Forums dot lukpac.org

...y'know, sodomy leading to bigamy and the like. My response:

The funny thing isn't that it's a non-sequitor...the funny thing is that this senator doesn't seem to understand the proper foundation of laws.

Let's examine his statement:

a) Bigamy and Polygamy (which are essentially the same thing...having multiple wives) aren't "acts" per se in the same way as sodomy--they're conditions--but let's go with it anyway. So these things are "antithetic" to the traditional nuclear family...does this mean they should be illegal? Think long and hard about this. Because society considers something immoral does *not* give it agency to detain those practitioners; heck, moral outrage would probably be punishment enough. In that light, I see absolutely no reason *why* bigamy and polygamy should be "illegal" (despite the fact that nobody will give you a marriage liscense if you already have one, but let's for a moment assume throwback practitioners of LDS out in a shack somewhere...great, I think it's dumb, I don't think anybody should be arrested).

b) Another unpopular viewpoint: incest is damn nasty, but once again, I'd like to stress the illogical approach of equating "nasty" with "illegal." Clearly, incest involving minors is totally prosecutable, and rightly so, because society has defined the fairly-novel concept of "consent" and minors by definition cannot give it. Wondrous. If some fucked up 30 year old and his 29 year old sister wanna get it on, why is it the responsibility of the *law* (as opposed to, say, moral mores) to tell them they can't and to punish them for trying? The best argument you can make in opposition here involves the health of potential offspring, which is perfectly valid, but excepting that...? What does throwing these people in jail gain society? Precious little.

My point: not only is he *totally wrong* in the general "slippery slope" theorum he's putting forward (as shown above, the nasty stuff, like beastiality...the stuff that can REALLY hurt people and things...all boils down to nice, managable issues of consent, NOT morality), he doesn't seem to understand the distinction between the bases for good *laws* and the bases for good *morals*. It is not enough to have "potentially undermining the stability of some families" as justification for a law in *any* liberal (and I mean this in the classical sense) society.

...

I think this guy just needs a GOOD ASS FUCKING.

David, are you a libertarian?

And where can we see the senator's original statement(s)?

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0 ... 01,00.html

I'm not really a libertarian in the "get the government out of our lives" way...more just in a "why do we have these laws?" way. Apparently, there's SOME classical philosopher that agrees with me, but I have no idea which one..^_^

I'm surprised you weren't familiar with his statements...they've been all over the news recently.

Xenu wrote:b) Another unpopular viewpoint: incest is damn nasty, but once again, I'd like to stress the illogical approach of equating "nasty" with "illegal." Clearly, incest involving minors is totally prosecutable, and rightly so, because society has defined the fairly-novel concept of "consent" and minors by definition cannot give it. Wondrous. If some fucked up 30 year old and his 29 year old sister wanna get it on, why is it the responsibility of the *law* (as opposed to, say, moral mores) to tell them they can't and to punish them for trying? The best argument you can make in opposition here involves the health of potential offspring, which is perfectly valid, but excepting that...?

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, major problems with inbred offspring aren't all that common, or at least a lot less common than people would have you believe.

How do you think we have dog breeds? And I recall some examples of small towns around the globe where the entire genetic pool consists of about 100 or 200 people.

Anyone here an expert on genetics?

lukpac wrote:Actually, if I'm not mistaken, major problems with inbred offspring aren't all that common, or at least a lot less common than people would have you believe.

Sounds like you have a special interest in this area.

Anyone here an expert on genetics?

I'm not, but I know this guy who works at Staples who claims to be a distant relative of Gregor Mendel.

[I'll play Devil's advocate.]

Xenu wrote:The funny thing isn't that it's a non-sequitor...the funny thing is that this senator doesn't seem to understand the proper foundation of laws.

What is the proper foundation of laws? Cause if it's morality, then you can't fault this guy on that basis. He obviously thinks these acts are immoral. You could argue that point, but if law is based in morality, then the issue is whether something is immoral, not whether he has a proper grounding in the foundations of law.

