Authorities have arrested two people and charged them with incest.For the sake of discussion, I am assuming the incest was between the two of them and no minors were involved in the incestuous sex. Remember, "it's disgusting" is not a valid argument, at least from what I gather from reading the material of "marriage equality" proponents. "It's illegal" was once true to homosexual behavior, too.Boise Police say they arrested Marilyn Lee, 36, on an outstanding felony warrant for incest Wednesday at her workplace in Boise at approximately 11:50 a.m.
Her half brother, Brian L. Reed, 30, who is a registered sex offender, was already in custody on other charges and has been served the warrant in jail.
Speaking of legality - notice that these people were arrested on felony warrants (she, at her place of work... talk about injurious!) for their consensual behavior. No such thing happens to non-incestuous same-sex couples. Where is this couple's "right to love each other"?
Thanks for raising this issue again, PW. I wonder if anyone (Carlo?, Op-Ed?) is going to suggest that we deal with their marriage rights and their procreation rights separately? That's what everyone seems to want to do with same-sex couples.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't deal ith them separately. They are prohibited from marrying for the same reason they are prohibited from having sexual intercourse, because we don't think it is ethical for that type of relationship to conceive children together.
Allowing a couple to marry is approving of the couple procreating together, creating offspring together. There currently aren't, and never have been, any marriages that are prohibited from conceiving together, and we should keep it that way. So we can't allow that couple to marry but still prohibit them from having sex or conceiving children together, without stripping the right to have children together from everyone's marriage. We also can't say it's OK for them to conceive children together but also that they should not be allowed to marry, without sending the message that people having kids together don't need to marry first.
Note that parenting together is fine, there are tons of Uncles helping to raise their unmarried sister's baby, and no one says they should be married, because we recognize that the marriage is about allowing them to make more babies together and has nothing to do with raising existing children.
"Idaho Code defines incest as 'Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery with each other.'”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/821818.html?storylink=omni_popular
We do not yet have sufficient information about with whom this incest was committed but the law clearly applies to even consenting adults.
It would seem that if Lawrence v. Texas allows for homosexual consensual sex that it therefore could be applied to adult consensual incestuous affairs and the Idaho law invalidated.
The arguments given for homosexual "marriage" could of course be used to support incestuous marriages and marriages of any number of other aberrant sexual relationships.
Lawrence v Texas wasn't about sex, or even incestuous sodomy, it was about sodomy done in private homes. It should not be applied to sexual intercourse (which is never private), or publicly-known sodomy. But yes, the arguments for same-sex marriage could be used to support incestuous marriage, that does not invalidate them as arguments or stop them from being used or working on people. What happens instead when your point is raised is that people tend to write off the person as making an offensive comparison and side with the gays even more. Unless you can explain why you bring up incestuus marriage, it just sounds like a ugly desperate smear, since few people believe that incestuous marriage is going to be made legal anywhere, and aren't worried about it even if it does.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't sound like a desperate smear, though, to use the ban on incest and incestuous marriage as proof that we don't have to allow all marriages, and there are supportable basis to prohibit some relationships from marrying. Then we have to explain what allowing marriage really allows, and that same-sex couples should also be prohibited from marrying, for the same reason siblings are - because their procreation would be unethical and should not be allowed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewe deal with their marriage rights and their procreation rights separately
ReplyDeleteThey are separate, that is why.
Its funny to think of you using the term "procreation rights" in such an Orwellian way as to mean its limited only to marriage, punishable by jail time.
Procreation rights are part of the unalienable expressions of our humanity.
Think of it this way, what other rights do we have in this country that require a license?
I'm not too sure what you're saying John Howard. Who said anything about Lawrence being about incestuous marriages? The reason I'm addressing incestuous marriages is because that's what the post is about. And I bring up Lawrence because it can be applied to invalidate the Idaho law against incestuous relationships among consenting adults.
ReplyDeleteNo, Op-Ed, we don't have procreation rights with just anybody, only someone we marry. We don't have an unalienable right to have sex with someone else's wife, or with our sister, or with a 16 year old. We don't even have an unalienable right to have sex with an unmarried woman on the third date. We have an unalienable right to marry, and then procreate with our spouse.
ReplyDeleteAre you really going to make the case that we should deal with that couple's right to have sex and their right to marry separately? You think that they should be allowed to have sex (inalienable right, right?), but not allowed to marry? That's ridiculous, why? Every couple that we allow to procreate, we should desire that they marry each other! Why would we ever want to prevent a couple from marrying that we allow to conceive children together? That sends a terrible message that it doesn't matter if people marry to have kids, it encourages out-of-wedlock births. It also encourages practices like sperm donation and selling of children.
Jose, I think it is dangerous to make "by their logic" arguments, because you end up re-inforcing an invalid point, in this case, that Lawrence made all consensual sex legal. It didn't, that's all. It made activities that are entirely between two people in a private home unstigmatizable with laws prohibiting the practice. It could be applied to gambling, drug use, tattooing, body mutilation, etc, but not sex, because sex is not private since it might result in a child being born.
ReplyDeleteSorry John Howard but it was homosexual acts in privacy that Lawrence declared could not be prosecuted. If it can apply to homosexual acts it can apply to consenting incestuous acts. This is precisely the strong point that Justice Scalia was making. Lawrence can therefore be argued to overturn the Idaho law against consenting adults in private incestuous relationships. Of course it would have to be in private as they could not be doing it in the public streets.
