Incest between consenting adults - should it be legal?

[Thudpucker]

If the family members (brothers and sisters, aunts, cousins, whatever) are both consenting adults should it be legal for them to get married?

Sure, it's icky. Is that reason enough to make it a crime though? Would you really care if you met people who were blood relatives that got married?

The Today Show had an interview this morning with a half brother and sister in England who are trying to move to France (where apparently it's legal) so that they can be married. It was kind of interesting.

[Ashwin Pande]

Nope. It's biologically unsound. If they get sterilized then fine. The world doesn't need more mutant babies.

[Ray G.]

I think the government has a stake in keeping close blood relatives from having children together.

I don't know how you seperate that from the actual sexual act.

[danlomb]

NO.

Jesus christ what's next: should it be legal to marry your pet?

and / or Neopet?!

[xyzzy]

I have concerns about the potential offspring. But if they aren't blood relatives, fine.

[JoeE]

Yes, as long as condom use is required.

[Thudpucker]

Nope. It's biologically unsound. If they get sterilized then fine. The world doesn't need more mutant babies.

So you think the government should be able to ban any marriage based on wether it is biologically unsound?

What about people who may pass on disabilities or diseases?

[Jim.]

Helllllllllllll yeah.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Should be illegal.

[Ray G.]

Oh, and if they're not blood relatives, that's just ridiculous and it's a hole in the law that should be fixed.

[thatguyfromsyracuse]

My sister and I have been married for 3 years now.




I'm just joking. I don't have a sister.


I have a brother though.


Is it legal to marry your brother?

[The Dean]

:no:

[Ashwin Pande]

So you think the government should be able to ban any marriage based on wether it is biologically unsound?

What about people who may pass on disabilities or diseases?

Uhhhh... oh yeah... now I remember why I never posted in these threads of yours. :lol:

Carry on.

[nihilance]

So you think the government should be able to ban any marriage based on wether it is biologically unsound?

What about people who may pass on disabilities or diseases?

Don't many places require a blood test for just this sort of thing before you can get a marriage license? If not to reject it, at least to alert to possible problems?

[Ray G.]

Yay, I love it when Thud does this. I'll have to come back to this thread once it gets fun. :D

[Basketball Jesus]

Well, if I know my Fox News marriage is the sacred union between a man and a woman so, uh, yes.

[Thudpucker]

Don't many places require a blood test for just this sort of thing before you can get a marriage license? If not to reject it, at least to alert to possible problems?

I think so. I don't know much about this subject. Alerting people is definately a good thing, being informed of the risks involved is something I think anyone would want.

The idea of the government possibly banning your marriage and making it illegal based on the test results I don't know if I like.

[Thudpucker]

Oh, and if they're not blood relatives, that's just ridiculous and it's a hole in the law that should be fixed.

Why should there be a legal distinction between people who are blood related and genetically incompatable and those who are not blood related but still genetically incompatable?

Arn't the concerns the same?

[danlomb]

My sister and I have been married for 3 years now.




I'm just joking. I don't have a sister.


I have a brother though.


Is it legal to marry your brother?

It is if he's your brother-from-another-mother! Hells yeah!!!





...Seriously, though, even then it's not legal.

[Ray G.]

Why should there be a legal distinction between people who are blood related and genetically incompatable and those who are not blood related but still genetically incompatable?

Arn't the concerns the same?

I'm not talking about genetic incompatibility. I'm talking about holes in the law in some places that make it illegal to marry if you're legally related(Ie, adopted siblings, stepsiblings where there was a legal adoption by the stepparent).

[Basketball Jesus]

So you think the government should be able to ban any marriage based on wether it is biologically unsound?

What about people who may pass on disabilities or diseases?

I think there's a real ethical/moral difference between the possibility of passing on a condition beyond your control and the increased risk that comes from doing something very much within your control.

[McAfee]

Blood tests aren't required in most states now. And incest is nasty regardless, but who am I to tell someone how to live?

[Doc Randy]

The idea of the government possibly banning your marriage and making it illegal based on the test results I don't know if I like.

Sounds like someone has a forbidden love going on... :heart::heart::heart:

[Foolish Mortal]

I think there's a real ethical/moral difference between the possibility of passing on a condition beyond your control and the increased risk that comes from doing something very much within your control.
If you're aware that you have some genetic defect that has a higher than normal chance of being passed on to your offspring, then it is very much in your control.

[Shepherd]

Although extremely weird, I say it should be legal. Here's why:

1. Few people would do it anyway.
2. They're adults: if they want to do fucked up stuff, that's their business.
3. Many of you mentioned freaky kids, but really, there's only a problem if the family has a recessive genetic disorder. If there's no disorder, it's not any more dangerous than having kids with any other random person.
4. They don't even HAVE to have kids anyway.

R

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Well, I know this: I'd want to fuck Thud's sister, too.

[Thudpucker]

I'm not talking about genetic incompatibility. I'm talking about holes in the law in some places that make it illegal to marry if you're legally related(Ie, adopted siblings, stepsiblings where there was a legal adoption by the stepparent).

Adopted and step too? Why?

Bans placed on marriage based soley on morality issues (same sex, plural marriages ect) are iffy at best arn't they?

If the people involved are of a legal age I'm not sure it's my place to deny them of something like marriage.

[Thudpucker]

Well, I know this: I'd want to fuck Thud's sister, too.

:lol: if I had one I'd set you two up.

[Basketball Jesus]

If you're aware that you have some genetic defect that has a higher than normal chance of being passed on to your offspring, then it is very much in your control.

No, what I mean is that if you have a genetic defect that you're very likely to pass on then there's no way for you to procreate without it being dangerous to your potential offspring. No matter who you want to procreate with, you're going to carry that risk.

But an incestuous couple is making a very specific choice with specific risks. Risks that could be avoided simply by not fucking your sister.

[Shepherd]

Why should there be a legal distinction between people who are blood related and genetically incompatable and those who are not blood related but still genetically incompatable?

Arn't the concerns the same?

Yeah, they are. In the case of first cousins, the chance of you having a problem with your kid are only very slightly higher than if you aren't. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but it's less than 1%, and I think less than .1%.

R

[Adrian B AWESOME]

This whole thing is less about taboos (even though it's seriously fucked up) and more about the fact that biologically, it's an aberration and not supposed to happen.

[Thudpucker]

I think there's a real ethical/moral difference between the possibility of passing on a condition beyond your control and the increased risk that comes from doing something very much within your control.

Alot of people seem to think you can't control who you fall in love with.

[Basketball Jesus]

Alot of people seem to think you can't control who you fall in love with.

And as much respect as I have for those starry eyed romantics amongst us, whether or not you procreate with someone is very much a choice for the time being(Go Obama!)

[Doc Randy]

Alot of people seem to think you can't control who you fall in love with.

We support you, Thud. Nobody should be allowed to tell you you can't marry your sister.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Alot of people seem to think you can't control who you fall in love with.

Re: The five people here who want to fuck a family member.

[Ashwin Pande]

We support you, Thud. Nobody should be allowed to tell you you can't marry your sister.

That's the spirit!

[ClintP]

Thud needs to get laid and stop thinking about this weirdo shit. :)

[Thudpucker]

We support you, Thud. Nobody should be allowed to tell you you can't marry your sister.

Thanks Randy! I support you too if you want to :thumb:

[Generic Poster]

Thud needs to get laid and stop thinking about this weirdo shit. :)

Or, he could take a logic class and learn that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, not something you should base every single thread you make on.

[stevapalooza]

I don't think it matters because I think there's as lot more stopping people from screwing their family members than the law. It's not like making it legal would suddenly create an incest craze.

[Thudpucker]

Re: The five people here who want to fuck a family member.

People here do?

It's kind of an interesting issue. I was watching the interview on the young couple who want to marry (half brother and sister who did not grow up together) and they were asking why people care.

My instinct is that I don't really care if they get married. What is it to me?

[Adrian B AWESOME]

People here do?

It's kind of an interesting issue. I was watching the interview on the young couple who want to marry (half brother and sister who did not grow up together) and they were asking why people care.

My instinct is that I don't really care if they get married. What is it to me?

Well, it's now up to 6.

You really should've made this a public poll.

[I AM GROOT!]

Well, if you're a firm believer in the Bible, then we're all engaging in incest already. ;)

Otherwise, I'll say no.

[Special Agent Bachman]

Hell to the no. It fucking thins out the gene pool and spawns more Republicans!

pleasedonotkillmeethaniamsosorry

[adam_warlock_2099]

Well, if you're a firm believer in the Bible, then we're all engaging in incest already. ;)

Otherwise, I'll say no.

:) Cain started it!

[xyzzy]

People here do?

It's kind of an interesting issue. I was watching the interview on the young couple who want to marry (half brother and sister who did not grow up together) and they were asking why people care.

My instinct is that I don't really care if they get married. What is it to me?

Okay, so you're fine with brother-sister hook-ups. How would you feel if a father fucked/married his daughter when she reached the age of majority? Say, 16, some places.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Okay, so you're fine with brother-sister hook-ups. How would you feel if a father fucked/married his daughter when she reached the age of majority? Say, 16, some places.

Exactly. Do you know how many pornographers would be out of business if this sort of thing was acceptable?

[danlomb]

This actually came up here (in my city) a few weeks ago.

A middle aged couple - a father and a daughter - who were just a tad estranged, have been together like a married couple for a coupla years now.

They just had a baby daughter, who seems okay at the moment. No third arms or ears on her ass.

But all the courts could do was fine them with no imprisonment on the grounds that "they abstain from sexual intercourse".

Yeah. Just how does one regulate that law?

Anyway, the whole city just gagged and shuddered until eventually the papers stopped printing about it.

Grossest part was, in an interview, the guy says "the sex is incredible".
They fricken looked alike, too.

[DeluxeVoltron]

Or, he could take a logic class and learn that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, not something you should base every single thread you make on.

well ive taken a logic class or two and the only 'slippery slope' argument in this thread is the 'whats next marrying pets' argument. thuds been careful about making distinctions rather than using straw man tactics so far as well.

my only complaint is that i just dont fucking like sister marriers and would rather they went to some other country than flocked here. if its one more abuse of legislature to keep it this way then thats a sacrifice im willing to make

[Thudpucker]

Okay, so you're fine with brother-sister hook-ups. How would you feel if a father fucked/married his daughter when she reached the age of majority? Say, 16, some places.

I think it would be morally wrong. But like many things I feel are morally wrong I'm not sure it should be illegal.

[Ashwin Pande]

Exactly. Do you know how many pornographers would be out of business if this sort of thing was acceptable?

The internet would be ruined! Dried up and gone I tell ya!

[Adrian B AWESOME]

But let's say your sister has HUGE BOOBS.

What then?

[Taxman]

So you think the government should be able to ban any marriage based on wether it is biologically unsound?

What about people who may pass on disabilities or diseases?What about it? Have you never heard Thud that you usually need to get a blood test in order to get a marriage license? And I think that we still have some states here who sterilize the mentally handicapped. Could be wrong on that though.

[xyzzy]

I think it would be morally wrong. But like many things I feel are morally wrong I'm not sure it should be illegal.

Well, I think it's a form of domestic abuse, which I find morally wrong and also think should be illegal.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Or, ladies, let's say your bro has a HUGE DING-DONG.

What then?!

[Foolish Mortal]

This actually came up here (in my city) a few weeks ago.

A middle aged couple - a father and a daughter - who were just a tad estranged, have been together like a married couple for a coupla years now.

They just had a baby daughter, who seems okay at the moment. No third arms or ears on her ass.

But all the courts could do was fine them with no imprisonment on the grounds that "they abstain from sexual intercourse".

Yeah. Just how does one regulate that law?

Anyway, the whole city just gagged and shuddered until eventually the papers stopped printing about it.

Grossest part was, in an interview, the guy says "the sex is incredible".
They fricken looked alike, too.
Yeah, that's the most difficult aspect of the issue. How do you regulate the behavior of two consenting adults?

[thatguyfromsyracuse]

I guess if your fucked up enough to look at a family member and think "Yeah, I really need to stick my cock in there!" go for it...It's still fucking weird though.

[xyzzy]

Yeah, that's the most difficult aspect of the issue. How do you regulate the behavior of two consenting adults?

If they have a kid, you know they had sex. That's about the extent of it.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

If they have a kid, you know they had sex. That's about the extent of it.

Or if she said "Thanks for the sex last night, bra!"

You'd totally know then, too.

[Generic Poster]

well ive taken a logic class or two and the only 'slippery slope' argument in this thread is the 'whats next marrying pets' argument. thuds been careful about making distinctions rather than using straw man tactics so far as well.

my only complaint is that i just dont fucking like sister marriers and would rather they went to some other country than flocked here. if its one more abuse of legislature to keep it this way then thats a sacrifice im willing to make

This is a gay marriage thread. Thud has simply avoided mentioning the first step.

[Thudpucker]

What about it? Have you never heard Thud that you usually need to get a blood test in order to get a marriage license? And I think that we still have some states here who sterilize the mentally handicapped. Could be wrong on that though.

Is it illegal to marry if a couple fails the blood test?

[Ashwin Pande]

But let's say your sister has HUGE BOOBS.

What then?

It's man law that if she has huge boobs and you see an opening all blood ties go out the window.

It's MAN law.

Genetic law written by God in our testicles.

[ClintP]

If they have a kid, you know they had sex. That's about the extent of it.

If they do a dna test, how will it show the kid is a product of them? Normally, a child would share al ot of the same dna as an uncle or a grandpa. But I guess if there was an extra arm or something, we could tell that way. I say we throw the whole lot of them into the river.

[Foolish Mortal]

Well, I think it's a form of domestic abuse, which I find morally wrong and also think should be illegal.
If it was a teenage girl I'd agree. But what if a woman in her 30's starts having sexual relations with her father? Where's the "cut-off" point?


