Incest and stuff...

[cestlefun17]

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.

That was not a quotation from the statute, that was a quotation from the justices' opinion itself.

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.

You would need to show one of two things. 1. That the law is entirely arbitrary and capricious. or 2. That the law burdens a class that demands a higher level of judicial scrutiny.

Dragon Zachski: I agree with you mostly. I've said that we have a right to privacy, and what consenting adults do in private is nobody's business. Any sort of sex or fetish is private behavior. However, this does not mandate public acceptance of their relationship through something like marriage.

[Admiral Lithp]

That was not a quotation from the statute, that was a quotation from the justices' opinion itself.

So it is, I quoted the wrong section. Apparently, I checked it enough times to make sure the quote was from the statute, but forgot to read the actual quote itself.

Don't think that negates everything else I've said, though.

You would need to show one of two things. 1. That the law is entirely arbitrary and capricious. or 2. That the law burdens a class that demands a higher level of judicial scrutiny.

This STILL flies in the face of your argument that "tradition alone is reason enough."

I really don't see there being anything to "prove" here. Distasteful is obviously an arbitrary distinction.

I've said that we have a right to privacy, and what consenting adults do in private is nobody's business. Any sort of sex or fetish is private behavior.

Trouble is, that's not what we're seeing here. These 2 were arrested for having sex.

However, this does not mandate public acceptance of their relationship through something like marriage.

Thing is, your idea of "not accepting it" is suspiciously like ostracization.

[Amaranth]

Aug 8, 2011 21:30:12 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I doubt it, as incest has always been prohibited to some degree in the society that I live in.

lolwot

No, seriously...What?

I still don't see why every single tradition is inherently illogical.

Except that wasn't what was being said initially, it wasn't what was being said the first time I replied to you, and it isn't what's being said now.

This is completely immaterial, as far as the United States goes, as our laws cannot be based on the Bible.

I love how you're playing both side against the middle. And failing. That was not the point, the point was addressing the validity of traditions.

Though DOMA laws ARE based on the Christian faith, so you lose. You know, those lovely "stop teh ghey" laws which have been upheld in courts despite their clear religious basis?

I would say, however, that it's STILL not the point.

You're trying to shift between two arguments by dismissing one as against the other and it's dishonest and outright wrong.

Stop. Just stop.

[Amaranth]

Aug 9, 2011 2:45:28 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

However, this does not mandate public acceptance of their relationship through something like marriage.

Which is off topic so it doesn't count.

...By your logic, that is.

[cestlefun17]

This STILL flies in the face of your argument that "tradition alone is reason enough."

Under the rational basis test, provided that the tradition is not entirely arbitrary and capricious, it is perfectly fine. Like I said, incest perverts society's commonly held notion of what constitutes proper familial relationships. There is, as other posters pointed out, a greater risk of coercion. A child should grow up in a home where the relationship between parent and offspring, sibling and sibling is clearly demarcated, and not be seen throughout his childhood as a potential future sex partner by his parents. Also, I still don't know why we're entirely dismissing the genetic risk factor. Yes I know that having an incest baby doesn't mean he or she is definitely going to be a deformed mess, but the risk is still there and certainly not negligible, even across just one generation. And while there could be infertile and same-sex incestuous couples, you still can't give special rights to infertile and same-sex incestuous couples by allowing them to marry but not opposite-sex fertile incestuous couples.

An example of a ban on incest that could be arbitrary and capricious would be, perhaps: A Rhode Island billionaire, the richest man in the state, has just proposed to a woman who happens to be his fifth cousin once removed. The Rhode Island legislature the next day then passes a law saying that any marriage between fifth cousins once removed is not recognized in Rhode Island unless it is performed in Rhode Island and that the fee for such a marriage license is $10 million. This would be arbitrary and capricious because 1. It has never been against the strong public policy of the state to recognize out-of-state marriages between fifth cousins once removed. 2. Closer relationships (such as fourth cousins) do not have such a restriction. and 3. The intent of the law is clearly to extort money from this man as there is no legitimate reason why the state needs $10 million to process his marriage application.

