Government Controlling Morals?

[Antares]

Should the government make laws based on morals?

I was talking to Jared about this a few weeks ago, how it is weird how laws are created based on like incest and other things when it is totally based on how the people were raised. Incest doesn't hurt anyone yet it is illegal because it is "morally wrong".

Any opinions?

[Sapphire]

I can't believe that you have actually said that in all seriousness! Do you have a considerate bone in your body? How can you honestly say that incest "doesn't hurt anyone"? I actually feel sick upon learning of the extent of your ignorance and inconsiderateness!
Incest can and does have severe effects on the mental health of the people involved. All you need to do is look into the abuse section of this forum or search for incest survivor communities online to see that much.

[theOperaGhost]

How about cannibalism? If a person is already dead and you didn't kill them, why is it illegal to eat them, or isn't it? I guess maybe it's never been brought up, since most cannibals actually murdered their victims, but still. Maybe cannibalism isn't illegal, idk.

[Maverick]

I can't believe that you have actually said that in all seriousness! Do you have a considerate bone in your body? How can you honestly say that incest "doesn't hurt anyone"? I actually feel sick upon learning of the extent of your ignorance and inconsiderateness!
Incest can and does have severe effects on the mental health of the people involved. All you need to do is look into the abuse section of this forum or search for incest survivor communities online to see that much.
Not that I agree with incest, but between two consenting adults and someone that is abused aren't comparable.

Marrying your cousin isn't like being raped by a family member.

[Sapphire]

Not that I agree with incest, but between two consenting adults and someone that is abused aren't comparable.

Marrying your cousin isn't like being raped by a family member.

When talking about incest generally the statement that it "doesn't hurt anyone" is inconsiderate and insensitive. It is wrong of him to say as much and just shows how ignorant he really is.

[Antares]

Sorry guys, I need to clarify.

I guess my perception of incest isn't in depth. I never really assosiated people being forced into incest with incest if that makes sense. I was looking at like, "I love my brother. I want to marry him and screw him, but I know it is wrong."

I was thinking more of that instead of people actually being forced itno it by fathers, mothers, etc.

[Maverick]

When talking about incest generally the statement that it "doesn't hurt anyone" is inconsiderate and insensitive. It is wrong of him to say as much and just shows how ignorant he really is.
Or you just took a statement way out of context and didn't bother giving a benefit of the doubt.

[Sapphire]

Well, next time be more aware of what you are saying.
It isn't always forced and often the children involved aren't completely aware of what is actually happening, just that it is happening.

[Antares]

Can we get back on topic though? lol

[japanman]

*sigh* incest is only okay if both and all participents are fully aware and okay with what they are doing.

Otherwise its just disgusting and as for laws in genral ill have to think about that for awhile.

[Maverick]

Well I think governments should be able to make laws based off morals. If people in that state or community support the law then full steam ahead.

What I don't support is laws based off morals in a central authority (federal government) because people can't find another local area that has laws they can agree with.

Like here in Georgia I can't buy alcohol on Sundays but its nice to know that going to the northeast or west I can.

[Antares]

I know that here you can't buy alcohol on sundays but in the south I am pretty sure you can (mississippi, arkansas, tennessee louisiana etc). At least I think you can

Anyways umm also they sell alcohol in stores instead of here where it is in a designated liquor store.

Anyways, I just feel that there are too many diverse peoples with different backgrounds to make laws based on...the middle aged white man. (With that I am talking about older laws so please dont hurt me)

[Sapphire]

If something is immoral then it is because someone is hurt (physically, psychologically or materially). Therefore, I feel that morals provide a good basis for laws.

[CaptainObvious]

When talking about incest generally the statement that it "doesn't hurt anyone" is inconsiderate and insensitive. It is wrong of him to say as much and just shows how ignorant he really is.

...in a situation where two consenting, related adults choose to engage in incest without coercion, who is hurt?

Obviously there are many cases where parents have abusive incestuous relationships with their children and so forth. But there are other laws that cover that kind of crime (rape, statutory rape, forcible confinement [in certain recent cases] and so forth) - so why focus on the incest part?

Clearly incest resulting in pregnancy and birth must be forbidden and punishable with mandatory adoption (or other removal of the child) and jail time; but if two people who happen to be related want to have sex, who are we to stop them? They harm no one other than (if you believe it) themselves.