If they have a kid, you know they had sex. That's about the extent of it.
So as long as they don't have kids they can break the law as much as they want?

[Adrian B AWESOME]

It's man law that if she has huge boobs and you see an opening all blood ties go out the window.

It's MAN law.

Genetic law written by God in our testicles.

Then it is settled!

We have set a MANdate.

If your sister has large bazoombas, it is MANdatory to MANipulate her into sleeping with you.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Also, there are now 9 freaks on the board.

[DeluxeVoltron]

It's man law that if she has huge boobs and you see an opening all blood ties go out the window.

It's MAN law.

Genetic law written by God in our testicles.

hehe. 'an opening'

[artimoff]

And incest is nasty regardless, but who am I to tell someone how to live?

Agreed.


It should be legal. As long as your future mutant babies don't go on welfare.

[xyzzy]

If it was a teenage girl I'd agree. But what if a woman in her 30's starts having sexual relations with her father? Where's the "cut-off" point?

Well, one easy cut-off would be that as long as a person is dependent on the other for the basics, food shelter, etc.

But I'm fine extending out to all eternity, since the parent-offspring relationship isn't just something that you can turn on and off.



So as long as they don't have kids they can break the law as much as they want?

That's the way it always works. You can break the law as much as you want... until you get caught.

[Thudpucker]

This is a gay marriage thread. Thud has simply avoided mentioning the first step.

No, not really. Taking the thread in that direction would be boring. You can go there if you want, knock yourself out, but I'm not going to bother to discuss it.

Also, with same sex marriage the issue of reproduction does not exist. That's a difference that is significant.

[Ron Salas]

I wish I can vote multiple times 'cause I'd vote "no" every time.

[Thudpucker]

Also, there are now 9 freaks on the board.

:lol: anyone who doesn't want to interfere in the family life of consenting adults is a freak?

[Adrian B AWESOME]

hehe. 'an opening'

Holy shit Voltron.

It feels like YEARS!

[danlomb]

PSA

Incest Is WRONG: you don't get high off your own supply!

[Adrian B AWESOME]

:lol: anyone who doesn't want to interfere in the family life of consenting adults is a freak?

More than likely, it's because they agree and want to fuck their aunt or something.

I'm just amazed Ray is so against this. :lol:

[DeluxeVoltron]

Holy shit Voltron.

It feels like YEARS!

i only come out for the good threads

[Nick Spencer]

What consenting adults do sexually is their own business and no one else's.

[dougmac]

I think its morally wrong but should not be illegal. Like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, they shouldnt be able to disallow people with bad genetic markers that are not related to breed so why related people? I couldnt ever see myslef encouraging it, but its not something for the government to oversee either.

[thatguyfromsyracuse]

Everytime relatives fuck each other, an angel gets kicked in the face.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

What consenting adults do sexually is their own business and no one else's.

But let's say you have a younger brother and sister (legal, gang, legal) and their fucking.

You have absolutely no problem with that?

[Adrian B AWESOME]

My whole thing is that the lack of consent is one of the only plusses of an incestual relationship. You know what I mean?

...

Right...guys?

[Ben]

Uhhhh... oh yeah... now I remember why I never posted in these threads of yours. :lol:

Carry on.Thudpucker finally makes a good counter-point, and you bail?!?!?

[thatguyfromsyracuse]

But let's say you have a younger brother and sister (legal, gang, legal) and their fucking.

You have absolutely no problem with that?

Did they ask you if you wanted to join in? If not, then it's just disgusting. If they did though, yeah, go party!

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Thudpucker finally makes a good counter-point, and you bail?!?!?

I guess.

But a brother/sister baby and a possibly diabetic baby are two different things.

[Ben]

Is it illegal to marry if a couple fails the blood test?I would also like to know what happens with the blood test.

[Ashwin Pande]

Thudpucker finally makes a good counter-point, and you bail?!?!?

Those apples he's eating are oranges!

[Adrian B AWESOME]

I would also like to know what happens with the blood test.

The incest lovers drink it as a solemn blood oath.

[Ben]

I guess.

But a brother/sister baby and a possibly diabetic baby are two different things.The incest taboo is a really rough, imprecise way of preventing genetic disease. Most children of incest are NOT freaks.

We understand genetic diseases more than ever now, and we're learning more every day. You can already get your genome analyzed for certain disease genes.

So if the point of banning incest is to prevent babies with genetic diseases, shouldn't we also ban couples that each have a dangerous recessive allele from reproducing? It's the same logic.

[Jef UK]

I don't think it matters because I think there's as lot more stopping people from screwing their family members than the law. It's not like making it legal would suddenly create an incest craze.

I don't think prevention is the point, but a means of punishment against familial abuse.

[Taxman]

What consenting adults do sexually is their own business and no one else's.Yep. And when unwanted or special needs offspring are generated, the state should pick up the bill.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

The incest taboo is a really rough, imprecise way of preventing genetic disease. Most children of incest are NOT freaks.

We understand genetic diseases more than ever now, and we're learning more every day. You can already get your genome analyzed for certain disease genes.

So if the point of banning incest is to prevent babies with genetic diseases, shouldn't we also ban couples that each have a dangerous recessive allele from reproducing? It's the same logic.

I guess. But it's not biologically sound by any means. Diabetes happens, it sucks. But incest is a completely different level of wrong. But I do agree it's hard to argue against it logically, as there really doesn't seem to be any detrement. But the moral and frankly social aspect is just too bizarre.

[Brian Defferding]

It's gross and disgusting, and procreation will regress the gene pool, but it's not directly impeding on anyone's liberties either, and making a vow is free speech, so yeah it should be legal ("legal" meaning they can make their personal and/or religious vows to each other).

[Nick Spencer]

But let's say you have a younger brother and sister (legal, gang, legal) and their fucking.

You have absolutely no problem with that?

Personal problem? yes.

Legal problem? no.

[Jef UK]

Okay, so you're fine with brother-sister hook-ups. How would you feel if a father fucked/married his daughter when she reached the age of majority? Say, 16, some places.


What consenting adults do sexually is their own business and no one else's.


It's gross and disgusting, and procreation will regress the gene pool, but it's not directly impeding on anyone's liberties either, and making a vow is free speech, so yeah it should be legal ("legal" meaning they can make their personal and/or religious vows to each other).


Personal problem? yes.

Legal problem? no.


I think you need to address xyzzy's point in the first citation above.

[Ben]

It's gross and disgusting, and procreation will regress the gene pool, but it's not directly impeding on anyone's liberties either, and making a vow is free speech, so yeah it should be legal ("legal" meaning they can make their personal and/or religious vows to each other).It would be so rare, it would take thousands of generations to make even a dent in the gene pool.

[Nick Spencer]

I don't think prevention is the point, but a means of punishment against familial abuse.

This is the same kind of argument made against polygamy. the problem I have with it is any kind of relationship can come from a bad or abusive place, so I'm not sure how you can single them out by classifications.

[Taxman]

Personal problem? yes.

