Incest and stuff...

[cestlefun17]

A Fundie is usually talking about child rape. That's what makes it different. But the "consenting adults" thing applies here just as much as it does to gay couples.

"Consenting adults" is not what grants a gay couple the right to get married, as I explained in another thread on polygamy. Granting a marriage license to a straight couple but not a gay one burdens what can reasonably be argued is a suspect class.

That is not rational. That is the exact opposite of rational.

Then you have to explain why. Under the rational basis test, the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that the government's action is entirely "arbitrary and capricious."

It's worth repeating: Don't go into law.

That is the law. If you challenge a law under the rational basis test, the burden of proof is on you to show that the governmental action is "arbitrary and capricious."

Perhaps incest is considered entirely acceptable and wonderful behavior here in this echo chamber of a forum where anything the fundies are against is automatically considered A-OK. But you'll find that this isn't true in the real world.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

where anything the fundies are against is automatically considered A-OK

Or perhaps some of us have actually thought this through on our own, and our conclusions have nothing to do with wanting to be contrary to the fundies.

[Admiral Lithp]

"Consenting adults" is not what grants a gay couple the right to get married, as I explained in another thread on polygamy. Granting a marriage license to a straight couple but not a gay one burdens what can reasonably be argued is a suspect class.

You were saying I was using the same argument as the Fundies. I explained to you that Fundies are comparing gay marriage to child rape, while I'm still talking about 2 consenting adults, & that is the difference. Please keep track of your own Straw Men.

Then you have to explain why. Under the rational basis test, the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that the government's action is entirely "arbitrary and capricious."

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm starting to think you're just parroting a bunch of phrases with complete disregard for whatever is actually being said. You claimed that preserving "the traditional definition" is rational. That is not rational, it's superstitious. "It was better in my day, so that's the way it should stay."

That is the law. If you challenge a law under the rational basis test, the burden of proof is on you to show that the governmental action is "arbitrary and capricious."

You do not know words & you expect me to believe you know law.

Perhaps incest is considered entirely acceptable and wonderful behavior here in this echo chamber of a forum where anything the fundies are against is automatically considered A-OK. But you'll find that this isn't true in the real world.

Your entire argument is that it's bad because society (you) say it is. You don't have a single shred of evidence. The closest you've come to it is your straw man about genetics, which is the same fucking nonsense the Fundies pull out to argue that gay marriage will kill the species. "Oh, sure, if ONE gay couple gets together it doesn't seem to hurt, but what if EVERYONE turned gay?!"

You are completely incapable of ignoring your own feelings on the matter & looking at it objectively, which is why you've erroneously concluded that we're an "echo chamber" for calling you out on your bullshit. You aren't the first & you won't be the last.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Technically, it's more of a red herring than a straw man

[Admiral Lithp]

I think what he's doing now is a Red Herring, but when he said I was using the same argument as Fundamentalists, it was a Straw Man.

Don't quote me on that, though.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

I meant the bit about genetics. The other part is definitely a straw man, though.

[cestlefun17]

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm starting to think you're just parroting a bunch of phrases with complete disregard for whatever is actually being said. You claimed that preserving "the traditional definition" is rational. That is not rational, it's superstitious. "It was better in my day, so that's the way it should stay."

I can assure you that I did not invent the phrases "rational basis" or "arbitrary and capricious." Defending traditional notions of morality is an acceptable rational basis in United States jurisprudence. See, for example Reynolds v. United States, upholding a statute banning bigamy:

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society....

The tenets of traditional English common law are highly influential in our system of law. Tradition is pretty much the foundation of the common law system ("This is what we've done before, so this is what we'll do now.") Again, if you can show that the government's actions are entirely arbitrary and capricious, you can win the rational basis test. Although keep in mind that this test is highlydeferential to the government.

You do not know words & you expect me to believe you know law.

This sounds suspiciously like an ad hominem.

Your entire argument is that it's bad because society (you) say it is.

I can also assure you that I am not unilaterally responsible for passing all the laws against incest.

[Admiral Lithp]

The tenets of traditional English common law are highly influential in our system of law. Tradition is pretty much the foundation of the common law system ("This is what we've done before, so this is what we'll do now.") Again, if you can show that the government's actions are entirely arbitrary and capricious, you can win the rational basis test. Although keep in mind that this test is highlydeferential to the government.

This quote has nothing to do with what you're saying, which is impressive because what you're saying already has nothing to do with anything else. Reynolds vs. the United States was about whether or not "religious duty" was a valid grounds on which to be aquitted of a crime. You've shown nothing indicating that it was about "upholding tradition," & I've found nothing, so I must conclude that you're full of shit.

This sounds suspiciously like an ad hominem.

It has been shown that you don't know words. It is unlikely that you know law if you do not know words, because words are very important to law.

Not that I mind insulting you.

I can assure you that I am not unilaterally responsible for passing all the laws against incest.

No, see, my implication is that when you say things like "The society says" & "We the people," you're really hiding your true meaning, which is "My opinion, dressed up as fact is...."

[largeham]

While common law does work on precedence, don't think it is never challenged. As society, people and values change, so does the law. What might be law in an earlier age maybe irrational but accepted, now if we see that it is irrational then the law can be overturned. Common law is not an exercise in setting things in stone.

