Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kissing Sibs (SCOTUS & incest)
NRO ^ | August 04, 2005 | Matthew J. Franck

Posted on 08/04/2005 12:24:55 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-63 last
To: Mack the knife
Are you seriously proposing that everything you personally believe to be immoral should be illegal -- with men with guns to enforce it?

I think the initial point was that criminal laws are based on public morality, not that all public morality should be made into criminal laws. At some level, any law is created because some person or group of people wants that law to be created. It could be for any reason. For the major criminal laws, it's usually morality of some kind. Any belief you have as to how people should behave (including yourself) is morality. If you happen to take a more libertarian position and think people should be able to do anything they want as long as it doesn't 'hurt' someone else, that's also a morality. You are saying hurting someone else (without their consent) is immoral. It always falls back on morality, how you think people should behave. Since we don't all have the same moral values, we need some way to harmonize them. You should not be allowed to force your morality on everyone else any more than I should. However, laws must follow some morality and the only way we can decide which moral values to follow (and 'none' is not an option) is majority vote, though this is tempered by our form of government.

51 posted on 08/04/2005 9:21:41 PM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: nosofar
Still, the article does bring up a good point that if gay marriage is found to be constitutional, incest would be constitutional for the same reasons.

Not necessarily. They might claim: "It's for The Children."

52 posted on 08/04/2005 9:30:48 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
I strongly suggested that there was a difference between what you require of yourself, and what you should be willing to require of others by force of law.

I believe you are being disengenuous, or at least exaggerated, in your protests. Of course I wouldn't advocate jailing those who don't attend church. But the issue at hand is far from that, blatantly extreme, example.

That we've come to the point in our society that incest is seriously being considered as an entirely private matter, a protected personal liberty, is utterly shocking. It is a long way from "placing in stocks" those who don't go to church.

You also try to impose an absolutist, all-or-nothing attitude on my argument. It's absurd on the face of it. My argument is that laws do and must have a moral foundation to them. You have never responded to that claim. Instead, you go off on an inflammatory rant about imposing my morality on others. You set up a straw man, then light him on fire.

Democratic principles at work in our nation generally impose the judgment of the majority to the whole. What is judged to be wrong by that majority is declared to be illegal, with varying degrees of severity. (No stockade for the non-believers.) On what basis do voters declare what is illegal and what is not? It is based upon their collective moral judgment.

Therefore, the "you can't legislate morality" line simply couldn't be more incorrect. That's exactly what legislation is. So, as the moral restraint of the majority of voters declines, so do our laws follow.

53 posted on 08/05/2005 12:21:52 AM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" - Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Why is theft illegal? Because the majority have said it is immoral.

No! Because it's intrinsically evil. And the fact that it's intrinsically evil is knowable to everyone.

Whether specific acts of theft should be criminalized, and what penalties should be applied to violations of laws regarding theft, are a matter for prudential judgement.

54 posted on 08/05/2005 5:56:43 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Because it's intrinsically evil. And the fact that it's intrinsically evil is knowable to everyone.

...unless you count thieves in your "everyone". See, I would put homosexuality and abortion into the "intrinsically evil" category too. Sadly, our society's "intrinsically evil" list shrinks with every passing day.

55 posted on 08/05/2005 7:36:26 AM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" - Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: All

I find it consitent that the homosexal marriage lobby talks of marriage as if it was just another sexual position for gratification.

Marriage is about society creating an institution that maximizes the raising and producitno of the next generation. Homosexuals do nothing of that.

Incestual relations do not maximize the gene pool.

All the talk of love and comitment are irrelevant window dressing.


56 posted on 08/05/2005 8:28:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

West Virginia ping! :P


57 posted on 08/05/2005 8:32:28 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (The alternative media is our Enigma machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Up next for the SCOTUS:

As creator Matt Groening described them: "Brothers or lovers, possibly both"

58 posted on 08/05/2005 9:19:25 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Creationism is not conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
Your rants were pretty good, however...

And how many people at the Murrah building died because no one was punished for those deeds?

This justification doesn't cut it.

The moral fabric of a society needs to built into the hearts of the citizens, which allows for the government governing them to stay out of the morality business. Many people believe the way to reverse moral decay is more laws, more external force to make people behave better. The federal government was never constitutionally given power over society's morality, but through our courts it has grabbed up a lot of power in that area, which is how we've gotten into much of the fix we're in. Misuse of the tenth & fourteenth amendments has done harm to our society & using it further, in the attempt to reverse that destruction is not the answer, the magic bullet which will make all right again.

This incest case should have been sent back, left to the state. If any state wants to allow marriage between a brother & sister, so be it.

