Posted on 01/27/2014 5:54:47 AM PST by xsmommy
If they are fertile there is a public health interest. Since we can not examine each case individually, we have to make the law to prevent inbreeding.
It is certainly very low on any priority of police work.
Do you know many 15 y.o guys with daughters?
While I do get your point, and don’t wish to take the cheap way out,
There is a health issue.
That having been said, you guys are reaching, what’s next using animal necrophilia prohibitions, to argue for locking people up for expanding their consciousness?
Hardly analogous.....
.
I know you pooh pooh the health consequences of pot use but they are documented. Future generations bearing the effects I saw most recently so yes adverse health consequences should be guarded against. But morality? Really? Who decides what’s moral? The libertarian sliding scale of what I want to do should be legal but not that really creepy stuff like incesr? Oh ok. And innocence protected? I excluded minors from my question— it’s a loving 20 yo girl and her 35 yo daddy, whose innocence are you protecting by criminalizing that?
Why yes that sliding libertarian scale, as I predicted.
Tobacco kills 400k a year.
Legal, taxed heavily.
Find me a similar stat.
What was the quote I sent you from redstate? Libertarianism isn’t so much a philosophy as self-absorption on stilts. Apt.
See above.
You said documented.
Documemt.
I asked you who decides morality or is it a sliding scale, why are you changing the subject to tobacco?
you can get arrested for public intoxication without driving.
Hard to remember when the world was that innocent. Nice.
There is an inherent major/ minor relationship there, and of that you are well aware, that it transcends physical age....you know thats a reach,
Not at all,there are marriages with 15 yr age differences. You said morality, I asked who defines and as predicted you gave me the sliding scale.
Not changing the subject.
There are certain, issues, murder,rape,robbery that involve victims...that line is clear.
There are other lines, less clear, where the State intrudes (griswold, for instance) on peoples right to be left the f@@@ alone.
A couple of you, disagree, because the prevailing opinion of the State, is trending one way.
I thought conservatives were about the selective use of state power, and leftists.,,the opposite.
Back to the dang library.
Leftists are all about legalization, because they love dope. Again, the sliding scale of personal preference. You’re imposing your values and considering incest to have victims. The loving 20 yo doesn’t consider herself a victim. She wasn’t abused as a child, she and daddy fell in love when she was all grown up, bc she wasn’t raised by him, you see.
Hahaha!
Rme. I said, there is a role in society, to define mores, even at the legal level.some reject that it’s moving toward libertarian values, and reject it in a most virulent way.
Look, and XS, this not directed at you only....
Ok, you’ve moved to your much disdained philosophical argument.
So, whyisa, dave,you...etc...
In the interest of comity, and maybe a little comedy..,,philosophically...where should we be going?
Clearly Dave and I see a lighter yoke..
Given the willingness of effort, i could tear that article apart like a piñata.
Heavy chronic use.
Expectant mothers.
Rats..
Rmfe..
And, beyond that, it makes my point.
Health.
Not.
Criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.