[cestlefun17]

This quote has nothing to do with what you're saying, which is impressive because what you're saying already has nothing to do with anything else. Reynolds vs. the United States was about whether or not "religious duty" was a valid grounds on which to be aquitted of a crime. You've shown nothing indicating that it was about "upholding tradition," & I've found nothing, so I must conclude that you're full of shit.

If you read the quotation I cited you can see that the Court uses traditional notions, deriving from English Common Law, of what constitutes acceptable behavior. This traditional notion of morality is so strong that it cannot over-ride the firmly revered freedom of religious expression. Keep in mind that this freedom is even more entrenched than the notion that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want.

It has been shown that you don't know words. It is unlikely that you know law if you do not know words, because words are very important to law.

Not that I mind insulting you.

This is all very childish. I am still flabbergasted that the mere suggestion that condoning incest may not be the best idea in the world is so outrageously outlandish that it would call for the kind of language I've been seeing in this thread.

No, see, my implication is that when you say things like "The society says" & "We the people," you're really hiding your true meaning, which is "My opinion, dressed up as fact is...."

The fact remains that no jurisdiction in the United States has elected enough representatives to over-turn laws against incest or incestuous marriages. I'm sure if you ran a poll this would only confirm this.

While common law does work on precedence, don't think it is never challenged. As society, people and values change, so does the law. What might be law in an earlier age maybe irrational but accepted, now if we see that it is irrational then the law can be overturned. Common law is not an exercise in setting things in stone.

You're right. But you need to provide an argument as to why a reversal of precedent is appropriate.

[largeham]

Aug 8, 2011 23:56:20 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

If you read the quotation I cited you can see that the Court uses traditional notions, deriving from English Common Law, of what constitutes acceptable behavior. This traditional notion of morality is so strong that it cannot over-ride the firmly revered freedom of religious expression. Keep in mind that this freedom is even more entrenched than the notion that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want.

One, common law can change.
Two, that doesn't make it rational and/or right.

[Mira]

This thread needs less debate and more incest.

[cestlefun17]

One, common law can change.
Two, that doesn't make it rational and/or right.

1. Right, but again, an argument is required for why it should change. 2. Perhaps, but this isn't how our society operates. What is considered rational and/or right is still subject to opinion. So perhaps a certain portion of case law doesn't seem rational or right to you personally, but we as a society have decided that when it comes to adjudicating laws, the opinions that matter should be those of the members of our judiciary.

[Admiral Lithp]

If you read the quotation I cited you can see that the Court uses traditional notions, deriving from English Common Law, of what constitutes acceptable behavior.

Aha, I was hoping you'd pull this. That is NOT true. The quote had nothing to do with the court's decision, it was "sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes." In other words, it was the thing he got arrested for, not the verdict on his plea. You quite literally could not be further from the truth.

This traditional notion of morality is so strong that it cannot over-ride the firmly revered freedom of religious expression. Keep in mind that this freedom is even more entrenched than the notion that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want.

And that makes it right, of course.

This is all very childish. I am still flabbergasted that the mere suggestion that condoning incest may not be the best idea in the world is so outrageously outlandish that it would call for the kind of language I've been seeing in this thread.

As you've failed to keep your head out of your ass, your only recourse is to resort to your own ad hominems & continue completely ignoring the point.

The fact remains that no jurisdiction in the United States has elected enough representatives to over-turn laws against incest or incestuous marriages. I'm sure if you ran a poll this would only confirm this.

It's funny, because that's not what we're talking about. And this didn't happen in the US.

You're right. But you need to provide an argument as to why a reversal of precedent is appropriate.

Which according to your ridiculous standards would be impossible, as the sheer fact that the law is a precedent is reason enough to keep it from being overturned.

[Dragon Zachski]

Cestlefun, while I understand where you are coming from, I think that your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Namely, you assume that social mores are always right. While in some cases this is correct (such as murder, theft, slander, etc) this isn't always correct (such as homosexuality, incest, prostitution, and just about every fetish out there)

The fact of the matter is, two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want to each other, even if that happens to be sex. Key word: Consenting. Coercion does not count for consent, according to the legal definition.

Now, does this squick me out? Greatly so. Should these two have been arrested? Not at all, in my opinion. This has become a case of "legislating morality". While they may not be allowed to be married, being arrested for having sex makes me think about the time when that happened with gays, too.

I'm not saying that all minorities are equal, mind you, but the situation is the same in this case: Someone got arrested for having consensual sex with another adult. Boiling the issue down to that is why this is wrong.

We use prison to keep threats to society out of society. I do not think that a daughter and father having sex with each other is a threat to society, even when you consider the potential issues with childbirth.

That being said, there are many things that are potentially dangerous but should be allowed because people have the right to it. Bondage fetishes have the potential for the binder to exploit the bindee, but to make it illegal based on what COULD happen is a mistake. Same for many fetishes.

Some people might consider foot fetishism a health risk because they tend to view feet as disease-ridden or disgusting (and I know which forum member thinks of it as "disgusting" due to personal opinion - an opinion which I have no issue with) but we do not make that illegal, either, despite some social mores wanting it to be so.

In many cases, I would argue that "wrong" and "illegal" are two different things. Incest is, in my opinion, wrong. But I don't think it should be illegal based on that, because twins having sex or a mother and son having sex doesn't harm ME outside of any personal disgust issues I may have.

Incest was widely practiced by nobles to keep the bloodline pure. Generations of incest resulted in many issues, but it did take generation even with brother/sister marriages.

As such, while I do see your point, I disagree that it is a valid one and ask you to contemplate the situation once more.