Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-03-2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
It's illegal everywhere in the U.S., though what qualifies as incestuous varies somewhat from state to state. The prohibitions come in the forms of marriage laws regulating who can marry and criminal laws regulating who can have sex. Here's a pretty good general description published a little over a year ago. The article doesn't contain any information on prosecutions, though.

This article states:

Quote:

Criminal laws prohibit marriage and sexual relationships based on the same ties (with the necessary consanguinity and affinity usually defined the same way as in the marriage laws). They penalize those who disobey with fines or imprisonment.

But there are no references to any statutory codes. Does this mean that each state has a criminal law that tracks its marriage law?

Stephen Maturin · 07-03-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Does this mean that each state has a criminal law that tracks its marriage law?

Can't speak for all states, but it isn't always the case that criminal prohibitions track marriage laws exactly. Here in my piss poor excuse for a home state, the marriage law provides in relevant part:

Quote:

� 3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage; minor to obtain consent.

Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. * * * (Emphasis added.)

An Ohio criminal statute aimed directly at "incest" was repealed in 1974, but the criminal code includes certain types of intrafamilial sexual activity under the general heading of "sexual battery," a third-degree felony:

Quote:

� 2907.03 Sexual battery.

(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:

* * *

(5) The offender is the other person's natural or adoptive parent, or a stepparent, or guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of the other person.

So, although I can't marry either or both of my sisters, we could have a big honking three-way if we were so inclined.

On the other hand, the marriage laws and criminal laws in other states track one another seamlessly. From California's Family Code:

Quote:

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

California's Penal Code incorporates the above definition of "incestuous" into its criminal prohibitions:

Quote:

285. Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

JERDOG · 07-05-2003, 09:33 AM

I'm sure someone already mentioned this but, it says at the bootm that..

Quote:

Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist Convention. He has been down with Madden since 1992.

Talk about a contradiction. A libertarian and part of the SBC? what a joke. He's no Libertarian by any means.

JERDOG · 07-05-2003, 09:40 AM

Here's a real Libertarian for you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33356

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-06-2003, 04:37 AM

I also lean toward Libertarianism, and my understanding of it is basically as long as you're not initializing force against someone, you can do pretty much your own thing. Sexual preferences, etc don't matter, as long as laws aren't being broken.
So I'd agree this idiot spouting crap about homosexuals is not a Libertarian.
Probably trying to do some damage to the image.

And yes, the above article is from a true Libertarian.

And it amazes me the stupid fear people have over others that might have different sexual preferences. Big deal, who cares what other people are doing?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-05-2003, 09:40 AM	#44
JERDOG Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lousyana with the best politicians money can buy. Posts: 944	Here's a real Libertarian for you. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33356

07-06-2003, 04:37 AM	#45
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I also lean toward Libertarianism, and my understanding of it is basically as long as you're not initializing force against someone, you can do pretty much your own thing. Sexual preferences, etc don't matter, as long as laws aren't being broken. So I'd agree this idiot spouting crap about homosexuals is not a Libertarian. Probably trying to do some damage to the image. And yes, the above article is from a true Libertarian. And it amazes me the stupid fear people have over others that might have different sexual preferences. Big deal, who cares what other people are doing?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.