Thing is, your idea of "not accepting it" is suspiciously like ostracization.

Boo hoo. I have very little sympathy for people who act like morons. If I own an apartment building, I'm certainly not going to rent an apartment to a man in an intimate relationship with his girlfriend/daughter/aunt. I don't want to be around that kind of activity, and I don't think I'm wrong for thinking that.

No, seriously...What?

I don't know what there isn't to understand: incest and incestuous marriage has always been illegal to some degree in the United States. The Bible, despite what the fundies say, is not the definition of "traditional." While there are some instances in the Bible of incest, you cannot reasonably say that the practice and acceptance of incest is a traditional component of American society.

[Amaranth]

Aug 9, 2011 9:18:05 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Under the rational basis test, provided that the tradition is not entirely arbitrary and capricious, it is perfectly fine.

At least you're shifting the goalposts for the better this time.

Still doesn't justify banning incest, despite your next justification.

Like I said, incest perverts society's commonly held notion of what constitutes proper familial relationships.

Which basically goes right back to "it's tradition." And without the qualifiers previously offered.

I don't know what there isn't to understand: incest and incestuous marriage has always been illegal to some degree in the United States. The Bible, despite what the fundies say, is not the definition of "traditional." While there are some instances in the Bible of incest, you cannot reasonably say that the practice and acceptance of incest is a traditional component of American society.

"always" and "to some degree" are funny.

Not to mention incredibly cute.

A shame you can't really back this up. Hence the "what?" It's not that it's hard to understand, it's just that it's, in the words of Penn Jillette, it's bullshit.

And while the bible is hardly the sole arbitrator of tradition, I don't think you understand why it was brought up. You see, there were many, many cultures before America was created in 3000 BC. Some say there were as many as 20. Though it is a matter of some debate, some of those cultures had traditions that lasted for longer than the US has been a country.

I also think you underestimate the realtionship between certain cultures and the Bible, being that the Bible was not just an ancient and silly text to them, not to mention the affordance of incest in the Bible and the laws of the cultures which followed it.

Your retroactive "I'm from America, so those toher guys don't count" attitude means little in that scope, because it's very apparent Vene was not limiting himself to your retroactive justifications.

However, that's expanding things much further than I needed to go to explain "lolwut." Your statement is silly and rather baseless. The reason you don't get what's so hard to understand is it flies in the face of convennience to examine your statements on America rationally and realise how little water they hold.

What "there isn't to understand" is what size brush you're using to white wash America and its "traditions." And yes, don't think we didn't notice you trying to redefine "traditions" this time with "laws," which can be traditions, but do not serve as the whole.

I ask again, in earnest, can you please be honest?

[cestlefun17]

Still doesn't justify banning incest, despite your next justification.

You have yet to explain exactly how banning incest is entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Which basically goes right back to "it's tradition." And without the qualifiers previously offered.

You are completely ignoring all the other factors I mentioned such as genetic risk. Also, do you believe it is a healthy environment for a child to grow up in a home where he could be reared as a potential future sex partner for his parents? Do you not see the greater risk of coercion that could occur in such relationships as father/daughter if the father is having sex with his daughter, even as an adult?

A shame you can't really back this up. Hence the "what?" It's not that it's hard to understand, it's just that it's, in the words of Penn Jillette, it's bullshit.

Look, this isn't exactly novel information. Incest has been banned for centuries, including in the colonies (for example: www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html). Other than English Common Law, it doesn't really make a difference what other societies' traditions are. Now just because it's a tradition to ban incest doesn't mean it's acceptable. The point is: is the tradition entirely arbitrary and capricious, or does it burden a suspect class?

The vast majority of us have a natural proclivity to avoid these relationships. The question is then, do we as a society enable the few who unfortunately lack this to live a depraved lifestyle, or do we seek to channel them into healthier relationships? My answer would be somewhere between the two: what consenting adults do behind closed doors is not society's business, but if you want to become part of the fabric of mainstream society, you will have to live by mainstream society's rules and conventions.

