Posted on 01/06/2011 5:17:20 AM PST by markomalley
I hear that Lot’s wife was a salty tongued old gal.
It is a concern of ‘We the People’ and thus so the state.
You say that the state exists to protect for one ‘the rights’ of the people. Do you not believe in the ‘right to representation’ though? If the people of a state believe that sodomy or incest are harmful would you deny their ‘right to representation’ on the issue?
I understand your point of view, and I think voters should tread carefully before enacting any law. However, I also agree with TheBigIf that states have the right to enact laws governing morality. You may not agree, and you’re entitled to vote against restrictions on prostitution, incest, or whatever, but there’s simply no constitutional prohibition against such laws.
As I’ve argued here before, pretty much every law has some basis in morality anyway. Even laws against speed limits make a moral judgment that safe travel is more important than the guy with the fastest car having the right of way. Equal treatment under the law and the concept of the rule of law itself are based on moral judgments. You seem to want to cordon off sex laws (and maybe more) for special treatment.
It’s not that I don’t sympathize with the concept that consenting adults should be generally free to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but what goes on in the bedroom often can and does affect things outside of the bedroom. In our country, voters, not black robed tyrants, should be making these decisions. You might even overturn a great number of laws restricting sex practices if you garner the support of a majority of voters, while my state might enact even stricter provisions. That’s how it’s supposed to work in a constitutional republic.
I forgot that Lot’s daughters tricked him into sleeping with him, but the reference seemed fitting. Lot was a moral man who was rescued from Sodom’s destruction. He was hunkered down with his family, literally surrounded while the sodomites paraded around his home. The sodomites themselves took great pride in their sinfulness and paraded about without shame. Such awaits this country.
No argument in principle. Unfortunately, the practice these days is not the same as the principle. Nowhere near it.
Yes. Do you know what a "Right" is? I don't think you do.
Do you not believe in the ‘right to representation’ though?
Probably not the way you do.
If the people of a state believe that sodomy or incest are harmful would you deny their ‘right to representation’ on the issue?
Define "harm". I think you're confusing "harm" with "most of us don't like it."
What if the people of a State think that Jews are harmful? How about if they think steak dinners are harmful? Should they be able to criminalize eating steak? What if they think Catholocism is harmful?
Many people "think" (they don't really think it, they just believe it) that Carbon Dioxide is harmful and therefore the Government has to strictly regulate and in some cases criminalize the emmission of it. Are those people right in their thinking?
Some people "think" that the lack of having a health insurance program is harmful and that it should be criminalized. Are they right in their thinking?
Here's a hint for you. You're not really thinking. You're believing. There's a big difference.
L
“Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest”
http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/epsteinmug.jpg
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
How and when, specifically if you please.
L
How and when, specifically if you please.
L
These sorts of things are instigated by people who do not have enough to do. If they had to wonder each day where their next meal was coming from, and actually WORK to insure it, that would be a start. The children in these cases, although adult in body, are still at an extreme disadvantage due to the parent always being an authority figure throughout their lives - and never thereafter being able to develop a healthy relationship with anyone else because of the initial “ownership” claim staked by the parent. - When this sort of thing becomes legal, as the liberals want to fix the Supreme Court where it will be - the proper regard for it will no longer be the disgust and outrage it deserves. - This man is a DEPRAVED, DISGUSTING HOG and his daughter is the VICTIM of rape by the pig.
Principles are what matter after all.
Unfortunately, the practice these days is not the same as the principle. Nowhere near it.
Who's fault is that?
“Such awaits this country.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Such IS this country.
A popular Columbia professor was charged Thursday with incest – accused of a sick sex relationship with a female relative, prosecutors said.
Political science Prof. David Epstein, 46, bedded the young woman over a three-year period ending last year, according to court papers.
He was arraigned before a Manhattan judge on a single felony incest count.
Sources said the victim was over 18 when the relationship began in 2006 and that the two often exchanged twisted text messages.
Epstein faces up to four years behind bars if convicted.
This is the guy who called Sarah Palin “weak” and “self-centered.”
Project much, professor?
UPDATE: Oooh, details emerge of Professor Pervo’s (alleged) crime:
He had relations with his daughter, now 24, from 2006 through 2009, the complaint said.
So, according to his own daughter, Professor Pervo was engaged in this twisted behavior the whole time he was blogging at HuffPo.
UPDATE II: “Police say the relationship between Epstein and his daughter was consensual.”
All together now: Eeeeewww! Yuck!
Based on an article in the Columbia Spectator, it would appear that Epstein and his wife, Sharyn O’Halloran (chairwoman of the executive committee of the Columbia University Senate and a tenured professor) have split up. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Professor O’Halloran was the one who reported this “consensual” relationship — Eeeeeww! Yuck! — to the police.
UPDATE III: A writer at Salon examines the legal aspects:
It has all the sordid ingredients to supply tabloid headlines for days, but far more interesting — at least in my nerdy universe — are the laws behind this case and others like it. After all, the relationship in this case allegedly began after Epstein’s daughter reached the age of consent. It isn’t a clear-cut case of child abuse, and there are no allegations that the three-year-long relationship carried on without the daughter’s consent. . . .
Most courts are concerned about parents preying on their children, [University of Akron law professor J. Dean Carro] said. “Regardless of the age of the child, there’s still a theory that a parent is always a parent, a child is always a child and, as a result, there truly can’t be a consensual sexual act.”
To repeat: Eeeeeww! Yuck!
UPDATE IV: Jammie Wearing Fool: “To no surprise he’s an Obama donor.” And here’s the video debate with Peter Schiff from last November, in which Epstein gave a presentation entitled: “How Obama’s Policies Are Saving the Economy.” (Not to be confused with “How Obama’s Supporters Are Having Sex With Their Daughters.”)
UPDATE V: This is what I get for not checking around the Internet before blogging like I’m the first right-winger to discover a story: Ace of Spades posted on this story two hours before I did — and already has more than 300 comments.
UPDATE VI: Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters was all over this story today, highlighting Epstein’s cluelessness and, among other things, how Epstein accused Republicans of ”taking hypocrisy in their personal lives to new levels of self-indulgent weirdness.”
Obviously, Epstein’s an expert on “self-indulgent weirdness.”
UPDATE VI: Donald Douglas has an excellent aggregation including Kathy Shaidle’s headline:
Liberals: your moral and intellectual superiors!
Elie Mystal at Above the Law: “Columbia Poly Sci Professor Accused of Diddling His Daughter.”
Epstein’s lawyer wants you to know that his client “is a respected member of the Columbia University and national academic communities.”
Yeah. That’s kind of the point here: Even a “respected” Ivy League professor can still be a total creepazoid.
UPDATE VII: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
UPDATE VIII: West Virginian Don Surber is probably wondering when the intellectual elite will apologize for all those hillbilly incest jokes.
UPDATE IX: Over at The American Spectator:
[W]hile incest remains illegal in New York State, some commenters at the Columbia University student newspaper Web site are mystified as to why it’s illegal: “Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they’re adults and they consent, who cares what they do?”
Readers might suppose that arguments involving phrases like “thou shalt not” and words like “abomination” are sternly frowned on at Columbia University, so that the faculty would have a hard time answering such a question from their students.
And there’s now a Memeorandum thread.
UPDATE X: Curt at Flopping Aces points out that commenters at HuffPo also have a hard time dealing with this “thou shalt not” problem:
It is kinda sick, but I think a four year prison sentence is extreme – considerin g they are both consenting adults. . . .
If he is being prosecuted then so should she and anyone who doesn’t agree clearly is not in favor of equal rights for women. . . .
They are two consenting adults. Am I missing something here? . . .
I don’t understand how it is a crime.
Perhaps they should get Judge Roy Moore to give a lecture at Columbia University? I mean, after all, they’ve already had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lecture at Columbia.
There is something profound here that seems to have been missed. If you accept (1) that incest is innately immoral and (2) that there is no moral reason to oppose adult-adult incest outside of the prohibitions in God's word and in nearly universal community values, doesn't that mean that faith and values are essential in understanding morality? I don't have a logical case for adult, consensual incest being wrong, beyond God's word and the massive societal harm, but we all know that it is very wrong. We should learn from this example and stop backing down when the thugs and libs try to bully us into keeping God out of the public arena. God belongs in the public arena, as does his word, not as a method of boasting about our virtue but as a guide to living virtuously.
All morality comes from God. This is a perfect example of what happens when God is denied.
How many marriages break up because of adultery? I suppose you think voters should have zero interest in divorce and one of its primary causes.
Diseases like AIDS and hepatitis? I guess you think voters have no right to be concerned about the spread of diseases into their blood or food supplies.
Children of single mothers being raised by the state? Again, no voter interest there either.
Prostitutes plying their trade in front of businesses or homes? Better not regulate that, ‘cause it only involves transactions between consenting adults.
Again, show me in the US Constitution where the right of consenting adults to do whatever they want is enshrined. It isn’t there, and VOTERS have not only the legal right but the moral authority to set standards for their communities.
I don’t know. Any “unviable tissue mass”, as they would term it, generated by such a relationship would be aborted anyway, just as are now so many healthy lib babies without incest.
They are already well on the road to libocide without the degenerative effects of incest.
The NappyOne
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
