Columbia professor is charged with incest

Mojo said:
I'm not posting in caps, or making insulting or obscene remarks, so why would you assume I'm angry?
Click to expand...

Because you started out asking one question and then when you didn't get the answer you hoped for, you then changed your stance; plus you seem unable to educate yourself and such a person is more then likely prone to anger.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Because you started out asking one question and then when you didn't get the answer you hoped for, you then changed your stance; plus you seem unable to educate yourself and such a person is more then likely prone to anger.
Click to expand...

My question is: why is incest illegal?

Not sure what you base your assumptions on, but I apologize for not conforming to your expectations.

If my questions upset you, please don't view them.
 
Mojo said:
My question is: why is incest illegal?

Not sure what you base your assumptions on, but I apologize for not conforming to your expectations.

If my questions upset you, please don't view them.
Click to expand...

And you were told why it is illegal.
If I stopped reading your posts, my daily amusement wouldn't be as great.
 
christiefan915 said:
Here's an article I found on Slate.

"Because she's seen as the victim. Prosecutors could have made a case against the daughter, but when it comes to incest, the authorities tend to focus on one party. In this situation, "consent" is irrelevant, since it's the act itself that constitutes the crime; and blame tends to fall on whichever half of the incestuous couple has more control. A law professor told Salon today that children are generally assumed to be part of a "protected class" even when they're above the age of consent. So the older party tends to be considered the guilty one, although in some cases—a man caring for his bedridden and elderly mother, for example—the ages of perceived control could be reversed."

http://www.slate.com/id/2277681/
Click to expand...

fair enough...but i think the consent issue i and many others have still stand
 
Yurt said:
can you answer a simple question?

explain your link

thanks
Click to expand...

Had you read it, I thought you would have understood it's relevance.

I'm sorry I assumed.

Here are some relevant passages I noted:

"This Note encourages the law to focus more attention on the critical
difference between consensual and nonconsensual incest. Incest
laws currently ignore or obscure issues of consent: legislators and
judges often focus their attention on powerful but imprecise norms. surrounding sex, marriage, and the family, rather than focusing on the
characteristics of the individual relationship at issue. Moreover, lawmakers
seem to reference these norms almost reflexively as part of a
tautological or otherwise meaningless explanation for a given legal
outcome; in fact, sometimes the motivating norms lag behind society’s
evolving mores. The effect of these laws — an effect that demands attention
— is to trench on consensual, intimate relationships and marriage. The rest of this Note proceeds as follows: Part II details why the consent/nonconsent distinction should be the operational fulcrum for incest laws and why other potential rationales are insufficient. Part III provides a brief background on current incest statutes and the familycentered norms that interfere with their application. Part IV explores how these norms can clash problematically at the site of incest statutes and cases, thereby distracting from the more important distinction between consensual and nonconsensual incest.


Cure v. State, 600 So. 2d 415, 419 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) (holding that “lack of consent is an element of first degree rape . . . not an element of incest”

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/june06/note/inbred_obscurity.pdf
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Because modern societies have decided that people should't fuck their siblings, their offspring, or the offspring of their siblings.
Click to expand...

Modern societies seem to me to have "inherited" these curious moral taboos from ancient societies.


Quoting LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS


"...were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was in private and consensual.

II

We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court's holding in Bowers.

There are broad statements of the substantive reach of liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965)."
 
Mojo said:
Modern societies seem to me to have "inherited" these curious moral taboos from ancient societies.


Quoting LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS


"...were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was in private and consensual.

II

We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court's holding in Bowers.

There are broad statements of the substantive reach of liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965)."
Click to expand...

Which could be used to describe a majority of the laws that are now on the books, so I'm not sure what your point is.

They should have known the law and I guess it sucks to be them.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Which could be used to describe a majority of the laws that are now on the books, so I'm not sure what your point is.

They should have known the law and I guess it sucks to be them.
Click to expand...

Well, despite the tabloids, there hasn't been a conviction yet, and death by stoning isn't an option in that jurisdiction.

I'm confident that a lot of people violate laws that attempt to force morality on consenting adults every day.

"...laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia"

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607322,00.html#ixzz17lT0MwKg
 
Mojo said:
Well, despite the tabloids, there hasn't been a conviction yet, and death by stoning isn't an option in that jurisdiction.

I'm confident that a lot of people violate laws that attempt to force morality on consenting adults every day.

"...laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia"

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607322,00.html#ixzz17lT0MwKg
Click to expand...

Still sucks to be them.

And your point was..................??

And

Articles are not going to change a law and violating it isn't going to get you released.

How long have you been wanting to have a sexual relationship with a member of your family?
 
Mojo said:
Did I give you the impression that I am angry?

I did not mean to, just trying to understand why incest is illegal.
Click to expand...

You do raise a valid question as the link you posted observes. On page 16 starting with "Courts that condemn incestuous relationships produce opinions with similarly obscured reasoning...." it documents a case involving a man and his step-daughter. Although having been married 14 years to the step-daughter, until his death, the courts discounted that marriage and his former wife inherited his property. Preventing "discord and disharmony
in the family" was cited, however, who has the moral right to choose which family is more important; his first or second considering he fathered three children in the second marriage?

To paraphrase an old saying, "The law is an ass."

Some folks, especially politicians, can not help but stick their nose in other people's pants. Of course, that's between the times they're either hiring prostitutes or playing footsie in washrooms.

They're the real upholders of family values! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top