Legal problem? no.Mass personal issues often spawn laws.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Some other things I've thought about:

1) With only one set of grandparents, the kid will completely miss out on true spoilage. I mean, that's just not fair!

2) If it's ok for dad to sleep with his sister, is it ok for kid to sleep with mom? Or in reverse, for his 18th birthday, is Mom giving son a half-n-half completely acceptable?

3) What do "normal" couples fantasize about now if they no longer are able to do the family thing? I don't think sexology has come far enough.

[Nick Spencer]

I think you need to address xyzzy's point in the first citation above.

Consensually?

Fucking disgusting, but not illegal. That's what age of consent is.

[Special Agent Bachman]

Non-biological siblings should be allowed to bone. If there are no blood-ties, then there is no dilution of the gene pool.

[Black Roman]

I'm really torn on this, every single fiber in my being says no. But I couldn't give you one MAJOR reason why. Besides the fact that it just seems wrong.

[Ben]

Non-biological siblings should be allowed to bone. If there are no blood-ties, then there is no dilution of the gene pool.What about 1st cousins? What about 2nd cousins? How far is far enough?

[Special Agent Bachman]

What about 1st cousins? What about 2nd cousins? How far is far enough?

I said non-biological.

[Ashwin Pande]

3rd cousins.

[Nick Spencer]

Non-biological siblings should be allowed to bone. If there are no blood-ties, then there is no dilution of the gene pool.

Are they not currently? I thought the law was based on blood relation.

If not, that's pretty fucking stupid.

[Ben]

I said non-biological.You said siblings, too. I was asking about other relationships. And every human is related to every other human at some level, so you do need to pin down exactly when two people are "unrelated"

[Jef UK]

Consensually?

Fucking disgusting, but not illegal. That's what age of consent is.

Is it not currently illegal to marry one's daughter in any state?

So, you think it's justifiable to allow for parental abuse given current age of consent laws, because it's legal given this hypothetical?

I'm confused. The point as I understand it is, all other points aside, giving incestuous relationships legal standing would allow for a particular kind of sexual abuse.

[DeluxeVoltron]

What about 1st cousins? What about 2nd cousins? How far is far enough?

once it gets denied by A Family Affair's letters columns its ok.

[Ben]

Is it not currently illegal to marry one's daughter in any state?

So, you think it's justifiable to allow for parental abuse given current age of consent laws, because it's legal given this hypothetical?

I'm confused. The point as I understand it is, all other points aside, giving incestuous relationships legal standing would allow for a particular kind of sexual abuse.I think that's what people are missing here. Incest only really happens as an act or consequence of abuse.

[Jef UK]

Also, plainly speaking, I don't see how anybody could claim that the entire notion of "legal consent" is turned on its head when dealing with a parent-sibling incestuous relationship, no matter what their respective ages.

[JackBauer]

You shouldn't fuck your own family.

[Nick Spencer]

Is it not currently illegal to marry one's daughter in any state?

So, you think it's justifiable to allow for parental abuse given current age of consent laws, because it's legal given this hypothetical?

I'm confused. The point as I understand it is, all other points aside, giving incestuous relationships legal standing would allow for a particular kind of sexual abuse.

If she's past the legal age, and consents, it's not abuse. That's the problem.

I can say 'well, she DOESN'T really consent', but I can probably point to plenty of non-related relationships where that's also true, so I don't know how I could use that as justification for making laws against it.

[Ben]

Also, plainly speaking, I don't see how anybody could claim that the entire notion of "legal consent" is turned on its head when dealing with a parent-sibling incestuous relationship, no matter what their respective ages.If we allow people to consent to fuck their dad, then people raised by wolves would be allowed to fuck their wolf dads!

[Ben]

If she's past the legal age, and consents, it's not abuse. That's the problem.

I can say 'well, she DOESN'T really consent', but I can probably point to plenty of non-related relationships where that's also true, so I don't know how I could use that as justification for making laws against it.It's likely that she was abused as a child if that's the decision she makes as an adult.

[Special Agent Bachman]

You said siblings, too. I was asking about other relationships. And every human is related to every other human at some level, so you do need to pin down exactly when two people are "unrelated"

Density......staggering.....can't reason.....with......this guy.......

*collapse*

[DeluxeVoltron]

Is it not currently illegal to marry one's daughter in any state?

So, you think it's justifiable to allow for parental abuse given current age of consent laws, because it's legal given this hypothetical?

I'm confused. The point as I understand it is, all other points aside, giving incestuous relationships legal standing would allow for a particular kind of sexual abuse.

all forms sexual abuse should be illegal, ya. but should it be defined simply by familial relation? or should we insist on going through the rigors of proving some level of manipulation, brainwashing, etc. in the pursuit of true justice? i just hate legislation that puts a blanket ban on a practice that may or may not be committing an already established crime. like making it illegal to smoke in a car with a child. theres already laws against endangering the welfare of a child. prove a person's done that by smoking in front of them. banning a practice because you cant prove its effect is an abuse of the legislative system.

i suggest bringing back the fifth estate, stoning.

[Ben]

Density......staggering.....can't reason.....with......this guy.......

*collapse*Do what you have to do to not answer my question...

[Albert]

Only if you shoot any fetuses that result from the incest.

[Ben]

Only if you shoot any fetuses that result from the incest.Out of a cannon!

[Ashwin Pande]

Out of a cannon!

Into my mouth!

[Jef UK]

If she's past the legal age, and consents, it's not abuse. That's the problem.

I can say 'well, she DOESN'T really consent', but I can probably point to plenty of non-related relationships where that's also true, so I don't know how I could use that as justification for making laws against it.

The laws are currently against it, yes?

It seems as though you might be more willing to change current laws to allow for brothers and sisters to get married (which I don't really believe), than to keep current laws to disallow for parents marrying their offspring, which I think most people would consider to be abuse.

And if the situation were reversed, I would fight for making incestuous relationships illegal in the face of parents sexually abusing their offspring.

[Brian Defferding]

Okay, so you're fine with brother-sister hook-ups. How would you feel if a father fucked/married his daughter when she reached the age of majority? Say, 16, some places.

I would never be "fine" with brother-sister hook ups. I just think it's their right to make their personal marriage vows if it's consenting.

As for father/daughter marriage, if there was no evidence of sex before the legal age, then I (very grudgingly) think they should be allowed to marry. I reiterate, I would never ever approve it or endorse such a thing.

Social pressure, thankfully, curbs instances like this from happening often.

[Ben]

Into my mouth!Eat 'em up, yum!

[Adrian B AWESOME]

This thread suddenly got sexy again.

I'm going to call granny!

[Ben]

I would never be "fine" with brother-sister hook ups. I just think it's their right to make their personal marriage vows if it's consenting.

As for father/daughter marriage, if there was no evidence of sex before the legal age, then I (very grudgingly) think they should be allowed to marry. I reiterate, I would never ever approve it or endorse such a thing.

Social pressure, thankfully, curbs instances like this from happening often.I think the father/daughter marriage IS evidence of abuse of the daughter as a child.

