Incest and stuff...

[cestlefun17]

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.

Again, so long as the tradition is not arbitrary and capricious and does not burden a suspect class, it will nearly always be upheld. The societal custom of not condoning incest does not burden a suspect class, nor is it drawn so overly broad that it becomes a nuisance to society. Perhaps you don't like this, but this is how American society operates. You have the right to fight to change 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.

1. The risks are still substantial even in just one generation. 2. At what point is it okay then for the government to stop successive inbreeding? After two generations? Three? And then you have the issue that if you penalize only the 2nd generation, you penalize them for the actions of their parents. For if you have a civil right to engage in incest, you'd be denying the 2nd generation their civil right based on the actions of their parents, which is forbidden. Therefore, the only legally permissible action is to either allow all generations to engage in this behavior or no generation.

You have the option to be celibate.

It is not reasonable to force someone to forgo all sexual contact. Such a law would be overly broad and not permissible. The laws forbidding incest/incestuous marriages are not drawn overly broad: they limit themselves to at most first cousins.

[Admiral Lithp]

Perhaps you don't like this, but this is how American society operates. You have the right to fight to change it.

That's not the issue here, the issue here is is the idea of incest being illegal & the rammifications thereof. Like Vene tried to explain to you, this is not a US court room, & you are not a judge.

1. The risks are still substantial even in just one generation. 2. At what point is it okay then for the government to stop successive inbreeding? After two generations? Three? And then you have the issue that if you penalize only the 2nd generation, you penalize them for the actions of their parents. For if you have a civil right to engage in incest, you'd be denying the 2nd generation their civil right based on the actions of their parents, which is forbidden. Therefore, the only legally permissible action is to either allow all generations to engage in this behavior or no generation.

"It's too complicated for me to figure out, so it should all be banned!"

It is not reasonable to force someone to forgo all sexual contact. Such a law would be overly broad and not permissible. The laws forbidding incest/incestuous marriages are not drawn overly broad: they limit themselves to at most first cousins.

I have a reasonable basis for my law. You have the option, so it's better to just not give you special rights.

[Vene]

Aug 9, 2011 15:43:42 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

1. The risks are still substantial even in just one generation.

Considering this has already been posted, you're lying. Or possibly just stupid.

[Amaranth]

Aug 9, 2011 10:40:36 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

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

Except while I will accept the argument that homosexuality is not done this way solely on the fact that I've seen the research before, but I have not seen any evidence for your incest claims, which you yourself are phrasing as supposition or the all-powerful "common sense."

These are not valid lines of separating your prejudices from those of others. This is the same supposition used by many (I'm not going to say all, that would be overstated) in the anti-gay crowd who do it because "ewwww teh ghey."

How is it not a rational basis?

For one thing, it's using the same argument as "ewww teh ghey."

[cestlefun17]

That's not the issue here, the issue here is is the idea of incest being illegal & the rammifications thereof. Like Vene tried to explain to you, this is not a US court room, & you are not a judge.

And I'm saying how, under U.S. law, why it's perfectly fine for incestuous marriages to be illegal, and also how it may be fine to criminalize incestuous behavior (although I personally disagree with this). This would require a working knowledge of U.S. law.

"It's too complicated for me to figure out, so it should all be banned!"

That is absolutely not what I said. If engaging in incest is a civil right (i.e. society does not have the right to criminalize it without amending the Constitution), then you cannot deny someone's civil right based on the actions of his or her parents. If a brother and sister want to have sex, and their parents are also siblings, you wouldn't be able to deny this second generation their civil right based on the fact that their parents are incestuous.

I have a reasonable basis for my law. You have the option, so it's better to just not give you special rights.

If you were to pass a law prohibiting me specifically from engaging in all forms of sex, this law would burden my fundamental right to engage in certain forms of private intimate conduct (Lawrence v. Texas), and it would be a bill of attainder, which is not permissible.

Vene: That article only refers to first cousins, AND it says there is still some risk involved. Perhaps first cousins should be allowed to get married? I don't know. They can in many states, including my own, and is not considered incest. You have to draw the line somewhere as we are all related somehow.

[Admiral Lithp]

And I'm saying how, under U.S. law, why it's perfectly fine for incestuous marriages to be illegal, and also how it may be fine to criminalize incestuous behavior (although I personally disagree with this). This would require a working knowledge of U.S. law.

