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.
Frankly, I am unsure that my argument here is flawed. After all, two people who are married can still legally have sex even though they are treated differently under the law. Thus, why exactly can't one also apply this logic to consenting adults within a family having sex with each other?
It has nothing to do with marriage. It has everything to do with a protected relationship in the eyes of the law. There are benefits to familial relationships under the law that have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. This is just another aspect to the government acknowledgment of the uniqueness of that relationship.
That should be illegal. There is no more disgusting form of sex than throwing up in your own mouth. And if you do it in anyone else's mouth, you should get years in prison.
I wish someone would explain exactly where one can throw up other than in their mouth...
Seems to me any time one throws up (or vomits), it is in their mouth!
Can anyone give an example of a country other than the United States where marriage of cousins is illegal?
Basically, my own argument here is this--bans on incestuous sex and on incestuous marriage are a form of symmetric discrimination and are thus unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment.
Indeed, based on incestuous bans are *symmetric* in the sense that they affect everyone equally; after all, no one is allowed to marry his or her close relatives (up to a certain degree of relation, that is). However, they are also *discriminatory* because (for instance) they allow me to marry my friend's sister but not my own sister while allowing my friend to marry my own sister but not his own sister.
When the U.S. Supreme Court first examined the issue of symmetric discrimination (in this case, based on race) in 1883 (in Pace v. Alabama), it unfortunately (and *contrary* to the original intent of the 14th Amendment; indeed, please see here: Originalism and Interracial Marriage - Jotwell: Constitutional Law ) upheld it and said that symmetric discrimination *wasn't* unconstitutional. However, the 1883 Pace v. Alabama ruling was overturned in 1964 and again in 1967 with McLaughlin v. Florida and with Loving v. Virginia. Indeed, Justice Potter Stewart's concurring opinions in both McLaughlin and Loving are especially notable here; indeed, here is what exactly Justice Stewart said in the 1964 McLaughlin case:
"We deal here with a criminal law which imposes criminal punishment. And I think it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor. Discrimination of that kind is invidious per se."
Similarly, some same-sex marriage supporters (such as Ilya Somin) have argued that, since same-sex marriage bans are a form of symmetric discrimination based on sex, same-sex marriage bans are likewise unconstitutional.
Anyway, I am going to extend this logic (which I certainly think has *a lot* of value even though the 1883 Pace ruling *could have been* overturned *without* a total rejection of race-based symmetric discrimination) to incest here:
Just like Justice Stewart said that whether or not a particular act is a crime *shouldn't* be based on the race of the person who performs this crime, I can say that whether or not a particular act is a crime *shouldn't* be based on the familial relationship of this person. For instance, a law that *only* makes it illegal for close relatives of criminals (and for *no one* else) to smoke marijuana would obviously get struck down as being unconstitutional (presumably based on the 14th Amendment). Similarly, laws which ban incestuous sex and incestuous marriage *only* make a particular act--such as having consensual sex with a particular adult--illegal for close relatives of this adult.
Anyway, one might say that the state has an important interest in ensuring that people don't get abused in incestuous relationships and that banning both incestuous sex and incestuous marriage would accomplish this goal by scaring people and thus encouraging people *not* to engage in such acts. (Of course, for the record, considering that standards of scrutiny appear to be a 1930s judicial creation/invention while the 14th Amendment dates back from the 1860s, I certainly *don't* want to follow strict rules in regards to standards of scrutiny in regards to this issue.) However, the problem that I see with this argument is that one can also legitimately argue that criminalizing incestuous sex and incestuous marriage will cause people who nevertheless want to engage in such behavior to do so in secrecy (which in turn might very well make their behavior less likely to be detected by the government and by law enforcement authorities); indeed, one can argue that it is better for incestuous couples to feel sufficiently safe to come out (by *not* categorically banning *all* incestuous sex and *all* incestuous marriage)--after all, that would certainly allow the government and law enforcement authorities to easily investigate any cases of incestuous relationships which they deem to be suspicious (as in, abusive or whatever).
Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?
I began reading this post right after my lunch here. Today is very warm and no real air circulation to speak of. When I read the title of the post, I thought I had misread it somehow. Then I opened the thread and my worst fears were confirmed. This is no misprint or misquote. It is for real.
At that point, I felt very uneasy and nearly vomited.
Listen there is no justification for incest. To try and legitimize this heinous act is beyond the pale of comprehension of the basic principles of decency.
The detail you provide in your argument is clearly from the safety of an anonymous keyboard somewhere in the vast reaches the internet.
Lucky for you is all I have to say. As you would not want to take credit for such sentiments if your real name was available for everyone to see. Then there would be more serious consequences.
Yes, my first thought was, "How can any man even THINK carnal thoughts of their daughters, or sisters?"
My second thought was, as an alien I'd better check out this 14th. Amendment.
After that, I returned to my first thought, and feeling decidedly queasy, I logged off.
I'm with you. I am out. I need a shower after reading the OP's post. Creepy.
I began reading this post right after my lunch here. Today is very warm and no real air circulation to speak of. When I read the title of the post, I thought I had misread it somehow. Then I opened the thread and my worst fears were confirmed. This is no misprint or misquote. It is for real.
At that point, I felt very uneasy and nearly vomited.
Listen there is no justification for incest. To try and legitimize this heinous act is beyond the pale of comprehension of the basic principles of decency.
The detail you provide in your argument is clearly from the safety of an anonymous keyboard somewhere in the vast reaches the internet.
Lucky for you is all I have to say. As you would not want to take credit for such sentiments if your real name was available for everyone to see. Then there would be more serious consequences.
One can consider something to be immoral and simultaneously believe that bans on this thing are unconstitutional, though.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 12 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,440 posts, read 16,527,546 times
Reputation: 29611
Quote:
Originally Posted by scirocco
I began reading this post right after my lunch here. Today is very warm and no real air circulation to speak of. When I read the title of the post, I thought I had misread it somehow. Then I opened the thread and my worst fears were confirmed. This is no misprint or misquote. It is for real.
At that point, I felt very uneasy and nearly vomited.
Listen there is no justification for incest. To try and legitimize this heinous act is beyond the pale of comprehension of the basic principles of decency.
The detail you provide in your argument is clearly from the safety of an anonymous keyboard somewhere in the vast reaches the internet.
Lucky for you is all I have to say. As you would not want to take credit for such sentiments if your real name was available for everyone to see. Then there would be more serious consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2
Why should we as a society have any MORALS? If it feels good do it right? Why should MURDER be illegal? Some people deserve to be killed right? Laws against stealing are not fair. Why should some other person have something I cannot afford to buy? Is it fair that some. people work at a job they like and have money to buy things? Is it fair that DRUGS, CIGARETTES and ALCOHOL cost so much that their welfare payments don't leave enough for the nicer things? Damn those pesky MORALS and LAWS. They are not FAIR!!!
I repped both posts. There are some people who have no fixed belief system, no roots, no values.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,868,917 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2
Why should we as a society have any MORALS? If it feels good do it right? Why should MURDER be illegal? Some people deserve to be killed right? Laws against stealing are not fair. Why should some other person have something I cannot afford to buy? Is it fair that some. people work at a job they like and have money to buy things? Is it fair that DRUGS, CIGARETTES and ALCOHOL cost so much that their welfare payments don't leave enough for the nicer things? Damn those pesky MORALS and LAWS. They are not FAIR!!!
Not sure why you felt compelled to put in all that blank space which I deleted. It certainly didn't help make any point you were trying to.
Regardless, if consenting adults have a sexual relationship, why should society impress the majority's 'morals' on them?
Who defines those morals and why? If no one is forced or harmed, then is it any of our business what happens in the bedroom?
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 12 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,440 posts, read 16,527,546 times
Reputation: 29611
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Not sure why you felt compelled to put in all that blank space which I deleted. It certainly didn't help make any point you were trying to.
Regardless, if consenting adults have a sexual relationship, why should society impress the majority's 'morals' on them?
Who defines those morals and why? If no one is forced or harmed, then is it any of our business what happens in the bedroom?
Either we're a society or we're not. It's that simple. Societies both allow freedom and reflect some shared collective values.
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.