Skip to comments.
Incest Repellent?
If gay sex is private, why isn't incest?
Slate ^
| 4/23/03
| William Saletan
Posted on 04/24/2003 7:31:58 AM PDT by William McKinley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-228 next last
To: AnalogReigns
"Bizzarre...I had no idea:
First cousins may legally marry in: AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA
and Washington DC "
Interesting, huh? Most people don't know this stuff. They just assume that first cousins can't marry, but they're wrong. And, in fact, should a first-cousin couple marry, say, in CA, they can move to a state that prohibits first cousin marriages and their marriage is recognized as valid.
To: mabelkitty
"not at all convinced Bill Clinton isn't the spawn of such a union."
Are you trying to give incest a bad name? A union with Beelzebub is not covered under the definition.
42
posted on
04/24/2003 8:26:10 AM PDT
by
RipSawyer
(Mercy on a pore boy lemme have a dollar bill!)
To: MineralMan
"Those are the only cases we ever hear of because incestuous relationships between adults are almost never prosecuted. In fact, I can't remember ever hearing of such a prosecution, even though the incidence is not all that low."
By the way, have you seen the X-files episode about the family named "Peacock".
43
posted on
04/24/2003 8:31:26 AM PDT
by
RipSawyer
(Mercy on a pore boy lemme have a dollar bill!)
Comment #44 Removed by Moderator
Comment #45 Removed by Moderator
To: RAT Patrol
Especially if we're going to reorder society based simply on how one prefers to get his or her jollies.
46
posted on
04/24/2003 8:34:18 AM PDT
by
CaptRon
Comment #47 Removed by Moderator
To: Eva
That's a fair argument...but then, by that logic, shouldn't New York be able to legalize gay marriage? Currently, the federal Defense of Marriage act prohibits that.
48
posted on
04/24/2003 8:36:01 AM PDT
by
ellery
To: RipSawyer
"By the way, have you seen the X-files episode about the family named "Peacock".
"
Sorry, I don't watch the program. Never have.
To: William McKinley
The difference is that incest is bad for the genepool and gays don't breed.
50
posted on
04/24/2003 8:37:54 AM PDT
by
discostu
(I have not yet begun to drink)
To: William McKinley
Re:
I'm a lifestyle conservative and an orientation liberal. ??
I don't even think the writer knows what that means.
51
posted on
04/24/2003 8:38:24 AM PDT
by
ChadGore
(Freedom is as natural as a drawn breath.)
To: CaptRon
Especially if we're going to reorder society based simply on how one prefers to get his or her jollies. Exactly. At this guy took an honest look at it though. But what you said is exactly correct.
52
posted on
04/24/2003 8:39:36 AM PDT
by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
To: legman
To paraphrase you, 'the larger issue is this. What is the reach of Government'?
The world is not perfectable; although it is tempting to employ the awesome power of the State to improve the world and its inhabitants, every attempt to do so has resulted in evils unimaginable to the naive idealists who championed these vain crusades.
Choose your own examples; they are innumerable.
Comment #54 Removed by Moderator
To: discostu
Didn't read the article, did you?
Saletan addresses this point. Several states allow cousins to marry if they provide documentation of sterility. Other states outlaw this. What is the legal basis for laws that deny, say, a brother and sister from marrying if the brother has had a vasectomy?
That's the point Saletan is making. The basis is the same as for sodomy laws. And if that basis is struck down, then there is no legal basis for outlawing a number of things that pretty much everyone agrees should be outlawed.
55
posted on
04/24/2003 8:44:36 AM PDT
by
William McKinley
(You're so vain, you probably think this tagline's about you)
To: Hodar
Incest does not necessarily involve a minor. Sex with a minor is covered under statutory rape laws. Incest only concerns the family relationship between those having sex. Force is also not an issue.
56
posted on
04/24/2003 8:45:07 AM PDT
by
NCLaw441
To: msimon
To say the Courts are not a remedy if a state chooses to persecute a class of citizens may be Constitutional
That isn't what I said, and it is not even a close enough paraphrasing for me to address.
57
posted on
04/24/2003 8:45:46 AM PDT
by
William McKinley
(You're so vain, you probably think this tagline's about you)
To: TRY ONE
Incest is relative.
58
posted on
04/24/2003 8:46:08 AM PDT
by
NCLaw441
To: William McKinley
Incest as a non-violent sexual practice among consenting adults is constitutional, but incestual marriages can be banned because governments can regulate contracts. The whole notion of contracts are based on that the state will make them binding, so states (of the feds) can choose which contracts they want to stand behind. Homosexuality is the same way. Private moral repugnancy has NOTHING to do with constitutionality. We're not a theocracy.
59
posted on
04/24/2003 8:46:35 AM PDT
by
GraniteStateConservative
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
Comment #60 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-228 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson