Change My View: Bans on incestuous sex and on incestuous marriage are unconstitutional. (drugs, marijuana)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. Where do you draw the line? These practices have been going on for thousands of years. That's the left's argument isn't it? What's the difference between homosexuality and polygamy with regards to the law? Are we not all consenting adults? Animals? Relatives? Been going on for thousands of years....
This is exactly why I stay away from this section and the politics section opinions are divided up into left and right moronic simpleton categories.
Taking that a step further, why do we limit unions to two people? Why not three, four, five, or several hundred?
And what's with the universal scorn for polygamy?
Then think about all the folks whose Facebook photo is a dog or cat...
As a legal or cultural reference, I agree with you.
As a real life experience, why in the world would a guy want more than 1 wife?!! Twice as much yelling, twice as many rules, twice as many monthly, uhhh, shall I say, increased emotional sensitivity!
Good Lordy- The "I am my own Grandpa" song keeps rushing thru my head!
Curious, so if a child who was attacked by a relative in an incestuous way ...by your thoughts, it would be acceptable. Great way to open the door to pedo's.
In presenting this argument about this particular subject, are you attempting to prepare the collective 'us' for what appears to be perhaps a next engineered step down the slippery slope slide towards recreating a Sodom and Gommorah-al society. If so, what particular interest do you, OP, have in aiding and abetting that slide?
Microfocussing on minutiae has become a real problem in today's society. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame - and there are fewer and fewer areas where they can 'shine' due to too much competition so they choose the tiniest things to stir up the pot about. Losing sight of the larger picture is dangerous - and yet civilized society depends on us never taking our eye off that ball even as we try to improve things for everyone in that society. Taking details out of the greater context and massaging them till you have an argument that in itself may appear to be 'common sense' (but isn't) to the unwashed masses is perhaps an interesting mind exercise but please don't take yourself too seriously when you think you have found the key to nirvana (your own) while existing in a vacuum of your own making.
Your argument is proof positive (for me) that today's schools are churning out uneducated people ill equipped to deal with reality and who will never probably have any 'common sense' (which is why there is very little of that that exists any more).
The govt shouldn't be in the business of marriage; but it's probably way too legally complicated to do it any other way. Even Islamic societies who allow polygamy have their own legally sanctioned courts to adjudicate such matters.
That's the left's argument isn't it? What's the difference between homosexuality and polygamy with regards to the law? Are we not all consenting adults? Animals? Relatives? Been going on for thousands of years....
No, that's the right's argument. Particularly the religious right. They are the ones that continuously compare loving, committed same sex couples to those who sexually abuse children, have sex with animals, and a host of other things.
The reason to prohibit incest is to reduce the chances of genetic defects. Children produced by first-cousins have about double the chance of genetic defect as the average non-incestuous birth. Children of siblings, or parent-child, or aunt-nephew parings have defects at higher rates. If this practice continues for multiple generations the rates go up even more.
The courts have long taken protection of the human species into account when judging the constitutionality of various laws.
For example, government mandates requiring vaccinations before a child is exposed (or exposes him/herself) to a class full of other children is arguably unconstitutional, but it is still done and legal.
Interesting perspective. But, especially in the same sex marriage age, I'd say that the current incest laws are overly broad in terms of coverage as far as that argument goes. Indeed, the fear of birth defects goes away when referring to incestuous relationships between same sex couples. It also goes away when we talk about incestuous relationships between heterosexual couples where the man is sterile, the woman has gone through menopause, etc.
I read somewhere that the United States (some of them) is the only country in the West that forbids marriage of cousins. Some states restrict it, but do not forbid it.
In the world of today, anything between consenting adults is likely to be allowed sooner or later!
Very true because I am pretty certain if you get married in Louisiana and divorced in Arkansas, you are still first cousins.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3
Good Lordy- The "I am my own Grandpa" song keeps rushing thru my head!
Curious, so if a child who was attacked by a relative in an incestuous way ...by your thoughts, it would be acceptable. Great way to open the door to pedo's.
The OP said no such thing. Not even close. Anyone who is "attacked" by anyone has had a crime committed against them.
Forget kids (for now) and focus on adults (18+). If we are redefining marriage who gets to decide what the new definition should be? What line is the line that cannot be crossed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBslider001
Jesus H Christ, is this a real debate? I just threw up in my mouth a little.
A whole lot of people throw up a little in their mouths at the thought to two men getting married.
Is that the standard? Before gay marriage there were people who threw up in their mouth a little imagining a black man marrying a white woman.
Who gets to decide what limits to place on consenting adults?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
My 'thoughts':
Is this a law school class assignment?
In presenting this argument about this particular subject, are you attempting to prepare the collective 'us' for what appears to be perhaps a next engineered step down the slippery slope slide towards recreating a Sodom and Gommorah-al society. If so, what particular interest do you, OP, have in aiding and abetting that slide?
How about they are exploring what limits society can place on consenting adults in regards to sex and marriage.
It has seemed for quite some time now one side believes there should be no limits with consenting adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
Microfocussing on minutiae has become a real problem in today's society. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame - and there are fewer and fewer areas where they can 'shine' due to too much competition so they choose the tiniest things to stir up the pot about. Losing sight of the larger picture is dangerous - and yet civilized society depends on us never taking our eye off that ball even as we try to improve things for everyone in that society. Taking details out of the greater context and massaging them till you have an argument that in itself may appear to be 'common sense' (but isn't) to the unwashed masses is perhaps an interesting mind exercise but please don't take yourself too seriously when you think you have found the key to nirvana (your own) while existing in a vacuum of your own making.
What ball are we taking our eye off of? What tiny things are you talking about? How did the unwashed masses feel about gay marriage? Do the unwashed masses get a say in what society is? If not, who should decide for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11
Your argument is proof positive (for me) that today's schools are churning out uneducated people ill equipped to deal with reality and who will never probably have any 'common sense' (which is why there is very little of that that exists any more).
What is common sense? Who decides what common sense is? Less than 8 years ago common sense said marriage was a state, not federal issue. That seems to have changed hunh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
I guess maybe it's not unconstitutional.
But it's certainly protected by precedent, which carries a lot of weight in our courts.
Is that the same precedent that our courts respected with a state's right to define marriage? The right of the people to determine what their state laws would be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekigurl
No, that's the right's argument. Particularly the religious right. They are the ones that continuously compare loving, committed same sex couples to those who sexually abuse children, have sex with animals, and a host of other things.
YOU are the one comparing loving, committed same family couples to those who sexually abuse children, have sex with animals, and a host of other things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