If something is immoral then it is because someone is hurt (physically, psychologically or materially). Therefore, I feel that morals provide a good basis for laws.

And my argument is that incest is not immoral; that the only immoral part is if a child is birthed from an incestuous relationship. Care to address that objection to your point of view?

[Sapphire]

...in a situation where two consenting, related adults choose to engage in incest without coercion, who is hurt?

Obviously there are many cases where parents have abusive incestuous relationships with their children and so forth. But there are other laws that cover that kind of crime (rape, statutory rape, forcible confinement [in certain recent cases] and so forth) - so why focus on the incest part?

Clearly incest resulting in pregnancy and birth must be forbidden and punishable with mandatory adoption (or other removal of the child) and jail time; but if two people who happen to be related want to have sex, who are we to stop them? They harm no one other than (if you believe it) themselves.

And my argument is that incest is not immoral; that the only immoral part is if a child is birthed from an incestuous relationship. Care to address that objection to your point of view?

Incest (excluding cases where it first occurs in adulthood and outside the parental home) is immoral because it brings sex (with all it's risks and dangers) into what should be a nurturing and loving environment. Risks include: the family bonds breaking down, the disruption of healthy development, depression, PTSD, BPD and other mental health problems along with pregnancy and STDs.
The legal system recognises and acknowledges this. It is also there to protect the citizens within its jurisdiction from each other and themselves.

As I said before, when talking generally about incest it is wrong to say that no one is hurt. This is because the cases of consenting adults probably do not account for the majority of the cases of incest. Cases where it occurs within the family home are more likely to result in the risks outlined above.

Why do you believe that it's ok until the moment of conception?

[CaptainObvious]

Incest (excluding cases where it first occurs in adulthood and outside the parental home) is immoral because it brings sex (with all it's risks and dangers) into what should be a nurturing and loving environment. Risks include: the family bonds breaking down, the disruption of healthy development, depression, PTSD, BPD and other mental health problems along with pregnancy and STDs.
The legal system recognises and acknowledges this. It is also there to protect the citizens within its jurisdiction from each other and themselves.

Since when did it become the government's job to legislate "nurturing and loving"? Is that in the Constitution somewhere? Furthermore, even if all of the risks you pointed out were direct results of icnest (not all of them are - all of the mental health issues, as well as pregnancy and STDs can occur in non-incestuous sex), that would be beside the point, because those are risks that a consenting adult is legally and morally entitled to take (every single risk you have listed is attached to other behaviors as well, which is obvious).

As I said before, when talking generally about incest it is wrong to say that no one is hurt. This is because the cases of consenting adults probably do not account for the majority of the cases of incest. Cases where it occurs within the family home are more likely to result in the risks outlined above.

I'm sorry, but are you just purely making things up now? Consenting adults "probably" do not account for the majority of the cases of incest? That may be true - but it's irrelevant, because the majority of the cases you seem to be thinking are so risky and traumatizing would be parent-child incest, which would normally be covered by statutory rape laws - and if the child is over 18, they're a consenting adult in my mind.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of other sexual behaviors that come with the risks you listed attached. Adultery, one night stands... all kinds of stuff. They're not illegal because it's not the government's job to legislate risk management when it comes to sexual decisions for consenting adults.

Why do you believe that it's ok until the moment of conception?

...is this a serious question? My belief in incestuous pregnancy being wrong is the exact same reason that incest is banned in the first place: babies born of incestuous pregnancies have an above-average numer of genetic defects, and large-scale inbreeding can thoroughly destroy families. Both as a matter of public policy, and as a matter of creating potential suffering for a child of incest, such pregnancies should be (as they are) banned, and criminal for those involved.

But when incest does not produce a child, it is simply another kind of adult relationship. I wouldn't personally engage in it, but that does not make it wrong. Do you have an objection to it other than vague ruminations about "risk"? Something distinct to incest, for example?

