|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 8, 2011 18:43:50 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? You give words, but not evidence. You have not proved it. Quit dodging and answer. |
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Aug 8, 2011 18:46:18 GMT -5
Proof: It does not mean what you think it means.
In case you weren't aware, proof is objective. You know, as in, not subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Aug 8, 2011 18:47:05 GMT -5
"Consenting to a homosexual 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 a homosexual 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 those of the same sex, out of 3 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?"
does your argument still look reasonable?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 18:50:49 GMT -5
I said that children of consensual incest should be taken away from their parents, which would signal a personal opinion. I will concede to striking the "mentally" from "mentally fit" in my post, as I'm not a psychologist and can't make that diagnosis. Incestuous parents are not fit parents, in my opinion, for the reasons I state above. It's not behavior I think a child should be exposed to. If you are running a household in an intimate relationship with your mother, and your adult aunt wants to move into the extra bedroom, that's perfectly okay. Your child, however, would be trapped in your dysfunctional household.
Considering we're not talking about gay people, yes. To be honest with you, I think it is incredibly insulting to gay people to equate the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 8, 2011 18:56:13 GMT -5
I said that children of consensual incest should be taken away from their parents, which would signal a personal opinion. I will concede to striking the "mentally" from "mentally fit" in my post, as I'm not a psychologist and can't make that diagnosis. Incestuous parents are not fit parents, in my opinion, for the reasons I state above. It's not behavior I think a child should be exposed to. If you are running a household in an intimate relationship with your mother, and your adult aunt wants to move into the extra bedroom, that's perfectly okay. Your child, however, would be trapped in your dysfunctional household. The problem here is you are still making statements of fact and trying to masquerade them as opinion. Prove it. Provide evidence of inherent dysfunction. We know you don't like it, but your rationale relies upon statements you declare are facts without backing them up as fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 8, 2011 18:56:42 GMT -5
They're just showing you how a case can be made better or worse by supplying or not supplying actual evidence. You're just missing the point by a wide marigin. And also bouncing around a lot. As has been indicated before, the thread is not about incestual marriage or reproduction. First we have to tackle the actual incest.
Because tradition isn't logical.
As much as you love semantics, you should know what basic words mean.
Funny way of saying, "Fundamentalist."
And then go to jail.
All hail tyranny of the majority!
Fool, the point of establishing a law or a legal system isn't how it works IN THE PRESENT, it's what effects it will have on the FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Don't go into law.
|
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Aug 8, 2011 18:58:15 GMT -5
You have stated no reasons. Zero. Stop dodging the question and start giving facts.
All I hear is "incest is bad because it's bad" with no explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 19:00:46 GMT -5
According to the Oxford American English Dictionary, "dysfunctional" means "deviating from the norms of social behavior in a way regarded as bad." Incest is certainly not considered by society to be a normal social behavior, and society (except for many people on this board) regard it as bad. I don't see why incest wouldn't be dysfunctional. I'll have to claim ignorance on that.
Incest is bad because it goes against what society considers to be acceptable behavior. Society has the right to dictate social normal. This consideration is not arbitrary and capricious, as I've explained before, nor does it infringe on the rights of a suspect class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 8, 2011 19:04:46 GMT -5
Context is important for definitions. Psychology A family with multiple 'internal'–eg sibling rivalries, parent-child– conflicts, domestic violence, mental illness, single parenthood, or 'external'–eg alcohol or drug abuse, extramarital affairs, gambling, unemployment—influences that affect the basic needs of the family unit medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dysfunctional+familyLithp is right, you suck at words. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 19:15:52 GMT -5
Says who? It is traditional that murder is a criminal act. But it's also logical.
I don't know what to tell you. It is theoretically possible for a super-majority of people to vote in representatives who will amend the 1st Amendment out of the Constitution. It's not like it could never be removed. But we just don't live in that type of society.
"Influences that affect the basic needs of the family unit." Like...perhaps having a clear demarcation of what everyone's relationship to each other is? In a traditional nuclear family, a child has a mother and father and perhaps siblings. He knows what the relationship of "parent" is, what that means and what that entails. His parents know what the relationship of "offspring" means and what responsibilities that entails. The child knows the same for a sibling relationship.
