Incest and stuff...

[Amaranth]

Aug 8, 2011 19:15:52 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Says who? It is traditional that murder is a criminal act. But it's also logical.

Oh come now, that's lazy and intellectually dishonest. Just because tradition coincides with logical thinking sometimes doesn't mean it is inherently logical.

See also: Slavery, religion, pederasty. Yup. Fucking little boys used to be tradition. Ummm...Yay tradition?

Tradition allows some cultures to beat up women, others to still sell people as slaves, others to hate you for your skin colour or which god you kneel before.

Traditions are, frequently, not logical. Or reasonable. Or smart.

It's tradition to cover up pedophilia scandals in the RCC by shuffling offenders around where they can do more harm. I want to see you defend that tradition.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

So, Liberté and Égalité, unless it makes the Fraternité feel uncomfortable?

[cestlefun17]

Oh come now, that's lazy and intellectually dishonest. Just because tradition coincides with logical thinking sometimes doesn't mean it is inherently logical.

I'm saying that a tradition need not be illogical. What I am not saying is that a tradition is always logical.

So, Liberté and Égalité, unless it makes the Fraternité feel uncomfortable?

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. All three have equal weight. We have certain liberties but we also have responsibilities towards our fellow men and women (Fraternité).

[Vene]

Aug 8, 2011 19:57:10 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

So, Liberté and Égalité, unless it makes the Fraternité feel uncomfortable?

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. All three have equal weight. We have certain liberties but we also have responsibilities towards our fellow men and women (Fraternité).

Your words here suggest otherwise. Then again, you still don't like grounding your arguments in evidence and fact, just mere opinion. Just like how you continue to use "dysfunctional" in a pretty empty sense.

By your logic, same sex couples are actually more dysfunctional than incestual couples. No same sex marriage is federally recognized and only performed in 6 states (look! a citation!). Marriage between second cousins is legal throughout the USA and is legal in 23 states (amazing, two in one post!).

Incest is a traditional value, how dare you oppose it.

[Meshakhad]

Counterpoint: incest produced this guy:

[VirtualStranger]

Aug 8, 2011 20:07:40 GMT -5 Vene said:

Incest is a traditional value, how dare you oppose it.

In fact, incest is far more "traditional" than homosexuality has ever been.

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.

You're projecting. Stop assuming that you speak for anyone but yourself.

[Mantorok]

Aug 8, 2011 20:12:42 GMT -5 Meshakhad said:

Counterpoint: incest produced this guy:

But that gave us this:

[Admiral Lithp]

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.

Flawless Victory.

The "traditional family unit" argument doesn't wash with gay marriage because the nature of that minority demands a much higher level of scrutiny.

It doesn't wash in anything because it's not real.

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.

No there isn't. You are describing successive inbreeding, not incest itself.

Simply put, for the first time in your life, you're being confronted with ACTUAL logic about this issue. And not rising to the occasion.

However, I have no qualms of extending this disapproval in more public arenas, such as marriage, employment, and housing.

So you're not illegalizing their relationship, just making everything else they do illegal until they stop it.

Classy.

I don't know how to respond to this because this is a hypothetical.

You might want to re-assess what you value in a law.

[Amaranth]

Aug 8, 2011 19:57:10 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I'm saying that a tradition need not be illogical. What I am not saying is that a tradition is always logical.

Tradition is not logical is still a valid statement. One you contested.

[Amaranth]

Aug 8, 2011 20:15:04 GMT -5 VirtualStranger said:

Aug 8, 2011 20:07:40 GMT -5 Vene said:

Incest is a traditional value, how dare you oppose it.

In fact, incest is far more "traditional" than homosexuality has ever been.

Especially since the Bible allows you to bone your daughter. XD.

[cestlefun17]

By your logic, same sex couples are actually more dysfunctional than incestual couples. No same sex marriage is federally recognized and only performed in 6 states (look! a citation!). Marriage between second cousins is legal throughout the USA and is legal in 23 states (amazing, two in one post!).

