Anyone for G@y Marriage but against Incest?

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]I take it you expect me to write an entire report about all the ins and outs of the illegality of incest then? And I'm using psychological reasoning. Not legal reasoning. I've posted reports and tests concerning the problems that a person in an insensual relationship has later in life earlier in this thread.Vandalvideo

And I'm waiting for your proof of your earlier statement that most incestual relationships are consensual relationships between adults.

My dismissing one legal reasoning is not in itself a statement that there is no legal reasoning sufficient behind the law itself. Merely because Bumfluff's explanation fails does not mean that the law itself lacks sufficient reasoning. For all you know, I could be aware of the true legal reasoning behind it, but I'm merely engaging in an effort to show just how presumptuous many people are towards the law. Once again, My mere dismissal of some legal reasonings is not sufficient ground to claim the law lacks all legal reasoning. As far as my dismissal of anothe person's claim the law was reasonable, that was entirely reliant on the reasoning that they gave in that particular post. In both of these instances, I am not saying the law is unreasonable, I'm saying these individuals, with their interpretations of the law are unreasonable.Vandalvideo

I have heard a plethora of reasons behind the illegality of incest and the basic ones are what bumfluff brought up. Those got dismissed. Therefore our law is now devoid of reasoning.

And if you do know the real reasoning just mention it in a few words. Why would you not educate us?

I get it; being diplomatic gives one the ticket to criticise a law, and the rest that havent learned the trick will be advised to not speak ill of the law.....

>__>

I would not, because it would take me a good 30 pages to explain the legal reasoning, if there were one, behind incest and homosexual marriage laws. It is not prudent to do so in these forums. Then again, my arguments don't call for me to give such legal reasoning. I'm merely arguing the ones given in this thread fail the test.Vandalvideo

Why not? You did give an explanation of how the brightline rule refutes Bumfluffs reasoning and you elaborated a lot. Whats different here?

I'll save you the trouble: the brightline rule is not applied in every law. Perhaps in theory, but in practice it doesnt.

]You stated something similar to "You are taking away someone elses rights beacuse of what a small portion of the people do". Which brings up another question, only a small portion fo people murder. Why then it is illegal to murder? If only a small portion of the population do it you are taking other people's right to murder away.BumFluff122

I have heard a plethora of reasons behind the illegality of incest and the basic ones are what bumfluff brought up. Those got dismissed. Therefore our law is now devoid of reasoning.Teenaged

And if you do know the real reasoning just mention it in a few words. Why would you not educate us?

I get it; being diplomatic gives one the ticket to criticise a law, and the rest that havent learned the trick will be advised to not speak ill of the law.....

Why not? You did give an explanation of how the brightline rule refutes Bumfluffs reasoning and you elaborated a lot. Whats different here?

I'll save you the trouble: the brightline rule is not applied in every law. Perhaps in theory, but in practice it doesnt.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]You are trying to win an argument by taking away the true explanation of why it is illegal. I'm curious as to your statement though. where exactly is your evidence that more incestuous relationships aren't a result of a screwed up childhood? As for your statements regarding physical deformities, if you have a subscription to pubmned (it was the first link on the list) you can read about a study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2077135 and if you don't you can still look at the short version and see the results.Vandalvideo

I absolutely love this post, and all your subsequent posts...hell, i think i might even love you a little bit too :P

Although, I would say the proximity test is perhaps not as flawed as you suggest. If you consider proximity to encompass physical, emotional and psychological proximity (as it kind of does in the UK), then perhaps it might have a bit of a better case. But you are still correct.

[QUOTE="dog64"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

]Canada has a law that states it is illegal for an adult over the age of consent and within a certain age bracket to be in a relationship with someone if that person they are in a relationship with is the same person that they are acting as a fatherly figure towards. The reason is the same as I've been stating.

BumFluff122

And I agree with that law. But my point is that not all types of incest are illegal, at least in the U.S. It seems some types of incest are more acceptable that other types, it depends on who's involved.

I'm not too familiar with Canada law, but I read that the age of consent there can be as low as 14. Is that correct?