ReplyDeleteSure, why not, they can do dumb things and apply things where they shouldn't be applied. We don't have to facilitate it. Sodomy is not sex. Sex is never private, it always might result in a baby being born even if the act took place in private nine months ago, and society has an interest in stopping unethical conception that it doesn't have in stigmatizing homosexuals (according to Justice Kennedy). Is your point that Lawrence was wrongly decided, and sodomy ought to be a crime? OK, but the way to make that point is to make that point, not to burn down incest laws out of protest.
ReplyDeletePractically speaking, the laws against sodomy could hardly stop two men in the privacy of their own bedroom - which is why the case had to be a set-up by the defendants in the first place. It was useful in aiding in the prosecution of other crimes, such an public indecency and sexual assault.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing for or against such laws here, but I tend to side with limited government.
No, Op-Ed
ReplyDeleteWere you replying to me?
Either way you are working hard to not answer the question. I'm still interested in your answer...
What other rights do we have in this country that require a license?
Oh sorry On lawn. The right to drive, the right to hunt bears and fish, the right to practice medicine, the right to be a plumber, lots of rights require a license.
ReplyDeleteThe right to drive, the right to hunt bears and fish, the right to practice medicine, the right to be a plumber, lots of rights require a license.
ReplyDeleteJust as I thought, you aren't talking about a right but an enterprise and liberty.
Being allowed to do something is what matters, and after that, having the approval of society for doing it, versus disapproval. It doesn't matter if it is called a right or a liberty or enterprise or what, there are real practical effects.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that people should be allowed, and have society's approval, to have sex (conception rights) with their sibling?
I asked you a whole lot of questions too, On Lawn, are you trying hard not to answer them?
Your definition of "private" John Howard in relation to sex is somewhat contrived. Sex is almost always done in private. The fact that a baby might be born months later does not mean that the sexual act was not done in private.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not agreeing with the Lawrence v. Texas decision but since it has been made it can now be applied widely. I'm more in agreement with Justice Scalia.
I'm certainly not going to agree that "sodomy is not sex" and get into Clintonian silliness.
Right, it was done in private in that they weren't in public view, but it isn't private anymore is it? And since there is no way to ensure that sex won't result in the public knowing about it, it can't be said to be something that concerns only the couple, the way sodomy can. The public has an interest in preventing uncommitted, unconsenting couples from making babies, especially if they are siblings, children, or committed to someone else.
ReplyDeleteYes, Scalia was saying that it might get interpreted to mean that, but only because that's what dumb courts often do with bad decisions that are vaguely worded.
Clinton wasn't being silly, that wasn't sex. It's ridiculous to equate sodomy with sex. Sodomy cannot make a baby. But sex sure can make a baby, so it should not be considered the same thing, it's really irresponsible to teach that it is the same thing as sodomy.
Sheesh, whatever happened to "responsible procreation"? You guys are sounding like Smith College professors...
Being allowed to do something is what matters...
ReplyDeleteYep the Orwellian "allowed" to mean "restriction and control".
That is exactly why you are even more dangerous than the neutered marriage proponents.
Honestly I'm glad you've done a lot of work around the net disassociating yourself from Opine. You're creepy.
John Howard, if you don't stop coming up with weird, distorted understandings of common language you'll end up just talking to yourself.
ReplyDeleteDefinition of sodomy: "sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation."
Definition of copulation: "have sexual intercourse."
You want to allow incest? You want to allow genetic engineering? You want to allow adultery? (Those are three actual questions I'm asking you, On Lawn) I don't think we should allow those things, and that's not Orwellian, that's called civilization and law. I also don't think we should allow gamete donation, surrogacy, artificial wombs, cloning, baby selling, murder, abortion, rape, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as allowing or not allowing unmarried sex, that was what the "after that, having approval of society" part of the sentence you excerpted that snippet from refers to. While I think incest and attempting to create a baby from modified genes should result in jail and fines and society should expend effort in prosecuting those crimes, I don't think unmarried sex should result in jail or fines nor should society expend any effort in prosecuting it. It should not have approval of society, but in a practical sense it should be allowed, purely because actively trying to stop it is worse than letting people do it anyway, it's better to just discourage it, and deal with the damage it causes.
Those are bad definitions, modern feminist definitions that forget where babies come from. They've become common today, it's true, but we can reverse that if we resist. Don't play into it! Sexual intercourse is penis in vagina and nothing else (in humans). It is sexual because it is potentially reproductive, and reproduction is sexual in humans (still, but not necessarily, scientists could make it asexual).
ReplyDeleteJohn, I find it enough to let you twist in the wind.
ReplyDeleteI'm not about disallowing people, I'm not about fascist control over everything I do not like, and I'm certainly happy to drive you off and have you continue to spit and cry at Opine. Why? Because your a mad man, another totalitarian.
And don't worry, I'm sure I'll figure out the policy over human manufacture well (and better) than with you around.
Why are you against same-sex marriage if you aren't even against incest or same-sex conception? Or are you for allowing same-sex marriage now? You think prohibiting incest and genetic engineering is totalitarian?!? That's totally silly! You are just afraid to be responsible, probably because ideological purity to some Libertarian no-government litmus test is more important to you than responsible government. And it's a very dangerous position that will LEAD to totalitarianism, because if we allow conception rights to get separated from marriage, then nothing will protect a marriage's conception rights, and if we allow genetic engineering to happen, then we're going to find big government and totalitarian oversight will follow right away.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you against same-sex marriage
ReplyDeleteI'm against re-defining marriage because that would decrease marriage equality, not increase it. Saying an all-male relationship is increasing marriage equality is like having an all-male school (like in much of the Islamic countries) increasing education equality -- it doesn't work.
I'm not against same-sex couples have a great happy life together, and even the state recognizing their mutual dependency and trust along with every other mutual trust household arrangement.