|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Aug 7, 2011 17:20:50 GMT -5
i see no reason why two people who happen to be closely related having consensual sex in a private space is a danger to public order. Just because you think something is icky doesn't make it a threat to public order. I think scat fetishes are icky, and you don't see me trying to get that stuff banned, because it's none of anybody else's business if consenting people want to engage in scat stuff in private.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 7, 2011 17:40:02 GMT -5
Incest is bad because it goes against what we as a society has concluded is undignified conduct. This conclusion cannot reasonably be argued to contradict the supreme law of society—the Constitution. Again, you're essentially saying that it's bad because we say it's bad. Can you prove that society's view of incest is justified from a rational perspective? I'm not convinced by constitutional and authoritarian arguments. The US constitution could say that the sky is green, but that wouldn't make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Aug 7, 2011 17:54:55 GMT -5
cestlefun17, nobody gives a shit about what you, society, the constitution, or your neighbor's dog thinks is "respectable and dignified conduct." That is not for the anyone else, other than the participants involved, to decide.
That's not how the law is supposed to work.
You still have failed to explain why incest or incestuous marriages being legal would cause undue harm to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 7, 2011 18:00:13 GMT -5
We havn't had a "the US Constitution should be the last book in the Bible" fundie here for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 7, 2011 18:01:18 GMT -5
It matters not. According to you, if the society decides it's bad, that's reason enough for it to be banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Aug 7, 2011 18:40:17 GMT -5
Personally, I think that if relatives that close are going to have sex, one or both of them should get sterilized, just to avoid the genetic clusterfuck that is an incest baby. But other than that? They're both adults, nobody's coercing anybody, and clearly even though the man was the woman's biological father, he couldn't have taken part in the actual raising of her or the Westermarck Effect would have kept incest from looking like a good idea in the first place.
He's not her father in a societal sense, only in a genetic sense. Men who raise their own daughters from infancy on generally do not view them as potential sex partners.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 7, 2011 19:11:43 GMT -5
Personally, I think that if relatives that close are going to have sex, one or both of them should get sterilized, just to avoid the genetic clusterfuck that is an incest baby. Again, a child born of a single generation of incest has such marginally increased odds of genetic disease that a child born to a woman over 40 is at as much risk if not more. The problems compound rapidly as further generations of inbreeding occur, but a single generation isn't a huge deal from a genetic perspective. Edit: erased some stuff that was stupid because I hadn't paid attention to the article. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Aug 7, 2011 20:43:44 GMT -5
"It absolutely does not. Under the 14th Amendment you have the right to have the equal protection of the law. No one can marry someone of his or her own gender. No exceptions. Nor does this limitation burden a suspect class. Homosexuality is absolutely repugnant behavior that goes against the natural social order and is rightfully not recognized in marriage." "It absolutely does not. Under the 14th Amendment you have the right to have the equal protection of the law. No one can marry someone who is not of the same race as themselves. No exceptions. Nor does this limitation burden a suspect class. Miscegenation is absolutely repugnant behavior that goes against the natural social order and is rightfully not recognized in marriage." See what I did there? That's not how the law works. You don't get to ban something unless you have a reason other than "It's icky and I don't like it." While technically true, there is a difference in the arguments you made and banning incestous marriage. WRT interracial marriage, race is a suspect class, so laws that burden based on race are subject to strict scrutiny. A compelling governmental interest is required, and the law must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. WRT same-sex marriage, homosexuality has not been declared a suspect class, so the test is rational basis. The state must show it has a rational basis for the law. Where laws banning SSM have been struck down, the state has failed to show a rational basis for the laws. Since incest is also not a suspect class, rational basis is also the proper test. In this case, however, the state can show a rational basis. Physical health of offspring. High risk of coersion in such relationships. Therefore, those laws are constitutional. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 20:46:24 GMT -5
Right, which is why I said I would have reservations invading people's privacy to arrest incestuous practicers in their homes. My limit to showing disapprobation to their actions would probably end with denying them a marriage license.
As a society we have a right to say it's bad. The genetic problems that can surface are self-evident. Even if an incestuous couple is infertile or same-sex it still perverts the institution of the family and our common understanding of what constitutes a parent/offpsring (or sibling/sibling, etc.) relationship.
