Printable View
linkQuote:
...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.
Well, let's hope they do, because my sister is pretty hot!!! ~:eek: :embarassed: :help:
there's one
*crickets*
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.
Thanks, Kukri.
Was post #2 a joke?
I hope you weren't refering to my post? Since I didn't mention rednecks (sunburned people?)...Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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.
That's not how things are brought to the Supreme Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Laridus Konivaich
Quote:
Originally Posted by linked article
So we still get three more? Score.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Laridus Konivaich
Ichi won't be happy, GAH! is missing from the poll. ~;)
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.
So incest can be kept legal as long as there's no off-spring, thus preventing the gene-pool from becoming stupid?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Laridus Konivaich
One down. Two to go.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
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.
Stupid me, I got focused on the quote and not the link, oops, my fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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
Why not allow it... Europe already has lots of Monarchs and they practice it all the time and they are perfectly normal. :guitarist: :mad:
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.
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.
Apparently, a disturbing number of people here think it's fine- so I wouldn't be so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
By their own precedents? Yes. And, of course, no- it's not Constitutionally protected.Quote:
Could the Supreme Court embrace incest?
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Laridus Konivaich
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.
I was speaking to your point on statutory rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
that is pretty naive
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Laridus Konivaich
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.
A pair of totally unrelated parents will have 23 pairs of genes each giving a total pool of 92 genes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Laridus Konivaich
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.
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.
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