|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 16:06:00 GMT -5
Just because the government bans certain risky behavior does not meant they are obligated to ban all other risky behaviors. It is our prerogative to choose which behaviors should and shouldn't be banned. Choosing to have a child, or even choosing to engage in incest, is private conduct and because it is a private conduct the risks associated should be assessed by the individual. But getting married is public conduct as it involves entering into a publicly sanctioned legal institution and as such can be regulated by the public.
Just like any freedom there are limits when using that freedom can become irresponsible. Just like you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the government should not be obligated to recognize your perverse relationship in marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Aug 8, 2011 16:11:54 GMT -5
I'm failing to see how this is a blanket answer. If it was we'd be riding directly down the slippery slope, probably with a rocket stuck directly up our asses. Incest is a touchy situation because being a parent, or most any relationship with an older family member, gives trust and power over someone else. In any other situation where either is used to leverage sex out of someone it's pretty much considered rape, if it wasn't blatantly so. Unless you have a magical formula for determining that someone wasn't coerced into the activity it's really, really difficult to simply go along with. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 8, 2011 16:29:44 GMT -5
Why are you assuming they were married? (Not that incestuous marriages are illegal throughout the US anyway)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 8, 2011 16:35:19 GMT -5
It's not meant as a blanket answer, simply a principle from which to start. Clearly, there are limits to sexual freedom, such as the aforementioned coercion (which is why I have concerns about incest taking place in a relationship where the parent was involved in the child's upbringing, or has otherwise been placed in an authority position over the child) and, of course, rape, et al. There are also limits to free speech. That doesn't nullify the principle -- that two consenting adults shouldn't be sent to prison simply because society was uncomfortable with the idea of them having sex.
My beef here, more than anything else, is with the idea that society can say "We said it's bad!", and use that alone as justification for banning an activity, which is essentially what the "long-held institution of the family" argument boils down to. It's that specific portion of the argument that concerns me, because of the implications it carries with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Aug 8, 2011 16:44:47 GMT -5
My beef here, more than anything else, is with the idea that society can say "We said it's bad!", and use that alone as justification for banning an activity, which is essentially what the "long-held institution of the family" argument boils down to. It's that specific portion of the argument that concerns me, because of the implications it carries with it. Short of a mathematical proof of good or bad(which would be amazing), what else do we have to work off of? It's one set of opinions or the other that wins, typically with the winning one declaring itself good, or at least better than the other. Having known enough girls who hardly knew their father, who had utter father complexes, I'm not particularly keen on assuming the lack of parenting of a child should exclude them. Though this is more of a 'stopping people from making stupid decisions' point than a true grievous abuse of someone. To be completely honest the entire situation translates to "Shoot him" in the baser portions of my mind. But that's it's answer for a lot of things. I cannot see any situation in which he could have not been taking advantage of her if they were aware of their relation. Doesn't mean it should be illegal on it's own, but it makes it really hard for me to say it should be legal. There's a pretty hard line in my mind between two consenting adults, and two consenting adults, one of which referred(and possibly still does) to the other as "Daddy". |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 8, 2011 16:55:22 GMT -5
Just because the government bans certain risky behavior does not meant they are obligated to ban all other risky behaviors. It is our prerogative to choose which behaviors should and shouldn't be banned. Choosing to have a child, or even choosing to engage in incest, is private conduct and because it is a private conduct the risks associated should be assessed by the individual. But getting married is public conduct as it involves entering into a publicly sanctioned legal institution and as such can be regulated by the public. You're shifting goalposts like mad here. One minute it's a danger and that's justification, t he next it's not justification, but public practice of it is. That's a pretty fine line for justification, but still. Does this mean banning marriage between two other people based on perceived risky behaviour is okay? Or is it just as empty as it sounds, justifying hypocrisy under blanket terms? Because it bypasses rational thought and generates panic. What you're indicating would be more akin to banning the right to say " Die in a Fire" because it could be harmful to people. While still foul, it is not immediately harmful as hate speech, screaming " fire" in a crowded theater, or coercion are. The measure is not " irresponsibility," or Fox News would collectively be hanging from gallows poles. Oh, I suppose you could argue that's just a government breakdown, but realistically, in American society, there's a lot that is irresponsible and not punished. Nor outlawed. Nor even looked at. If you want to compare inbreeding to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, you'd damn well better be able to back up the immediate physical harm that comes from it. Like, I don't know, the minute interfamily intercourse is entered into, all parties' hearts explode. Or they are turned into Jersey Shore contestants. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 16:56:06 GMT -5
