CSNbbs

Full Version: So Liberals, are you pro incestuous marriage?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Although marriage has nothing to do with sex, it is a legal union, currently between 2 people. Partners may or may not have sex, or children, they don't have to live together, you can write your own vows etc., you need not go to a church Regarding the places were incest is ok but not legal to be married....why is that?

Israel[edit]
See also: Jewish views on incest
Consensual incest between adults is legal in Israel

India[edit]
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not contain any specific provision against incest, but there are general provisions relating to sexual abuse of children by their custodian, such as a parent or teacher.[11][12]

Thailand[edit]
Consensual incest between adults aging from 18 years old is not prohibited by law in Thailand. Incestuous marriage is prohibited by law.

Netherlands[edit]
Some references said that consensual incest between adults is legal in the Netherlands[6] and half siblings may marry under special approval of the government.[citation needed], but according to Dutch government website,[56] Parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and brothers and sisters are forbidden to marry in the Netherlands, although a dispensation may be granted if the partners are adopted siblings.

Spain[edit]
Consensual incest between adults is legal in Spain.[6

Sweden[edit]
Incest with a descendant or a full sibling is prohibited by law in Sweden.[61] Half-siblings can marry, but require special approval by the government.

United States[edit]
Main article: Laws regarding incest in the United States
See also: Prohibited degree of kinship § United States
Laws regarding incest in the United States vary widely between jurisdictions regarding both the definition of the offense and penalties for its commission. The Laws regarding incest in the United States article summarizes these laws for individual U.S. States and the District of Columbia.

In the United States the District of Columbia and every state and inhabited territory have some form of codified incest prohibition. In most states, sexual activity between a lineal ancestor and a lineal descendant (parent, grandparent with child or grandchild), siblings (brother-sister) and aunt-nephew, uncle-niece is penalized as incest. However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island has repealed its criminal incest statute[68] and only criminalizes incestuous marriage.[69] Ohio "targets only parental figures",[68] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[6][68]

In some states, sex between first cousins is prohibited (see cousin marriage law in the United States by state for cousin sex, as well as cousin marriage, being outlawed in some states). Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations, including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[70]

Brazil[edit]
It has no criminal punishment if the involved are over the age of 14 (the clear age of consent in force; before 2011, though, sex with people as young as 12 and as elder as 17 was in a legal grey area, with legal guardian-reported sex with those aged 12 and 13 being prosecuted as statutory rape, but unlike as with those aged 11 and younger not directly prosecuted by the State without a report by either the legal guardians or the adolescents themselves – unlike now, where the police forces prosecute all statutory rape-related cases without distinction –, and legal guardian-reported sex with those aged 14, 15, 16 and 17 being prosecuted as corruption of minors, but prosecution as corruption of minors for non-commercial consented sexual activity between people out of a defined hierarchy fell), capable of acting upon their legal rights, and that consent means that the relationship is absent of any kind of coercion or fraud.[citation need

Brazilian law never held marriages between double first cousins as a reason for invalidity, even though those have a consanguinity as strong as that of half-siblings, and those, as other first cousins, are not asked health checks to marry, doing so in the same way as non-related people. Also legally treated much like non-related people are stepsiblings, while those who are stepsiblings and half-siblings (that is, those who have a half-sibling who is also child of a latter married spouse of one's parent) are treated like half-siblings who are not stepsiblings, being demanded health checks before marrying.

Australia[edit]
In Australia, under federal law, sexual conduct between consenting adults (18 years of age or older) is legal,[75][76] and state incest laws are subject to the overriding federal law. Federal law prohibits marriage to an opposite-sex ancestor and descendant or sibling (including a sibling of half-blood), including those traced through adoption.[77][78]

Subject to conflicting Commonwealth laws, incest is a crime in every Australian jurisdiction,[79] but definitions and penalties vary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest
Anybody?
Being classically Liberal....Ill answer. As long as the principle of non aggression is not violated?...I have to allow it...regardless of how disgusting I find the practice.07-coffee3
I'm going to guess most incestuous behavior is acted upon by adults that would not identify themselves as being liberal.
(06-26-2015 02:53 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to guess most incestuous behavior is acted upon by adults that would not identify themselves as being liberal.

Stats/Link or GTFO.
(06-26-2015 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Being classically Liberal....Ill answer. As long as the principle of non aggression is not violated?...I have to allow it...regardless of how disgusting I find the practice.07-coffee3

You might be correct, legally.
You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.
(06-26-2015 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.

The second two people are unmarried siblings. They’ve lived together for 25 years. Their financial relationship is the same as the — the same-sex couple. They share household expenses and household chores in the same way. They care for each other in the same way. Is there any reason why the law should treat the two groups differently?

BONAUTO: Well, I’m not sure that the law would — the — the law allows 100 percent of heterosexual people to enter into a marriage that’s consistent with their sexual orientation, and in these States, it forbids 100 percent of gay and lesbian people from entering into a marriage that’s consistent with their sexual orientation —

ALITO: Well, as far as —

VERRILLI: — and justifies that difference.

ALITO: As far as the — the benefits that federal law confers on married people, such as in Windsor, the effect on estate taxes, what would be the reason for treating those two groups differently?

VERRILLI: Well, I — I — I’m not entirely sure there would be, but, of course, marriage is something more fundamental than that. It is an enduring bond between two people.
***


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/su...z3eCWJB6YX
(06-26-2015 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.

Whoa, somebody who knows what he's talking about! I think you made a wrong turn buddy.

If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

So in the case of a ban against incestuous marriage, the court would ask whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting and discouraging incest. Given the real harm that incest can do to society's gene pool, such a ban there may be justified whereas a ban against gay marriage (becauze it's NOT MAH HERITAGE!!!!) is not.
(06-26-2015 03:16 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.

Whoa, somebody who knows what he's talking about! I think you made a wrong turn buddy.

If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

So in the case of a ban against incestuous marriage, the court would ask whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting and discouraging incest. Given the real harm that incest can do to society's gene pool, such a ban there may be justified whereas a ban against gay marriage (becauze it's NOT MAH HERITAGE!!!!) is not.

"Tainting the gene pool" is hardly a consideration today with prenatal genetic testing available. The odds of a genetic malady would be greatly reduced.

And unrelated couples can and do have children with genetic maladies every day.

Additionally there could be related couples who are sterile and will not reproduce or who choose to not reproduce.

Who is the State to deny them their happiness as two consenting married adults?
(06-26-2015 03:16 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.

Whoa, somebody who knows what he's talking about! I think you made a wrong turn buddy.

If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

So in the case of a ban against incestuous marriage, the court would ask whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting and discouraging incest. Given the real harm that incest can do to society's gene pool, such a ban there may be justified whereas a ban against gay marriage (becauze it's NOT MAH HERITAGE!!!!) is not.

Max, how about brother and sister who are not incestuous? A good family friend of our is a Nun. We drive her out to see her brother and sister in a small town in Ripley Oh. They have been living together for years, neither one have ever been married. Why can't they marry each other and get the benefits conferred to married people?
(06-26-2015 04:37 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:16 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.

Whoa, somebody who knows what he's talking about! I think you made a wrong turn buddy.

If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

So in the case of a ban against incestuous marriage, the court would ask whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting and discouraging incest. Given the real harm that incest can do to society's gene pool, such a ban there may be justified whereas a ban against gay marriage (becauze it's NOT MAH HERITAGE!!!!) is not.

Max, how about brother and sister who are not incestuous? A good family friend of our is a Nun. We drive her out to see her brother and sister in a small town in Ripley Oh. They have been living together for years, neither one have ever been married. Why can't they marry each other and get the benefits conferred to married people?


but but brotherly/sisterly love is unnatural...
oh wait...
(06-26-2015 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Being classically Liberal....Ill answer. As long as the principle of non aggression is not violated?...I have to allow it...regardless of how disgusting I find the practice.07-coffee3

Objectively, this is the correct answer. Realistically, how many people will actually go for an incestuous relationship? For virtually everyone on this board, (gay or straight) I bet no one has the urge to have sex with their siblings, cousins or parents.

Curiously though, how did Adam and Eve propagate the species? Or more importantly, who did Seth and Cain have sex with to have their own offspring?
I'm not pro it but couldn't care less
If they're consenting adults I guess the standard's been met, who are liberals to be bigoted and closed minded. 05-stirthepot
(06-26-2015 04:37 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:16 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.

Whoa, somebody who knows what he's talking about! I think you made a wrong turn buddy.

If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

So in the case of a ban against incestuous marriage, the court would ask whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting and discouraging incest. Given the real harm that incest can do to society's gene pool, such a ban there may be justified whereas a ban against gay marriage (becauze it's NOT MAH HERITAGE!!!!) is not.

Max, how about brother and sister who are not incestuous? A good family friend of our is a Nun. We drive her out to see her brother and sister in a small town in Ripley Oh. They have been living together for years, neither one have ever been married. Why can't they marry each other and get the benefits conferred to married people?
They cant.

I'm gonna marry my 90 year grandmother and rake it in.
(06-26-2015 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Being classically Liberal....Ill answer. As long as the principle of non aggression is not violated?...I have to allow it...regardless of how disgusting I find the practice.07-coffee3

WOW! How bigoted and close minded, I expect better from a liberal. Aren't LIBERALS supposed to be tolerant and accepting? 05-stirthepot
My sister is hot. 02-13-banana
(06-26-2015 03:33 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:16 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 03:01 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]You need an overwhelming state interest to impinge fundamental rights...like marriage.

I guess the state can articulate a scientific (not a book of mythology) basis to put curbs on incest.

Time will tell, I guess.

Whoa, somebody who knows what he's talking about! I think you made a wrong turn buddy.

If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

So in the case of a ban against incestuous marriage, the court would ask whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting and discouraging incest. Given the real harm that incest can do to society's gene pool, such a ban there may be justified whereas a ban against gay marriage (becauze it's NOT MAH HERITAGE!!!!) is not.

"Tainting the gene pool" is hardly a consideration today with prenatal genetic testing available. The odds of a genetic malady would be greatly reduced.

And unrelated couples can and do have children with genetic maladies every day.

Additionally there could be related couples who are sterile and will not reproduce or who choose to not reproduce.

Who is the State to deny them their happiness as two consenting married adults?

Well as I said the law needs to be narrowly tailored, which means if you're drafting the statute you might need to carve out exceptions for sterile couples. As far as prenatal testing, are you suggesting that they be forced to do it and, if the results come back sufficiently positive, you force them into an abortion? That's not going to work.

But maybe I'm wrong and there's no reason other than "Icky!"
(06-26-2015 05:43 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2015 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Being classically Liberal....Ill answer. As long as the principle of non aggression is not violated?...I have to allow it...regardless of how disgusting I find the practice.07-coffee3

Objectively, this is the correct answer. Realistically, how many people will actually go for an incestuous relationship? For virtually everyone on this board, (gay or straight) I bet no one has the urge to have sex with their siblings, cousins or parents.

Curiously though, how did Adam and Eve propagate the species? Or more importantly, who did Seth and Cain have sex with to have their own offspring?

I can say without a doubt I would bang the schit out of one of my cousins if given a chance. Not only hot...but...she makes an outstanding living working for Microsoft.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Reference URL's