"'If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery,'' Santorum was quoted as saying. ''You have the right to anything.'"
How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?
EDIT: Ah. Privacy Law. Let's see if Rick's argument has merit.
I wasn't aware that Hassan was gay until this thread. Odd. It's OK Hassan, no need to feel uncomfortable about your gayness.
I would imagine that the % of people with genetic diseases ought to be just as high among a population practicing incest as for a non incest practicing population. I'm no geneticist obviously but by my flawed layman's logic it would seem on the face of it that the incest practicing population on the whole is more at risk for birth defects in their offspring as they take on the problems both of all other genetic risks which everyone does in addition to the compounding of their risk through the problems inherent in mixing DNA with someone of like DNA. It seems like they have a compounded risk to me.
Now of course some individuals might have genetic issues which make their offspring more like to suffer some problems than say an incestuous couple who have no other issues. On an individual level certainly what you suggest would be the case at least some of the time. But it still seems to me that in terms of the whole groupings that an incestuous population would be at a higher risk. Again, you may well know better than I in the field so I'm open to what the probabilities of the science entail and how that ought to impact law.
I might also suppose, though I don't really know, there might even be an argument to be made that a population practicing incest might even be more likely to have other genetic issues which would potentially filter them out of the social gender interactions that we all love and act as an instigator for their incestuous actions because incest is then their only social recourse for a booty call.
Actually, the idea of kissing cousins=birth defects is a pretty good example of bad science used to support a pre-established bias.
There have been a few studies recently, and a quick search turned this up that sort of explains it:
Which demonstrates what the really issue at hand is. People have had long standing opinions about what is considered acceptable in their moral system. Folks in the developed world don't necessarily realize the roots of their ideas or how those unsubstantiated beliefs influence science.
As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.
As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.
Get him out. We can't let this kind of crap slide.
While I don't like Santorum, and I wish he weren't in office, the guy is remarkably consistent. There was a New Yorker profile of him years ago that discussed (IIRC) how he had made his political bed opposing late-term abortions for any reason. And then something went horribly wrong with his wife's pregnancy and he had to stand by that belief--and risk both his wife's and his unborn child's life. Pretty interesting stuff.
At any rate. Two things:
1) Is incest (between siblings of consenting age) actually *illegal*? Can you be put in jail for it?
2) The scariest part of his statement, for me, was this: "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion." Yes. The constitution doesn't literally say that I have a right to privacy. But the constitution doesn't say I have a right to lots of things. (There was a great West Wing episode about this a while back). I find it difficult to imagine the repercussions of the notion of a "right to privacy" being eradicated (legally). Seems like an Ashcroftian nightmare to me. Nevertheless, isn't he being a litle disingenuous in yoking the right to privacy to abortion rights. Yes, Griswold in '65 was where the SC said it. But certainly the *idea* is in place well before then. I mean, the notion of a "right to privacy"--certainly in America--isn't a new thing. I mean, hell, the 9th amendment would seem to cover it.
I can't see where he made some statement that equated homosexuality with those other things. He simply said, from what I take from it, that "if you say this, you say that...".
Which demonstrates what the really issue at hand is. People have had long standing opinions about what is considered acceptable in their moral system. Folks in the developed world don't necessarily realize the roots of their ideas or how those unsubstantiated beliefs influence science.
As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.
I read your article and while it was speaking about the type of unions allowd or not allowed it brought up some interesting combos that I hadn't seen posted here.
I just thought I would through them out here because the only type of relationships most people think of is kissing...cousins.
How many people here would be okay with consentual sexual relations between an adult parent and their child. Say the Dad was 40 and the daughter was 20.
I could post any number of variations on this but I think you get the point. Would this still sit okay with all of you?
Lastly, on a completely side note, does anyone else find it strange that we are discussing privacy law and at the same time many universities are passing laws attempting to curb professor and student relationships? What are the feelings here on what these obviously consenting adults are doing?
Ena, I don't know you, but my uninformed opinion of you should be that you are an evil Nazi. I cannot believe that, in the year 2003, there are still people out there as backwards as you are. And again, I am confirmed in the conviction that the US is amazingly far to the right of the political spectrum. I swear that even leaders from our hated extreme-right parties wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of statement.