Yeah, those are the same numbers I've seen. For some reason a lot of people think that the consensual age in the U.S. is 18 for the entire country, but the truth is that only a few have it at 18. Yet you'll find that many people freak out if someone a little older even dates someone under 18 here. I think the term pedophile is used too loosily. Either way, this thread is about incest not pedophilia, so I'll stop :P

I do think that incest is gross in many cases, but I also think that if the two are of consensual age, then it's their right to choose who they love.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]You stated something similar to "You are taking away someone elses rights beacuse of what a small portion of the people do". Which brings up another question, only a small portion fo people murder. Why then it is illegal to murder? If only a small portion of the population do it you are taking other people's right to murder away.Vandalvideo

It's not faulty. It is showing you how certain laws are built around what a small percentage of the population do and attribute it to the entire population because of it's effects. Why is gay marriage illegal in certain states? Why is monogamy illegal? Why is it illegal to walk around naked in the park? It is all because of what a small percentage of the population do.BumFluff122

Yeah, those are the same numbers I've seen. For some reason a lot of people think that the consensual age in the U.S. is 18 for the entire country, but the truth is that only a few have it at 18. Yet you'll find that many people freak out if someone a little older even dates someone under 18 here. I think the term pedophile is used too loosily. Either way, this thread is about incest not pedophilia, so I'll stop :P

I do think that incest is gross in many cases, but I also think that if the two are of consensual age, then it's their right to choose who they love.

dog64

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]You stated something similar to "You are taking away someone elses rights beacuse of what a small portion of the people do". Which brings up another question, only a small portion fo people murder. Why then it is illegal to murder? If only a small portion of the population do it you are taking other people's right to murder away.BumFluff122

the difference is all the circumstances you name are prima facie harmful, albeit in different ways, and to different extents. Incest is not prima facie harmful, and yet is banned because some incest IS harmful.

[QUOTE="dog64"]

Yeah, those are the same numbers I've seen. For some reason a lot of people think that the consensual age in the U.S. is 18 for the entire country, but the truth is that only a few have it at 18. Yet you'll find that many people freak out if someone a little older even dates someone under 18 here. I think the term pedophile is used too loosily. Either way, this thread is about incest not pedophilia, so I'll stop :P

I do think that incest is gross in many cases, but I also think that if the two are of consensual age, then it's their right to choose who they love.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]It's not faulty. It is showing you how certain laws are built around what a small percentage of the population do and attribute it to the entire population because of it's effects. Why is gay marriage illegal in certain states? Why is monogamy illegal? Why is it illegal to walk around naked in the park? It is all because of what a small percentage of the population do.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Faulty analogy. Every murderer murders. Not every incestual relationship must be manipulative. shaunk89

the difference is all the circumstances you name are prima facie harmful, albeit in different ways, and to different extents. Incest is not prima facie harmful, and yet is banned because some incest IS harmful.

1. Absolutely wrong. Merely because I disproved the legal reasonings on this board does not mean that the law itself lacks legal reasoning. There could be an independent legal reasoning which simply has not been presented in this thread yet of which all off-topic posters are ignorant. It is not so that merely because everyone here is wrong, that there is no legal reasoning. You are assuming that what is posted here is representative of all legal reasoning.

2. Because my arguments do not call for that, and it would be a disservice to the law to try and present the explanation, if it exists, in laymens terms. I am merely saying that you all fail the test, not that there is no right answer.

3. I have not yet criticized the law itself. I have criticized your flawed legal reasonings. Big difference.

4. I gave an explanation of one legal mechanic. To give a brief about an entire legal principle would take massive ammounts of effort to compile the data and present it in such a way that is understandeable to off-topic. But, again, my arguments do not call for such an effort.

5. Wrong, it most certainly is. If you fail the brightline test, you fail as a law.Vandalvideo

1. "Could be"? Dont you think you'd have to actually show that legal reasoning that could exist in order to convince someone. Mere claims or presenting possibilities are not worth much you know.

2. Your arguments do call for it because by presenting the supposed reasoning you refute Bumfluff on the spot (IF of course the supposed existing reasoning is true by the standards of the brightline rule). Why would it be a disservice to the law if you explained the reasoning?

3. 'My' flawed reasoning? I made no argument in regards to laws. Just me own personal reasoning which I didnt claim to be objective or law-defining. I explained how your refutation constitutes dissaproving of the law, since with present knowledge without the dismissed reasoning the law is devoidof any kind of reasoning. You will have to present some reasoning.

4. I didnt tell you to explain a whole principle. Just the reasoning behind this certain law. Is there one? Its a simple question.

5. Repeating it doesnt make it true.

_________________________

Use numbers please.

Also, a psychological account of why any given activity is illegal isn't really valid in pretty much any scenario. There are almost no actions which have been made illegal because they cause psychiatric harm on the victim. Psychiatric harm as a valid legal harm has only come into the law relatively recently, with the expansion of medical science and its improved diagnostic abilities.

The crime of incest pre-dates this development of psychiatric harm as legal harm, and so I do not see how you can justify its illegality on these grounds. Although, I am, as ever, open to persuasion.

1. "Could be"? Dont you think you'd have to actually show that legal reasoning that could exist in order to convince someone. Mere claims or presenting possibilities are not worth much you know.Teenaged

2. Your arguments do call for it because by presenting the supposed reasoning you refute Bumfluff on the spot (IF of course the supposed existing reasoning is true by the standards of the brightline rule).

Why would it be a disservice to the law if you explained the reasoning?

3. 'My' flawed reasoning? I made no argument in regards to laws. Just me own personal reasoning which I didnt claim to be objective. I explained how your refutation constitutes dissaproving of the law, since with present knowledge without the dismissed reasoning the law is devoidof any kind of reasoning. You will have to present some reasoning.

4. I didnt tell you to explain a whole principle. Just the reasoning behind this certain law. Is there one? Its a simple question.

5. Repeating it doesnt make it true.

]I'm still interested in seeing percentages. BumFluff122

IF you know the real reasoning behind why incest is illegal then why don't you share it instead of arguing against everyone elses thoughts on the matter?

You stated before that you know and I know that you are a lawyer or in law school. At least I think that's what you stated. I'm pretty sure that all it would require would be one or two setences.

[QUOTE="shaunk89"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]It's not faulty. It is showing you how certain laws are built around what a small percentage of the population do and attribute it to the entire population because of it's effects. Why is gay marriage illegal in certain states? Why is monogamy illegal? Why is it illegal to walk around naked in the park? It is all because of what a small percentage of the population do.

BumFluff122

the difference is all the circumstances you name are prima facie harmful, albeit in different ways, and to different extents. Incest is not prima facie harmful, and yet is banned because some incest IS harmful.

I think you mean "polygamy" my friend.

To those who make the laws (who do not necessarily share my personal views):

Polygamy is harmful in that it subjectifies one set of spouses (usually the wives) to the other, rather than being a mutual partnership as in conventional marriage.

Gay marriage is harmful in that it erodes the strength of legal marriage, by making it excessively available. It also precludes from the production of biological offspring. Any offspring produced potentially suffer from having two same-sex parents.

Public nudity is harmful simply because people find it offensive, diisruptive, and inappropriate.

While you may disagree with the reasons themselves (perhaps "prima facie" was a poor choice of words), they all apply universally to all instantiations of the actions.

Also, a psychological account of why any given activity is illegal isn't really valid in pretty much any scenario. There are almost no actions which have been made illegal because they cause psychiatric harm on the victim. Psychiatric harm as a valid legal harm has only come into the law relatively recently, with the expansion of medical science and its improved diagnostic abilities.

The crime of incest pre-dates this development of psychiatric harm as legal harm, and so I do not see how you can justify its illegality on these grounds. Although, I am, as ever, open to persuasion.

shaunk89

You know, Stephen Hawking can present even quantum physics in layman's terms. Is he leaving a lot of important stuff out of the explanation? Sure. Does it serve to get the overall concept across to laymen? Absolutely.

