Incest and stuff...

[Amaranth]

Aug 10, 2011 21:58:18 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

"there's no reason that I personally find to be good to ban it,"

Actually, that's not what's being said. Again you misrepresent us. But question four, and man, I have a feeling this is going to be a long list: What is the affirmative basis for it? You've made claims that were shot down as false (Substantial danger v actual genetics student), you've made the tradition argument, which you abandoned like an unwanted child in a dumpster when it became impractical to continue. You still haven't made any particularly compelling reason to affirmatively outlaw the practice.

So what's the reason?

Honestly, I think you nailed it with "tradition." The same kinds of tradition that say "teh gheyz r bad." Prejudices that go back far before we knew what DNA was, from the days of Leviticus, when uncovering yuor sister's nakedness and lying with another man were both Abominations (hey, the Christians say so, it must be true).

I think the only difference is you continue to support one prejudice and not the other. Kind of like that scene in Blazing Saddles where the people of Rock Ridge announce they'll take "the niggers and the chinks," but not the Irish.

And prejudice is just wrong.

Unless it's against furries.

>.>

[cestlefun17]

Of course, the same argument would apply to you replying to me. You know my terms are different, but try and apply your own to them.

I've only responded to posts you made that try to counter my posts.

Honestly, if you think you choose who you fall in love with, you're probably a moron and should probably be rebuked. Again, this argument works PERFECTLY against homosexuality, with the rationale that homosexuals might not control what sex they're attracted to, but can certainly control who they enter relationships with.

I didn't say you choose with whom you fall in love, I said you choose with whom you enter into relationships.

That's not what I asked, and you know it. Stop dodging the question and demonstrate how it's different.

While a gay man would choose to form a relationship with another specific man, he does not choose to be sexually attracted to men in general. The scientific consensus on this matter is that sexual orientation is a non-chosen intrinsic quality of one's self and cannot be altered using accepted practices of psychotherapy (in fact, it is shown that trying to change one's sexual orientation causes harm). This scientific consensus, built from an intensive body of research on the subject, is reflected in the official positions of such reputable organizations as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. This is why I have such sympathy for gay people and believe that laws burdening them deserve a much higher level of scrutiny.

In order for me to gain a similar level of sympathy for incest-practicers, you'd have to show that these people 1. Do not choose to be attracted to members of their close family (which I'm sure is very likely), 2. Have no substantial sexual attraction to any other person (if a man wants to marry his mother, but also has sexual attraction to other woman like any other straight man, then a law against incestuous marriages does not overly burden him), and 3. That such attraction cannot be corrected using standard practices of psychotherapy.

Those standards are still rather arbitrary, and whether or not something meets the requisites is based largely on the whim of the courts. You yourself pointed this out with homosexuality. Literally NOTHING changed between 1999 and 2000, but in the 21st Century, judges are willing to afford homosexuals a higher level of scrutiny when they wouldn't in the 20th.

Judges are still a product of society: they are people, not omniscient robots. As the scientific consensus points to showing that being gay is more than just behavior, but also a status, the courts are slowly coming around.

I guess I am a social conservative: when one wishes to change a fundamental conception held by society, I need a more searching reason than "consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want." I do not believe that gay people should be able to get married just because they are consenting adults, but for the reasons outlined above.

[Vene]

Aug 11, 2011 11:18:39 GMT -5 Amaranth said:

Unless it's against furries.

They're not really people, 2/3rds of one at the most.

[cestlefun17]

To answer your other questions:

Third question, one I asked pages ago but you've also dodged. Were you anti-homosexual before the courts were willing to hear cases? Did you have the same irrational hatred of gays you seem to have for Cleatus now? Since you seem to have outsourced your morality entirely to the courts, rather than risking having any opinion of your own, I would like to know what your answer is.

As no federal court in the United States has yet to declare sexual orientation to be a suspect class worthy of strict scrutiny, I am ahead of the courts in this regard. What I'm saying is that I agree with their structure for determining how laws that affect certain people should be judged. Under this structure, I believe sexual orientation fits the criteria for strict scrutiny. I do not believe this is true for incest practicers.

What is the affirmative basis for it? You've made claims that were shot down as false (Substantial danger v actual genetics student), you've made the tradition argument, which you abandoned like an unwanted child in a dumpster when it became impractical to continue. You still haven't made any particularly compelling reason to affirmatively outlaw the practice.

I still am completely flabbergasted that we are completely dismissing the fact that children of incest will have a higher risk of genetic defects. A child born of incest will have a greater inbreeding coefficient than a child not born of incest. The government has a legitimate concern in wanting to keep the inbreeding coefficient of its population as low as possible.

And I did not "dump" the tradition argument: I have always said that society has the right to determine what is and isn't acceptable behavior, so long as their decisions do not contradict the Constitution.