[JoeE]

Out of a cannon!

How many incest fetuses fired from a cannon would it take to paint a house?

[Adrian B AWESOME]

I think the father/daughter marriage IS evidence of abuse of the daughter as a child.

Exactly.

[Brian Defferding]

I think the father/daughter marriage IS evidence of abuse of the daughter as a child.

Probably. And the police always have protocol to follow in order to prove that.

[Jef UK]

As for father/daughter marriage, if there was no evidence of sex before the legal age, then I (very grudgingly) think they should be allowed to marry. I reiterate, I would never ever approve it or endorse such a thing.

I'd like to point out that you endorsed such a thing (begrudgingly) in the sentence prior to your claming you would never ever endorse such a thing, i.e., "they should be allowed to marry." And I think you are endorsing abuse, a lack of evidence of sex before the legal age or not. At the very least, pychological abuse is at play before the hypothetical age of consent in this situation.

[DeluxeVoltron]

I think the father/daughter marriage IS evidence of abuse of the daughter as a child.

ok, but what if theyre just fucking?

[Adrian B AWESOME]

How many incest fetuses fired from a cannon would it take to paint a house?

My initial answer is 69, but my brain tells me I can come up with something much more witty than that.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

ok, but what if theyre just fucking?

Again, it all comes down to ding-dong and bazoomba sizes.

[Foolish Mortal]

all forms sexual abuse should be illegal, ya. but should it be defined simply by familial relation? or should we insist on going through the rigors of proving some level of manipulation, brainwashing, etc. in the pursuit of true justice? i just hate legislation that puts a blanket ban on a practice that may or may not be committing an already established crime. like making it illegal to smoke in a car with a child. theres already laws against endangering the welfare of a child. prove a person's done that by smoking in front of them. banning a practice because you cant prove its effect is an abuse of the legislative system.

i suggest bringing back the fifth estate, stoning.
The problem is can you prove in a court of law that a mother or father having a sexual relationship with one of their adult children is abusive?

Does it go against social norms? Yes. But can you make a legal argument on that?

[Adrian B AWESOME]

The problem is can you prove in a court of law that a mother or father having a sexual relationship with one of their adult children is abusive?

Does it go against social norms? Yes. But can you make a legal argument on that?

Again, I would argue that 95% of the time, the sexual relationship did not start after the child became a legal adult.

[Jef UK]

The problem is can you prove in a court of law that a mother or father having a sexual relationship with one of their adult children is abusive?

Does it go against social norms? Yes. But can you make a legal argument on that?

There must be plenty of legal precedence as to a mother or father having a sexual relationship with one of their children being abusive. I think you would find very little to no legal precedence otherwise.

[JoeE]

My initial answer is 69, but my brain tells me I can come up with something much more witty than that.

Trick question! There is no right or wrong amount of incest fetuses, it depends on how much firepower you have.

[DeluxeVoltron]

The problem is can you prove in a court of law that a mother or father having a sexual relationship with one of their adult children is abusive?

Does it go against social norms? Yes. But can you make a legal argument on that?

no i probably couldnt prove it. but i think the burden should be on the state to do so. i dont think its just to say 'well youve done such and such so its likely that such and such was going on' and sentence a person in that fashion.

[Brian Defferding]

I'd like to point out that you endorsed such a thing (begrudgingly) in the sentence prior to your claming you would never ever endorse such a thing, i.e., "they should be allowed to marry." And I think you are endorsing abuse, a lack of evidence of sex before the legal age or not. At the very least, pychological abuse is at play before the hypothetical age of consent in this situation.

No, either I came across wrong or you misunderstood me.

I am not endorsing their actions. Saying someone has the right to do something doesn't mean I endorse it. I don't endorse people listening to Jessica Simpson, but I also don't think her music (or her talking in general) should be illegal.

And I do understand that coercion comes into play when it's parental/offspring incest and/or marriage. But as we have been finding out, thankfully social pressure alleviates most of the coercion from the parents, and if there is sexual play before the legal age of consent, then that is a crime.

[Jef UK]

Incestuous relationships are already criminal, right?

[Brian Defferding]

Incestuous relationships are already criminal, right?

Depends on the state. I don't know if there is a state out there that doesn't have a law on it.

[Foolish Mortal]

Incestuous relationships are already criminal, right?
As far as I know it is illegal in all 50 states. I could be wrong, I'd have to Google it and see.

[Ben]

ok, but what if theyre just fucking?Depends on which hole they're using.

[Jef UK]

New Jersey does not apply any penalties to anyone over the age of 18.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

That explains so much. :lol:

[Jef UK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

That explains so much. :lol:


From same:


In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins.

But then:


In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[17] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989[17], Ohio only targets parental figures[17], and New Jersey does not apply any penalties to anyone over the age of 18.[17] Yet Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for those engaging in "sexual activities" with relatives closer than first cousins[17] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and even in-laws.[17]

[Jef UK]

So, you guys voting "yes" think that all states should remove their criminal incest statutes, a la Rhode Island? Or do you think Ohio has the right idea?

[Boris the Blade]

Sure, they ain't hurtin' nobody.

[artimoff]

and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and even in-laws.

That part is just crazy. If I can't fuck my wife's sister...

[artimoff]

So, you guys voting "yes" think that all states should remove their criminal incest statutes, a la Rhode Island? Or do you think Ohio has the right idea?

Remove them all, although the father/daughter, mother/son "relationship" is probabally due to abuse & should be looked into.

[nick maynard]

whether or not you're related, or what color skin you have, or your gender, should have no bearing on what goes in the privacy of your own home.

[Jef UK]

whether or not you're related, or what color skin you have, or your gender, should have no bearing on what goes in the privacy of your own home.

Meth labs are awesome!

[Ben]

whether or not you're related, or what color skin you have, or your gender, should have no bearing on what goes in the privacy of your own home.Wow, some of you have a very naive view of incest...

[Nick Spencer]

Wow, some of you have a very naive view of incest...

Some of you speak very condescendingly towards people you don't agree with!

:)

I agree that a lot of incest cases, particularly parent/child stem from abuse. My problem is, from a law/logic standpoint, I see non-related abusive relationships all the time, too. So, to my mind, that can't be the determining factor, because it's by no means exclusionary.

[Alex(sadly)Maleev]

If incest is crime against nature, then what is marriage? It's not something nature invented.
So I say, fuck marriage. They wanna live together, that's fine.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

If incest is crime against nature, then what is marriage? It's not something nature invented.
So I say, fuck marriage. They wanna live together, that's fine.

Nature doesn't have us fucking our moms, but whatever dude. :cool:

[Ben]

If incest is crime against nature, then what is marriage? It's not something nature invented.
So I say, fuck marriage. They wanna live together, that's fine.I don't see what marriage would be considered outside of nature. If it was so unnatural, people wouldn't be so drawn to it.

[Ben]

Some of you speak very condescendingly towards people you don't agree with!