Seriously, "I know the real reason, but I can't tell you because you wouldn't understand it" is lame.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]

1. Absolutely wrong. Merely because I disproved the legal reasonings on this board does not mean that the law itself lacks legal reasoning. There could be an independent legal reasoning which simply has not been presented in this thread yet of which all off-topic posters are ignorant. It is not so that merely because everyone here is wrong, that there is no legal reasoning. You are assuming that what is posted here is representative of all legal reasoning.

2. Because my arguments do not call for that, and it would be a disservice to the law to try and present the explanation, if it exists, in laymens terms. I am merely saying that you all fail the test, not that there is no right answer.

3. I have not yet criticized the law itself. I have criticized your flawed legal reasonings. Big difference.

4. I gave an explanation of one legal mechanic. To give a brief about an entire legal principle would take massive ammounts of effort to compile the data and present it in such a way that is understandeable to off-topic. But, again, my arguments do not call for such an effort.

5. Wrong, it most certainly is. If you fail the brightline test, you fail as a law.Teenaged

1. "Could be"? Dont you think you'd have to actually show that legal reasoning that could exist in order to convince someone. Mere claims or presenting possibilities are not worth much you know.

2. Your arguments do call for it because by presenting the supposed reasoning you refute Bumfluff on the spot (IF of course the supposed existing reasoning is true by the standards of the brightline rule). Why would it be a disservice to the law if you explained the reasoning?

3. 'My' flawed reasoning? I made no argument in regards to laws. Just me own personal reasoning which I didnt claim to be objective or law-defining. I explained how your refutation constitutes dissaproving of the law, since with present knowledge without the dismissed reasoning the law is devoidof any kind of reasoning. You will have to present some reasoning.

4. I didnt tell you to explain a whole principle. Just the reasoning behind this certain law. Is there one? Its a simple question.

5. Repeating it doesnt make it true.

_________________________

Use numbers please.

To attempt to mediate, I am going to have a quick look on LexisNexis and Westlaw, and try to see what the actual law is. Maybe then I can work out what the reasoning behind incest law is (in the UK at least), and then perhaps explain.

just because I love you guys.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]I'm still interested in seeing percentages. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]I'm still interested in seeing percentages. BumFluff122

1. Until you show that something is definitely not the case, it may still be. No one in this thread has shown that it cannot be legally sound. So it may still be sound.

2. The existance of another legal reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with Bumfluff's legal reasoning. The test is the brightline rule. It is applied to ALL laws. If it fails the test, it fails as a law. Bumfluff's reasoning fails. It is not the reasoning for the law. This has nothing to do with wether or not there are other sources of reasoning.

3. Because a lot of the reaosning would be left behind in my translation to laymens.

4. Your flawed reasoning is that, because i disproved all the other reasonings, that there are no reasonings. That is most certainly flawed. There may still be other reasonings even IF those fail.

5. That is what a legal principle is to begin with; a body of legal reasoning explaining a legal phenomenon.

6. Same for you, but I have more authority on the matter.Vandalvideo

1. But when all possible known reasons have failed dont you think its an obligation of a person that supports the law to provide with the reasoning? Wont that even contribute in people not speaking ill of the law? If people know the reasoning behind a law its more likely that they dont speak ill of it. So why dont you tell us what the reasoning is?

2. Yes it does. By showing the valid reasoning of the law, you defy his reasoning on the spot. It would help your argument. Not saying that the brightline rule is not enough but its deffinetely not irrelevant to show us the true reasoning behind it.

3. Dont try to present it as if its impossible for us to understand or that legal issues are such rocket science that its impossible to understand or present simpler. Should I also have said to you last time that linguistics are complicated and tell you imply that I wont refute your arguments but that "hey I am right, and you are wrong". But you see, I did explain to you allyou needed to know. I didnt resort to cop-outs. I stayed and elaborated.

