticly defective abort them before they become children. See its simple ~D Again would homosexual incest then be ok?

[Don Corleone]

so I'll reiterate, to make it clear.

Controlling consenting sex between adults, however risky, is not part of the legitimate purview of representative government. Protecting innocent children is.

Everyone accepts consequences for their acts, but allowing incest forces the consequences on those who did not consent.

ichi :bow:

Let's protect those poor children by sterilizing all women upon arriving at age 40. Come on guys, let's do it for the kids.... (Yes, I know how incredibly laughable this entire line of reasoning is).

[A.Saturnus]

Use common sense and not all that knowledge theve been pumping into that tremdous brain of yours.

Ok, let me summerize: because gay incest is outawed, the constitution doesn´t protect homosexuality.

Gawain, this thread is already far outside common sense. It is a sophistry. I know that and you know that too. Is there even a majority in the US for outlawing homosexuality? Given that most states abandoned laws against it 30 years ago.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is there even a majority in the US for outlawing homosexuality? Given that most states abandoned laws against it 30 years ago.

I thought SCOTUS just declared many states sodomy laws unconstitutional recently. Using the same logic they could just as well do the same with incest. I maintain that incest is no more damgerous than homosexuality and is in fact much safer.


Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532 - 14,532

Do you beleive that if incest were not illegal anymore that this many children a year of incestual couples would be born with defects or born at all? On top of that how many would be born with a defect worse than aids? Theres no comparison incest is much safer.



his thread is already far outside common sense. It is a sophistry.

I beg to differ. Its common sense that if you can outlaw incest for health related issues you could do the same with homosexulaity. By the same reasoning if you make one of them legal it follows the same should be said for the other. This is commn sense my friend and the way the law works or is supposed to work over here. Incest is just an old taboo like homosexuality. 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.

[Red Harvest]

I thought SCOTUS just declared many states sodomy laws unconstitutionla recently. Using the same logic they could just as well do the same with incest. I maintain that incest is no more damgerous than homosexuality and is in fact much safer.

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.

[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 :bow:

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. ~D

[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.

~:eek: 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. ~D

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 :bow:

[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. ~D 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 :bow:


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 !!! ~:cheers: