Incest rears its ugly head

[mom45]

So is it time to derail this thread yet? Cause I'm AWESOME at that!

That is a lot of dancing BACON and my eyes are still dilated enough that it is kind of painful to watch!

BACON BACON BACON!!!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Remember: Love thy brother has a whole nuther meanin' in this here thread. YMMV.

Tru-dat.

 

[oldpink]

[video=youtube;efHCdKb5UWc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc[/video]

 

[TheGhostRider]

[h=1]Sodom and Gomorrah...[/h]After reading this whole thread and seeing all the other crap going on in the world...
I wish the Lord would go back on his promise to not destroy the world...
Wipe this rock clean and start over... or better yet not start over.

 

[Hohn]

Naturally, the exact same people who only ten years ago scoffed at people like myself who said there would be homosexual marriage forced through the courts, the exact same people who have since become advocates for homosexual marriage, now scoff at people (again like myself) who will calmly point out that this is the next frontier in the marriage wars.
Up next: polygamy, marrying the dead, interspecies marriage, and marriage to inanimate objects
Yes, I'm being absurd, but that's what they said about what has now been forced upon us by the courts.
Love is love, right?
Right?

Some of agreed and predicted as well. Once all laws are conditional and morality is relative, the limits go away.

Pure Liberty is a myth. There are either internal restraints upon it placed by virtue and morality, or there are external restraints enacted as poor substitutes when the former go missing.

Thus, the only to enjoy the greatest measure of liberty is to voluntarily forswear the right to exercise some of it.

 

[Mark 1911]

It may have been Lincoln who said (not sure) that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. One is either a slave to vice and free from virtue, or a slave to virtue and free from vice. Neither choice is without cost, yet both are a choice. I have a feeling one thing is as true as ever, what is needed today are men of virtue. We need heroes to make this world a better place.

 

[hornadylnl]

It may have been Lincoln who said (not sure) that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. One is either a slave to vice and free from virtue, or a slave to virtue and free from vice. Neither choice is without cost, yet both are a choice. I have a feeling one thing is as true as ever, what is needed today are men of virtue. We need heroes to make this world a better place.

So do we create virtuous people by stroke of the pen?

By the way, I agre with the type of people we need but we may not agree on how to get there.

 

[KJQ6945]

Quit bangn' your sisters!



This message may be approved by LT6,

if they really existed.

 

[mom45]

Quit bangn' your sisters!



This message may be approved by LT6,

if they really existed.

Are their faces all red because they are related or because they are embarrassed by the family tree having no branches?

That one guy looks kind of horny in the back row.

 

[churchmouse]

Quit bangn' your sisters!



This message may be approved by LT6,

if they really existed.

I hear Banjo's

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wow. What a convoluted mess.

OK... So lots to say, but much has already been said. What remains, I add below:

So this "hook up" began when she was 16 and he was, at a minimum, 34ish. Any argument in support of that behavior? In my mind, that should be illegal. Add to that the fact that he is her father makes it that much worse.

As far as marriage, is it not in society's best nterest to actually have branches in our family trees? Should not a high probability of mutated offspring be avoided?

I do not see this as an argument for an overreaching big goverment. Setting morality aside, this s a health concern and an example of an impressionable misguided child taken advantage.

Hold on. If the 16-yr-old-and-older, young lady (a hypothetical one, not the actual one in this case) was incapable of conceiving children, let's say due to some problem requiring a total salpingo-oopherectomy at an early age (we'll say five, just to unquestionably put her under the age of puberty,) would this still be a concern? Would there still be an outcry against their marriage as "immoral" or "harmful" (either or both)? I chose 16 and older because 16 is the age of consent in Indiana.

I thought we put the "marriage is for child bearing" thing to bed with the general acceptance of gay marriage.

Not to mention legally allowing women to marry anew beyond childbearing years. Or marriage of individuals who are infertile due to congenital conditions, injury, illness, or impending death.

Or those marry and choose to never have kids.

Or the example I used, which kinda echoes both of your thoughts.

Why do you think that this magical incantation of "consenting adults" means ANYTHING? Forces of progress have deconstructed all sorts of 'moral values'. Why should yours be immune to that same process?

You think today that minors can't consent. Yesterday lots of people thought gays couldn't marry. But the times, they are a changin'.

As for the animal foolishness, same observation as above. Only a matter of time.



YOU say consenting adults should be free... What is it with you folks who think the whole CA concept means anything? It means nothing. It's your personal moral standard. And sooner or later someone is going to argue that your morality infringes on his liberty. And since we all love liberty so much here, well, morality be d*mned, right? If it keeps us from doing what feels good.

And we all know that any limit on liberty is just plain un-Constitutional. Right?


The consenting adult bastion will stand until some federal district court strikes it down...

Consent is not the backbone of laws regarding sex? Is it not what makes or breaks an accusation of rape? If the reported victim did or did not consent, and have capacity to do so, without coercion of either force or chemical, is that not what makes it a rape vs., for lack of a better term, "screwer's remorse"? If the logic applies to rape, which is a crime of violence, not sex, SVOR notwithstanding, why would it not apply to sex between people?

Adultery is clearly immoral. It involves breaking solemn vows and violates the commandment in Exodus 20:24.

Adultery has a victim: the spouse, children

Adultery wreaks havoc on society. It promotes poverty and leaves children fatherless (and leads to depression, suicide, higher crime rates, substance abuse, etc., etc.....).

Adultery is far and away more destructive than incest. But hey, morality be d#mned, right? Can you smell the freedom?

PLEASE -- anyone who is trumpeting about government-imposed morals -- please break down the case for or against banning adultery.

I'm not sure I agree with you, re: which is more harmful. Personally, I abhor both, and thus would not participate in either. I took my vows and I stand by them, especially considering Who was a witness to my giving them. For me, that's the end of the discussion on that subject; even if I'm interested in someone else (and I'm not), it doesn't matter. I'm spoken for. Here's the question, though: If two adult couples decide to boink and swap spouses and whatever else they decide to do, solely between the four of them, and all are in agreement, should this qualify as adultery and should it in some way be banned or controlled?

Wow.

Will someone provide Cliffs Notes, or even just a list of the the pro-incest INGO whackjobs so I can go ahead and file them under "people I want nothing to do with". I really don't feel like sifting through this entire thread.

I think it's far less who is "pro-incest" and far more who is anti-semblence-of-government-control-of-who-boinks-whom.

Horn said it at the start of the thread.... having or not having the official paper is not going to change who boinks, any more than having or not having a restraining order protects a victim from his/her attacker.

Have your morality. I definitely have mine. There are things I consider repugnant and disgusting, but IMHO, it's just not my place nor yours (addressed to everyone, singly and collectively) to tell you or him or her or them with whom they're allowed to have sexual congress. Your own bedroom is your area of control. Everyone else's is theirs, together with their partner(s).

Trying to control incest by controlling marriage is like trying to control cholesterol by who gets a business license for a restaurant, when people can still make bacon at home.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[rambone]

I'm not sure I agree with you, re: which is more harmful. Personally, I abhor both, and thus would not participate in either. I took my vows and I stand by them, especially considering Who was a witness to my giving them. For me, that's the end of the discussion on that subject; even if I'm interested in someone else (and I'm not), it doesn't matter. I'm spoken for.

Let me quantify why adultery is more harmful to society.

Over 50% of American marriages end in divorce, and adultery is among the leading causes. I know tons of families that have been broken or deeply marred by adultery. I can't say the same for incest.

All these disjointed, single-parent families are at higher risk for all sorts of negative outcomes: depression, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, child abuse, child neglect, welfare dependency, crime, teen pregnancy, failure in school, poverty, poor health, and more. (source)

I'm not diminishing the dysfunction found in incestuous households, but they are far, far less common. Therefore, adultery is the clear winner for most destructive force on society.

On a moral level, I agree that they are both abhorrent.

P.S. For the purposes of this discussion, I have been referring to consensual incest, in case it wasn't clear. Like the story in the OP. Not any sort of rape.

Here's the question, though: If two adult couples decide to boink and swap spouses and whatever else they decide to do, solely between the four of them, and all are in agreement, should this qualify as adultery and should it in some way be banned or controlled?

Yes, it is clearly adultery, by every dictionary and religious definition. Voluntary adultery.

No, adultery should not be illegal. I have not been advocating for a legal ban. I only bring it up to test the logic of people who want to prohibit things because they are sins. They seem so quick to label me a depraved, immoral whacko for not desiring a law. But none of them want to use government to enforce the Ten Commandments. None have even admitted to wanting to ban adultery. There is no consistency in their argument.

 

[hornadylnl]

Let me quantify why adultery is more harmful to society.

Over 50% of American marriages end in divorce, and adultery is among the leading causes. I know tons of families that have been broken or deeply marred by adultery. I can't say the same for incest.

All these disjointed, single-parent families are at higher risk for all sorts of negative outcomes: depression, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, child abuse, child neglect, welfare dependency, crime, teen pregnancy, failure in school, poverty, poor health, and more. (source)

I'm not diminishing the dysfunction found in incestuous households, but they are far, far less common. Therefore, adultery is the clear winner for most destructive force on society.

On a moral level, I agree that they are both abhorrent.

P.S. For the purposes of this discussion, I have been referring to consensual incest, in case it wasn't clear. Like the story in the OP. Not any sort of rape.



Yes, it is clearly adultery, by every dictionary and religious definition. Voluntary adultery.

No, adultery should not be illegal. I have not been advocating for a legal ban. I only bring it up to test the logic of people who want to prohibit things because they are sins. They seem so quick to label me a depraved, immoral whacko for not desiring a law. But none of them want to use government to enforce the Ten Commandments. None have even admitted to wanting to ban adultery. There is no consistency in their argument.

And rather than explaining their lack of consistency, they resort to insinuating others engage in incest. Much like libs resort to the race card when they can't win a debate.

 

[oldpink]

Not wanting to legalize that which is not currently legal != wanting to pass a law to outlaw something that we "unreasonably" think of as "icky."
And *I* am the one here engaging in shoddy logic?

 

[rambone]

Not wanting to legalize[/n] that which is not currently legal != wanting to pass a law to outlaw something that we "unreasonably" think of as "icky."
And *I* am the one here engaging in shoddy logic?

Not only is it illegal in Indiana, it is a felony.


IC 35-46-1-3 Incest
Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 4 felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.
(b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if the marriage was valid where it was entered into.

 

[AA&E]

Naturally, the exact same people who only ten years ago scoffed at people like myself who said there would be homosexual marriage forced through the courts, the exact same people who have since become advocates for homosexual marriage, now scoff at people (again like myself) who will calmly point out that this is the next frontier in the marriage wars.
Up next: polygamy, marrying the dead, interspecies marriage, and marriage to inanimate objects
Yes, I'm being absurd, but that's what they said about what has now been forced upon us by the courts.
Love is love, right?
Right?

I think you make some valid points, we have seen similar battles waged regarding freedom of religion. Where once it was Christianity versus the rights of lesser known established religions, today it has become intentionally absurd with the intent of making a mockery out of the process. Case in point: The church established to worship a flying monster made of spaghetti.

The concept of tolerance is a good thing in my opinion, but you always have a few lunatics out there that wish to push the envelope and create nothing but havoc for the rest of us. I think you are expressing valid concerns.

 

[cobber]

P.S. For the purposes of this discussion, I have been referring to consensual incest, in case it wasn't clear. Like the story in the OP. Not any sort of rape.

Consensual incest? Got grooming? Consent or no?

Not only is it illegal in Indiana, it is a felony.


IC 35-46-1-3 Incest
Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 4 felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.
(b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if the marriage was valid where it was entered into.

Where's the lack of consent? So is this abhorrent to your concept as stated above? When can we anticipate the article in PoliceStateUsa about incest prosecutions where both parties consent?

As far as your points about adultery, we can't engage in religious discussions here, but there is that odd little NT concept called forgiveness. It does not imply sanctioning ongoing behavior, however. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Not wanting to legalize that which is not currently legal != wanting to pass a law to outlaw something that we "unreasonably" think of as "icky."
And *I* am the one here engaging in shoddy logic?

You are not. The other side is.

This thread has pretty well exposed not just a few of the liberty crowd who routinely employ SL. No need to take their mewling about civil liberties seriously any more.

Guess we failed their purity test.

 

[Mark 1911]

So do we create virtuous people by stroke of the pen?

By the way, I agre with the type of people we need but we may not agree on how to get there.

Before you assume that we disagree, I would never suggest that we can create virtuous people by the stroke of a pen. Law can not force virtue, but virtue can inspire law. My point is that virtue starts in the heart of the individual, and spreads through society from there. The goal is to have virtuous people as leaders and legislators.

 

[rambone]

Consensual incest? Got grooming? Consent or no?

Where's the lack of consent? So is this abhorrent to your concept as stated above?

Consent is what the law should be based on. Its stupid to single out the "biologically related" aspect.

A stepdad or an uncle-in-law has no biological relation to a child. What if they are in the focus of the controversy? They could just as easily "groom" the child.

Child predators can be punished through child molestation laws. But if its about kissing cousins or the story you posted in the OP, leave the government out of it. I don't care and I don't want to pay for it.

As far as your points about adultery, we can't engage in religious discussions here, but there is that odd little NT concept called forgiveness. It does not imply sanctioning ongoing behavior, however. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Hate the sin. But we are not required to legally ban sins; we are not required to live in a Theocracy. When J.C. encountered a prostitute is at the well, He didn't summon the authorities to teach her the error of her ways. That's a cop-out.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Wait, so because a law is on the books its not an infringement on liberty? Huh. Why is that not applied to all the gun laws, Obamacare, etc? Why'd we get rid of the ban on switchblades in Indiana, it was the law after all and couldn't be an overreach of government based on fear and no real harm. (Any rise in switchblade related crimes since the law was repealed?"

Society has routinely wielded government to enforce bedroom behavior norms. The Indiana Territory made sodomy an offense punishable by death. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most everyone reading this has engaged in an act that would have legally been considered sodomy with a willing partner at some point in their lives. Now you can give or receive oral and not swing for it, so obviously society has gone downhill and people who support that right just want to watch society burn.

In the 70s, you could be charged for a handy (aka feloniously and purposely commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2001213/state-v-lopez/

So, who wants to bring back those laws back, a felony for a handy or oral? They are, after all, an abominable and detestable crime against nature. Bring them back or you just want to watch society burn. No moral code in you.