U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-27-2009, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 3,383,570 times
Reputation: 959

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
Not this again , please see the majority thread to see how dumb the bold statement is.

Rule By Majority???
It is dumb to think you can legislate morality. The Catholic church tried it and got real serious during the inquisition. It's been tried repeatedly. If you think outlawing prostitution eliminates it, you are niave. All it does is raise the price and make it more dangerous.

 
Old 03-27-2009, 04:49 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 3,420,586 times
Reputation: 3746
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
It is dumb to think you can legislate morality. The Catholic church tried it and got real serious during the inquisition. It's been tried repeatedly. If you think outlawing prostitution eliminates it, you are niave. All it does is raise the price and make it more dangerous.
Actually, we legislate morality all the time. Laws against theft, rape, child abuse, fraud, etc. are all based on moral principles. And moreover, the fact that a law fails to eliminate a wrong doesn't mean the law should be repealed. Outlawing rape doesn't eliminate it -- but do you think we should decriminalize it?

Whether or not a given law legislates morality, and/or whether it can eliminate a certain kind of behavior -- that isn't the linchpin of whether or not it is a good law. Rather, it is a complex cost-benefit analysis. When a law restricts private behavior, it is done ostensibly to benefit the public. That benefit has to be weighed against the burden imposed on the individual. In the case of a classic "victimless crime", such as a prohibited sex act between two consenting adults, the benefit to society is minor: for the most part, it's the moral satisfaction derived from going after people whose lifestyles are inconsistent with that of the majority; while the burden to the individual -- suppression of one's sexuality -- is very significant. It is for this reason that such laws are unjust.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 04:51 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,191 posts, read 2,324,709 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
No the reason you make something illegal is to deter. In most cases, it probably does to an extent and does not to an extent.

Ok, you may want to deter incest. How widespread is this problem to say it needs to be banned because it is harming you or society as a whole?

I guess in this case we can go as far as we can. From my angle I see your views simply based on disgust. At least that is how you come across. I will venture to guess that if I had shown you that genetics is not a problem you would still not approve it being legal simply because it is disgusting. If that is the case, why not just state that, others have and that is OK. Genetics was not what you first brought up when you first started to write against it, was it?


Look at polygamy for example. Many kids grow up on polygamist compounds and girls are forced into marriages at young ages. They are brainwashed into believing that this is the best way of life and are unable to break free once they are adults.

What is they type of fallacy? I forgot. You are now going to an extreme and use an example that does not apply here at all. Are you now saying that incestual relationships happen by having daughters indoctrinated to mate with dad's by brainwashing in camps today also?
There are extreme cases to use the emotions to get the masses to go along with laws because someone is disgusted. That is the bottom line. Why not try prohibiting alcohol again then? Look at all the harm it does. It is disgusting what it does to families also. Look at all the harm done to children and families. Why do you arbitrarily go against incest and not alcohol? Actually, where do you think is more harm done to society, alcoholism or incest? If was was going to pick I would rather ban alcohol over incest.


The Constitution does not explicitly provide anyone with the freedom to engage in sexual activity with whoever they please. It simply doesn't. It's not one of the basic freedoms provided.
Correct, it does not say sexual activity with whoever people please. Do you want every behavior listed in the Constitution in order to be legal?
A basic freedom is LIBERTY as listed in the 14 ammendment. However, I will ask you this question, do you believe we have the right to privacy? If so, are you not going against this right by denying what two adults do in their privacy.
Are you also implying that if tomorrow sexual activity is banned you would not try to explain that basic right is implied as one of our freedoms?

My conclusion is this. You real reason is due to disgust and that is not a good reason to ban it in my opinion. You brought up genetics afterwards as a reason. Usually, the first point is the main point when people bring up reason to objection or support for something. When I look between the words that is what I see why you object, disgust and difficult for you to accept that behavior.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
 
Old 03-27-2009, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,472 posts, read 8,198,173 times
Reputation: 3803
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
Correct, it does not say sexual activity with whoever people please. Do you want every behavior listed in the Constitution in order to be legal?
A basic freedom is LIBERTY as listed in the 14 ammendment. However, I will ask you this question, do you believe we have the right to privacy? If so, are you not going against this right by denying what two adults do in their privacy.
Are you also implying that if tomorrow sexual activity is banned you would not try to explain that basic right is implied as one of our freedoms?
I do believe we have the right to privacy. I also believe that in certain cases the state needs to step in for the purposes of protection.

I firmly believe that a typical young woman the age mentioned in the original post on this thread is incapable of consenting to sex with her father. Many college-age kids are still financially supported by their parents. Of course there is a power difference in these situations.

Even if she was not being financially supported by him, he LEGALLY controlled her just a few years earlier. I question the capacity of someone who is under the legal control of another person for so long to be able to turn around and consent to sex with that same person so shortly thereafter.

If she had been 30 or 40 years old, I could say that her consent IMO would be far more valid.

On the flip side of this, many adults also support their elderly parents. In this situation, I'd say the child has power over the parent and the parent would be unable to consent.

As far as sexual activity being banned altogether, obviously that would be different. The only thing that incest laws ask is for people to choose one of the other billions of potential partners out there and refrain from sexual activity with a very, very, very, very, very limited number of people.

Eliminating sexual activity altogether would also result in us being unable to procreate and would result in the human race dying out completely. Another reason that would be entirely different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
My conclusion is this. You real reason is due to disgust and that is not a good reason to ban it in my opinion. You brought up genetics afterwards as a reason. Usually, the first point is the main point when people bring up reason to objection or support for something. When I look between the words that is what I see why you object, disgust and difficult for you to accept that behavior.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Of course it is difficult for me to accept the behavior. I will not, however, agree that incest should be legal.

There seems to be a legitimate basis for enacting laws beyond simply murder, rape, theft, etc. These laws promote order and standards of decency in society. They should not be overbearing and should most certainly be limited and rational. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no civilized modern-day country where all of these so-called "victimless" acts are legal. I think that type of society would be one of chaos, anarchy, and disorder - which would cause us all to be less free.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 3,383,570 times
Reputation: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Actually, we legislate morality all the time. Laws against theft, rape, child abuse, fraud, etc. are all based on moral principles. And moreover, the fact that a law fails to eliminate a wrong doesn't mean the law should be repealed. Outlawing rape doesn't eliminate it -- but do you think we should decriminalize it?

Whether or not a given law legislates morality, and/or whether it can eliminate a certain kind of behavior -- that isn't the linchpin of whether or not it is a good law. Rather, it is a complex cost-benefit analysis. When a law restricts private behavior, it is done ostensibly to benefit the public. That benefit has to be weighed against the burden imposed on the individual. In the case of a classic "victimless crime", such as a prohibited sex act between two consenting adults, the benefit to society is minor: for the most part, it's the moral satisfaction derived from going after people whose lifestyles are inconsistent with that of the majority; while the burden to the individual -- suppression of one's sexuality -- is very significant. It is for this reason that such laws are unjust.
Ugh...this is soooo tedious.....did I not say, actions which cause no direct harm should hot be illegal. Your examples are all of actions that cause direct harm.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
38,755 posts, read 39,237,664 times
Reputation: 28892
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I do believe we have the right to privacy. I also believe that in certain cases the state needs to step in for the purposes of protection..

Protection? Of which consenting adult?
 
Old 03-27-2009, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,472 posts, read 8,198,173 times
Reputation: 3803
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Protection? Of which consenting adult?
In the situation discussed by OP, I'd say the daughter.

It also protects:

1. The sanctity of the family

2. General order and standards of decency in society

3. Any younger children (minors) who are a part of the family

4. Any children conceived in the relationship from suffering genetic abnormalities or inheriting certain diseases and/or passing them on to their children (it doesn't prevent this, but it does reduce the risk since the risk is higher in incest situations)

5. Future girls from being groomed by their fathers in childhood to become their sexual partners when they reach a legal age

This is a good article...

Should Incest Be Legal? - TIME

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-27-2009 at 08:57 PM..
 
Old 03-27-2009, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,472 posts, read 8,198,173 times
Reputation: 3803
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
You could say the same about grooming children to be anything...gypsies, thieves, abusers, soldiers, physicians....
Your comparison here isn't valid because you are proposing legalizing incest, but are not proposing legalizing theft and abuse. Theft and abuse (be it child abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc.) are against the law and the laws provide an incentive for parents to not "groom" their children to be thieves and abusers - just as incest laws currently provide an incentive for parents to not "groom" their children to participate in these relationships.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-27-2009 at 08:58 PM..
 
Old 03-27-2009, 09:46 PM
 
3,651 posts, read 5,636,292 times
Reputation: 2614
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Draw the line here: Direct harm.
For example, If I hit you, I directly harm you.
Another example, If you and I are married, and If I take my paycheck and spend it on gambling, you are not directly harmed. You may be harmed, but not directly--you are harmed through me not paying the rent--an indirect harm.
Apparently you equate "direct" harm as physical harm only. I quite disagree.

And this is the problem with the libertarian mentality: looks great on paper at first glance, but it falls apart in the glare of reality, for various reasons. One is that everyone draws their lines in different places. Another is that it's overly simplistic and such a topic is anything but. Basically a person's actions have consequences, and not just for themselves, but the people around them, and in some cases, the public in
general and the gov't. The addiction thing is a perfect example. People think "I should be allowed to do whatever I want" but ignore that if they do stupid things like become drug addicts/etc they put a burden on society one way or the other.

In other words, "so long as it doesn't harm anyone else" becomes so rare that the very idea becomes an idealistic joke, for the most part.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 09:48 PM
 
3,651 posts, read 5,636,292 times
Reputation: 2614
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Like driving? Or ...what's another good example: Reading...can you imagine how much money the government would save if it didn't teach people to read:
Reading teachers,
Classrooms
Books,
Signs,
Ballots
Web Sites
on an on...it would be a big money saver.


I don't agree w/some of your posts, but I refuse to believe you are so stupid as to believe such a ridiculous analogy. Pls think about this and you should quickly realize how silly this is.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top