You still haven't made any particularly compelling reason to affirmatively outlaw the practice.

Perhaps none of these reasons satisfy you, but they satisfy me. As I said before, I agree very much with the U.S. system of law, so I do not believe that this instance requires a "compelling" reason (as strict scrutiny would ask for), nor an "important" reason (as intermediate scrutiny would ask for), only a "legitimate" reason. So long as this reason does not conflict with another provision of the Constitution, is not the product of a sudden and unexplained reversal in policy, and the law does what the reason says it will do, it is considered "legitimate." Maybe not "legitimate" by your standards, but it does by my standards and the standards of the U.S. government.

And prejudice is just wrong.

Some "prejudice" is justifiable. Any law is going to burden someone. The balancing act is determining at what point is a law so burdensome as to infringe on people's constitutional rights. This depends highly on the nature of the action being restricted and the people it affects.

For me, judging someone based on their chosen actions is not prejudging them. You can reasonably judge someone's character by their behavior. You cannot do this by judging someone based on pre-conceived notions about an intrinsic characteristic of their self.

[Amaranth]

Aug 11, 2011 11:23:06 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I've only responded to posts you made that try to counter my posts.

Which still changes nothing.

I didn't say you choose with whom you fall in love, I said you choose with whom you enter into relationships.

And I said "if." See that interesting conditional portion of my statement?

While a gay man would choose to form a relationship with another specific man, he does not choose to be sexually attracted to men in general.

But eventually, he has to "choose" to act on it.

Clearly, he could just choose not to to appeal to social prejudice. Errr....Standards.

The scientific consensus on this matter is that sexual orientation is a non-chosen intrinsic quality of one's self and cannot be altered using accepted practices of psychotherapy (in fact, it is shown that trying to change one's sexual orientation causes harm). This scientific consensus, built from an intensive body of research on the subject, is reflected in the official positions of such reputable organizations as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. This is why I have such sympathy for gay people and believe that laws burdening them deserve a much higher level of scrutiny.

But you discount science. That's just the sort of evidence you say doesn't play into the all-powerful Amurrican legal system.

In order for me to gain a similar level of sympathy for incest-practicers, you'd have to show that these people 1. Do not choose to be attracted to members of their close family (which I'm sure is very likely), 2. Have no substantial sexual attraction to any other person (if a man wants to marry his mother, but also has sexual attraction to other woman like any other straight man, then a law against incestuous marriages does not overly burden him), and 3. That such attraction cannot be corrected using standard practices of psychotherapy.

And in absence of proof, let's just fucking condemn them.

Sorry, just finishing your thought there.

Judges are still a product of society: they are people, not omniscient robots. As the scientific consensus points to showing that being gay is more than just behavior, but also a status, the courts are slowly coming around.

You're talking in circles, though. Since application of science itself is arbitrary, and none of these people are inherrently influenced by it anyway.....

As no federal court in the United States has yet to declare sexual orientation to be a suspect class worthy of strict scrutiny, I am ahead of the courts in this regard.

Only as long as you add the qualifier "federal" to it, which wasn't really part of the discourse. So yes, if you're completely dishonest, then you're ahead on the issue.

What I'm saying is that I agree with their structure for determining how laws that affect certain people should be judged. Under this structure, I believe sexual orientation fits the criteria for strict scrutiny. I do not believe this is true for incest practicers.

And that does not answer the question. You did, didn't you. You opposed homosexuality. Until there was a chance in the source to which you outsourced your morality.

I still am completely flabbergasted that we are completely dismissing the fact that children of incest will have a higher risk of genetic defects.

We're not. I'm still flabbergasted you keep bringing this up, despite the fact that it is a sheer, bold faced lie. Why, may I ask, do you feel the need to lie like this? Please, explain the need to continuously state something which is a complete and utter lie as though it had any bearing on the conversation.

A child born of incest will have a greater inbreeding coefficient than a child not born of incest.

Unless mitigating factors like age are included, but you're already lying, why stop now?

Other factors that are high risk, but still permissable for breeding. Yeah yeah, I know I know. The law doesn't have to be fair, just, or balanced. That would be a damn shame, wouldn't it? If we actually operated under a single standard.

The government has a legitimate concern in wanting to keep the inbreeding coefficient of its population as low as possible.

And only inbreeding, because that's the only danger ever!

...Well hell, might as well knock down a strawman or two while I'm watching.

And I did not "dump" the tradition argument: I have always said that society has the right to determine what is and isn't acceptable behavior, so long as their decisions do not contradict the Constitution.

That's still a dump. Sorry. You're just trying to goalpost shift again.

Perhaps none of these reasons satisfy you, but they satisfy me.