Ena, I don't know you, but my uninformed opinion of you should be that you are an evil Nazi. I cannot believe that, in the year 2003, there are still people out there as backwards as you are. And again, I am confirmed in the conviction that the US is amazingly far to the right of the political spectrum. I swear that even leaders from our hated extreme-right parties wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of statement.
I think this is really uncalled for. This happens repeatedly in these forums. Someone states their beliefs and limits and then is ridiculed and called names for them, especially when others here still draw circles with regard to their own tolerances, but they just draw them a little wider.
So I pose a question to you der Kopf. Do you have ANY limits as to what two consenting adults should be allowed to do sexually? Professor and student, Mother and son (or daughter), Uncle and nephew, prostitution, anything?
How about if a daughter agreed to have sex with her father in the privacy of his home in exchange for money for college costs?
How about as BR mentioned beastiality? The animal doesn't get consent I suppose because it doesn't have the same rights. Humans and their pet dogs? Peanutbutter and ..... nevermind....
To anyone else that cares to judge here, I would pose that same question. What are your limits if any?
So I pose a question to you der Kopf. Do you have ANY limits as to what two consenting adults should be allowed to do sexually? Professor and student, Mother and son (or daughter), Uncle and nephew, prostitution, anything?
How about if a daughter agreed to have sex with her father in the privacy of his home in exchange for money for college costs?
How about as BR mentioned beastiality? The animal doesn't get consent I suppose because it doesn't have the same rights. Humans and their pet dogs? Peanutbutter and ..... nevermind....
To anyone else that cares to judge here, I would pose that same question. What are your limits if any?
Nick
I have no problem whatsoever with CONSENTING adults. These are, I think, people who are willing and able to engage in the act of having sex for NO REASON other than their mutual consent.
So: the college money case is not consent IMHO, that is prostitution of the worse kind.
Bestiality, you said it (unable to consent). A similar interpretation: the animal should be considered a legal minor, and therefore unable to voice his consent in this matter.
Other than that: shag at will. I really don't care if some father and daughter decide they like each other that much that they are willing to get it on. All rules apply to them: no sex in public and shit. I just don't see why that would have to bother me.
The thing ena does though is equalling homosexual contact to unwanted sexual contact (the rape type of incest) or illegal kinds of relations: for it is illegal to have more than one wife, but I have yet to here about someone convicted for having sex with two women at once. That illegality (of polygamy) has, IMHO, nothing to do with the kinkiness of it, as much as with the economical problems it brings: it is, of old, considered hard for anyone to provide for one, let alone two families. Also, it's not fair to all the ones not getting it on.
I read your article and while it was speaking about the type of unions allowd or not allowed it brought up some interesting combos that I hadn't seen posted here.
I just thought I would through them out here because the only type of relationships most people think of is kissing...cousins.
How many people here would be okay with consentual sexual relations between an adult parent and their child. Say the Dad was 40 and the daughter was 20.
I could post any number of variations on this but I think you get the point. Would this still sit okay with all of you?
While I wouldn't want to be involved in any way, they are consenting adults.
An interesting one I think of is the brother-sister relationship. Studies have passed in front of me many times saying that many people have their first sexual experiences with siblings. Some have even put the percentage above 25%. I've also read studies saying that very high percentages of women had sexual encounters with family members. I have since asked many of my female friends and this seems to be accurate. But this activity appears to be greatly limited to youth. It is also true that this entire field is not what we would called a very mature (as in well-developed) sociological field, and much more research needs to be conducted before we get a clear picture.
That said, if a brother and sister decide to have a relationship, outside perception of that relatioship is tricky. There really is no justification for condemnation other than that you don't agree with it. If you condemn it for genetic purposes, which, as demonstrated, probably aren't as clear as they should be, then you are already arguing that certain individuals need to be prohibited from reproducing so that social engineering can be conducted. This situation, like that of homosexuality, also gives the state the power of determining what kind of communication two free people can have.
Furthermore, laws that govern contact between two (or more) consenting adults are really nothing more than witch-hunts conducted to convice the hunters of their own morality. Turning the government of a supposedly free state reverses much of the progress made in the search for equality of US citizens.
