Thursday, December 16, 2010

The next thing to go, care of same-sex "marriage" advocates: Incest laws

The cultural barbarians are at the gates, pressing their irresistible logic. Now that we are subjecting things like same-sex "marriage" to the "rational basis" test in courts, why not also apply it to incest? Here is Eugene Volokh, already asking the questions that, if we follow the logic of those who are pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage, will bring incest laws down as well:

Given the recent news story about father-adult daughter incest, I thought I’d ask a few questions about adult-adult incest (speaking specifically of parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, or brother-sister, and setting aside cousins and the like):

(1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)? Because it involves a heightened risk of birth defects (a view I’m skeptical about, given that we don’t criminalize sex by carriers of genes that make serious hereditary disease much more likely than incest does)?

(2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre–Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing incest? Is it that bans on gay sex are irrational but bans on adult incest are rational, and rationality is all that’s required for regulations of adult sex? Is it that bans on gay sex don’t pass strict scrutiny (or some such demanding test) but bans on adult incest do? Is it that Lawrence rested on the fact that bans on gay sex largely foreclose all personally meaningful sexual relationships for those who are purely homosexual in orientation, whereas incest bans only foreclose a few possible sexual partners?
Read the rest here, if you have the stomach. And if your stomach is strong, read the comments.

20 comments:

One Brow said...

Most of the liberals are citing things like the overarching family dynamic that interferes with an abiltiy to form genuine consent, and are opposed to incest on that basis. I tend to agree.

Martin Cothran said...

What is it about the family dynamic that interferes with genuine consent?

KyCobb said...

There is a very good article in Slate which discusses the difference between incest and homosexuality. With incest, there is a pre-existing family dynamic which is seriously disrupted by incestuous relations. Thus there is a rational basis for prohibiting incest which doesn't exist in regards to homosexual relationships between unrelated persons.

Which reminds me, Martin. Awhile back you told me that you could provide me with rational, secular reasons for opposing same-sex marriages, but you never did. Can you tell me what they are now?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I believe I posted the link to Anthony Esolen's article on same-sex marriage to answer your question, since he goes over ten of them (actually I think they are continued in a second article in Touchstone with I never linked to, but which you can find at Touchstone's website)

But I'm still curious about these family dynamics that incest disrupts and why they are any more significant than the biological factors that are disrupted by same-sex practices--not to mention the inter-gender dynamics it disrupts.

Singring said...

'biological factors that are disrupted by same-sex practices'

Which are?

Oh...right, I forgot. They're 'self-evident'.

Personally, I do not object to any consensual, mutually agrred upon sexual relationship.

However, I do think both incest and sexual relationships between minors and adults in general should not be legal.

Why?

In the case of minors with adults we have good reason to assume that the relationship is in fact not consensual because and adult will have a position of authority and be able to influence the minor in ways he or she does not necessarily realize.

In the case of incest, the same applies - even if both individuals are older than 18. A parent or a older sibling will be in a perfect position to influence the partner in ways he or she does not realize or is not equipped to counter.

Therefore, to protect minors and family members from such manipulation and in that sense abuse, it should not be allowed.

I fail to see how this is on any way related to gay sex, however.

Now, Martin, I would love to hear your reasons for objecting to incest. After all, it fits all of your criteria for a 'marriage':

Heterosexual? Check.

Genitals used as to their 'purpose'. Check.

Reproduction possible? Check.

So, Martin - why do YOU oppose legal incest?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So, Martin - why do YOU oppose legal incest?

For the same reason I oppose cannibalism: it's icky.

Martin Cothran said...

And for the same reason you accept induction and causation: because it's self-evident.

Singring said...

'For the same reason I oppose cannibalism: it's icky.'

I am so glad to see that you are now comfortable with accepting your moral relativism, Martin.

Singring said...

'And for the same reason you accept induction and causation: because it's self-evident.'

I don't accept causation or induction because they are self-evident.

I accept the former to the extent that is is supported by evidence and the latter to the extent that it proves useful.

By the way, it is once again ironic that you try to distort my position on causality while Thomas' most recent attempt to show that the universe is contingent has stalled once again.

P.S.:

Do you think that sheltering pedophiles is 'icky' too?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Yes, you have explained to me your position that induction can be justified by appealing to induction. But I remain unimpressed by circular arguments.