Because I said earlier that I would have reservations about criminalizing private sexual conduct between family members, as we do have a right to privacy. However, I am fully in favor of restricting this behavior as far as possible without invading privacy rights. This involves denying them recognition of their relationship. Also I would add, the age of consent should be 18 (normally age of consent is around 16) for incestuous sexual activity and also should information of your relationship become publicly available business owners should have the right to refuse to hire you (or fire you) and property owners should have the right to deny you housing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 8, 2011 17:04:23 GMT -5
I agree that parent-child incest is a rather complicated matter, compared with same-sex partnerships and polygamy. However, that strikes me as being more of an issue of whether or not the father should be held liable for rape. Perhaps I'm misreading Cestle's posts here, but it's coming across as though he believes society is justified in discriminating against both parties on merit of the fact that we've deemed their behavior "irresponsible" and contrary to the "institution of the family". Again, I do agree that consenting adults shouldn't always be able to do whatever they want, but if we're acknowledging that there is mutual consent involved in a situation (and I'm speaking in general here), I think it's rather important to demonstrate that meaningful harm will be done if we allow it to continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 17:41:59 GMT -5
I've always said that there is an element of danger in it. The government can choose which practices it wishes to outlaw and which to not. So if marring your own family member (a publicly sanctioned relationship that may result in children) carries the same risk as having a child over 40, the government can ban the former but is not obligated to ban the latter, even if there weren't different mitigating circumstances, as I explained in my above answer. Also, I do recognize that it is not right to invade people's privacy. Incest practicers have their right to privacy, but that ends the minute their relationship is brought into the public sphere (e.g. through marriage).
Like I said, we as a society get to decide what is considered irresponsible and should be outlawed. We are not obligated to criminalize everything that is considered irresponsible. We have to look at everything as a discrete issue.
Again with the "harm" business. If an action harms somebody then that is just an additional negative point against it. I don't believe that people have the right to do whatever they want provided they aren't "harming" somebody. I believe people have the responsibility to comport themselves in a responsible and dignified manner. And regardless, incest can still be shown to cause harm. In the short run it can lead to medical issues and it harms and perverts the institution of the family. In the long run it nearly always leads to significant mental and physical deformities.
You're not misreading. This is what I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 8, 2011 18:02:18 GMT -5
Because I said earlier that I would have reservations about criminalizing private sexual conduct between family members, as we do have a right to privacy. However, I am fully in favor of restricting this behavior as far as possible without invading privacy rights. This involves denying them recognition of their relationship. Also I would add, the age of consent should be 18 (normally age of consent is around 16) for incestuous sexual activity and also should information of your relationship become publicly available business owners should have the right to refuse to hire you (or fire you) and property owners should have the right to deny you housing. So... you're off topic because this thread had nothing to do with marriage. And you continue to be lawful stupid as you seem to think that doing potential harm to potential offspring is a valid argument, but doing real harm to the offspring by denying their parents the ability to find work or housing is just fine. You're a right model of consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 8, 2011 18:03:56 GMT -5
Like I said, we as a society get to decide what is considered irresponsible and should be outlawed. We are not obligated to criminalize everything that is considered irresponsible. We have to look at everything as a discrete issue.I, too, think irrational governance is something we should strive to attain. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 18:05:20 GMT -5
The potential harm is certainly a rational basis for denying them marriage, among other things. Any child born of consensual incest should be taken by the state, as their parents are not mentally fit to care for children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 8, 2011 18:06:35 GMT -5
The potential harm is certainly a rational basis for denying them marriage, among other things. Any child born of consensual incest should be taken by the state, as their parents are not mentally fit to care for children. Prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 8, 2011 18:30:10 GMT -5
I don't see incest as that much "stickier" than normal sex. Topics that came up with that included:
Is it okay to force someone to have it?
Is it okay to coerce them?
Does getting them drunk count as rape?
What if you're drunk?
What if it's a kid?
And so on. Some of these were no-brainers. Others had to be tackled as they came up. With this in mind, I don't think it makes sense to avoid incest laws because "it's sticky." Of course it's sticky. That's why we need laws. And Hell no, I don't want to be the one to have to figure it out, that's why I don't get paid to do it.
Then you should say this. You would still be wrong, but at least what you're wrong about would be more clear.
I'm not sure how much longer I can do this. Didn't you just claim that you aren't claiming that people hold all of the power in government? Because phrases like "we allow it to exist" & "the officials are entirely beholden to us" contradict the Hell out of that.
Idealism is not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality.
And this is a question about law. Practical, logical, systematic, cold-hard-facts law. Thus, semantics. It's like answering nihilistically on a science test. Just because something might not be "wrong" in the general sense, within the scope of the topic, it can still be completely irrelevent.
Quote:It has been shown time & time again that legal systems based on logic & evidence work better. Most "traditional" laws only get in the way & have to be retconned later, and since someone will resist it, that becomes a huge waste of time & money.
And you don't see how you're engaging in semantics?
Traditional is a law that was based on some kind of principle of the culture. People who don't go to church are bad. Women should respect their husbands. Et cetera.
Logical are laws based on evidence or reason, such as that since our Constitution exists to protect the peoples' natural rights, it follows that murder is a violation of that "contract," & thus illegal.
If you're not noticing the difference, a traditional law can be good, bad, or irrelevent, but what they all have in common is that they're based off of superstition or some vague notion of "etiquette" that they're forcing people to conform to. Whereas the rational laws have some kind of systematic logic to them, & may be based on evidence, such as brain death. A traditional law might define cardiac arrest as legal death, even though we now know that's not how it works.
Are you being deliberately dense? The quote can be generally applied to defending freedom, even if you don't agree with it. It's that "step outside yourself" thing I mentioned earlier. Just because YOU think that a certain practice is "undignified," & maybe a bunch of people agree with YOU, it doesn't mean you have any basis on which to restrict that.
Again, you're backing it up with what the society wants, rather than any sort of consistent logical basis. Do you fail to see that freedom of speech has no place in your world view? It's only "admirable" so long as people say it is, if people suddenly decide they'd rather people be "dignified," then according to you, censorship is okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 18:42:12 GMT -5
Consenting to an incestuous relationship is so outrageously outside the bounds of reason in our society that it should not even be exposed to a child who cannot willingly remove him or herself from the household. It would also give the child the notion that this reckless, degenerate, and repugnant behavior is somehow normal. A family headed by an incestuous couple is not what our society considers to be a healthy and productive family. Is it really asking the world of someone to not form a relationship with a group of what — around 10 people, out of 5 billion possible others? And if you still choose to flout this rather simple convention, is it asking too much to keep it to yourself and not involve anybody else (especially a child) in it?
The people have indirect power in our government. We allow our system of government to exist because we elect people who do not vote to change it.
Why can't something that is traditional also be logical? Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive?
Well I disagree. I am very much a liberal authoritarian. Remember the 2-D chart with liberal/conservative on the x-axis and libertarian/authoritarian on the y-axis? I'd be way in the liberal/authoritarian quadrant.
If enough people agreed that censorship is okay, I'd disagree vehemently with them, but if they were able to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing it, then that would be the way our society would wish to construct itself. Fortunately this is not the case.
|
|