1. It can reasonably be argued that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional and that therefore the repugnance to society is in banning them, not in allowing them. 2. It depends on how broadly you define incest. We're all technically related somehow. We as a society decide how far to cast the net. In the United States this is usually at first cousin (some states falling just behind this limit and forbidding such marriages, others falling just after allowing first cousin marriages).

In fact, incest is far more "traditional" than homosexuality has ever been.

I doubt it, as incest has always been prohibited to some degree in the society that I live in. On the other hand, gay people have always existed. Again, the differences between homosexuality and incest are entirely different and need to be looked at as separate issues. It's not right when a fundie says that a gay couple is no different than an incestuous couple and it's not right here either. They are two separate and discrete issues with their own set of mitigating circumstances.

No there isn't. You are describing successive inbreeding, not incest itself.

Which is a form of incest. Incest that results in children has a higher chance of genetic abnormalities and this is compounded when repeated. In addition, there are other rational bases for not condoning incest, including but not limited to preserving the concept of how society construes familial relationships.

So you're not illegalizing their relationship, just making everything else they do illegal until they stop it.

The only thing that I would say should be illegal would be to grant them a marriage license. Everything else is optional. If you are public about your relationship, a business owner should be free to not hire you. A landlord would be free to not rent one of his apartments to you and your girlfriend/daughter/aunt. If a landlord wants to rent one of his apartments to you and your girlfriend/daughter/aunt, he would be perfectly free to do that, he just shouldn''t be compelled to do so.

Tradition is not logical is still a valid statement. One you contested.

I still don't see why every single tradition is inherently illogical. It doesn't really make a difference anyway as there are logical reasons for not condoning incest. In the United States, this need only be a rational basis. You may not agree with it, but so long as it has a shred of rationality to it, and is not arbitrary and capricious, it is acceptable.

Especially since the Bible allows you to bone your daughter. XD.

This is completely immaterial, as far as the United States goes, as our laws cannot be based on the Bible.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

No one is saying that every single tradition is illogical. It's being said that using tradition as an argument for or against something is illogical.

[cestlefun17]

No one is saying that every single tradition is illogical. It's being said that using tradition as an argument for or against something is illogical.

Ah okay, I understand now. I still believe that society has the right to dictate social mores, so long as these mores do not contradict any "supreme more" (like the Constitution). These mores can also change, so they need not be traditional.

[Vene]

I love it when irrationality is encouraged, nothing bad ever happens as a result.

[Admiral Lithp]

I doubt it, as incest has always been prohibited to some degree in the society that I live in.

Learn history.

On the other hand, gay people have always existed. Again, the differences between homosexuality and incest are entirely different and need to be looked at as separate issues. It's not right when a fundie says that a gay couple is no different than an incestuous couple and it's not right here either. They are two separate and discrete issues with their own set of mitigating circumstances.

A Fundie is usually talking about child rape. That's what makes it different. But the "consenting adults" thing applies here just as much as it does to gay couples.

Which is a form of incest. Incest that results in children has a higher chance of genetic abnormalities and this is compounded when repeated.

You're acting like this is the logical conclusion of allowing incest between consenting adults. It isn't.

In addition, there are other rational bases for not condoning incest, including but not limited to preserving the concept of how society construes familial relationships.

That is not rational. That is the exact opposite of rational.

The only thing that I would say should be illegal would be to grant them a marriage license. Everything else is optional. If you are public about your relationship, a business owner should be free to not hire you. A landlord would be free to not rent one of his apartments to you and your girlfriend/daughter/aunt. If a landlord wants to rent one of his apartments to you and your girlfriend/daughter/aunt, he would be perfectly free to do that, he just shouldn''t be compelled to do so.

You are so fucking classy, you ought to have a monocle & a top hat.

I still don't see why every single tradition is inherently illogical. It doesn't really make a difference anyway as there are logical reasons for not condoning incest. In the United States, this need only be a rational basis. You may not agree with it, but so long as it has a shred of rationality to it, and is not arbitrary and capricious, it is acceptable.

It's worth repeating: Don't go into law.