BTW, to go back on something touched upon earlier: In regards to a particular borderline *cultural *appreciation of what is and isn’t incestuous, a handful of the states that otherwise do not allow first-cousin marriagewill make an exception based on actual or presumed infertility or, in one case, requires informed genetic counselling (Maine).
Of course it all comes down to that however correlated, still, there is a difference between civil/family law on marriage, and criminal law on sexual conduct. For instance it may be that it’s against the law in your state to have more than one wife at a time but nobody will lay a hand on you for cohabitating with five lovemates simultaneously, as long as they don’t try make claims to which only a legal spouse is entitled. In that Wikipedia link earlier you find a majority of the states that ban first cousin marriage do however allow first cousin sex or cohabitation(*). Similarly after the Lawrence decision, homosexual acts – and sodomy in general, let’s not forget you COULD get in trouble in some states for hetero “unnatural” acts – among consenting adults could no longer be criminalized anywhere in the US, but law about SSM still had to be litigated on its own merit.
(*AFAICT most criminal incest statutes cover the direct line of descent [be it by blood or adoption] plus as far as third degree lateral consanguinity [uncle/aunt+nephew/niece] )
I don’t think it works that way, at least not in the US. Note the cites provided above of specific examples of cases in which sex between consenting adults was held illegal, where the relationship was such that, by its nature, it presumptively created a power imbalance: for example, between teacher and student.
If sex between consenting adults was an absolute “fundamental right”, presumably such laws could not be enforced. Yet they are, even after the decision in Lawrence. Here’s a legal article on the issue (arguing that the courts should restrict sex between consenting adults less than they do!). The article is entitled “The Criminalization of Consensual Adult Sex after Lawrence”, warning, it’s a PDF:
In short, unless there has been some more recent appellate judgments I’m not aware of, the courts appear to be making exactly the distinction you say they should not.
The “natural argument” shouldn’t be generalized too broadly, but, specifically for gays, I think it is telling. (Also for blacks, women, the handicapped, and other groups defined by birth-conditions.) The “natural argument” is a big part of transsexual rights issues.
Some have tried to apply it to pedophilia, but that just shows that a valid argument can come to grief when it is extended too far. That’s the rebuttal to any “slippery slope” charge: the descent of the slope can be brought to a halt when necessary.
There is no evidence for anyone being incestuous by nature, so that is a difference between gay rights and incest rights.
Firstly, what difference does it make if it’s “not natural”? Secondly, the argument isn’t that some people can only love their close relatives, it’s that some people can love their close relatives. Do you understand the difference?
And you can substitute “want to have sex with” for “love” in the above since we are talking about 2 different things:
Should it be illegal to have sex with a close blood relative?
Should it be illegal to marry a close blood relative?
If you don’t think #1 should be illegal (and I don’t see how you could), then there is no reason to think #2 should be illegal.
That it is not “the same” as an attraction that is natural. i.e., a straight-up one-to-one equating of gay sex and incest is fallacious.
That isn’t the point that was being presented to us. That’s a different argument, and you’re entirely free to make it, just don’t look at me as if I was rebutting it. I was only rebutting the claim that the Supreme Court decision protecting gay marriage also protected incest: it doesn’t.
But, because it’s easy to answer: “Fourth, and lastly, 'marriage is a keystone of our social order”, and '[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle . . . '"
Those statements are not true regarding incestuous marriage.
Seriously, I think you’re being weird here. Can you, just perhaps, explain your actual views? Do you think Obergefell legalized incest? Does anyone think that Obergefell legalized incest?
I think that is the point, though: inside the second order (first cousins and closer), there is an existing legally defined relationship between persons. I have 15 first cousins of the opposite sex, regarding whom it seems to me marriage would be a sort of legal redundancy. When one moves beyond the second order, the legal definition of a standing relationship does or starts to break down. Essentially, I am not aware of who my second cousins are, which I think is fairly common.
Why not? That’s the way you’ve been conducting yourself so far. You’ve said “Nope” several times, without explaining why. You attacked my use of the “it’s natural” concept, without saying why you thought it was wrong.
Either you’re willing to engage in a conversation, or you’re not, and, so far, you’ve shown bunny-all zip indication of it.
As for “why” the statement is not true, no one believes that incest is “a keystone of our social order.” Can you point to anyone who claims it is?
Oh, for crying out loud. Who believes that homosexuality is “a keystone of our social order”? You have not been able to articulate a reason to outlaw incest other than you personally don’t like it. Well, that’s the same argument conservatives made about SSM. When you have some other reason, let me know, and I’ll be happy to continue. Until then, I think we’re done. There is no reasoning with “I don’t like it”.
But Bryan, how can you not know? It’s you I truly love, and yet you never let me show it. Oh, you never know how many nights I’ve wept alone, waiting for just one kind word, one small caress…
(Well, serious-like, I admire you and your posts very much here. When you’re quipping, you’re one of the funniest members of the SDMB, and when you’re on-message, I think you’re one of the most valuable participants here.)
So it goes: one more episode in the ongoing romance series, “As the Word Burns.”