As I said several posts earlier, I don't really care if something is "harmless" or not. That would be just an additional negative point against the behavior.
We as a society in 1868 decided that, through the 14th Amendment, that it is repugnant to pass laws that burden certain minorities. In 1790, We the People decided that a Supreme Court, and inferior courts as established by Congress, should decide what qualifications such minorities should possess through interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Yes, sexual orientation has not yet been made a suspect class. But I believe that a reasonable argument can be made to show that gay people constitute a suspect class. I cannot come up with such an argument for people who practice incest, nor have I seen one.
I'm not saying that society never changes. It does, and I believe that the institutions we as a society have set up will soon find sexual orientation to be a suspect class. I don't think this will be so for incest practicers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 7, 2011 21:15:15 GMT -5
Since incest is also not a suspect class, rational basis is also the proper test. In this case, however, the state can show a rational basis. Physical health of offspring. High risk of coersion in such relationships. Therefore, those laws are constitutional. Okay, the genetic argument really bothers me. It is WRONG. One generation of incest is meaningless as far as disorders are concerned. It's when you have multiple, successive generations of incest that it causes problems. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 21:57:27 GMT -5
Fine, so it's better to nip it in the bud. And if consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want, why does the first generation get a free pass but not the second? Or do the first two generations get free passes? Etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Aug 7, 2011 22:09:03 GMT -5
As a society we have a right to say it's bad. The genetic problems that can surface are self-evident. Even if an incestuous couple is infertile or same-sex it still perverts the institution of the family and our common understanding of what constitutes a parent/offpsring (or sibling/sibling, etc.) relationship.Perverts the institution of the family... Hmmm. Now where have I heard that argument before? Its eerily familiar. Also, Appeal to tradition, appeal to popular opinion, and appeal to authority. It doesn't really matter whether you care about it or not. It's all that matters. The "harm" factor is not an additional point against something, it's the primary point. The thing that should be considered above all others. By dismissing that, you are completely missing the entire point of this type of legislation. Also, as stated before, the "ZOMG retard babies" argument is complete bullshit. The abuse argument is also irrelevant because we already have laws against those types of things. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 7, 2011 22:18:46 GMT -5
Fine, so it's better to nip it in the bud. And if consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want, why does the first generation get a free pass but not the second? Or do the first two generations get free passes? Etc. etc. For exactly equivalent reasons, then, women cannot be allowed to carry children to term if they are older than 40, or perhaps even 35; individuals with known genetic disorders presumably cannot be allowed to have children either. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Aug 7, 2011 22:20:57 GMT -5
Incest is pretty icky. And there seems to be ample scope for abuse of power relations. But there doesn't seem to be any scope for abuse of the power of the relationship here. They are only genetically related. He has not played the father role while she grew up. There is no power imbalance. Whether this situation should be legal or not it would seem that the police should have better things to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 22:26:08 GMT -5
This notion that is very popular on this board, that all minorities are exactly the same, that there are no different mitigating factors that differentiate them, is exactly the same kind of black-and-white thinking that the fundies use, just on the extreme libertarian side, whereas they are on the extreme authoritarian side.
These are all informal fallacies and thus there is always some wiggling room when applying them. I personally believe that societies have a right, within certain boundaries, to establish traditional conventions based on popular opinion, and that when people operate outside these bounds of reason, the authorities (whose power is vested in them by the people), have the right to take appropriate action. This is actually what we already do.
The "retard babies" argument is still a valid one: whether it takes one or multiple generations of incest to create noticeable defects doesn't matter, it is still not the healthiest way to reproduce. But what is more important still (as I realize that other factors can create greater risks to reproducing) is that our society has decided that this behavior is entirely unacceptable and have therefore decided to deny marriage licenses to incestuous couples. Based on the evolutionary imprinting that naturally motivates us to avoid such relationships, our understanding of genetics, and how we desire to construct familial relationships and keep them purely platonic, this is not entirely "arbitrary and capricious" nor does it infringe on what can reasonably be argued is a suspect class.
|
|