It IS illegal, you're just justifying the fact that it's illegal. It's the same as that history revision business you were doing earlier.

That is absolutely not what I said. If engaging in incest is a civil right (i.e. society does not have the right to criminalize it without amending the Constitution), then you cannot deny someone's civil right based on the actions of his or her parents. If a brother and sister want to have sex, and their parents are also siblings, you wouldn't be able to deny this second generation their civil right based on the fact that their parents are incestuous.

Whatever you say, dude. You're the only one espousing the idiotic notion that this whole slippery slope thing is actually probable.

If you were to pass a law prohibiting me specifically from engaging in all forms of sex, this law would burden my fundamental right to engage in certain forms of private intimate conduct (Lawrence v. Texas), and it would be a bill of attainder, which is not permissible.

It is permissable to keep the purity of the genome.

Vene: That article only refers to first cousins, AND it says there is still some risk involved. Perhaps first cousins should be allowed to get married? I don't know. They can in many states, including my own, and is not considered incest. You have to draw the line somewhere as we are all related somehow.

You know he's a biology major, don't you? This...this seems like a good idea, to you?

[Vene]

Aug 9, 2011 15:58:31 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Vene: That article only refers to first cousins, AND it says there is still some risk involved. Perhaps first cousins should be allowed to get married? I don't know. They can in many states, including my own, and is not considered incest. You have to draw the line somewhere as we are all related somehow.

I'm going with the conclusion of stupid, it seems the most apt.

[cestlefun17]

I'm going with the conclusion of stupid, it seems the most apt.

I think it's much more stupid to not read the articles you cite. You make the argument that one generation of incest is not risky, then cite an article to prove that. This article then states that there is still a slight risk, and it only discusses breeding between first cousins, a borderline case that isn't even considered incest in most jurisdictions.

To claim that this article says that there is no risk in any form of incest is just not true.

[devilschaplain2]

If they arrest those two they'll have to go after the whole Royal Family.

[Amaranth]

Aug 9, 2011 16:47:43 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I think it's much more stupid to not read the articles you cite. You make the argument that one generation of incest is not risky, then cite an article to prove that. This article then states that there is still a slight risk, and it only discusses breeding between first cousins, a borderline case that isn't even considered incest in most jurisdictions.

To claim that this article says that there is no risk in any form of incest is just not true.

Errrr...At least try and stick to what he's saying before accusing him of not reading the article he cited.

[Vene]

Aug 9, 2011 17:25:12 GMT -5 Amaranth said:

Aug 9, 2011 16:47:43 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I think it's much more stupid to not read the articles you cite. You make the argument that one generation of incest is not risky, then cite an article to prove that. This article then states that there is still a slight risk, and it only discusses breeding between first cousins, a borderline case that isn't even considered incest in most jurisdictions.

To claim that this article says that there is no risk in any form of incest is just not true.

Errrr...At least try and stick to what he's saying before accusing him of not reading the article he cited.

He's just providing further evidence of my recent hypothesis.

[cestlefun17]

Errrr...At least try and stick to what he's saying before accusing him of not reading the article he cited.

Every time I say that there is still risk of genetic defects in just one generation of incest, he whips out that article to try to prove me wrong. Obviously different forms of incest will have varying risks. First cousin incest has only a slight risk, so in many jurisdictions it's not even considered incest. This doesn't mean that there is no risk (or a similar amount of risk) between parent/offspring incest or other types of incest.

He's trying to use that article as blanket proof that there is no heightened risk of genetic defects in any form of incest. This is not what the article says.

[Admiral Lithp]

"Just because we ban one risky behavior, we don't have to ban other (equally or more risky) behaviors" in 3...2...1....

[Amaranth]

Aug 9, 2011 17:45:19 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

He's trying to use that article as blanket proof that there is no heightened risk of genetic defects in any form of incest. This is not what the article says.

No, he's really not. He's said as much. Do you know how I understand this? I am literate.

I'm trying hard not to speak for Vene, but all things concisdered, it really is worth pointing out.

In short: Stop making shit up.

[Vene]

Aug 9, 2011 17:59:41 GMT -5 Amaranth said:

In short: Stop making shit up.

But he's so good at it.