Its okay to be gay, but if you shag your realitve your a freak.....

[mrsam]

*Originally posted by DanielWithrow *
There are a great many behaviors, sexual and otherwise, people engage in that I find icky. Mega-icky. Ickissimo. My personal shudders of revulsion have nothing whatsoever to do with whether those behaviors should be made illegal.

I strongly agree.

If some dude wants to fuck a chicken before eating it, ew ew ew, but that’s his business and not mine.

If he does that in the privacy of his home, sure.

When a behavior is harmful to other people, I think we should define the law as narrowly as possible, so that we outlaw the harmful behavior without forbidding similar but harmless behavior.

If somebody masturbates in public IN A WAY THAT I DON’T HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT, I see no reason why it should be illegal. (However, if there’s any chance that I’m going to stumble across what they’re doing, then we can start building the case that it’s harmful, in a disturbing-the-peace kind of way).

Please, do tell me, how you plan on instituting a law along these lines?

Speeding Law 123.456b

a) Driving at 200mph is illegal
b) However, if noone sees you driving at 200mph, it’s ok!
I think this is it’s very naive to take an active stance along these lines. You have suggested that we should define the law as narrowly as possible. This sets a massive precedent for abuse, as unforseen harmful events could go unpunished due to a narrowly defined law lacking a specific clause outlawing them.

And if two adults decide to have sex despite the fact that they’re siblings or otherwise closely related, EW EW EW but not my business. As long as they don’t engage in the behavior in a harmful fashion (e.g., having children, which has an abnormally high chance of producing deformities), it shouldn’t be illegal.

(bolding mine)
And as an extension of your logic here, anyone with a higher likelihood of producing defects in their children should be allowed to engage in sex but not have children. Well, according to John Mace’s cite incestous relationships are “1.7 to 2.8 percent more likely to have a serious birth defect than are the children of unrelated couples”. So, if I’m in a family with a history of genetic abnormalities, and the likelihood of of me producing an offspring with a serious birth defect is much greater than 3% more than the general populace, I’m therefore not allowed to breed? This would by your definition constitute “behaviour in a harmful fashion”. The unstated implication is that such behaviour should be illegal, so am I therefore obliged to turn a friend into the police if he has a 5% more likely chance of producing a birth defect and he causes a pregnancy?

:dubious:

Okay. Say I’m a policeman. I know one of my mates commonly drives on a certain rather quiet road at 200mph. This guy is a very skilled driver, he keeps his car extremely well maintained and he is so good at weaving through traffic that I know he could not possibly crash.

I’m not going to go out of my way to arrest this bloke, but if I stumble across him doing 200, I must act upon it if anyone else is around. Otherwise, the law becomes very murky and people will use this a precedent to speed in increasingly dangerous circumstances.
Different situation, I’m still the policeman. I’m aware that two young siblings are having it off. Once I become aware of this, even if:

a) They use contraception and
b) It is entirely consensual.

it will create a precedent that will allow for much greater abuse than the small amount of good it provides. I am also skeptical as to whether incest could be developmentally healthy, and as such another reason for this law could be to prevent people from harming themselves.

There are laws regarding the age of sexual consent (and allowable age differences and so forth). It is necessary to have these laws so as not to set a precedent that would create many more headaches than it solves. In my experience, people are smart enough to break the law privately and if they don’t tell anyone, then noone can charge them. The law is rarely invoked (to my knowledge) in consensual circumstances, and when it is it causes much debate on the issue. I believe that the reasons for a law for age of consent are largely the same as the reasons for a law against incest. The law denies some the ability to openly engage in a positive activity, but it limits the potential for abuse.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by mrsam *
**
Please, do tell me, how you plan on instituting a law along these lines?

Speeding Law 123.456b

a) Driving at 200mph is illegal
b) However, if noone sees you driving at 200mph, it’s ok!
**

Not at all what I’m talking about: these are two different circumstances.

The only harm that public masturbation causes (beyond cleanliness issues, which can be handled through other laws) is the discomfort it causes to other people. If no one is aware of what’s happening, there’s no discomfort caused, and no harm done. It’s analogous to public nudity: while I walk around naked underneath my clothes, no one is shocked by my nudity. It’s only when my clothes are too revealing that it becomes a crime.

The harm that speeding causes is the danger of hitting someone and injuring them, or of damaging property. These dangers exist whether or not anyone currently sees you.

[quoteI think this is it’s very naive to take an active stance along these lines. You have suggested that we should define the law as narrowly as possible. This sets a massive precedent for abuse, as unforseen harmful events could go unpunished due to a narrowly defined law lacking a specific clause outlawing them.[/quote]

On the contrary, it’s a basic principle of good lawmaking, that you define laws as narrowly as possible to catch the bad guys without interfering with the good guys. This is not a novel concept; it’s been around for centuries.

And as an extension of your logic here, anyone with a higher likelihood of producing defects in their children should be allowed to engage in sex but not have children.

I’d appreciate your not extending my logic; you didn’t get it right.

I’m not educated enough on the numbers that I can evaluate Mace’s statistics. I do, however, think that the danger from incestual reproduction ought to be considered on the same level playing field as the danger from nonincestual reproduction. “Ick” ought not be a factor in this judgement.

Daniel

[mrsam]

The only harm that public masturbation causes (beyond cleanliness issues, which can be handled through other laws) is the discomfort it causes to other people. If no one is aware of what’s happening, there’s no discomfort caused, and no harm done. It’s analogous to public nudity: while I walk around naked underneath my clothes, no one is shocked by my nudity. It’s only when my clothes are too revealing that it becomes a crime.

“Ick” ought not be a factor in this judgement.

These two statements seem completely contradictory to me. If “discomfort” isn’t “ick”, then what is your definition of “ick”? And as an aside, I never claimed “ick” should be a factor.

I’m not educated enough on the numbers that I can evaluate Mace’s statistics. I do, however, think that the danger from incestual reproduction ought to be considered on the same level playing field as the danger from nonincestual reproduction.

And as an extension of your logic here, anyone with a higher likelihood of producing defects in their children should be allowed to engage in sex but not have children.

I’d appreciate your not extending my logic; you didn’t get it right.

Well, if that wasn’t your logic, what is your logic? The statistics say that the difference in birth defects is very low. This difference, assuming the cite is correct (and it seems so), is minimal compared with many other genetic illnesses we currently know about. So, by your logic (which I won’t try to guess) how do you explain that?
It actually seems to me that we are arguing more or less the same point (but again, perhaps I assume too much). You are arguing if people do things in a way that noone knows about then it’s only their business. If they do it in such a way, noone knows about it so the law doesn’t come into play. However, where we seem to disagree is that you seem to think a law regarding incest can be formulated in a minimalist fashion without creating massive potential for abuse, as per this quote:

I think this is it’s very naive to take an active stance along these lines. You have suggested that we should define the law as narrowly as possible. This sets a massive precedent for abuse, as unforseen harmful events could go unpunished due to a narrowly defined law lacking a specific clause outlawing them.

On the contrary, it’s a basic principle of good lawmaking, that you define laws as narrowly as possible to catch the bad guys without interfering with the good guys. This is not a novel concept; it’s been around for centuries.

My point, once again, is that such a minimalist code of laws specifically in regard to incest would cause more harm than good. Can you tell me any possible narrowly-defined law you propose that would not do that?