That's utterly hypocritical, given the number of people you have dismissed based on their inability to satisfy you. You cannot have it both ways. You say that it's satisfactory to you? Fine. Then we have also provided reasoning that is satisfactory, contrary to your prior claims.

You have in essence established an impossible burden of proof for others based on the regressive nature of your opinions, and a significantly lower burden upon yourself. Seems more like you favour the kangaroo court of law.

Some "prejudice" is justifiable.

As the homophobes and the racists said.

But seriously, that speaks volumes.

Any law is going to burden someone.

Well thank you, Captain Obvious.

For me, judging someone based on their chosen actions is not prejudging them.

Asserting again, that it is a choice. Asserting with no proof and dodging every time you are challenged to provide it.

But that aside, it kind of is. And your rationales thus far have been loaded with prejudice. but that's okay, because prejudice isn't bad as long as they're mine.

You can reasonably judge someone's character by their behavior.

Yeah, like them homosexuals!

[Admiral Lithp]

I've only responded to posts you made that try to counter my posts.

Wow, okay, way to miss the point. You're saying, essentially, "If you're not going to work within my terms, then just don't argue with me." This apparently does not work in reverse.

Of course, the difference between "your terms" & "our terms" is that your terms are, at any given time, irrelevent, logical fallacies, or both.

The scientific consensus on this matter is that sexual orientation is a non-chosen intrinsic quality of one's self and cannot be altered using accepted practices of psychotherapy

Oh, I see, so scientific & academic proofs matter in law only when you want them to.

Judges are still a product of society: they are people, not omniscient robots.

Hey, wow, maybe that's why we're advocating laws based on logic & evidence, not "people don't like it."

I do not believe that gay people should be able to get married just because they are consenting adults, but for the reasons outlined above.

Hey, you know, no one REALLY cares what you think either. That's the POINT of the consenting adults position. You're entitled to your own opinion of what you THINK people should do, but enforcing it on them is just wrong.

[cestlefun17]

But eventually, he has to "choose" to act on it.

If one is only attracted to members of the same sex, and the government prohibits you from marrying or having sex with anyone of the same sex, they are denying you from having a relationship with anybody. Such a law would be overly broad. While having sex isn't required to sustain life, it is still a vital part of being human and it is unreasonable to expect gay people to have to take a vow of celibacy. This is especially true if gay people merit the strict scrutiny test, which requires the government to have a compelling (e.g. the public safety is at risk) reason, and the law must be as narrowly tailored as possible. A law putting a blanket ban on anybody you have sexual attraction to is not "narrowly tailored."

Likewise, is banning incest/incestuous marriages like asking a potential incest-practicer to take a vow of celibacy? Is a man who is attracted to his mother not attracted to any other women? This would seem to fly in the face of how we understand sexuality: one is not seen as being born with a pre-destined sexual attraction to a specific and finite number of people. I wasn't born pre-destined to only being sexually attracted to People X, Y, and Z, and likewise it makes no sense that someone would be born pre-destined to being sexually attracted only to his mother, his sister, and his aunt. Of course, if evidence were to surface to the contrary (and that this phenomenon was not correctable), then I would be happy to re-consider my opinion. But I am not going to re-consider my opinion based on the fact that science may at some point, possibly, find this to be true.

And that does not answer the question. You did, didn't you. You opposed homosexuality. Until there was a chance in the source to which you outsourced your morality.

If I grew up in the 1950s where homosexuality was considered by leading scientists to be a mental disorder, then I probably would be against homosexuality. Just like if I grew up in the 1300s I'd probably think the world was flat. I wouldn't know any better and I can't predict how science will change in the future. If it does change on incest, then I will change my opinion to reflect science's new findings.

Only as long as you add the qualifier "federal" to it, which wasn't really part of the discourse. So yes, if you're completely dishonest, then you're ahead on the issue.

Some state-level courts have found that sexual orientation merits strict scrutiny...these are also the states that have judicially enacted same-sex marriage (including California). I believe any court that uses anything less than strict scrutiny for gay issues is wrong, based on the expert opinions of leading psychologists and psychiatrists in the field. Like I said, I agree with the legal structure for determining if a law unduly burdens a minority group. I disagree all the time if I don't think courts aren't applying the science correctly to this structure.

But you discount science. That's just the sort of evidence you say doesn't play into the all-powerful Amurrican legal system.

American courts are highly deferential to science in the intermediate and strict scrutiny tests. The positive scientific consensus around homosexuality did not really begin to surface until around the turn of the 21st century. When American courts look at the science, they will find in favor of gay people, as has been happening much more frequently in recent years.

We're not. I'm still flabbergasted you keep bringing this up, despite the fact that it is a sheer, bold faced lie. Why, may I ask, do you feel the need to lie like this? Please, explain the need to continuously state something which is a complete and utter lie as though it had any bearing on the conversation.

I don't know what geneticist in the world will tell you that inbreeding does not increase the risk of passing on genetic defects. A quick Google search will point you to what is considered common knowledge throughout the world. For example:

doublehelixranch.com/defects.html
"Unfortunately, there is a serious down-side to inbreeding. In addition to fixing the desired traits in the breed, inbreeding also fixes (or increases in frequency) deleterious recessive traits that are genetically linked to the desired traits. ("Genetically linked" simply means that the two genes are located on the same chromosome, close to one another). Many of these deleterious recessive alleles may have only small effects (even when homozygous), but as more of them become fixed or increase in frequency in the population, the fitness of the inbred animals almost always suffers. Thus, fitness usually declines upon inbreeding (and this is particularly true of reproductive traits and traits associated with overall configuration and body size)."

You have in essence established an impossible burden of proof for others based on the regressive nature of your opinions, and a significantly lower burden upon yourself. Seems more like you favour the kangaroo court of law.

The rational basis test is highly deferential to the government. I'm sorry if you don't like this, but this is the way it is. If you could show that incest practicers are like gay people, a higher level of scrutiny would be merited and the burden of proof would switch to me. The reason why the rational basis test is so deferential to the government is that, despite conservatives' whining about "judicial activism" the courts actually have severe reservations about striking down laws passed by the democratically elected representatives of the people, provided that these laws do not burden minorities that meet certain criteria, and thus a higher level of judicial scrutiny (as I've explained before).

As the homophobes and the racists said. But seriously, that speaks volumes.

Is a law banning marijuana "prejudiced" against marijuana smokers? One chooses to smoke marijuana, so while marijuana smokers are a minority, laws limiting their activity are not seen as violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Oh, I see, so scientific & academic proofs matter in law only when you want them to.

What scientific proof exists that incest practicing is largely status, not behavior? What are the policy positions on incest by the leading psychological and psychiatric organizations?

Hey, you know, no one REALLY cares what you think either. That's the POINT of the consenting adults position. You're entitled to your own opinion of what you THINK people should do, but enforcing it on them is just wrong.

Then this is just where we fundamentally disagree and it doesn't look like any more bickering is going to get us to see one way or another. I completely understand why people think the way you do; it is just not the kind of society I would ever personally want to live in, and luckily for me is not the way American society is run. The society you advocate for seems to be one where we have no responsibility to each other and no common standards of decency and responsibility.

All I can say is that laws against incestuous marriages are definitely not contrary to the Constitution, in particular the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and laws banning incestuous behavior may be constitutional (although you could probably make a good argument on right-to-privacy grounds, which I'd agree with you on, but this would largely depend too on how the law is actually enforced). I don't believe that people who support these laws are bigoted, as the nature of the minority group affected does not warrant the same level of sympathy as other minority groups.

I am leaving for New Hampshire for a week tomorrow morning, so this is the last post I will be making in this thread. So you are free to get in any last "Incest practicers are just like gay people how dare you you bigot!" and "Inbreeding does not carry any genetic risk what the hell are you talking about!"

[Admiral Lithp]

This thread died as it lived. Completely overrun by Straw Men.

[John E]

Aug 11, 2011 21:45:51 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

This thread died as it lived. Completely overrun by Straw Men.

On both sides.

[Shane for Wax]

Aug 12, 2011 15:55:17 GMT -5 John E said:

Aug 11, 2011 21:45:51 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

This thread died as it lived. Completely overrun by Straw Men.

On both sides.

And more points were missed than I care to count.

[Admiral Lithp]

You 2 want to back that shit up, or are you just trying to be cooler than the cool kids?

[John E]

Just seemed to me like everyone was talking past each other, with a lot of misrepresentations and misunderstandings of each other's arguments. Nobody was on the same page.

But no, I'm not going to bother trying to explain exactly what was misinterpreted and how. I've been down that road before.

[Shane for Wax]

Aug 12, 2011 22:38:23 GMT -5 John E said:

Just seemed to me like everyone was talking past each other, with a lot of misrepresentations and misunderstandings of each other's arguments. Nobody was on the same page.

But no, I'm not going to bother trying to explain exactly what was misinterpreted and how. I've been down that road before.

I'm not either. It just seemed to me this went on for a lot longer than it needed to and seemed to spiral way out of control from what the point of the actual story was.

It was hard to keep up on an argument that seemed like it could have been resolved faster by using the same tactics in the Argument Clinic skit on Monty Python.

[Admiral Lithp]

Right, because hopping into a thread right after a big argument, taking a potshot at everyone involved, & then refusing to explain yourself is such a BETTER idea.

The only thing I "misunderstood" was that Supreme Court quote, & I backed off of that once I realized it.

Guys, just ask to be one of the cool kids. I won't tell you that you can't.

[MaybeNever]

No, you're dumb!