59 posted on 08/05/2005 10:33:26 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Let me see if I can boil down your position:
1) Laws do and must have a moral foundation to them.
2) Not all moral judgements should become law.
3) Which moral judgement should become law are decided by the collective moral judgements of a majority of the citizens.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will accept Position #1 - and ignore the critical question of which code of morality the law should be based on.

I certainly agree with Position #2. I started off this conversation with the critical question -- how do you decide which things which violate the code of morality should be the subject of laws, of force to prohibit them??

Your position #3, that the majority of voters decide, is both untrue and begs the question. It is untrue because the concept of "individual rights" as codified in the Constitution limits what the majority can make illegal (in fact, the purpose of the Consitution is to limit the power of the majority, you know, all that ... Congress shall make no law ... stuff). It begs the question because each voter must decide the question before they vote, and they must and will use some criteria to make that decision.

And that brings you back to my original question -- how SHOULD people decide which "immoral" things should be made "illegal"? How do YOU decide, especially for the so called "victimless crimes"?

For example, a person could simultaneously believe that:
* taking addictive drugs for recreation is very very dangerous, and thus very very bad; and
* everybody has the right to go to hell in their own way, as long as they don't ask me to pay for the consequences; and
* the demonstrated cost of enforcing laws against drugs (including loss of privacy, loss of liberty, the corruption of the justice system, and the cost of the taxes to support such laws) far exceed the value of its demonstrated results...

and thus conclude that the immoral behavior of taking addictive drugs should not be made illegal.

This is NOT the same as saying that my morality is to let everybody do their thing, regardless of consequences, or that law is not based on morality.

So... again I ask ... how do YOU decide which immoral things should be made illegal, i.e., restrained by the use of force??

I don't expect an answer. I just suggest that it is a serious question that should be the subject of serious thought.







60 posted on 08/05/2005 11:49:01 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
Let me see if I can boil down your position: 1) Laws do and must have a moral foundation to them.
2) Not all moral judgements should become law.
3) Which moral judgement should become law are decided by the collective moral judgements of a majority of the citizens.

You have it reasonably well put here.

Your position #3, that the majority of voters decide, is both untrue and begs the question. It is untrue because the concept of "individual rights" as codified in the Constitution limits what the majority can make illegal (in fact, the purpose of the Consitution is to limit the power of the majority, you know, all that ... Congress shall make no law ... stuff).

In the history and experience of the US with regard to the Constitution, you are correct. However, a large enough majority could change that too, with a Constitutional amendment. It's a nifty little irony that the majority chooses to have its own power held in check by the authority of a Constitution which could be legitimately altered to eliminate that check. :-)

It further underlines my contention: The laws of our nation are the way they are because, more or less, a majority of its citizens have caused them to be. They have caused them to be that way because that is what they judge to be, more or less, right. They even believe it is right to place, or preserve, limits upon their own collective power, so far.

Once again, the laws of the land, including the Constitution, are the codified morality of the majority.

61 posted on 08/05/2005 12:03:37 PM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" - Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

Mack the Knife - And how many people at the Murrah building died because no one was punished for those deeds?

GoLightly - This justification doesn't cut it.

It was not meant as a justification.

As I understand the thought processes of its perpetrators from published reports, the targeting of the Murrah building, containing both BATF offices and a day care center, was intended to send a very simple message to government employees -- if our children are not safe (e.g., Ruby Ridge, Waco), your children are not safe. Chechen rebels sent the same message to the Russian government when they took over the school after their children were bombed by Russian aircraft.

I don't agree with it, but I understand how they got there.


62 posted on 08/05/2005 12:05:09 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
It was not meant as a justification.

I realized you didn't intend to justify the action, but your intent is not relevant. I'm trying to get you to look deeper, as you seem to only see the surface "cause".

As I understand the thought processes of its perpetrators from published reports, the targeting of the Murrah building, containing both BATF offices and a day care center, was intended to send a very simple message to government employees -- if our children are not safe (e.g., Ruby Ridge, Waco), your children are not safe. Chechen rebels sent the same message to the Russian government when they took over the school after their children were bombed by Russian aircraft.

Every junkie caught burglarizing a house to support their drug habit will blame the theft on the price of drugs & every poor kid who holds up the local 7-11 will blame the theft on their poverty. "Victim mentality" enabled by a basically immoral society perpetuates itself. It is the destructive force. It is what was behind Waco, Ruby Ridge, the bombing of the Murrah building, the Belsan school massacre, the bombing of the the Chechen's, the burglarized home & the robbery at the 7-11. Strong societies push their populations towards a supportive morality, but every time governments get into that business, they take away the most effective tools from the societies they are attempting to govern.

I don't agree with it, but I understand how they got there.

You do?

63 posted on 08/05/2005 1:14:49 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-63 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson