Change My View: Bans on incestuous sex and on incestuous marriage are unconstitutional. (crimes, parties)
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.
Jesus H Christ, is this a real debate? I just threw up in my mouth a little.
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.
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.
Yes, leave your sister and cousin alone. SHE'S NOT INTERESTED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
For the record, I actually do consider incest to be morally wrong. However, just because something is morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean that banning it is constitutional.
Is that what you are struggling with? I'm basing that on you quoted me, then said something that still leaves it out in limbo.
So you would feel better with it, if it were legal?
So, how about likewise legally preventing people who have heritable genetic diseases from reproducing, eh?
Also, for the record, not all incestuous sex can actually result in reproduction; for instance, two sisters who have sex cannot reproduce as a result of this sex.
If you are familiar with biology, those with a genetic defect in the family, a recessive gene, mating creates a very high risk. We lived in an area that had a problem with incest. I mean, there were constant pleas for donations to pay healthcare costs for children with rare diseases. I saw people that were of the rare type of dwarfism, families of them. In smaller towns, the people often become very related over time and that could easily be used as a case study. It is horrible to hear of children with these defects. This does not discourage them from continuing to reproduce.
People without sexual boundaries are becoming a problem in general. It seems that parents are failing their children. I don't know how we knew, I think it was almost instinct, that siblings, parents, aunts, uncles and cousins were not to be considered potential sexual partners, dating material or future spouses.
Seriously, sexual involvement with family members? Instinct tells me that is sick!
Sexual molestation of a child is illegal because a civilized society considers it one of the worst crimes committed. Even criminals in prison will get rid of child molesters.
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?
We have already established that families are unique under the eyes of the law. For example, strangers are not allowed to spank other people's children. In fact that would be assault or battery. But parents are allowed to strike their children even though they are not allowed to strike each other. There is some sort of threshold where parents are allowed to strike THEIR own children without it being a crime.
Families also have special treatment with regards to inheritance and gifts of money when it comes to IRS codes. There are many other examples of this special status under the eyes of the law for families.
Preventing incestuous marriage is just an extension of the special treatment of families.
That said, I think that if it is within one generation like say aunt, uncle, father, mother, brother or sister, there is a problem with it. Second cousins or first cousins -once removed, maybe not as much.
Pardon, correction, I am a lady, address with such regard. Thank you!
It's easy to prove that wrong. By definition of "common" there has to be a lot of it. But, for there to be a lot of it, it has to exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be common sense. Therefore, there is plenty of common sense, which still exists, which contradicts what you say. Seeing it that way is only common sense. And besides, if it stopped existing, it would become nonsense. Nonsense doesn't exist. And that's obviously nonsense.
Thanks. I got it now. Much indebted to you for that clear analysis and pointing out .. oh well, just thanks.
Preventing incestuous marriage is just an extension of the special treatment of families.
We are talking about two consenting adults here, though.
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.
Is that what you are struggling with? I'm basing that on you quoted me, then said something that still leaves it out in limbo. 