[Sapphire]

Since when did it become the government's job to legislate "nurturing and loving"?Since child welfare became a legal concern.
Furthermore, even if all of the risks you pointed out were direct results of icnest (not all of them are - all of the mental health issues, as well as pregnancy and STDs can occur in non-incestuous sex), that would be beside the point, because those are risks that a consenting adult is legally and morally entitled to take (every single risk you have listed is attached to other behaviors as well, which is obvious). It is true that those risks come with other actions as well, but they are also caused directly by incestuous relationships. The fact that many cases of incest do involve sexual relations concerning a child and another family member makes these risks all very relevant to the immoralisation and illeagalisation of incest.Adults who were incestuously victimized by adults in their childhood often suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction, and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder...The damaging effects on both childhood development and adult symptoms resulting from brother–sister sexual abuse are similar to the effects of father–daughter, including substance abuse, depression, suicidality, and eating disorders.I'm sorry, but are you just purely making things up now? Consenting adults "probably" do not account for the majority of the cases of incest? That may be true - but it's irrelevant, because the majority of the cases you seem to be thinking are so risky and traumatizing would be parent-child incest, which would normally be covered by statutory rape laws - and if the child is over 18, they're a consenting adult in my mind.You have got to be kidding me. How can we debate this if you deem huge parts of the topic to be "irrelevant"?
I am not dismissing consensual incestuous relationships and if you read my last post more carefully, you would see that.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of other sexual behaviors that come with the risks you listed attached. Adultery, one night stands... all kinds of stuff. They're not illegal because it's not the government's job to legislate risk management when it comes to sexual decisions for consenting adults.I never said it was.



...is this a serious question? My belief in incestuous pregnancy being wrong is the exact same reason that incest is banned in the first place: babies born of incestuous pregnancies have an above-average numer of genetic defects, and large-scale inbreeding can thoroughly destroy families. Both as a matter of public policy, and as a matter of creating potential suffering for a child of incest, such pregnancies should be (as they are) banned, and criminal for those involved. I asked because your view of incest seems to be skewed. I read your last post as saying that incest is ok in it's entirety as long as a child isn't born and I was trying to work out if this was a valid interpretation.

But when incest does not produce a child, it is simply another kind of adult relationship. I wouldn't personally engage in it, but that does not make it wrong. Do you have an objection to it other than vague ruminations about "risk"? Something distinct to incest, for example?Are you actually having a laugh? You accuse me of being preoccupied with only one aspect of this topic and yet you are doing that yourself. I have been talking about real risks directly to do with incest.

[CaptainObvious]

I asked because your view of incest seems to be skewed. I read your last post as saying that incest is ok in it's entirety as long as a child isn't born and I was trying to work out if this was a valid interpretation.

For the record, the genesis of the incest taboo and related laws is tied to the necessity of avoidance of inbreeding for the survival of humanity. The abuse objections you keep bringing up would not have been at all considered back when some of the original proscriptions against incest were written (the Bible was one of the first). The evolutionary argument against incest is robust and ancient - but it applies logically only to incestuous pregnancy, not purely sex.

Since child welfare became a legal concern.

It is true that those risks come with other actions as well, but they are also caused directly by incestuous relationships. The fact that many cases of incest do involve sexual relations concerning a child and another family member makes these risks all very relevant to the immoralisation and illeagalisation of incest.

You have got to be kidding me. How can we debate this if you deem huge parts of the topic to be "irrelevant"?
I am not dismissing consensual incestuous relationships and if you read my last post more carefully, you would see that.

You're confusing a few things here. You continue to tie incest to statutory rape and sexual abuse of children by adults, and also to sexual abuse of children by other children. We need to separate these issues. Let me make myself clear: I absolutely oppose adult-child relationships and adult sexual abuse of children, as well as sexual abuse of children by other children. But all of these things are already illegal under various laws - nothing to do with incest.

When I speak of incest, I mean the pure, otherwise legally unencumbered act of two consenting adults having sex - who happen to be related familially. Your objections so far to incest have all stemmed from the other crimes that can arise along with incest. I am absolutely with you on them. But you have yet to provide an incest-specific objection to incest.

[Sapphire]

You're confusing a few things here. You continue to tie incest to statutory rape and sexual abuse of children by adults, and also to sexual abuse of children by other children. We need to separate these issues. Let me make myself clear: I absolutely oppose adult-child relationships and adult sexual abuse of children, as well as sexual abuse of children by other children. But all of these things are already illegal under various laws - nothing to do with incest.

When I speak of incest, I mean the pure, otherwise legally unencumbered act of two consenting adults having sex - who happen to be related familially. Your objections so far to incest have all stemmed from the other crimes that can arise along with incest. I am absolutely with you on them. But you have yet to provide an incest-specific objection to incest.