:)

I agree that a lot of incest cases, particularly parent/child stem from abuse. My problem is, from a law/logic standpoint, I see non-related abusive relationships all the time, too. So, to my mind, that can't be the determining factor, because it's by no means exclusionary.Why would the fact that there are non-related abusive relationships make incest relationships okay? That doesn't make any sense. Non-related abusive relationships are bad, too.

[Nick Spencer]

I don't see what marriage would be considered outside of nature. If it was so unnatural, people wouldn't be so drawn to it.

Drawn to it?

People aren't naturally DRAWN to marriage. It's a societal function that we're trained to appreciate.

[Jef UK]

I don't see what marriage would be considered outside of nature. If it was so unnatural, people wouldn't be so drawn to it.

Nature didn't make federal or civil or criminal or surrogate law. Fuck them!

[Brad N.]

Only if they're hot twin sisters! Or just hot sisters. Or maybe Mother-daughter lesbians. Basically any hottie female to female sex is good regardless of relation. Otherwise it's yucky. So yeah, I guess as long as the participants are over 18 and both consent to it I don't see what the legal deal is, even if it is kinda gross.

[Nick Spencer]

Why would the fact that there are non-related abusive relationships make incest relationships okay? That doesn't make any sense. Non-related abusive relationships are bad, too.

Agreed. There are abusive non-related relationships, but we don't make them illegal-- understand? Abuse isn't mutually exclusive to either, so I don't see how you can use that as the defining justification. It would be a logical fallacy.

[Ben]

Drawn to it?

People aren't naturally DRAWN to marriage. It's a societal function that we're trained to appreciate.People naturally pair up for long periods of time, often to reproduce. All the legal marriage gives you is a few other benefits. It's not some super different concept from regular coupling.

[Nick Spencer]

Only if they're hot twin sisters! Or just hot sisters. Or maybe Mother-daughter lesbians. Basically any hottie female to female sex is good regardless of relation. Otherwise it's yucky. So yeah, I guess as long as the participants are over 18 and both consent to it I don't see what the legal deal is, even if it is kinda gross.

I made a thread about that!

It even had a poll!

funny how hypocritical we become once hot bisexual twins are in the picture.

[Nick Spencer]

People naturally pair up for long periods of time, often to reproduce. All the legal marriage gives you is a few other benefits. It's not some super different concept from regular coupling.

Those aren't natural impulses. Males have a natural impulse to procreate with as many females as possible, for instance.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Wow, whole bunch of mother fuckers in this thread.

[Alex(sadly)Maleev]

Nature doesn't have us fucking our moms, but whatever dude. :cool:

Fathers will still abuse their kids even in a world where cousins are allowed to marry. This is a question of morality, not a civil/religious union.

[Albert]

Those aren't natural impulses. Males have a natural impulse to procreate with as many females as possible, for instance.

What about gay males?

[Alex(sadly)Maleev]

I don't see what marriage would be considered outside of nature. If it was so unnatural, people wouldn't be so drawn to it.

Last time I looked, there were no bears on their honeymoons in Prospect park.

[Nick Spencer]

What about gay males?

Stumped!

I dunno... but I don't think monogamy is a natural impulse there, either.

[Albert]

Stumped!

I dunno... but I don't think monogamy is a natural impulse there, either.

You can say that again! ::high five::

[Nick Spencer]

You can say that again! ::high five::

Your sig quote is from one of my threads! :)

[bartleby]

Last time I looked, there were no bears on their honeymoons in Prospect park.

What about gay males?

[Jef UK]

Fathers will still abuse their kids even in a world where cousins are allowed to marry. This is a question of morality, not a civil/religious union.

Morality is to individuals as ethics is to society (usually codified in law). Which is to say, we can discuss morality as it relates to law, through the above-stated relationship. In fact, I don't think we can avoid it.

The issue at had is should we allow cousins to marry (many states do) at the expense of parents marrying offspring, which I think most of us consider a form of abuse (and which is sort of rendered a moot point given that laws vary from state to state--the original question sets up a duality which isn't really there in certain parts of America).

[Nick Spencer]

What about gay males?

What about redundancy?

:)

[Jef UK]

Last time I looked, there were no bears on their honeymoons in Prospect park.

That's Chelsea. We've got the lesbos.

[Nick Spencer]

Morality is to individuals as ethics is to society (usually codified in law). Which is to say, we can discuss morality as it relates to law, through the above-stated relationship. In fact, I don't think we can avoid it.

The issue at had is should we allow cousins to marry (many states do) at the expense of parents marrying offspring, which I think most of us consider a form of abuse (and which is sort of rendered a moot point given that laws vary from state to state--the original question sets up a duality which isn't really there in certain parts of America).

Laws aren't based on morality or ethics at all really. At least not in The States. Our laws are based on Lockean concepts of individual rights and property.

[Brian Defferding]

Laws aren't based on morality or ethics at all really. At least not in The States. Our laws are based on Lockean concepts of individual rights and property.

Nah, if that was actually the case then we wouldn't have sodomy laws, laws preventing homosexual marriage, common law partners, the war on drugs, OSHA, seat belt/helmet laws, higher taxes on cigarettes, etc.

[Taxman]

Laws aren't based on morality or ethics at all really. At least not in The States. Our laws are based on Lockean concepts of individual rights and property.Locke? Are you talking about state statutes, or the Bill of Rights?

[Nick Spencer]

Nah, if that was actually the case then we wouldn't have sodomy laws, laws preventing homosexual marriage, common law partners, the war on drugs, OSHA, seat belt/helmet laws, higher taxes on cigarettes, etc.

Some of those your correct on, others I'd disagree with.

I should clarify: we don't always adhere to that original intention, but usually when we don't, it's a bullshit law. The Founders based the country around a philosophy expounded in Locke's second treatise, though; the basis of our laws isn't morality, it's a purely secular and amoral understanding of individual rights and property.

[Nick Spencer]

Locke? Are you talking about state statutes, or the Bill of Rights?

Our nation's legal structure is predicated on the concept of individual rights and property, not shared morality. there are glaring exceptions to this, but that was the intent of the founders for every level of Government in this country.

[Taxman]

Our nation's legal structure is predicated on the concept of individual rights and property, not shared morality. there are glaring exceptions to this, but that was the intent of the founders for every level of Government in this country.Clearly, you don't listen to enough right-wing talk. Otherwise, you would know that are laws are based on the Ten Commandments and The Bible.

[SethInAz]

If they are of age and consenting, then the people who are for same sex marriage have no grounds to object to it if they want to maintain moral consistency.

Get over the "yucky" factor and your incestophobia.

[Taxman]

If they are of age and consenting, then the people who are for same sex marriage have no grounds to object to it if they want to maintain moral consistency.You could not be more wrong.

The homosexual couple has no chance of procreating. One of the biggest reasons incest is such taboo is because of the genetic problems created by inbreeding.

[Nick Spencer]

Clearly, you don't listen to enough right-wing talk. Otherwise, you would know that are laws are based on the Ten Commandments and The Bible.

:)

To be fair, I'm sure if you did a poll, 85 percent of the public would say laws are based on morality. It's a very popular misconception.

[Jef UK]

Laws aren't based on morality or ethics at all really [...] Our laws are based on Lockean concepts of individual rights and property.

A first chink: individual rights and property rights are cornerstones of American ethics.

[Nick Spencer]

You could not be more wrong.

The homosexual couple has no chance of procreating. One of the biggest reasons incest is such taboo is because of the genetic problems created by inbreeding.

The problem I have with this is the same as abuse-- its just not exclusive: we don't ban many handicapped couples from marrying, though statistics show they can many handicaps on to their children. Many states require blood testing ahead of a marriage license, but they don't block the marriage if they come back incompatible. We don't ban older women from having children even though they have a similar risk of birth defects.

[Nick Spencer]

A first chink: individual rights and property rights are a cornerstone of American ethics.

Ethics have nothing to do with it. Locke outlines the scenario of a state of nature, and a social contract that forms between the individual and the state in lieu of it. It is, for all intents and purposes, a business arrangement, though no one views it that way day to day.

The individual views the state of nature as insecure and sometimes dangerous, so the state is implemented to protect the individual and the individual's property. It's a contractual agreement, and laws stem from it.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

God I wish I had a sister that I could have consensual sex with.

[Criden]

for the love of god, why is this poll not public...

[SethInAz]

You could not be more wrong.

The homosexual couple has no chance of procreating. One of the biggest reasons incest is such taboo is because of the genetic problems created by inbreeding.

So you ignore the taboo of homosexuality?

Her body her decision. You have no right to dictate to anyone what their reproductive rights are, or what they do with their own lives.

[Taxman]

for the love of god, why is this poll not public...Yes, let's have a witch hunt!

[Taxman]

So you ignore the taboo of homosexuality?So you ignore the genetic considerations in the discussion.

[Criden]

Yes, let's have a witch hunt!

yep!

[Jef UK]

Ethics have nothing to do with it. Locke outlines the scenario of a state of nature, and a social contract that forms between the individual and the state in lieu of it. It is, for all intents and purposes, a business arrangement, though no one views it that way day to day.

The individual views the state of nature as insecure and sometimes dangerous, so the state is implemented to protect the individual and the individual's property. It's a contractual agreement, and laws stem from it.

To say that Locke's ethics are manifested through natural right and rationalism is not to say that, "ethics have nothing to do with it."

[Nick Spencer]

To say that Locke's ethics are manifested through natural right and rationalism is not to say that, "ethics have nothing to do with it."

That would seem to me to be an extremely broad and unconventional use of the term 'ethics'. I don't think many scholars would consider Locke an 'ethics' philosopher (a la Rosseau)-- quite the opposite, actually.

[Thudpucker]

Only if you shoot any fetuses that result from the incest.


Out of a cannon!

:rofl:

[bartleby]

for the love of god, why is this poll not public...

An even more interesting public poll would be "If incest was legal for consenting adults, would you have sex with one of your relatives?"

[Thudpucker]

So, you guys voting "yes" think that all states should remove their criminal incest statutes, a la Rhode Island? Or do you think Ohio has the right idea?

I really don't know. My instinct is that it's none of my business so it should be legal. The abuse angle is very disturbing though and I don't understand the reasoning of those that would want to do this.

[Jef UK]

That would seem to me to be an extremely broad and unconventional use of the term 'ethics'. I don't think many scholars would consider Locke an 'ethics' philosopher (a la Rosseau)-- quite the opposite, actually.

You can't talk about natural right and natural law and not explore ethics. Locke certainly did, and his ethics are studied as such, as manifest through those ideas, among others such as utilitarianism and rationalism. Simply put: the notion of fundamental rights as life, liberty and property is an ethical proposition. Further, how you would approach Locke's attempts to describe free will while avoiding his ethics is beyond me.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

I love the faux philosophical discussion going on over whether or not it's legally sound to let consenting dads and daughters fuck each other.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Again, incest isn't just the act of family having sex, it's a form of sexual abuse.

[Ben]

Again, incest isn't just the act of family having sex, it's a form of sexual abuse.No! Every dad that fucks his daughter is a unique and special snowflake! Sure, 99.9999999999999% of those cases may be abuse, but about that one father/daughter couple that are true soulmates?!

[Jef UK]

No! Every dad that fucks his daughter is a unique and special snowflake! Sure, 99.9999999999999% of those cases may be abuse, but about that one father/daughter couple that are true soulmates?!

Hey, as long as it happens in the privacy of your own home, it's okay.

Anybody want to come to my baby-rape party tonight?

[Nick Spencer]

You can't talk about natural right and natural law and not explore ethics. Locke certainly did, and his ethics are studied as such, as manifest through those ideas, among others such as utilitarianism and rationalism. Simply put: the notion of fundamental rights as life, liberty and property is an ethical proposition. Further, how you would approach Locke's attempts to describe free will while avoiding his ethics is beyond me.

It's really not. It's a social compact: the individual retains those aspects of the natural existence when entering into the state for protection, because portecting those aspects is the entire reason for needing protection in the first place. Ethics really don't come into play.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

No! Every dad that fucks his daughter is a unique and special snowflake! Sure, 99.9999999999999% of those cases may be abuse, but about that one father/daughter couple that are true soulmates?!

Oh Ben, if you were my uncle, I'd give you a blow j.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Hey, as long as it happens in the privacy of your own home, it's okay.

Anybody want to come to my baby-rape party tonight?

Because now that family sex is lawful, this would be the natural, LOGICAL, progression. :lol:

[Nick Spencer]

Locke on the relationship between law and morality;


"The truth of all these moral Rules plainly depends upon some other antecedent to them, and from which they must be deduced"

[Adrian B AWESOME]

It's really not. It's a social compact: the individual retains those aspects of the natural existence when entering into the state for protection, because portecting those aspects is the entire reason for needing protection in the first place. Ethics really don't come into play.

And that's why grandfathers cornholing their grandchildren should be legal.

[Ashwin Pande]

Again, incest isn't just the act of family having sex, it's a form of sexual abuse.

it's also insect misspelled.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

I'm pretty sure Nick's pro-family fucking comes from his desire to see less kids wussed up.

[Thudpucker]

Because now that family sex is lawful, this would be the natural, LOGICAL, progression. :lol:

Jef simply thinks that if anything is legal then everything should be legal. What could possibly be wrong with that reasoning?

[Nick Spencer]

I'm pretty sure Nick's pro-family fucking comes from his desire to see less kids wussed up.

If you're born with one arm, that shit toughens you up.

Just sayin'.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

If you're born with one arm, that shit toughens you up.

Just sayin'.

:lol: Ok, I may be completely wrong on my views of family fuckin'.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Jef simply thinks that if anything is legal then everything should be legal. What could possibly be wrong with that reasoning?

Well, actually, I was laughing because he's probably closer to being right than anything.

Plus, if I can fuck my kids, why can't I legally fuck my cat?

Just sayin'.

[Jef UK]

It's a social compact: the individual retains those aspects of the natural existence when entering into the state for protection, because portecting those aspects is the entire reason for needing protection in the first place. Ethics really don't come into play.

I don't see how you can talk about the greater good ("the individual retains those aspects of the natural existence when entering into the state for protection, because portecting [stet] those aspects is the entire reason for needing protection in the first place") and not think you're discussing ethics. Or more to the point, that you don't think Locke thought he was covering ethics himself. Especially since Locke's whole notion of natural right stems from his notion of an infinitely intelligent being, i.e., God (hence, rational).

[bartleby]

Well, actually, I was laughing because he's probably closer to being right than anything.

Plus, if I can fuck my kids, why can't I legally fuck my cat?

Just sayin'.

And if you can fuck your cat, what's to stop you from fucking your neighbor's cat?

[Jef UK]

Locke on the relationship between law and morality;

That antecedent is God. What's your point?

[Thudpucker]

Well, actually, I was laughing because he's probably closer to being right than anything.

Plus, if I can fuck my kids, why can't I legally fuck my cat?

Just sayin'.

I wasn't being serious ;)

[Jef UK]

Nevermind, Thud. Catching up.

[Nick Spencer]

That antecedent is God. What's your point?

That's NOT the antecedent there.

Wait... you're not one of those people who think Locke ACTUALLY was a Christian, are you? :)

[Adrian B AWESOME]

And if you can fuck your cat, what's to stop you from fucking your neighbor's cat?

Well, if my cat found out, he'd kill me.

[Jef UK]

That's NOT the antecedent there.

Wait... you're not one of those people who think Locke ACTUALLY was a Christian, are you? :)


Not a Christian, but believed in an infinitely intelligent being. Locke's entire notions of natural right and free will are authorized upon a divine rational being.

[Fake Pat]

That's NOT the antecedent there.

Wait... you're not one of those people who think Locke ACTUALLY was a Christian, are you? :)

Yeah, it is.

Locke based his philosophy off the belief in a "first" thing from which all else came.

[Jef UK]

Okay, I can't argue Locke anymore without my books in front of me. :)

[Nick Spencer]

Not a Christian, but believed in an infinitely intelligent being. Locke's entire notions of natural right and free will are authorized upon a divine rational being.

Locke paid lip service to deism like every other philosopher of his era, but nearly all of his writings run contradictory to the concept.

Machievelli talked about God a lot, too. Are we gonna argue he was a deist?

[Dan]

As my good friend Mel used to say "Incest is best" and also "If you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in the family".

[Nick Spencer]

Yeah, it is.

Locke based his philosophy off the belief in a "first" thing from which all else came.

See above comment.

[Fake Pat]

Locke paid lip service to deism like every other philosopher of his era, but nearly all of his writing runs contradictory to the concept.

No, it doesn't. Just because he was careful about placing reason before faith does not imply anything about the existance of god.

[Fake Pat]

See above comment.

Your above comment is incorrect.

[Jef UK]

Locke paid lip service to deism like every other philosopher of his era, but nearly all of his writings run contradictory to the concept.

Machievelli talked about God a lot, too. Are we gonna argue he was a deist?

If you remove his infinitely intelligent being, his whole notion of rationalism falls apart (see: existentialism, post-modernism, and deconstruction).

[Nick Spencer]

No, it doesn't. Just because he was careful about placing reason before faith does not imply anything about the existance of god.

Of course it does. if there is a god, you can't place reason above it.

I can't think of one serious scholar who thinks Locke believed in God.

[DaGetHighKnight]

I thought you were supposed to fuck your sisters friends...

[Fake Pat]

Of course it does. if there is a god, you can't place reason above it.

I can't think of one serious scholar who thinks Locke believed in God.

Faith and god aren't the same thing.

You're really being obnoxiously obtuse here.

[Nick Spencer]

Your above comment is incorrect.

You know, so far, the conversation has been nice and non-antagonistic.

Just saying.

[Nick Spencer]

Faith and god aren't the same thing.

You're really being obnoxiously obtuse here.

Oh, christ...

[Jef UK]

You know, so far, the conversation has been nice and non-antagonistic.

High-five!

[nick maynard]

i still say we shouldn't have laws that tell us who we can and can't be romantic with.

[Jef UK]

"Man knows by an intuitive certainty that bare nothing can no more produce any real being than it can be equal to two right angles....If, therefore, we know there is some real being, and that nonentity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning, and what had a beginning must be produced by something else...." (Essay, IV, x, 3.) "Thus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being." (Essay, IV, x, 6.)

Mr. John Locke, a philosopher of some note.

[Nick Spencer]

High-five!

Conversing about philosophy=fun.

Arguing about philosophy=headache-inducing.

[Fake Pat]

Oh, christ...

Sorry, next time I'll put a smiley face next to it.

[Fake Pat]

Mr. John Locke, a philosopher of some note.

Bah! What does he know!

[jess]

Yes, as long as condom use is required.

but people lie about using condoms aaaaaaall the time.

i've seen the hills have eyes. fuck that shit.

[Ashwin Pande]

but people lie about using condoms aaaaaaall the time.

i've seen the hills have eyes. fuck that shit.

Let's grab a couple of shotguns and fucking kill 'em all!!!

[Nick Spencer]

Mr. John Locke, a philosopher of some note.

I can dig up similar quotes from every philospher of that period, but it's generally held that they didn't really believe it.

[jess]

Let's grab a couple of shotguns and fucking kill 'em all!!!

nuh uh! retard strength= nothing to lose. no way. i hate to puss out on ya, but there's no way in hell i'm getting involved.

:lol:

[Thudpucker]

i still say we shouldn't have laws that tell us who we can and can't be romantic with.

We need laws to prevent a person from doing harm to others. That's why minors are protected, they are not old enough to consent so the law must protect them until they are.

What consenting adults chose to do to themselves or to each other? i think that is their own business.

[Ashwin Pande]

nuh uh! retard strength= nothing to lose. no way. i hate to puss out on ya, but there's no way in hell i'm getting involved.

:lol:

Fine! It'll just be me and Henry Rollins! The two of us against an army of mutant inbred freaks! With maybe a guest appearance by Bruce Campbell!!

[nick maynard]

We need laws to prevent a person from doing harm to others. That's why minors are protected, they are not old enough to consent so the law must protect them until they are.

What consenting adults chose to do to themselves or to each other? i think that is their own business.
totally agree.

[Albert]

We need laws to prevent a person from doing harm to others. That's why minors are protected, they are not old enough to consent so the law must protect them until they are.

What consenting adults chose to do to themselves or to each other? i think that is their own business.

What if they choose to murder each other?

[Nick Spencer]

What if they choose to murder each other?

that would be euthenasia/assisted suicide. I support that, too.

It's your body/life. It's your choice what to do with it.

[Thudpucker]

What if they choose to murder each other?

Suicide pacts? Suicide and euthanasia are unfortunate but it might be something a person has a right to, yes. That's about as complicated a moral delema as it gets I think.