Incest rears its ugly head

[jamil]

... That is exactly right. This is a simple question and a simple issue. I must have a firm belief about every issue. I must always take a side. Is that a law? ...

OMG! You don't have a preference! Just take a stand! You MUST TAKE A STAND! EVERY hill is the hill to die on! Why do you hate liberty?!

HoughMade, I know you have posted a lot without taking a side. Why not dive in and commit? Do you think incest should be illegal?

(Do you hate liberty? lol )

In other words you won't commit.

It's a simple yes or no question. Or is your opinion determined by who pays your fee?

See guys, this is why a lot of people think libertarians are crazy. It's not always black and white. It's not always yes or no. Sometimes, it's I don't really give a ****, so let the people who do give a **** decide. Why the feeding frenzy? Sheesh.

 

[hornadylnl]

OMG! You don't have a preference! Just take a stand! You MUST TAKE A STAND! EVERY hill is the hill to die on! Why do you hate liberty?!








See guys, this is why a lot of people think libertarians are crazy. It's not always black and white. It's not always yes or no. Sometimes, it's I don't really give a ****, so let the people who do give a **** decide. Why the feeding frenzy? Sheesh.

Taking the time to make 39 posts ardently defending the status quo hardly seems like an issue that you're undecided about.

 

[jamil]

Taking the time to make 39 posts ardently defending the status quo hardly seems like an issue that you're undecided about.

Oh jeez. here we go. Must there always be a boogie man to harangue?

I think he's stated what was important to him. Is that not good enough? He didn't say he didn't give a **** about whether states get to decide. He said he didn't give a **** about what they end up deciding, based on morality or not, as long as they GET to decide.

 

[HoughMade]

Taking the time to make 39 posts ardently defending the status quo hardly seems like an issue that you're undecided about.

I will always ardently defend against judicial activism, arbitrarily creating new Constitutional rights and denigrating the legislative process. What the result is when the legislative process is used, in this case, makes no difference to me. There are things I care passionately about- not twisting the legal process to fit one's own personal beliefs, but rather using that process as it was intended, is one of them. I believe in the power of the ballot box and representative government. It's harder work than just convincing a few judges to transform their personal preference into law, but that's the way the system is supposed​ to work.

I am willing to take your word that your 77 posts ardently arguing against anti-incest laws is based on principle and not personal interest. You will not extend the same courtesy?

 

[hornadylnl]

I will always ardently defend against judicial activism, arbitrarily creating new Constitutional rights and denigrating the legislative process. What the result is when the legislative process is used, in this case, makes no difference to me. There are things I care passionately about- not twisting the legal process to fit one's own personal beliefs, but rather using that process as it was intended, is one of them.

I am willing to take your word that your 77 posts ardently arguing against anti-incest laws is based on principle and not personal interest. You will not extend the same courtesy?

So where is marriage in the bill of rights and the regulatory power to force 49 other states to honor your marriage license? Or was it judicial activism that applied the full faith and credit clause to marriage?

 

[HoughMade]

I've addressed that.

Suffice to say, I rather doubt we will agree about this.

 

[hornadylnl]

When you can provide evidence that incestual marriage itself was historically recognized as a fundamental right the Constitution was drafted to protect, then you may have a point.

I've addressed that.

Suffice to say, I rather doubt we will agree about this.

What an address it was.

 

[HoughMade]

What an address it was.

Yes. The original intent of the Constitution guides me on this. If it wasn't contemplated as enacted, amend the Constitution if you want Constitutional protection. However, none of this stuff requires a Constitutional amendment if we simply allow states to make their own decisions as the Constitution contemplates in all matters except the matters specifically delegated to the federal government. I favor states deciding this issue on their own. I've said this over and over.

Again, throw out any question ignoring what I've already explained, like I said, we aren't going to agree.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes. The original intent of the Constitution guides me on this. If it wasn't contemplated as enacted, amend the Constitution if you want Constitutional protection. However, none of this stuff require a Constitutional amendment. I favor states deciding this issue on their own. I've said this over and over.

Again, throw out any question ignoring what I've already explained, like I said, we aren't going to agree.

The 49 other states don't have the right to deny your marriage but they don't have to accept the gay marriage of another state. So it's the half-full faith and credit clause.

 

[rambone]

See guys, this is why a lot of people think libertarians are crazy. It's not always black and white. It's not always yes or no. Sometimes, it's I don't really give a ****, so let the people who do give a **** decide. Why the feeding frenzy? Sheesh.

If someone says "I'm apathetic" or "I have no rationale" then I accept their answer. The debate can continue politely among people willing to discuss philosophy and politics. (People who care how their taxes are spent.)

Also, I speak only for myself. I don't presume to speak for any group and you shouldn't either.

 

[Arthur Dent]

That is exactly right. This is a simple question and a simple issue. I must have a firm belief about every issue. I must always take a side. Is that a law?

As for the Level 5 felony statute....I feel the same way as the marriage statute. It is within the power of the state to regulate this and it is a proper to be subjected to the legislative process. People who feel one way or the other should let their legislators know. I am perfectly fine with this issue being driven by people who have strong beliefs in this area one way or the other. I don't. I am perfectly fine with the notion that some things that are morally abhorrent to me are legal. Likewise, I understand why why some people may feel like it is important to have these laws for more than just personal belief issues. Some of these reasons have been articulated above. Some people think these reasons are valid, others do not. As I said, it's a matter for the legislature and for people who feel passionately one way or the other. I am not one of those people.

Then if you have no opinion on the subject why are you bothering with this thread?

 

[oldpink]

[video=youtube;lLCEUpIg8rE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE[/video]

...to schtup your own daughter, apparently.

 

[zippy23]

This is simple guys, incest is yucky. case closed. Anyways, i'm not sure about this but isnt it banned because of genetic issues that arise from doing it with relatives? Ask people you know who are in favor of gay marriage if they also favor incest. It will boggle their mind. If they say incest is bad, then tell them they discriminate against two consenting adults and therefore are bigots and hateful racists. You will make them extremely mad, since they cant win the argument. This is why the states have the right to determine this. This isn't a constitutional issue. Its great to use, for example, a 50 year old man and his 25 year old son wanting to get married, or a 50 year old mom and her son want to have a kid. If they are ok with this, well then yucky. Most of the time they will trash talk you and leave you with no answer. Its hilarious.

 

[JS1911]

It's certainly not my way, (Personally, I find the very idea to be abhorrent) but I don't think that the gov. should be the morality police. IF the two seem happy together, it's really none of my business.

 

[cobber]

It's certainly not my way, (Personally, I find the very idea to be abhorrent) but I don't think that the gov. should be the morality police. IF the two seem happy together, it's really none of my business.

Nobody was advocating laws one way or the other. How can a society that has established 'love' as the guiding principle of human interrelationships then justify parsing 'love' into the sacred and the profane.

Jonah Goldberg addresses this in NR, obliquely.

China Syndrome Liberalism | National Review Online

Near the end of his life Charles Beard started to understand the problem he and the pragmatists had unleashed. By launching a “crusade against standards,” in the words of J. Allen Smith, liberals left themselves ill-equipped to enforce universal standards of their own. “These people are talking the relativism which will ruin liberalism yet,” Beard said of the new generation of liberals. “Don’t they know that the means can make the ends? Don’t they realize that their method of arguing can justify anything? I wish we could find some way of getting rid of conservative morality without having these youngsters drop all morality.”

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Jonah Goldberg addresses this in NR, obliquely.

China Syndrome Liberalism | National Review Online

Good read.

 

[oldpink]

Yep
Goldberg is nearly always worth reading.

 

[nakinate]

Welcome back Franken-thread!

 

[HoughMade]

Welcome back Franken-thread!

Wait....what?

 

[Denny347]

Something else rears its ugly head....this thread!!!!!