Surely you mean “With his Mom & their daughter at his side”?
All right, sure, we get it, what society and The Law recognize at any given point as a right to be respected and/or conduct to be punished or allowed, will depend on the evolving understanding of what is or is not morally right or wrong. The fallacy lies in trying to cast it as an “it’s all or nothing” scenario.
May there be at some point a shift in opinion so that censure of free-consenting-adult incest is left to be a matter of social opprobrium but not enforceable by penal law? Sure, it already is so in a number of jurisdictions at home and abroad (mostly by omission)! Removing the social rebuke from it, though, that is far less likely. But does either necessarily follow from other forms of sexual liberation or the right of privacy? No, it does not, and it does not erode their validity.
Well, okay, that does kinda throw my “every government” claim into a cocked hat.
(I don’t actually have a cocked hat; would a straw boater do?)
Did NJ actually vote to legalize incest, or was it a kind of passive legalization, where it simply didn’t appear in a schedule of laws, and nobody noticed? Did anybody actually say, “Let’s legalize this?”
(As a small-l libertarian, I don’t mind too much when liberties come about in a back-handed fashion, from a government that simply declines to enforce a ban.)
Until Loach can reply, I’d put money on the latter option. At some point on the past the Legislature passed a Bill to adopt a new Penal Code, or more limitedly a new Title therein on sexcrimes or crimes against minors, based on language from some Model Code, and in the process some other language gets omitted but it doesn’t register because everyone is too busy Thinking Of The Children.
Anecdotal: When PR adopted a new Penal Code in 2005 the specific charge of “incest” disappeared. Instead, the familial relationship became added to the list of those situations where cosent was not valid triggering the charge of “sexual battery” (rape, in the old style language). So it was still illegal… but boy did some people bitch and moan about it not being a titled crime in its own right! In 2012 incest was given once more its own article just so someone could prove to the voters how much they hated it.
There are a lot of examples here of what has become an all too common way to argue political concerns.
Mostly dishonestly.
The trick used, is a variation of a basic straw man argument, but slightly more subtle. That is, someone MISREPORTS AND MISREPRESENTS why an opponent argued something, and then demands that the actual argument either be withdrawn, or extended into an unacceptable area.
It’s devious, and entirely dishonorable.
The first common usage of the trick I recall noticing, came when opponents of various civil rights proposals, pretended that the primary claim of the people who favored them, was based on establishing a principle that no one should be allowed to offend other people. Although it’s common to hear people complaining that they have been “offended,” the goal of most civil rights legislation has only peripherally dealt with that. The primary concern was actually about oppression and forced distortion of other peoples’ lives, but by pretending it was all about avoiding “offending people,” the opposition could simultaneously belittle proponents, and refuse to give them a hearing of any kind, all while pretending to be fighting on the side of equal rights themselves.
The original poster/thread starter has been repeating this dishonest trick again and again, and some of the people responding have either fallen for the trap, or erected their own equally false counter arguments, also based on either phantom reasons, or artificially limited reason sets for a particular stance.
Incest hasn’t been illegal for any single reason, and certainly has not been directly connected to any other prohibition.
No there is no statute specifically stating that it is legal. There just isn’t a statute that prohibits it. There are only two places in the law in which familial relations are brought up. It is still illegal to marry a close family member although NJ is one of the majority of states where it is legal to marry your 1st cousin. Also the age of consent is 16 but if there is a close family member involved the age goes up to 18. But there is no law stating it is illegal for two adult family members to have sex. If there is ever a high profile incest story in the state I’m sure there will be a stampede in the legislature to get their name on a bill.
You say that there is no “requirement” to legalize incest or incestuous marriage, but the law should be consistent in applying its principles. We are told that homosexual sodomy and same sex marriage are fundamental rights. If a couple wished to commit incest or obtain a state license for an incestuous marriage, then there must be some principled distinction we make to deny the latter.
You have raised genetic defects and power imbalances as (rational basis? strict scrutiny?) as reasons to disallow the latter. You seem to admit that the genetic defect argument is weak. A stronger argument to prohibit male on male homosexual sodomy would be HIV transmission. If we start with the assumption that private, consensual sexual relationships are a fundamental right, then surely they cannot be outlawed on a minute chance of genetic defects in offspring. Otherwise, we should prohibit women over 40 from having children, and the law would be overly broad as it prohibits those incestuous relationships that have little or no chance of bearing children.
The power imbalance you cite is likewise deficient. Again, private consensual sex is a fundamental right. Simply because some of these relationships contain a certain power imbalance does not rise to a level to outlaw them all. Many heterosexual relationships and marriages contain the same imbalance. How many married couples stay together simply because of financial reasons?
I certainly don’t believe in legal incest, but I am unable to tell a couple who wishes to engage in incest how their conduct should be illegal in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
Gosh, what a clever argument against gay marriage!
Please, I don’t care if you fuck your mother. If you fuck your daughter, I’d prefer you wait until she’s reached the age of consent. If you want legal “permission”–feel free to take it to the streets.
it’s OK. The argument is whether or not there is coercion involved in incestuous affairs (usually when there is a large age difference, as with parent/aunt/uncle and child/niece/nephew) and whether anyone gets hurt (such as potential children who may suffer ill effects from inbreeding, which is apparently less of a risk than supposed in the past).
A bit off topic, but somewhat pertinent, the QLD state government (Australia) has deemed that children in foster families (so not related by blood) can also be charged with incest.
Plus in the latter case, also mental and civil harm in the form of disrupted inter-/intra-familial relationships e.g. does a granddaughter hook up with granddad and then places herself as a social “elder” to her own parents; and now legally controls half his wealth instead of waiting to one day inherit her generational-proportional share. Places where there is no per-se *crime *of incest DO still forbid *marriages *within too-close degrees of consanguinity to avoid at least having a family law issue with such situations.
In many of the jurisdictions we live in, there is for “per se” adult incest the presumption that the cases of true valid consent, free from any inherent coercion are so rare, and the stakes so high, that it resembles the case of minors under the age of consent in which society would rather not take the chance.
Honestly, I would *not *be disturbed by there being no criminal penalty for an act of freely consenting adults in which harm is prevented. But neither would I consider that this should preclude *social censure *thereof and that the law should force you to endorse it or hold your peace – there’s plenty of things that are perfectly lawful and people are free to do, but we may still consider immoral or stupid and shun or mock those who behave that way.