[Vene]

Aug 9, 2011 10:13:51 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Still doesn't justify banning incest, despite your next justification.

You have yet to explain exactly how banning incest is entirely arbitrary and capricious.

You do realize you're on a forum, not in a court, right? You do realize you're a random person on the internet and not a judge, right? You do realize that a discussion like this isn't just about a single country, right?

No? Wow, that's sad.

[cestlefun17]

Well we're talking about the legality of incest, whether these people should be criminalized or not, so it is only natural that law would come into it. And I realize it's not just about a single country, but I can only speak coming from American society. I would love to hear other countries' take on incest.

[Admiral Lithp]

Like I said, incest perverts society's commonly held notion of what constitutes proper familial relationships.

I seriously do not want to see you bitch about being compared to a homophobe, when you're using all of the classic arguments.

There is, as other posters pointed out, a greater risk of coercion.

Only in extreme cases, besides, as others pointed out, you can't illegalize something for some shit that some people might do.

A child should grow up in a home where the relationship between parent and offspring, sibling and sibling is clearly demarcated, and not be seen throughout his childhood as a potential future sex partner by his parents.

That's not how it works! Between the westmark effect and cultural attitude in general, you aren't going to just decide to bone your sister because your parents are related. Again, it's like how gay people don't have any greater chance of raising or "indoctrinating" gay kids.

Also, I still don't know why we're entirely dismissing the genetic risk factor. Yes I know that having an incest baby doesn't mean he or she is definitely going to be a deformed mess, but the risk is still there and certainly not negligible, even across just one generation.

Because we're TALKING about the sex/relationship part. As soon as you acknowledge that there's no rational basis to be against it, we can argue how likely successive inbreeding is to occur.

And while there could be infertile and same-sex incestuous couples, you still can't give special rights to infertile and same-sex incestuous couples by allowing them to marry but not opposite-sex fertile incestuous couples.

No one said that. This is the problem. You're getting way too far ahead of yourself. It's like trying to illegalize sex because of date rape and when people try to point out to you that sex is not automatically date rape, you keep harping on the date rape thing.

An example of a ban on incest that could be arbitrary and capricious would be

Really, anything that doesn't rely on an objective basis is "arbitrary."

Boo hoo. I have very little sympathy for people who act like morons.

These are all just incredibly shitty justifications to attempt to dictate someone's life. Legal loopholes. Sure, you pay lip-service to freedom of choice and right to privacy, but you're probably going to find out their relationship during the agreement, & that's apparently free reign to deny them basic commodities that have nothing to do with their relationship, yet explicitly BECAUSE of their relationship.

[Amaranth]

Aug 9, 2011 10:13:51 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

You have yet to explain exactly how banning incest is entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Possibly because I never made that argument. Are we knocking down strawmen now, too?

You are completely ignoring all the other factors I mentioned such as genetic risk.

If by "addressing the current argument like I don't have ADHD," then yes, yes I am. I'm trying to stick to one argument at a time, and you're complaining that I'm not shifting to another argument midstride?

Also, do you believe it is a healthy environment for a child to grow up in a home where he could be reared as a potential future sex partner for his parents?

I also se the greater risk of raising a child in a smoking household. I have to pose the question of "So what?"

Do you not see the greater risk of coercion that could occur in such relationships as father/daughter if the father is having sex with his daughter, even as an adult?

We've been through this before. The problem being, that's not grounds for blanket outlawing of incest, as not all pairing are parent child.

Also, if we're going to raise disaparate points, your arguments of personal freedom seem to contradict this obligation to protect kids. Or, more accurately, it's selectively applied.

Other than English Common Law, it doesn't really make a difference what other societies' traditions are. Now just because it's a tradition to ban incest doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Now you're just being silly.

The vast majority of us have a natural proclivity to avoid these relationships.

Just like homosexuality.

Let's ban thum thur queers.

Hey Vene, wanna grab a pitchfork or torch and help me follow my "natural proclivity?"

