Posted on 05/02/2007 10:27:48 AM PDT by Uncledave
Yes you can. All laws are based on someone's assessment of what is moral. Whether or not you agree with that assessment is immaterial. You're still subject to penalties if you breach it.
Poor Jan! Always left out thanks to Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!
Ahem.... Why, pray tell?
I maintain that there is an agenda.
Homosexual marriage. Let's get people used to that idea. Sure, it starts out creepy but once they get used to it, it will seem like no big deal.
Marriage between step-siblings. Let's get people used to that idea. Sure, it starts out creepy but once they get used to it, it will seem like no big deal. I mean, it's not really incest.
Marriage between actual siblings. Let's get people used to that idea. Sure, it starts out creepy but once they get used to it, it will seem like no big deal.
And polygamy. And child-sex. And bestiality. And ...
What were the 3 Brady boys’ names?.........
I agree with your sensible post, of course.
But this phrase has stuck in my craw since the 1960s. You can't legislate morality? Really? Then what are laws against stealing and murder?
It seems to me that if you consent to the idea of a body of criminal law, you can't legislate anything but morality. Pursuant to that, I don't see why adultery, sodomy, suicide, public obscenity, or incest should be excluded from legal censure. They are not "victimless" crimes. Breaches of morals are serious breaches of public order, which belongs to everyone, and ultimately to God.
No part of the criminal law, even seemingly unarguable prohibitions against theft, treason, and murder, can survive in a society that refuses to criminalize immorality—because that is a society that has refused to recognize right and wrong.
Exactly. Except on the legislate morality part...I agree to the extent that the law cannot make the heart moral. But the law can and should legislate against certain acts of immorality. Their heart may be immoral but their actions don't have to be. Otherwise how can we have laws against public nudity or adult-child sex? On what basis is there even an age-of-consent? Or how about the limits placed on pornography? Why any consideration of decency at all? But you are right to say that the idea of shame should be enough to cover many things that the law does not address. But increasingly the law is actually being used to call that "hate speech" and "discrimination" and "bigotry." The law is not leaving the public with the tools to address immorality.
Abraham’s kid (Isaac) was okay.
Isaac’s kids, 50% okay.
Jacob’s kids, only 10% okay.
Law of diminishing returns, I guess. LOL
Peter, Gregg and who was the third? My kid would know - watches it in reruns! I can’t get over “Carol’s” hair.
Wait till the Muslims start advocating for first cousin marriage...it’s already a reality under our noses anyway.
I recommend an excellent article on the topic—very timely
http://www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm
THIS is exactly the point of the article..........."THE SLIPPERY SLOPE".
Having sex with your Step-Daughter, is not as bad as having sex with your Daughter.
The LEFTS grand strategy, "DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN."
Before your bottom couple all of us FREEPERS will DEFINITELY be dead. There is no way that those will be legal in at least 2 or 3 centuries if that.
I’m sure this guy from Ohio — probably deep southern Ohio — feels ashamed every morning as he looks into the mirror while brushing his tooth.
Now this branch of the family lives in a small florida town called Clewiston so perhaps the stigma is not as bad there. My personal feelings on it are that they should be able to do what makes them happy. My uncle is in his late 60's, my cousin in her late 40's so they are certainly old enough at that point to decide for themselves.
My cousin is not very attractive yet has a heart of gold - so always had problems with being used by men in the past. My uncle was the only man whose love she could trust to be true.
Yeah, everybody remember’s Peter & Gregg’s names, but have trouble remembering the 3rd one......
The blood relationship doesn't matter as much as the familial one.
It is a betrayal of the safety that a person should feel within the family. And it is profoundly damaging to the kid and to any siblings as well (because they are afraid they may be next).
Usually if you take a good look at traditional morality it has some very sound reasons behind it.
“It is not biological incest, but familial incest, if that is the best word. It would fall under the the Biblical list of what sexual contact is forbidden.”
THANK YOU! This is the very same reason why adoption in Islam is forbidden. muhammed (pigshyte be upon him) fell in love with his adopted son’s wife and wed her. Even in the sands of Arabia such an action wasn’t permitted and was seen as violating the incest taboo (adopted children count as blood children). Then magically a revelation came from his god stating that adaption is haram, thus making his marriage to his adopted son’s wife legal. This “new” America is becoming more and more hostile to Christianity and more accommodating to islam.
Guess what I'm saying is homosexual marriage is MORE of a threat to traditional society. But everyone's already afraid to criticize that. So we'll worry about a few bizarre incest cases while homosexuals are marrying and raising kids all over the place.
You are too kind, Mother. If you look at ANY kind of morality or cultural compact is what you meant to say. This is the age of nihilism. Everyone is their own god. The natural law is up for debate.
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.