If the rationale for prohibiting sexual relations between a 50 year old father and his 30 yo daughter hinges on manipulation by older person, then you are talking about puting a limit on difference of age individuals can have to engage in touching certain regions of the body with particular motive. Pretty hazy stuff, to say the least.
So, while kicking it with my sister is something that really needs to not come close to happening, and while my personal opinion is that it is pretty nasty for anyone, I am certainly in no position to judge what two consenting adults do. I have no idea what their particular situation is. With 6b people on earth, it's inevidable that there will be a large number of family member falling in love. No matter how much we try, burning them at the stake is not going to prevent it.
Quote:
Lastly, on a completely side note, does anyone else find it strange that we are discussing privacy law and at the same time many universities are passing laws attempting to curb professor and student relationships? What are the feelings here on what these obviously consenting adults are doing?
Nick
Like anything wholly contained in the university setting, this is a topic that has a lot of philisophical debate within it. In order to have a good grasp of it you have to know what the opposing attitudes really are, and they are very complex. The only reason I know about it is because a patron I helped a couple years ago did some research on it and I ended up reading a lot of the articles. It's really a complex issue, and not at all related to what we are discussing. Just to get you started, the university teacher/student sexual relatioship is one that has been philosophized about to death. There is a whole history of material written about it that encompases the entire debate.
How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?
EDIT: Ah. Privacy Law. Let's see if Rick's argument has merit.
I heard the word "gay" was added by the reporter. Just saying.
And I'm not "defending" anything, really. So don't damn me TOO much. But I am saying that the gay lobby and Professional Handwringing Brigade salivate over stuff like this because they can jump on it and ride it out for all its worth.
And no, I don't know why that last sentence sounded so sexual.
Just more hysterics from one of the most coddled, obnoxious, "see it OUR way or..." groups around.
Trumptman thinks that homosexuality can be equated with incest.
Do I smell straw in here? You wouldn't be trying to restate my argument in a weaker manner so as to knock it down would you?
No Trumptman believes it logically consistant to say that if the Supreme Court rules that due to a right to privacy, the government cannot legislate what goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom, that this ruling would apply to both homosexuality, incest, and several other acts.
Comments
"'If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery,'' Santorum was quoted as saying. ''You have the right to anything.'"
How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?
EDIT: Ah. Privacy Law. Let's see if Rick's argument has merit.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Hello???
How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?
Goddammit Pscates and anyone who defends those remarks.
Well, in a roundabout accidental sort of way, what that senator said is true. You do have a right to do all those things in private.
Here kitty kitty kitty.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I wasn't aware that Hassan was gay until this thread. Odd. It's OK Hassan, no need to feel uncomfortable about your gayness.
I would imagine that the % of people with genetic diseases ought to be just as high among a population practicing incest as for a non incest practicing population. I'm no geneticist obviously but by my flawed layman's logic it would seem on the face of it that the incest practicing population on the whole is more at risk for birth defects in their offspring as they take on the problems both of all other genetic risks which everyone does in addition to the compounding of their risk through the problems inherent in mixing DNA with someone of like DNA. It seems like they have a compounded risk to me.
Now of course some individuals might have genetic issues which make their offspring more like to suffer some problems than say an incestuous couple who have no other issues. On an individual level certainly what you suggest would be the case at least some of the time. But it still seems to me that in terms of the whole groupings that an incestuous population would be at a higher risk. Again, you may well know better than I in the field so I'm open to what the probabilities of the science entail and how that ought to impact law.
I might also suppose, though I don't really know, there might even be an argument to be made that a population practicing incest might even be more likely to have other genetic issues which would potentially filter them out of the social gender interactions that we all love and act as an instigator for their incestuous actions because incest is then their only social recourse for a booty call.
Actually, the idea of kissing cousins=birth defects is a pretty good example of bad science used to support a pre-established bias.
There have been a few studies recently, and a quick search turned this up that sort of explains it:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/colum....incest.04.09/
Which demonstrates what the really issue at hand is. People have had long standing opinions about what is considered acceptable in their moral system. Folks in the developed world don't necessarily realize the roots of their ideas or how those unsubstantiated beliefs influence science.
As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.
Get him out. We can't let this kind of crap slide.
As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.
Or the conservatives
Originally posted by BR
Well, in a roundabout accidental sort of way, what that senator said is true. You do have a right to do all those things in private.
