Alonzo Fyfe

So, are you saying that the government has the right to step in and make decisions on who may mate with whom on the basis of the genetics?

There are "unions" that are perfectly legal that are far more likely to result in a genetic defect than incest (e.g., women who get pregnant past the age of 40 are much more likely to have a child with Down's Syndrome. And genetic testing will allow us to determine not only which incestuous relationships are relatively safe, but which nonincestuous relationships are unsafe.

Should we have people apply for government licenses on the basis of, "we judge that you child will meet our genetic standards, so you may have a child," while somebody else is told, "the government finds your child may be genetically inferior, so you shall be prohibited from having a child."?

smugg

Whoa, Deputy Fyfe, Jat was responding to my defense of laws against incest with children and said consensual incest was wrong, not illegal.

Sakpo

One of the traditional reasons why incest wasn't allowed was because it creates serious confusion about who is who and what their role is in a family (it's my brother-daddy!). Obviously, it also has genetic draw backs, especially if the incest continues within a small group over a long time. That said, I don't know if it should be illegal amongst consenting adults. Don't get me wrong, the idea of it is actually sort of turning my stomach, but it's not like if it was legalized all of a sudden everybody would start thinking "forget the rest, I'm going for some incest." The way most people are repulsed by it, the wide variety of potential non familial partners available to most people, social stigma, etc, would be enough to keep its numbers of practitioners low. I doubt too many incestuous people are getting busted right now anyway so laws probably aren't doing much to stop it. Of course, incest laws may have other useful purposes I can't think of.

All that said, comparing homosexuality to incest is disgusting.

Edit:

I voted No. At best (worst?) they could elect someone with enough sense not to say anything too provacative in public when expressing their bigotry.

Loren Pechtel

The problem is the laws are too broad. Parent/child, yes, a problem. While such relationships aren't automatically expoitive it requires bending over backwards on the part of the one with lots of power. The law is quite reasonable in prohibiting such relationships (it's not just parent/child, but teacher/student and psychiatrist/patient that I'm aware of.)

Likewise, bearing children from an incestous relationship is a very bad idea that the law is reasonable in prohibiting.

However, this leaves other cases where the law is not justified. I see nothing inherently wrong with sex between two adults who happen to be the wrong sort of relatives. (There is one set of relatives that are permitted to have sex, after all.)

Optional

You know, I'm not sure that's what incest laws actually ARE there for...

If an adult has sex with a child, it's child molestation (or statutory rape), and illegal. Doesn't matter if the adult is related to the child, it's illegal.

So incest laws can only apply to adults... How can you defend government telling two adults who they can and cannot make sweet sweet love to?

-me

Ultron

A tilted question on a left-wing forum. I'm suprised the right-wing got 1/4 the votes here.

capsaicin67

I'm not sure how we get a higher grade of candidate from any of the parties? [c67 edit: presuming that a candid that supports C/SS would also be one that is less-Santorum-like.....]

As for the "change from the inside out" issue, that is exaclty what I have been mulling over for some time: would it be most strategically advantageous to join the Republicans to try and dilute the religious extremism and greed, or join the Dems and try and support a more centrist and electable agenda with a better balance between populist/business interests, and stronger foreign policy? Or support a 3rd party along the same lines....[a suitable/electable alternative doesn't thus far exist from what I have found.]

Others will disagree on gobs of other issues, but I'd settle for one party that simply respects the separation of church and state and that is electable. And I don't see one.

Most politicians right now realize that the best organized, represented, and funded side of the C/SS issue is the fundy one. So the situation either requires politicians of enormous integrity, leadership, charisma and moderation, or for there to be a competitvely strong portion of the electorate that supports C/SS.

Personally, I'm not counting on the integrity and depth of the Evan Bayhs out there. I think our best bet is perhaps to organize and grow an effective freethought movement [enormous task, yes] to affect the current cultural dominance of religious fundamentalism.

The only other hope we have toward getting reason-able candidates elected is if the Repubs get cockier and make a Contract On America type blunder that scares or pisses off a large portion of the public [it would probably have to be something taking on abortion?].......

But that being said, I'm not sure which party to try and infiltrate........

fromtheright

So, if, as some of you have agreed, Santorum is right in what he said, was he wrong to state the truth?

Ultron

How could he be incorrect? Homosexuality is a sexual preference like any other. I think he needs to decide for himself if homosexuality is good or bad to eliminate confusion from the rest of us reading his remarks, but I don't have a problem with his comparisons between sexual preferences.