The question is then, do we as a society enable the few who unfortunately lack this to live a depraved lifestyle, or do we seek to channel them into healthier relationships?

I quoted this separately more for emphasis, but:

JUST LIKE THE GAYS!

but if you want to become part of the fabric of mainstream society, you will have to live by mainstream society's rules and conventions.

Which has nothing to do with the case at hand, because all they were seeking is the privacy you allegedly advocate in theory (but not in practice).

[cestlefun17]

I seriously do not want to see you bitch about being compared to a homophobe, when you're using all of the classic arguments.

Again, the arguments do not work against gay people because the nature of their minority demands a much higher level of scrutiny.

That's not how it works! Between the westmark effect and cultural attitude in general, you aren't going to just decide to bone your sister because your parents are related. Again, it's like how gay people don't have any greater chance of raising or "indoctrinating" gay kids.

The difference is is that you cannot indoctrinate children into being gay: either they're gay or they're not. But if you are so depraved that you see no issue in having a relationship with a close relative, it is not a stretch to say you would not have a problem having a relationship with your own child once he or she grows up. It might not happen 100% of the time, but again, a significant risk is there. That's all that's required for rational basis.

Really, anything that doesn't rely on an objective basis is "arbitrary."

I provided several rational bases, but regardless you have to actually show that the law is arbitrary and capricious, not just wave off any rational bases provided by the government without explanation.

Because we're TALKING about the sex/relationship part. As soon as you acknowledge that there's no rational basis to be against it, we can argue how likely successive inbreeding is to occur.

But that is a rational basis to be against it.

Possibly because I never made that argument. Are we knocking down strawmen now, too?

You have to in order to show the law is not valid.

I also se the greater risk of raising a child in a smoking household. I have to pose the question of "So what?"

And the government could criminalize smoking in a house with children if we wanted to. Just because we criminalize certain risky activity doesn't require us to criminalize every risky activity.

Just like homosexuality.

If there were only bisexuals and heterosexuals, then a ban on gay marriage might pass muster. But there are people who are only attracted to members of the same sex. Likewise, are there people who are only attracted to close relatives? If a son wants to marry his mother, does he have no other attraction to any other woman? You'd have to show that incest practicers have no other options, and that it cannot be corrected.

[Amaranth]

Aug 9, 2011 10:31:52 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

But if you are so depraved that you see no issue in having a relationship with a close relative, it is not a stretch to say you would not have a problem having a relationship with your own child once he or she grows up.

Without proof, you're applying the same logic that they use against gays. So the "difference" is largely that you're okay with specious reasoning on one part but not another.

But that is a rational basis to be against it.

"Ewww flipper babies" is hardly a rational basis.

[cestlefun17]

Without proof, you're applying the same logic that they use against gays. So the "difference" is largely that you're okay with specious reasoning on one part but not another.

The reasoning largely works with one minority but not the other, because there are entirely different mitigating factors that differentiate them.

"Ewww flipper babies" is hardly a rational basis.

How is it not a rational basis?

[Admiral Lithp]

Again, the arguments do not work against gay people

You're half-right. Your arguments don't work at all.

I provided several rational bases

No. I'll grant you, you know more about law--or at least have more memorized--than I initially gave you credit for, but this goes back to you not knowing what words mean. You can't recognize that "it's tradition" or "we don't like it" are obvious logical fallacies, so I don't even feel like bothering with this "test" of yours.

What I do know is that unless the Supreme Court uses their own special definition of "arbitrary," then the law you are describing is obviously arbitrary, simply from what we've all already posted.

But that is a rational basis to be against it.

No it isn't, you yagoff. That's a rational basis to be against SUCCESSIVE CONSECUTIVE INBREEDING. That's so far removed from 2 estranged siblings or cousins just deciding to shag one day, it's a completely different beast.

You'd have to show that incest practicers have no other options, and that it cannot be corrected.

You have the option to be celibate.

I hereby declare it illegal for you to ever have sex or reproduce in any way.

It's for the best, really.