Here kitty kitty kitty.
BR, you are one sick puppy.... kitty... oh whatever....
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
What an idiot.
Get him out. We can't let this kind of crap slide.
While I don't like Santorum, and I wish he weren't in office, the guy is remarkably consistent. There was a New Yorker profile of him years ago that discussed (IIRC) how he had made his political bed opposing late-term abortions for any reason. And then something went horribly wrong with his wife's pregnancy and he had to stand by that belief--and risk both his wife's and his unborn child's life. Pretty interesting stuff.
At any rate. Two things:
1) Is incest (between siblings of consenting age) actually *illegal*? Can you be put in jail for it?
2) The scariest part of his statement, for me, was this: "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion." Yes. The constitution doesn't literally say that I have a right to privacy. But the constitution doesn't say I have a right to lots of things. (There was a great West Wing episode about this a while back). I find it difficult to imagine the repercussions of the notion of a "right to privacy" being eradicated (legally). Seems like an Ashcroftian nightmare to me. Nevertheless, isn't he being a litle disingenuous in yoking the right to privacy to abortion rights. Yes, Griswold in '65 was where the SC said it. But certainly the *idea* is in place well before then. I mean, the notion of a "right to privacy"--certainly in America--isn't a new thing. I mean, hell, the 9th amendment would seem to cover it.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by pscates
I can't see where he made some statement that equated homosexuality with those other things. He simply said, from what I take from it, that "if you say this, you say that...".
That's called equating.
Originally posted by giant
Actually, the idea of kissing cousins=birth defects is a pretty good example of bad science used to support a pre-established bias.
There have been a few studies recently, and a quick search turned this up that sort of explains it:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/colum....incest.04.09/
Which demonstrates what the really issue at hand is. People have had long standing opinions about what is considered acceptable in their moral system. Folks in the developed world don't necessarily realize the roots of their ideas or how those unsubstantiated beliefs influence science.
As for regulating consenual adult sexual interaction, it's rediculous. The only argument that will ever hold up in the end is that it makes you uncomfortable. Well, it's a free country, so deal with it. If you want a society that prohibits this kind of thing, go try to get the taliban back in power.
I read your article and while it was speaking about the type of unions allowd or not allowed it brought up some interesting combos that I hadn't seen posted here.
I just thought I would through them out here because the only type of relationships most people think of is kissing...cousins.
How many people here would be okay with consentual sexual relations between an adult parent and their child. Say the Dad was 40 and the daughter was 20.
I could post any number of variations on this but I think you get the point. Would this still sit okay with all of you?
Lastly, on a completely side note, does anyone else find it strange that we are discussing privacy law and at the same time many universities are passing laws attempting to curb professor and student relationships? What are the feelings here on what these obviously consenting adults are doing?
Nick
Oh, and if it matters, I do prefer beautiful girls over beautiful boys.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Ena, I don't know you, but my uninformed opinion of you should be that you are an evil Nazi. I cannot believe that, in the year 2003, there are still people out there as backwards as you are. And again, I am confirmed in the conviction that the US is amazingly far to the right of the political spectrum. I swear that even leaders from our hated extreme-right parties wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of statement.
I think this is really uncalled for. This happens repeatedly in these forums. Someone states their beliefs and limits and then is ridiculed and called names for them, especially when others here still draw circles with regard to their own tolerances, but they just draw them a little wider.
So I pose a question to you der Kopf. Do you have ANY limits as to what two consenting adults should be allowed to do sexually? Professor and student, Mother and son (or daughter), Uncle and nephew, prostitution, anything?
How about if a daughter agreed to have sex with her father in the privacy of his home in exchange for money for college costs?
How about as BR
To anyone else that cares to judge here, I would pose that same question. What are your limits if any?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So I pose a question to you der Kopf. Do you have ANY limits as to what two consenting adults should be allowed to do sexually? Professor and student, Mother and son (or daughter), Uncle and nephew, prostitution, anything?
How about if a daughter agreed to have sex with her father in the privacy of his home in exchange for money for college costs?
How about as BR
To anyone else that cares to judge here, I would pose that same question. What are your limits if any?
Nick
I have no problem whatsoever with CONSENTING adults. These are, I think, people who are willing and able to engage in the act of having sex for NO REASON other than their mutual consent.
So: the college money case is not consent IMHO, that is prostitution of the worse kind.
Bestiality, you said it (unable to consent). A similar interpretation: the animal should be considered a legal minor, and therefore unable to voice his consent in this matter.
Other than that: shag at will. I really don't care if some father and daughter decide they like each other that much that they are willing to get it on. All rules apply to them: no sex in public and shit. I just don't see why that would have to bother me.
Originally posted by trumptman
I read your article and while it was speaking about the type of unions allowd or not allowed it brought up some interesting combos that I hadn't seen posted here.
I just thought I would through them out here because the only type of relationships most people think of is kissing...cousins.
How many people here would be okay with consentual sexual relations between an adult parent and their child. Say the Dad was 40 and the daughter was 20.
I could post any number of variations on this but I think you get the point. Would this still sit okay with all of you?
While I wouldn't want to be involved in any way, they are consenting adults.
An interesting one I think of is the brother-sister relationship. Studies have passed in front of me many times saying that many people have their first sexual experiences with siblings. Some have even put the percentage above 25%. I've also read studies saying that very high percentages of women had sexual encounters with family members. I have since asked many of my female friends and this seems to be accurate. But this activity appears to be greatly limited to youth. It is also true that this entire field is not what we would called a very mature (as in well-developed) sociological field, and much more research needs to be conducted before we get a clear picture.
That said, if a brother and sister decide to have a relationship, outside perception of that relatioship is tricky. There really is no justification for condemnation other than that you don't agree with it. If you condemn it for genetic purposes, which, as demonstrated, probably aren't as clear as they should be, then you are already arguing that certain individuals need to be prohibited from reproducing so that social engineering can be conducted. This situation, like that of homosexuality, also gives the state the power of determining what kind of communication two free people can have.
Furthermore, laws that govern contact between two (or more) consenting adults are really nothing more than witch-hunts conducted to convice the hunters of their own morality. Turning the government of a supposedly free state reverses much of the progress made in the search for equality of US citizens.
If the rationale for prohibiting sexual relations between a 50 year old father and his 30 yo daughter hinges on manipulation by older person, then you are talking about puting a limit on difference of age individuals can have to engage in touching certain regions of the body with particular motive. Pretty hazy stuff, to say the least.
So, while kicking it with my sister is something that really needs to not come close to happening, and while my personal opinion is that it is pretty nasty for anyone, I am certainly in no position to judge what two consenting adults do. I have no idea what their particular situation is. With 6b people on earth, it's inevidable that there will be a large number of family member falling in love. No matter how much we try, burning them at the stake is not going to prevent it.
Lastly, on a completely side note, does anyone else find it strange that we are discussing privacy law and at the same time many universities are passing laws attempting to curb professor and student relationships? What are the feelings here on what these obviously consenting adults are doing?
Nick
Like anything wholly contained in the university setting, this is a topic that has a lot of philisophical debate within it. In order to have a good grasp of it you have to know what the opposing attitudes really are, and they are very complex. The only reason I know about it is because a patron I helped a couple years ago did some research on it and I ended up reading a lot of the articles. It's really a complex issue, and not at all related to what we are discussing. Just to get you started, the university teacher/student sexual relatioship is one that has been philosophized about to death. There is a whole history of material written about it that encompases the entire debate.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Hello???
How the **** do you NOT get a homophobic tone from that?
EDIT: Ah. Privacy Law. Let's see if Rick's argument has merit.
I heard the word "gay" was added by the reporter. Just saying.
And I'm not "defending" anything, really. So don't damn me TOO much. But I am saying that the gay lobby and Professional Handwringing Brigade salivate over stuff like this because they can jump on it and ride it out for all its worth.
And no, I don't know why that last sentence sounded so sexual.
Just more hysterics from one of the most coddled, obnoxious, "see it OUR way or..." groups around.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Trumptman thinks that homosexuality can be equated with incest.
Do I smell straw in here? You wouldn't be trying to restate my argument in a weaker manner so as to knock it down would you?
No Trumptman believes it logically consistant to say that if the Supreme Court rules that due to a right to privacy, the government cannot legislate what goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom, that this ruling would apply to both homosexuality, incest, and several other acts.
Nick