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

Slate ^ | 4/23/03 | William Saletan

[Reactionary]

"I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that "consent and privacy" by themselves are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior of any kind should be legal."

I beg to disagree. The two ideas at work concerning this issue are the issues of consent and privacy. If you are aware of others, I'm willing to listen.

[Reactionary]

"As a citizen, you are neither in charge of enforcing your morality, nor imposing your ethos upon anyone else."

In other words, my citizenship in a free country doesn't extend to my own morality or moral conscience. I have no business deciding issues of right and wrong at all, right?

That's some idea of freedom, isn't it? If I'm not qualified to use my moral judgement as a citizen of a free country, perhaps you could start by telling me who is?

[longtermmemmory]

Its called being part of a society. As a group "We the People" have decided to live in the same society. This means as part of "living together" we accept limitations on what we can and can not do. Speeds are limited on roads, there are limitations on what you can or can't do on real property based on location.

We also have accepted limitations can and are subject to state by state determinations. There are states which accept common law marriage and others that do not. States that allow common law marriage have various standards to establish common law status.

With that said, as a society we have determined that there ARE limitations to the sexual act. The only aspect of sex that has been protected as a fundamental aspect of society is the right of procreation. Non-procreation sex is not protected. If non-procreation sex is elevated to the status of a fundamental right then NO LIMITATION on sex is valid. The adult incest example is valid and then legally allowed.

[longtermmemmory]

The easy answer—that incest causes birth defects—won't cut it. Birth defects could be prevented by extending to sibling marriage the rule that five states already apply to cousin marriage: You can do it if you furnish proof of infertility or are presumptively too old to procreate. If you're in one of those categories, why should the state prohibit you from marrying your sibling?

* * * * * * * ** * * * * * *

No, this is a red herring, this is about sex for fun. Sodomy is clearly only sex for enjoyment since reproduction is not possible. If any sex for fun is allowed then ADULT incest for fun is therethore legally allowed.

What about children who have reached the age of consent in states with consent laws as low as 14, 16, 17? Guardians are empowered to consent to children entering marriage, why not consentual sex?

Once open, our population of 300 million is bound to have those squeeky wheel weirdo minority that will want their sexual pleasure passion permitted.

All this homosexual mobilization to disregard slippery slopes, or claim the addition of MORE LAWS (?!!!) will somehow stop the fringe groups comparing themselves to homosexuals is delusional.

[Hodar]

In other words, my citizenship in a free country doesn't extend to my own morality or moral onscience.

It extends to YOU, not me. That's the difference between freedom and domination. Your values are YOURS, mine belong to me. You need never associate yourself with people who do not share your values.

If I'm not qualified to use my moral judgement as a citizen of a free country, perhaps you could start by telling me who is?

You are free to make whatever moral valuation you deem fit, as it applies to you and your family. However, once you decide to cross the line and impose your views on someone else, you have ceased to be a freedom loving american and have become a dominating dictator.

[Jorge]

"I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that "consent and privacy" by themselves are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior of any kind should be legal."

I beg to disagree. The two ideas at work concerning this issue are the issues of consent and privacy. If you are aware of others, I'm willing to listen.

I would say there is the overriding issue of social norms based on currently accepted morality and beliefs... by which our society deems the need to reject certain behaviors.

Our society values the idea of "consent and privacy" when it comes to the rights of adults...but there are limits.
My original point was that nobody in their right mind thinks "consent and privacy" means *anything goes*....But consent and privacy does protect against unecessary intrusion by the govt into the private affairs of adults.

I belief this is a completely reasonable position...and one that Santorum should have clarified.

[Reactionary]

"You are free to make whatever moral valuation you deem fit, as it applies to you and your family. However, once you decide to cross the line and impose your views on someone else, you have ceased to be a freedom loving american and have become a dominating dictator."

I understand now. Those who value freedom and democracy are nihilists who would permit everything and still expect liberty. Those who want to prohibit certain acts in their communities are actually the enemies of liberty and freedom. They are only qualified to practice a private morality that applies to their own lives and the lives of their families; they are not allowed to have their "private" morality influence their community, the state government, or the federal government. I understand your position.

Evidently, since the Founders saw fit to allow the states to prohibit private sexual behavior, it follows that they were enemies of liberty. Only the nihilist, since he permits everything, is a true friend of freedom and democracy. Do I have that about right?

[Hodar]

yup.