Incest rears its ugly head

[HoughMade]

This topic just got interesting again.

lurking

 

[KLB]

 

[Denny347]

Sodom and Gomorrah...

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.

 

[Bill of Rights]

BBI, with respect, he didn't say the law was good or bad, he simply said that it was a law, and that it was a felony, just as you pointed out that at times throughout history, society has wielded government to enforce bedroom behaviors. I think, if I understand ram correctly, he's saying the law is an overreach... not that the act is OK, but simply that it's not government's place to speak on this issue. Again, if two people... say, brother and sister, both incapable of becoming parents by some means, choose to marry, should this be forbidden by law, and if so, why? For that matter, given recent legal changes, what about two sisters, fertility notwithstanding? The argument is not about children in these cases, nor is it about grooming. Maybe each of them is just the only person their sibling has ever trusted, which is a sad commentary too, but immaterial.

The law is the law, but that doesn't make the law correct. We all know a bunch of laws that are not, NFA and GCA being the two main ones.



Blessings,
Bill

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 (Any rise in switchblade related crimes since the law was repealed?"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.

 

[rambone]

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.

Was this directed at me? I agreed with you upthread.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Was this directed at me? I agreed with you upthread.

No.

 

[oldpink]

I can just see it now: Millions of people march on each statehouse to advocate for recognition of marriage between relatives closer than second cousins.
Yeah, nothing absurd about that...until a group of self-described "civil rights activists" gets together to do exactly that.
...with the ACLU joining, as they always do.

 

[HoughMade]

Your mistake in this hypothetical is thinking that anyone cares about using the legislative process. You know, that quaint notion that underpins the concept of a representative republic? We're not so much into that any more.

 

[oldpink]

Your mistake in this hypothetical is thinking that anyone cares about using the legislative process.

True dat.
Of late, the preferred way is to get just enough lawyers wearing black robes to use the wave of their royal scepter and stroke of a pen to declare that the law doesn't really say what it says.

 

[hornadylnl]

Your mistake in this hypothetical is thinking that anyone cares about using the legislative process.

The mistake is thinking that conservatives give a **** about states rights when the state wants less control over the actions of individuals. Where's the conservative states rights battle cry regarding legalization of pot in the states? But if the state's want to limit action, they're all about it.

 

[oldpink]

...because liberty!
That's what it is to be part of that crowd.
You don't even have to think, just throw around slogans, and be an absolutist, no matter how ludicrous you make yourself look.
And if you don't, well...TYRANNY!

 

[hornadylnl]

...because liberty!
That's what it is to be part of that crowd.
You don't even have to think, just throw around slogans, and be an absolutist, no matter how ludicrous you make yourself look.
And if you don't, well...TYRANNY!

Of course you don't have to think in a society that tells you how you must live.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The mistake is thinking that conservatives give a **** about states rights when the state wants less control over the actions of individuals. Where's the conservative states rights battle cry regarding legalization of pot in the states? But if the state's want to limit action, they're all about it.

I'm all for it. (as a constitutional conservative).

I would vote against it. But if the other side won...I'd rather things of this nature be decided by the people than by quasi-consttitutional-amendment by some judge.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Of course you don't have to think in a society that tells you how you must live.

That makes life comfortably easy for some.

 

[MAJB Retired]

Damn

And it's taken this long....

Damn...I had a first cousin that was REALLY HOT!

 

[Denny347]

I can just see it now: Millions of people march on each statehouse to advocate for recognition of marriage between relatives closer than second cousins.
Yeah, nothing absurd about that...until a group of self-described "civil rights activists" gets together to do exactly that.
...with the ACLU joining, as they always do.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Lots of histrionics, still no one who can tell me who the victim is.

If morals are absolute and independent of custom are we the lucky ones who live in the golden age of just enough debauchery? The perfect balance of vice and virtue? If not, when was the high point in sexual ethics achieved?

 

[jamil]

Lots of histrionics, still no one who can tell me who the victim is.

If morals are absolute and independent of custom are we the lucky ones who live in the golden age of just enough debauchery? The perfect balance of vice and virtue? If not, when was the high point in sexual ethics achieved?

I think the argument is that even if there isn't necessarily an individual victim, humanity is the victim. That, society should have some standards of right and wrong behavior, apart from individual victims, so that some behaviors don't become normal. But is society really a victim if there are no laws against incest? I mean, it's not like if there's no law against it, every dad will screw his daughter. Right? Because that's morally wrong. Right?

In the case the OP presented, a father had sex with his estranged 16 year old daughter one week after reuniting. I'm sure to everyone here, even mrjarrell, that's pretty ****ed up. At least I hope you think that's ****ed up. It's not like everyone will stop thinking that's ****ed up just because government doesn't make a law against it.

What's really ****ed up about the OP's cited case, the father's family is just fine with it. Maybe he's had prior experience? The mother's family is at least sane.

 

[nakinate]

Lots of histrionics, still no one who can tell me who the victim is.

If morals are absolute and independent of custom are we the lucky ones who live in the golden age of just enough debauchery? The perfect balance of vice and virtue? If not, when was the high point in sexual ethics achieved?

I asserted that in a father/daughter case that the daughter could easily be the victim. The father has the most formative years of his daughter's life to groom her for an incestuous relationship.

Aside from parent/child relationships I have no argument for there being a victim.

 

[nakinate]