Incest Repellent? If gay sex is private, why isn't incest?

Slate ^ | 4/23/03 | William Saletan

[KCmark]

On homosexuality being a choice, could anything or anyone make you desire a homosexual encounter? If not, then it (homosexuality) must be inherent.

[Hodar]

Incest is incest. Child abuse is child abuse.

When the child is over 18, it is no longer child abuse.

And sodomy is a (the?) leading source of AIDS.

Not true for South Africa. The predominate carriers of AIDS are spread through normal, consentual heterosexual relations.

If we CAN'T outlaw certain acts---EVEN IF they take place "in the privacy of your own home"---then what prevents ANY activity being done "in the privacy of your own home" from being made illegal? Such activities as murder, euthanasia, abortion (even by a non-licensed provider), infanticide, computer hacking, embezzlement via computer, etc. could ALL be legal if done "in the privacy of your own home."

Please, common sence is such a rarity today. Concentual means that all parties agree to this activity. Murder usually involves an unwilling partner. There is a big difference between where you place Mr. Winky, and killing somone, vandalizing, and stealing. At least there is a big difference to me.

Is your life so perfect, that you have the capability, wisdom, intelligence to dictate how other people live their lives too? Personally, I think not.

[nessus]

In the case at hand, the Texas law DOES just target homosexuals.

[discostu]

OK the second part of my sentence should have been "sodomy doesn't make babies". You're right, for one thing I focused the discussion down to just gays which it shouldn't be and I'm even one of the people that says it shouldn't be.

[AnalogReigns]

NEWWUS WROTE: "More heterosexuals practice "sodomy" than they even ARE homosexuals."

Another thing to note: The old English legal (going back to R.Catholic???) definition of sodomy (basically any sex act not related to reproduction, to put it delicately) are not the sexual acts prohibited in the Bible, which is specifically man to man or woman to woman sex.

Therefore taking a biblical, rather than English law/cultural definition of sodomy, heterosexual sex of any kind cannot be called "sodomy," especially that within marriage.

[discostu]

Really? I would say good for them but the law is still stupid, because now they're trying to say sodomy is bad when there's a guy on both sides but there's nothing wrong with it when it's a guy and a girl. Which is why the laws should only address what can be harmful to future generations, or stuff that makes diseases jump species (bestiality). Once you stat trying to decide who can do what to which kind of willing partner the whole thing just gets so confusing, then you've got to enforce it and the situation is totally out of control at that point.

[RAT Patrol]

No one could make me desire a threesome either. I don't think desire proves anything.

[AnalogReigns]

NEWWUS WROTE: "More heterosexuals practice "sodomy" than they even ARE homosexuals."

Another thing to note: The old English legal (going back to R.Catholic???) definition of sodomy (basically any sex act not related to reproduction, to put it delicately) is not the same as the sexual acts prohibited in the Bible, which are specifically man to man or woman to woman sex, (or man or woman to beast).

Therefore taking a biblical, rather than English law/cultural definition of sodomy, heterosexual sex of any kind cannot be called "sodomy," especially that within marriage.

[Hodar]

A little one-sided don't you think.

I think a person's sex life is no one's business. What adults do in private is neither your business, nor mine. Thus, you accuse me of creating Sodom.

Meanwhile, you believe that what a person does with Mr. Winky is in fact, your business; then wish to punish this person(s) for doing what you do not like. That is, in fact, exactly what the Taliban did. Live your life by the Taliban's rules (or your rules), or pay the price.

What portion of the phrase "That is none of your business" do you not comprehend? Are you afraid that you are missing out on something? Perhaps you think you are owed more sexual freedom than you currently enjoy, so as you can't have it; no one can? Personally, I don't care what people do in private. As long as it's consentual adults doing it. It's simply none of my concern.

[fifteendogs]

What about incest among consenting adults?

[Hodar]

What about incest among consenting adults?

Like I said before:
Personally, I don't care what people do in private. As long as it's consentual adults doing it. It's simply none of my concern.

I think all of us have our hands full managing our own lives. I do not know anyone who is so wonderful at managing their life; that I wish them to also manage mine. Now, I may not personally agree with every lifestyle out there. Heck, Jerry Springer produces some fine specimens of human debris; but the fact remains that we all possess the God-given right to mess up our lives as much as we can. Hopefully, most of us will realize the foolishness of our errors, and change our ways.

[RipSawyer]

Didn't exactly answer my question, did you?

[RipSawyer]

"Does good bourbon come in two liter bottles? I've had this tag too long, I'm thinking of getting rid of it but I can't figure out anything new."

Good bourbon does indeed come in two liter bottles. Now, if you really mean very expensive, highly rated bourbon with real snob appeal, I can't say because I can no longer afford such stuff. I find Ancient Age to be quite satisfactory in my Ancient Age.

[kevao]

Right to incest? One equates consentual sex between adults to rape of a minor?

Not all incest involves the rape of a minor, for example, consentual incest between adults.

[AnalogReigns]

Interesting perspective. According to your logic, any laws pertaining to private behavior = THE TALIBAN. However, getting away from abstraction, the issue at hand is CHANGING time tested laws found in freedom loving states and countries... not a proposal for Islamic fundamentalism (or any other kind of fundamentalism).

It's a fact: The freeest country on earth, had, has and will have laws pertaining to private sexual behavior....and guess what, WE'RE NOT THE TALIBAN! If you think we are, or are anywhere near devolving into that, you're living in a nightmarish dreamland.

Libertines like you are the ones who need to prove their case, as you are the ones advocating radical change, not myself or other conservatives.

Bringing up visions of Islamists (where as far as I know no Islamists, or advocates of theocracy are a part of this discussion) doesn't do a lot for the credibility of your arguments.

ALL sane and civilized lovers of liberty advocate some form of laws against certain private sexual behaviors.... even you...or do you advocate "freedom" for pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia and other perversions too, rather than just incest and homosexual behavior?

Where do ideas of even age of consent come from, other than certain moral/traditional/religious assumptions about childhood--which not all societies share?

You're the one advocating radical change, accusing me and other conservatives--who want to keep our sane laws sane--of being the boogeyman TALIBAN. Unless you think America is and has been a theocratic oppressor, your arguments don't stand up.

[RipSawyer]

I hardly consider it ignorant to say that whatever is not specifically forbidden by the U.S. Constitution is allowed by it, meaning that it is left up to the individual states. Many things which have been forbidden in the past by states were not considered at all in the federal constitution. Spitting on the sidewalk has been forbidden under some local governments but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is allowed by the federal constitution. Comparing incest to murder serves no purpose other than to obscure what is really at question here.

[x]

One thing that confuses is the difference between legality and morality. Are incest, adultery and homosexuality illegal or simply regarded as immoral?

Another problem is that people generally think of incest as child abuse. It's also possible between consenting adults. England's Bloomsbury circle argued for the theoretical right to adult incest on the same grounds that they argued for open relationships and the legalization of homosexual relations. But in retrospect, it's the exploitative incestual relationships imposed by the stronger on the weaker, equivalent to pedophilic or pederastic activities, that are remembered.

Legalizing incest opens the door to condoning exploitative parent-child or teacher-student relationships. Once you legalize something and set an age of consent, those who want to indulge in the activity will always argue that 16 is as good an age as 18, 14 as good an age as 16 and so on. It truly becomes a "slippery slope."

One thing that's curious is that while homosexual relationships have become permissable in many parts of society, teacher-student relationships have become ever more restricted and condemned. Rightly so, because of the power imbalance involved and the questions of trust and betrayal, but many old academics got to know their spouses in precisely these sorts of relationships, and wonder at the "puritanism" of our day.

[kevao]

From NY Penal Law: "A person is guilty of incest when he or she marries or engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, either legitimately or out of wedlock, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece."

Golly, can me and sis really get into trouble if'n we didn't know that there's laws out there agin our relationship?

[The Wizard]

Santorum was talking about laws not gays.....

[Hodar]

Unless you think America is and has been a theocratic oppressor, your arguments don't stand up.

Well, considering that only Tx and Mo have anti-sodomy laws still on the books; and Tx is having it's laws challenged; I don't think I'm really advocating changing the laws of society. I'm am for personal liberty, and consistency is a good start.

Whether you are setting laws to coincide with Islamic virtues, or Christian virtues; the fact remains that one is inflicting religon upon those who may not share your world view. Not everyone agrees with Blue Laws (as an example), some companies do (Chick-a-filet for example) does and I can respect that. They make a darn good sandwich too.

But, what I do resent is the world view that "I do not like ...... therefore you may not .....". Such as, I do not like porn, therefore you may not rent, buy, or watch anything I deem to be pornographic. I do not like dancing, therefore you may not have dances in your school. I do not like meat, therefore you may not have a BBQ on public grounds ... etc. This arguement appears to be on the same premise.

Bottom line, if you do not want to do something, you should not be forced to participate. However, I draw the line at someone dictating what I (or other concenting adults) may choose to do, or not to do. It's my decision, not yours.