Mike...are you reading this? Any insight?

Also, I should add that conservatives have told me that sodomy laws are not anti-gay, since technically a hetero could get convicted.

a) Bigamy and Polygamy (which are essentially the same thing...having multiple wives) aren't "acts" per se in the same way as sodomy--they're conditions--but let's go with it anyway.

I will probably be banned under the nitpicking rule, but I think bigamy is an act...entering into another marriage when you already are legally married. Polygamy is more of a condition.

Because society considers something immoral does *not* give it agency to detain those practitioners; heck, moral outrage would probably be punishment enough.

Again, aren't many laws rooted in morality (or ethics)?

Clearly, incest involving minors is totally prosecutable, and rightly so, because society has defined the fairly-novel concept of "consent" and minors by definition cannot give it. Wondrous.

You're losing me...are you being sarcastic? Do you think there shouldn't be a law against incest involving minors? What's novel about "consent"? Are you in NAMBLA? On drugs?

What does throwing these people in jail gain society? Precious little.

Are crime and punishment based on what benefits society? What does throwing a tax evader into prison gain society? I think in this case it's more about punishing the offender than benefiting society. In other cases, imprisonment may more clearly benefit society by removing a threat.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... excerpts_2[/i]

Xenu wrote:...y'know, sodomy leading to bigamy and the like.

When did he say that?

Now if only we had discussed things like this in political science...

Patrick M wrote:[I'll play Devil's advocate.]



What is the proper foundation of laws? Cause if it's morality, then you can't fault this guy on that basis. He obviously thinks these acts are immoral. You could argue that point, but if law is based in morality, then the issue is whether something is immoral, not whether he has a proper grounding in the foundations of law.

Being as this is, ostensibly, a liberal society, I think the proper foundation of laws (at least the "important" laws, and I realize that's a snag...I don't really have it worked out to myself yet) should be pretty stoic and uninteresting: property, both in its personal and extrapersonal manifestations.

I.e. killing=depriving a person of property quite heinously=bad.

Whereas *interpretations* of laws (i.e. judicial, societal) should well be moral, I don't think it's necessarily good for a system for the laws themselves to be moral, else you get crap like this sodomy thing.

Also, I should add that conservatives have told me that sodomy laws are not anti-gay, since technically a hetero could get convicted.

Apparently, this particular law only bans homosexual sodomy, which is fairly absurd. Bans of sodomy in general do make more "sense," I suppose, but are still fairly archaic.

I will probably be banned under the nitpicking rule, but I think bigamy is an act...entering into another marriage when you already are legally married. Polygamy is more of a condition.

You rarely "enter into bigamy" in the privacy of your own home, though. I'm see it as being more of a state (although I almost bet this guy is just thinking of orgies, really).

Again, aren't many laws rooted in morality (or ethics)?

Morality and ethics are two different things. Yes, many laws are, and it's the laws that conflict with a more rationalist approach that often feel really wrong (i.e. laws banning private marijuana use).

You're losing me...are you being sarcastic? Do you think there shouldn't be a law against incest involving minors? What's novel about "consent"? Are you in NAMBLA? On drugs?

Why a law against incest involving minors? It's *already illegal* for minors to ingage in sexual activity; they can't consent! Sticking the incest label on it does nothing but make the social worker more mandatory, which you can do anyway.

Cooks-->spoil-->stew.

Are crime and punishment based on what benefits society? What does throwing a tax evader into prison gain society? I think in this case it's more about punishing the offender than benefiting society. In other cases, imprisonment may more clearly benefit society by removing a threat.

Popularly, we are a society that believes in rehabilitation. We're clearly not, but stuff like this justm akes it more obvious.

http://www.spinsanity.com

The recent furor over comments by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) about homosexuality and anti-sodomy laws has been fueled in part by misrepresentations of what he said by some journalists and critics.

In an interview with the Associated Press taped on April 7, Santorum said this with reference to the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the constitutionality of Texas's anti-sodomy law:

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. 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.

Santorum is clearly stating his opposition to constitutional protection for what he calls "homosexual acts" earlier in the interview. In mentioning polygamy, bigamy, incest, and adultery, however, he did not state that they are morally equivalent to homosexual acts. Instead, he made the legal argument that if the Supreme Court overturns Texas's sodomy laws prohibiting anal and oral sex amongst homosexuals, those other acts would have to be legalized by the same principle of a constitutional right to privacy.

Unfortunately, several media outlets have misrepresented Santorum's quote to imply that the senator explicitly compared homosexuality to polygamy, incest and adultery. The problem can be found in several reports such as the lead of an Associated Press article: "Gay-rights groups, fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, yesterday urged Republican leaders to consider removing the Pennsylvania lawmaker from the GOP Senate leadership." Maureen Dowd made the same allegation in her New York Times op-ed column, stating, "Rick Santorum, the obnoxious Pennsylvania senator who is No. 3 in the G.O.P., equated homosexuality with incest, bigamy and polygamy." A Washington Post piece also stated that, "The leading Democratic presidential contenders and congressional leaders condemned [Santorum] for comparing gay sex to incest, bigamy and polygamy in an interview published Monday by the Associated Press."

Some critics were more fair, picking on actual controversial comparisons that Santorum did make. Later in the interview, for instance, he makes an apparent comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality: " In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."

Critics have every right to object to Santorum's beliefs and to his legal arguments. But they are obligated to accurately depict the substantive points he made in a real legal debate about how far the constitutional right to privacy would extend if the Supreme Court overturns Texas's anti-sodomy law.

Correction (4/26): This piece has been corrected to make clear that Texas's sodomy law, like those in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, applies only to homosexuals. It previously incorrectly indicated that the law applied to all people, but "essentially outlawed homosexual sex." Thanks to a watchful reader for pointing out this error.

I read that. Honestly, though, I do think he intended to make a direct comparison. He's clearly going on the "moral slippery slope" route...if he wanted to be less incendiary, there're all sorts of things he could've cited that wouldn't have provoked this sort of reaction.

Read afa.net sometime...this is a standard tactic.

Somewhat related to the topic, but here is a site I found. Scroll down to the bottom for all of the states in the US.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, major problems with inbred offspring aren't all that common, or at least a lot less common than people would have you believe.

How do you think we have dog breeds? And I recall some examples of small towns around the globe where the entire genetic pool consists of about 100 or 200 people.

Anyone here an expert on genetics?

I'm no expert, but I remember reading not too long ago that the only danger from "inbreeding" occurs when it is done over and over again over long periods of time. Dog breeds are a good example, with genetic problems such as hip displacia in many breeds, eventual blindness in spaniel breeds, etc.

Another example is European royalty, who have been intermarrying for hundreds of years. They're highly likely to develop sickle-cell anemia.

On the opposite side, I can speak from the perspective of someone who comes from a family from a small community. Back in the 19th century my family frequenly intermarried with another family in the area, without any adverse effects. In a situation like that, you almost can't help but marry someone you're related to, even distantly, often simply because of not knowing you share common ancestors.

The only problem from occasional inbreeding is really the moral and cultural taboo against it.[/quote]

balthazar wrote:

Another example is European royalty, who have been intermarrying for hundreds of years. They're highly likely to develop sickle-cell anemia.

Uh, Sickle Cell Anemia??? Yeah, right. Wrong race!

Uh, Sickle Cell Anemia??? Yeah, right. Wrong race!

OK, wrong disease, but there are a number of genetic diseases prevalent among the European nobility, many of them blood diseases.

I hope you're not suggesting that sickle cell anemia is isolated to persons of African descent, because that's not the case, either.