Oh, you must be having a laugh. Honestly!

Incest is defined as the sexual relations between close family members of all ages. It includes children, adolescents and adults. It does not discriminate between different age ranges.

There are, as we have discussed, different types of incestuous relationships. Those between adults and children (often referred to as intrafamilial child sexual abuse), those between siblings (children), those between consenting adult siblings and those between consenting adult cousins are just a few examples.

[CaptainObvious]

Oh, you must be having a laugh. Honestly!

Incest is defined as the sexual relations between close family members of all ages. It includes children, adolescents and adults. It does not discriminate between different age ranges.

There are, as we have discussed, different types of incestuous relationships. Those between adults and children (often referred to as intrafamilial child sexual abuse), those between siblings (children), those between consenting adult siblings and those between consenting adult cousins are just a few examples.

Do you really not understand what I'm saying, or are you being purposefully obtuse?

Let me make this short, and simple:

Incest, as you correctly define it, includes intrafamilial sexual relaitonships in all age combinations.

However, incest between adults and children is already illegal, under statutory rape laws, and often laws against sexual abuse. The same can go for child-child incest.

My contention is that those are the only two categories of incest that are immoral and should be illegal, and that because those two categories are already illegal under other laws, having a law against incest is superfluous.

You keep trying to drag the discussion back into the issue of child abuse and abuse of parental and adult power. That's not what this is about. I agree that those things should be illegal. But incest laws do not turn them from legal into illegal; they are already illegal. The only effective thing incest law does is criminalize consenting relationships between adults. I don't care what 2 consenting adults who happen to be related do in their bedroom; do you?

[Sapphire]

Your point that laws on incest between a parent and a child and two children are superfluous is your opinion but I greatly disagree. The law is there to protect people and if that means that some laws overlap and compliment each other then so be it. I'd rather have a legal system that comprehensively covered every illegal action to one where loopholes are allowed to exist because things are deemed to be covered by another law already. And your claim that I keep "trying to drag the discussion back into the issue of child abuse and abuse of parental and adult power" is wrong.

The claim that what two consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business and no one else's should not apply here because of the main result of sex is a pregnancy. To legalise sexual relations but to outlaw the result is a severely half-witted manner of doing things. Also, as my quote from The Home Office (UK) states, not all sexual relations between consenting adults is deemed "harmless" or without negative effect....there is evidence to suggest that some adult familial relationships are the result of long-term grooming by an older family member and the criminal law needs to protect adults from abuse in such circumstances.

[rsc4life]

We have had pointless debate about when Lassez-faire is a smart way of governing. Here is the answer: Laissez-Faire only works on moral issues! Real issues, both fiscal and those for the safety of people are important to keep close watch on. I.e. gun control, the economy, the war, taxes...

[CaptainObvious]

Your point that laws on incest between a parent and a child and two children are superfluous is your opinion but I greatly disagree. The law is there to protect people and if that means that some laws overlap and compliment each other then so be it. I'd rather have a legal system that comprehensively covered every illegal action to one where loopholes are allowed to exist because things are deemed to be covered by another law already. And your claim that I keep "trying to drag the discussion back into the issue of child abuse and abuse of parental and adult power" is wrong.

You greatly disagree? On what basis? Sex between an adult and a child is already illegal. Therefore, the type of incest you keep referring to as the most damaging is already illegal. Therefore, the incest law against it is redundant. And what "loopholes" are you talking about? The loophole that consenting adults would be allowed to have incestuous sex under my model? I wouldn't call that a loophole - that's the point. I want consenting adults to be allowed to have incestuous sex - because they're consenting adults, and sexual (and other contractual relationships) between consenting adults should be left alone.

The claim that what two consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business and no one else's should not apply here because of the main result of sex is a pregnancy. To legalise sexual relations but to outlaw the result is a severely half-witted manner of doing things. Also, as my quote from The Home Office (UK) states, not all sexual relations between consenting adults is deemed "harmless" or without negative effect.

Are you living in the same world I am? Take a look around. What proportion of the sex that goes on daily in the developed world results in pregnancy, would you say? I'd say probably well under 10%. The main result of sex is absolutely not always prengnancy, not in our world of birth control and abortion. The main result of sex is sex.

To legalise incestuous sex but outlaw incestuous pregnancy is not half-witted; it is a recognition of the fact that the worst outcome of incest is (and always has been) genetically malformed children due to inbreeding. You are being willfully ignorant if you suggest that the main reason for laws against incest is trauma; that's not it at all.

As for your quote from the UK Home Office, I'd like a link so I can read the document un-redacted. But even if that quote is absolutely true and reflects a major proportion of adult incest - and from where I'm sitting the quote looks very weasely... "evidence" suggests that "some" adult relationships may be caused by "grooming"... show me the evidence - it's still not a compelling argument in my opinion, because all kinds of adults can "groom" a younger person for sex. That's not exclusive to parents, and it's not illegal for people other than parents, so it's not a particularly strong argument against incest specifically.

The bottom line here is that every argument you have made for incest being illegal has centered around some other aspect of incest. My point is that if two consenting adults want to have sex and happen to be related, I have no problem with that as long as no children result - because that would be unfair to the child.

Do you disagree that consenting adults should maintain sexual independence?

[Sapphire]

The last I'm going to say is that you obviously have not read my posts closely enough if you still think that I have only been talking about parent-child sex.

Under 10% of the time sex results in pregnancy? If that were true then the abortion rates wouldn't be so high, would they?

I do disagree with your idea of legalising consensual incest between adults (as if this wasn't clear enough by now).

I have made arguments that the law ensures that people are protected. The sentence that someone may receive for an act of incest is greater then one they would receive for sexual assault and abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child (includes sex) and so, IMO, correctly reflect the social atmosphere and moral issue without being "superfluous".

The fact that you are so blinded by your own ignorance is clear because of your reluctance to read what I have said properly.

[Techno Monster]

Since Christianity is the most popular religion in the northern hemisphere, the stupid governments have to make laws that correlate with it, which I think is stupid. For instance, I think the gay marriage laws absolute crap.

[Antares]

Since Christianity is the most popular religion in the northern hemisphere, the stupid governments have to make laws that correlate with it, which I think is stupid. For instance, I think the gay marriage laws absolute crap.

That's an excellent example.

People think that gay marriage is wrong. However, it is based on if morally you agree with it or not...while most people say "Let them do what they want" you still have people like Fred Phelps (typical...not so typical old white a-hole) doing the weirdest things.

[CaptainObvious]

I have made arguments that the law ensures that people are protected. The sentence that someone may receive for an act of incest is greater then one they would receive for sexual assault and abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child (includes sex) and so, IMO, correctly reflect the social atmosphere and moral issue without being "superfluous".

If your entire argument is that because incest can provide some additional punishment for predators it should be legal, this argument is over. As a matter of good jurisprudence it is bad practice to make a law about one thing in order to punish another. If you think laws against sexual abuse of childre are too lax, by all means push for them to be changed. But this kind of half-assed, indirect lawmaking is not legally sound.

For the record, several states in America either have no incest statute, or legalize it for those over 18, or only make it illegal for parental figures with their children. Rhode Island, New jersey and Ohio have the above laws, respectively. And those states aren't full of sexual abuse, that I've noticed (having gone to school in NJ). Do you have some evidence that would prove your hypothesis that allowing consensual adult incest results in more sexual abuse? Some data from those states? Or are you just throwing stuff out there?

Under 10% of the time sex results in pregnancy? If that were true then the abortion rates wouldn't be so high, would they?

You need to do some research and learn to think quantitatively. Using abortion data from the UK, abortoins in the UK consisted of 22% of pregnancies. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

22%. That's all. What that means is that abortions + pregnancies is only 1.2 times pregnancies alone. For my postulate to be true, women must hve sex 10 times for each time they get pregnant. Seems reasonable to me. You? Do you think that women get pregnant every couple of times they have sex?

The fact that you are so blinded by your own ignorance is clear because of your reluctance to read what I have said properly.

Don't be rude. Post reported.

[Callwaiting]

Laws are based on morals, which in turn are based on religion, still a powerful hand in the modern world.

Not that this is a bad thing, I'm just noting that morals developed from religion.
However I feel it IS a bad thing when governments try to force their way into personal lives where they have no place.

On the other hand it's probably more to do with governments maintaining face as opposed to doing the right thing.
Can you imagine a government announcing one of their policies as being decriminalizing incest, being voted in?