4. You will have to show the reasoning.

5. Not necessarily. For instance I can explain to you that not paying taxes illegal because taxes are very important for a country because they contribute in the building of roads, other services etc etc. I didnt articulate on any legal principle. Just gave a reasoning. So what is the reasoning behind incest being illegal?

6. Argument from authority.

Last time should I have left saying that I dont need to prove my claims because I study linguistics?

Of course not. Dont apply double standards and false reasoning.

Until you prove it, you are prone to criticism.

__________________________________________

I will not say it again. Use numbers and dont fragment your replies.

To attempt to mediate, I am going to have a quick look on LexisNexis and Westlaw, and try to see what the actual law is. Maybe then I can work out what the reasoning behind incest law is (in the UK at least), and then perhaps explain.shaunk89

I think you mean "polygamy" my friend.

To those who make the laws (who do not necessarily share my personal views):

Polygamy is harmful in that it subjectifies one set of spouses (usually the wives) to the other, rather than being a mutual partnership as in conventional marriage.

Gay marriage is harmful in that it erodes the strength of legal marriage, by making it excessively available. It also precludes from the production of biological offspring. Any offspring produced potentially suffer from having two same-sex parents.

Public nudity is harmful simply because people find it offensive, diisruptive, and inappropriate.

While you may disagree with the reasons themselves (perhaps "prima facie" was a poor choice of words), they all apply universally to all instantiations of the actions.

shaunk89

every polygamous relationship I've seen was a consensual relationship between adults. How is that different than incest? And the difference between polygamy and incest is that there won't be a larger percentage of mentally unstable offpsrign due to biological circumstances. I don't even know how to answer yoru second statement. Marriage is a union between tow adults, not the population and two adults. As has been brought up before, there are people in the world who are sterile. Do we make it illegal for them to marry because they can not produce offspring? Do we make it illegal for offspring to be born into families with a poor quality of life because they could potentially suffer from living in that life?

1. But when all possible known reasons have failed dont you think its an obligation of a person that supports the law to provide with the reasoning?Teenaged

Wont that even contribute in people not speaking ill of the law?

If people know the reasoning behind a law its more likely that they dont speak ill of it. So why dont you tell us what the reasoning is?

2. Yes it does. By showing the valid reasoning of the law, you defy his reasoning on the spot. It would help your argument. Not saying that the brightline rule is not enough but its deffinetely not irrelevant to show us the true reasoning behind it.

3. Dont try to present it as if its impossible for us to understand or that legal issues are such rocket science that its impossible to understand or present simpler. Should I also have said to you last time that linguistics are complicated and tell you imply that I wont refute your arguments but that "hey I am right, and you are wrong". But you see, I did explain to you allyou needed to know. I didnt resort to cop-outs. I stayed and elaborated.

4. You will have to show the reasoning.

5. Not necessarily. For instance I can explain to you that not paying taxes illegal because taxes are very important for a country because they contribute in the building of roads, other services etc etc. I didnt articulate on any legal principle. Just gave a reasoning. So what is the reasoning behind incest being illegal?

6. Argument from authority.

Last time should I have left saying that I dont need to prove my claims because I study linguistics?

Of course not. Dont apply double standards and false reasoning.

Until you prove it, you are prone to criticism.

Oh yeah. I wanted proof that most incestual relationships were consensual relationships between adults. You're right. After I went back a few pages and looks that was what I asked it probably just slipped my mind. I wasn't asking for the percentage of adult incest alone though. I was asking as a percentage of all incestual relationships.

[QUOTE="shaunk89"]

Also, a psychological account of why any given activity is illegal isn't really valid in pretty much any scenario. There are almost no actions which have been made illegal because they cause psychiatric harm on the victim. Psychiatric harm as a valid legal harm has only come into the law relatively recently, with the expansion of medical science and its improved diagnostic abilities.

The crime of incest pre-dates this development of psychiatric harm as legal harm, and so I do not see how you can justify its illegality on these grounds. Although, I am, as ever, open to persuasion.