And you still haven't explained how appealing to intuition is relativistic. I believe absolutely that my intuitions are correct.

And on what do you base your opposition to incest, assuming you oppose it.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I thought you had a family, so I have trouble believing that you can't understand how incest would disrupt normal family relationships. I suggest you read the Slate article I mentioned. I also don't understand how you think one couple's homosexual relationship would disrupt a different couple's heterosexual relationship. I will try to find the article you referenced.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

It doesn't look like Touchstone provides free links to those two Esolen articles.

Singring said...

'And on what do you base your opposition to incest, assuming you oppose it.'

Since I already laid out why I do I simply have to assume that you have stopped even bothering to read my posts.

'But I remain unimpressed by circular arguments.'

I know you would you like it better if I claimed it was 'self-evident'.

'And you still haven't explained how appealing to intuition is relativistic. I believe absolutely that my intuitions are correct.'

This explain a lot. It explains for example why you think that a cold winter in the UK is evidence against GW when it is the opposite.

Reading your comments makes me confident that I will have a bright academic future if the competition from the US I am going up against has received education on this kind of level.

'Hey kids! No need to open a book today - just go by your intuition and you know the truth! The earth looks flat? Then that must be true!'

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Let's go over the inaccuracies, overstatements, and bad inferences in your post, shall we?

I know you would you like it better if I claimed it was 'self-evident'.

At least then it wouldn't be circular.

Martin Cothran said...

It explains for example why you think that a cold winter in the UK is evidence against GW when it is the opposite.

Where did I argue on the basis of the UK weather than temperatures were not increasing globally? Never happened. It is purely your confusion between weather and climate that caused this misinterpretation, which is ironic, given that you Warmers are the ones who are always lecturing everyone else not to confuse them.

I mentioned these things--and will continue to do so--to lure unsuspecting warmers into doing this same thing again and again, and showing that, while every time someone mentions a cold weather event, the Warmers jump all over it and accuse those who report them of confusing weather an climate. But whenever a warm weather event is reported, there is all of a sudden no distinction between weather and climate.

You all fall for it every time.

Singring said...

Martin, you are a grand-master of backpedaling, I'll give you that.

You could write a post titled 'Moon is made of curdled milk!' and when someone pointed out to you that it is in fact made of rock, you would say 'I never said it was made of cheese! Never happened! ou guys fall for it every time...'.

It is pathetic behaviour and not worthy of someone purporting to hold an advanced education.

Singring said...

'It is purely your confusion between weather and climate that caused this misinterpretation'

LOL. Yeah - I'M the one confusing weather with climate...let me quote your post in question:

'Now we go back to Global War ..., er, I mean Climate Change alarmists to explain why this is evidence for Global Warming...'

So in fact it was YOU who cited a local weather event and claimed it was significant in the context of global climate.

Put you keep right on digging that hole Martin. Its terribly entertaining and just keeps setting up the bll for another goal kick.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

There is an easy way to justify your charge. Just find the place where I said there is no global warming. I have provided you with a Google search on my main page.

Go ahead. You have a chance to actually prove the truth of your charge.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Maybe you haven't been around this blog long enough to understand my position. I have never said Global Warming isn't happening. What I have done is asked the question how a position on Global Warming can be considered scientific when it is not falsifiable, since all evidence is seen as confirming it.

Singring said...

'I have never said Global Warming isn't happening.'

And I never said I don;t believe in God. See how these things work, Martin?

I can;t belive you hold your readers in such low esteem that you will make these ridiculous excuses, as if we were to stupid to read.

What was your most recent post about the UK winter meant to do but counter GW? It had nothing to do with the falsifiability of GW and it linked to Watt's GW denialist site that does nothing but claim that GW is not happening.

'What I have done is asked the question how a position on Global Warming can be considered scientific when it is not falsifiable, since all evidence is seen as confirming it.'

It is not falsifiable? What an absurd statement! Of course it is falsifiable! If we had clear evidence showing that CO2 is not correlated with warming, that would falsify anthropogenic warming. If we had global cooling over the course of a couple of decades that would falsify GW.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. This year will be among the top 3 if not the warmest year on record!