This isn't the case in an incestuous family where the child's father is also his half-brother, his sister is also his aunt, and his mother is also his future wife.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 8, 2011 19:28:20 GMT -5
Do you really not see how this is circular logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Aug 8, 2011 19:33:30 GMT -5
Stop dodging the question. Or don't, I don't care, but at least have the decency to just say that you are ignoring me. I'm not going to sit here and keep repeating myself until you actually address my point.
You know what, fuck it. Here's a different question, and a nice and simple one at that.
Say, for example, that two siblings are separated at a very young age. They go through their entire lives up until that point not knowing that the other exists. They meet each other as adults, find out that they are siblings, but start to develop an attraction for each other (which would have normally been impeded, but not necessarily stopped, by the Westermarck Effect)
Now tell me, why is this immoral or unacceptable? What would be a rational justification for denying these two the right to marry or have children?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 19:33:48 GMT -5
I do not all see it as circular behavior. As I said, I am highly deferential to the needs of society over the individual. I believe that society has the right to dictate, through popular consensus, what is considered acceptable behavior. Society has decided that this behavior is unacceptable and this decision does not interfere with higher-order societal considerations (such as the Constitution). You may disagree with what society in general believes and its reasons for believing it, and you are welcome to your personal opinion and your right to fight to change society's opinion.
I'm not dodging any questions. You arrived in this discussion a bit late but you will notice that everything you said is answered in other posts.
As for your example, it is wrong because it perverts the commonly held notion of what constitutes a sibling relationship, which society holds to be purely platonic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 8, 2011 19:39:46 GMT -5
Oh God, I don't even know where to begin.
1. Social norms=/=laws. Who says society has the right to dictate law according to what they consider "normal"? Give actual REASONS for this.
2. You have no proof that an incestuous relationship between 2 adults is "dysfunctional," except for your traditional family unit bullshit, which I find funny, because you claim you don't want to compare it to gay people, then use THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.
3. It's a question of what the law is based off of. If it is based on tradition, then no, it is not a logical law. Because it's not based on logic. Tradition itself is not logical. See, these aren't real terms, they're terms I'm using to demonstrate a point, & have meticulously defined for the purpose of the conversation.
But more than that, a law based on "that's how we've always done it" is almost guaranteed not to actually have logic behind it, as you've demonstrated oh so well.
4. You're still talking about a case that isn't even remotely related to the topic. Quit with the straw men, already.
5. We just don't live in that type of society NOW. Quit being so shortsighted. Your ideas for how laws should work would ruin the country, if taken to their logical conclusion.
Edit: In fact, here you are ignoring science (the Westmark Effect) in favor of "it's bad because it's icky." That alone destroys any credibility to your "traditional laws are logical" thing.
Hell, what if these people didn't even know they were siblings when they got into the relationship? Should they be jailed or forced to break up because "society" (you) doesn't approve?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 19:48:20 GMT -5
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids this, so long as the people's demarcation of "normal" does not infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights.
Because they are absolutely two different things. Incestuous relations is not normally practiced and is widely regarded as bad. Ergo, dysfunctional. The "traditional family unit" argument doesn't wash with gay marriage because the nature of that minority demands a much higher level of scrutiny.
So be it. This is the first time in my life that I've seen the logic of disapproving of incest being questioned. Regardless, there is still logic in not approving of incest. There is no doubt that incest greatly increases the chances of congenital defects which compound themselves over successive generations. It's the reason why we have a natural proclivity to avoid these relationships in the first place.
To go back to the original case: As I said, I entirely disapprove of their relationship, but no I don't think they should go to jail because we do have the right to privacy. However, I have no qualms of extending this disapproval in more public arenas, such as marriage, employment, and housing.
I don't know how to respond to this because this is a hypothetical.
Again, right to privacy. I would think that a normal person, if he found out he was dating his sister, would immediately terminate the relationship and be extremely embarrassed.
|
|