BumFluff122

That this may be the case doesn't make the law any more justified. Saying "a long time ago, holy book x said activity y is wrong. then people made law z, which made it illegal to do y because x said it was wrong. we still have law z, because we think that the reasons for x saying y was wrong are good reasons", does not entail z being a good and just law.

I see that perhaps the point I made was a bit too "niggly lawyer-esque" to make much sense/be a good point. so let me try again.

Imagine that we are making a law governing incest right now. What would this law say? And how would we justify it?
Any law must have an objective, and must have a valid reason for that objective. If our objective (and i'm not saying it is my objective) is to say incest must be banned, then we must justify why this is the case.

One can justify a ban on incest by saying that there is a victim, usually the female. But this does not justify a total ban on incest, since not all instances of incest involve a victim. therefore our new law of incest must be restricted to cases only where we can identify a victim.

A good way to do this is to say there must be valid legal consent for incest to be legal. This concept is VERY complex, and explaining will take forever, since thousands of pages have been written about it by people much smarter than me. However, it suffices to say that legal consent incorporates all kinds of things, including coercion, undue influences, age, mental state, and so on, so that it is far more than simply saying "yes" to sex. It sets a significantly high burden, and so we can be satisfied that in most cases, valid legal consent will be able to accurately identify victims.

In this way, all the truly harmful instances of incest can be eliminated. The only kinds that will be legal are those that arre genuinely between consenting adults.

If we wish to ban these as well, we will need a further justification, and a further method of doing so.

I'm more than happy to discuss that too, but i think we have enough to get on with for now, no?

[QUOTE="shaunk89"]

I think you mean "polygamy" my friend.

To those who make the laws (who do not necessarily share my personal views):

Polygamy is harmful in that it subjectifies one set of spouses (usually the wives) to the other, rather than being a mutual partnership as in conventional marriage.

Gay marriage is harmful in that it erodes the strength of legal marriage, by making it excessively available. It also precludes from the production of biological offspring. Any offspring produced potentially suffer from having two same-sex parents.

Public nudity is harmful simply because people find it offensive, diisruptive, and inappropriate.

While you may disagree with the reasons themselves (perhaps "prima facie" was a poor choice of words), they all apply universally to all instantiations of the actions.

BumFluff122

every polygamous relationship I've seen was a consensual relationship between adults. How is that different than incest? And the difference between polygamy and incest is that there won't be a larger percentage of mentally unstable offpsrign due to biological circumstances. I don't even know how to answer yoru second statement. Marriage is a union between tow adults, not the population and two adults. As has been brought up before, there are people in the world who are sterile. Do we make it illegal for them to marry because they can not produce offspring? Do we make it illegal for offspring to be born into families with a poor quality of life because they could potentially suffer from living in that life?

I didnt say they were GOOD reasons, in fact i think they are pretty crappy reasons.

My point was just that these principles can be universalised to all cases of the suipposed crimes, whereas the justification for a ban on incest can not be universalised in teh same way.

[QUOTE="shaunk89"]To attempt to mediate, I am going to have a quick look on LexisNexis and Westlaw, and try to see what the actual law is. Maybe then I can work out what the reasoning behind incest law is (in the UK at least), and then perhaps explain.Vandalvideo

yup, but its Westlaw UK, so its not the same....

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="shaunk89"]

Also, a psychological account of why any given activity is illegal isn't really valid in pretty much any scenario. There are almost no actions which have been made illegal because they cause psychiatric harm on the victim. Psychiatric harm as a valid legal harm has only come into the law relatively recently, with the expansion of medical science and its improved diagnostic abilities.

The crime of incest pre-dates this development of psychiatric harm as legal harm, and so I do not see how you can justify its illegality on these grounds. Although, I am, as ever, open to persuasion.

shaunk89

That this may be the case doesn't make the law any more justified. Saying "a long time ago, holy book x said activity y is wrong. then people made law z, which made it illegal to do y because x said it was wrong. we still have law z, because we think that the reasons for x saying y was wrong are good reasons", does not entail z being a good and just law.

I see that perhaps the point I made was a bit too "niggly lawyer-esque" to make much sense/be a good point. so let me try again.

Imagine that we are making a law governing incest right now. What would this law say? And how would we justify it?
Any law must have an objective, and must have a valid reason for that objective. If our objective (and i'm not saying it is my objective) is to say incest must be banned, then we must justify why this is the case.

One can justify a ban on incest by saying that there is a victim, usually the female. But this does not justify a total ban on incest, since not all instances of incest involve a victim. therefore our new law of incest must be restricted to cases only where we can identify a victim.

A good way to do this is to say there must be valid legal consent for incest to be legal. This concept is VERY complex, and explaining will take forever, since thousands of pages have been written about it by people much smarter than me. However, it suffices to say that legal consent incorporates all kinds of things, including coercion, undue influences, age, mental state, and so on, so that it is far more than simply saying "yes" to sex. It sets a significantly high burden, and so we can be satisfied that in most cases, valid legal consent will be able to accurately identify victims.

In this way, all the truly harmful instances of incest can be eliminated. The only kinds that will be legal are those that arre genuinely between consenting adults.

If we wish to ban these as well, we will need a further justification, and a further method of doing so.

I'm more than happy to discuss that too, but i think we have enough to get on with for now, no?

I can't believe anyone would involve gay marriage in a discussion of incest. Un*******real:| This thread should have gotten the lock already.

Seriously Vandal?

11 quotes?

Is it so hard to use numbers?

One has to wonder if you are doing it in purpose....

_______________________________________________

1. But the alternatives are two:

a) there is no reasoning behind the law

b) there is one and you are not presenting it.

2. I didnt say you must. I am giving you incentives to do present the reasoning behind the law.

3. Honest answer is much appreciated.

4. Like I said, I didnt say you must. I amjust giving you incentive to present with the reasoning behind the law. Overkill in videogames. All debate threads are an overkill for videogames. Please...

5. Another cop-out.

6. Until I am presented with one I have reasons to doubt there is one.

7. Not even sufficient enough to give a relatively adequate "picture" to us of what the reasoning is?

8. No I most deffinetely dont think that any one individual is always right; even in their field of expertise. For instance I cant possibly debate you on say the definition of legal notions or other standard stuff that most probably only a person that studies them knows about them but claims that all laws abide by the brightline rule..... yes those I will challenge. Because I see its not true.

And lest articulate in premises (correct any of my premises if they are wrong).

a) the brightline rule is never-changing. It applies the same stable logic on every law so that they are consistent and without double standards.

b) every law does abide by the brightline rule. (notice, not "should abide", but "does abide")

CONCLUSION from a) and b) every law is perfectly valid and in no need to change.

___________________________

Do laws change? Yes they do. What does that show us? That not every law is true to the brightline rule. It is also correct to say that laws that are voted by the public are also not true to the brightline rule. The public doesnt apply that rule to their reasoning. Conclusion: the law against same sex marriage is not true to the brightline rule merely from the fact that it was voted on.

Thus the brightline rule is not applied in practice to all laws.

9. You would have the right to request more information. And I would feel the obligation to provide with it, lest I get on my high horse to conveniently sneak out of the situation.

1. But the alternatives are two: a) there is no reasoning behind the lawb) there is one and you are not presenting it.Teenaged

2. I didnt say you must. I am giving you incentives to do present the reasoning behind the law.

4. Like I said, I didnt say you must. I amjust giving you incentive to present with the reasoning behind the law. Overkill in videogames. All debate threads are an overkill for videogames. Please...

5. Another cop-out.

6. Until I am presented with one I have reasons to doubt there is one.

7. Not even sufficient enough to give a relatively adequate "picture" to us of what the reasoning is?

8. No I most deffinetely dont think that any one individual is always right; even in their field of expertise. For instance I cant possibly debate you on say the definition of legal notions or other standard stuff that most probably only a person that studies them knows about them but claims that all laws abide by the brightline rule..... yes those I will challenge. Because I see its not true.

a) the brightline rule is never-changing. It applies the same stable logic on every law so that they are consistent and without double standards.

b) every law does abide by the brightline rule. (notice, not "should abide", but "does abide")

CONCLUSION from a) and b) every law is perfectly valid and in no need to change.

Do laws change? Yes they do. What does that show us? That not every law is true to the brightline rule.

It is also correct to say that laws that are voted by the public are also not true to the brightline rule.

The public doesnt apply that rule to their reasoning. Conclusion: the law against same sex marriage is not true to the brightline rule merely from the fact that it was voted on.

Thus the brightline rule is not applied in practice to all laws.

I've done a small bit of research, because i cant be bothered to do more, but i think it shall suffice for the purposes of this debate.

(1) Any male person who has sexual intercourse with a person related to him in a degree specified in column 1 of the Table set out at the end of this subsection, or any female person who has sexual intercourse with a person related to her in a degree specified in column 2 of that Table, shall be guilty of incest, unless the accused proves that he or she—

(a) did not know and had no reason to suspect that the person with whom he or she had sexual intercourse was related in a degree so specified; or

(b) did not consent to have sexual intercourse or to have sexual intercourse with that person; or

(c) was married to that person, at the time when the sexual intercourse took place, by a marriage entered into outside Scotland and recognised as valid by Scots law

Now, that seems straightforward. I must point out though, this is from a Scottish Act, not an English one, since i couldn't find a relevant statute for England. I imagine it is somewhere in teh sexual offences act, but probably isnt nicely laid out like this anyhow, and it probably fairly accurattely reflects current legal opinion within the UK.

The act goes a little further and says that anyone who basically takes advantage of someone below consensual age in their household is also guilty of a related, but lesser offence.

HOWEVER. In my research, i failed to find a single case of a prosecution against two consenting, adult partners. Presumably because neither they, nor anyone they knew brought a claim, and they did not pursue it if one was brought. but that is mere conjecture. The fact is, all th cases concern exploitative incest.

Now, you are all sufficiently legally informed, you may continue to debate. I do not plan to forward my own arguments in this post, they may come later if i decide they are necessary.

Enjoy.

Ok, Vandalvideo, I am convinced you are doing it on purpose.... >_______>

Au revoir.

I can't believe anyone would involve gay marriage in a discussion of incest. Un*******real:| This thread should have gotten the lock already.MarcusAntonius

Eh, it's definitely time to lock it, so I'm doing that now. We're drilling holes in water at this point, and in some cases, this is turning into a "who can troll who the best" flood.

Having said that, I disagree that gay marriage and incest cannot be compared in ethical and resulting legal contexts, which are the contexts that were presented in the first place. For quite a while, homosexuality in general was not only frowned upon in society but also acted upon in the legal system through negative reinforcements that included felony convictions and jail time. Homosexual marriage is *still* frowned upon despite no sincere effort being placed to show an essential difference between the relationships to allow one type marriage and disallow the other.

And as far as I can tell, that is the context in which the comparison to incest was being presented. Homosexuality involves consenting adults, doesn't cause any sort of harm, and thus cannot be disallowed or excluded in any objective legal system or "frowned upon" in an objective system of ethics. That is how it is being compared to incest, at least that's how I was comparing it, and that's how I will continue to compare it in situations outside of this thread.

I recognize that there are some nefarious souls out there who are opportunistic enough to leap into comparisons like these in order to introduce some sort of slippery slope fallacy by piggybacking on the current and collectively negativeopinions about incest and applying them to homosexuality. But that simply isn't a reason to avoid making the inevitable and very valid comparisons that do exist between them in ethical and legal terms when discussing or debating the justification for the current ethical and legal prohibitions against incest among consenting adults.

It would be great if all human beings could just boil things like this down to their essential elements and then make the proper moral judgements based on the resulting essentials without having to have other concepts or situations with similar backgrounds applied as partial examples, but that's never been the case and likely never will be. Comparisons like this one are still necessary from time to time to promote a change in misguided ethical and legal conclusions that do in fact negatively effect the lives of innocent people.