Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

[fifth_column]

Of course you're not required to do anything, but it's a discussion forum and if you refuse to do anything other than make smart ass comments then it's not much of a discussion.

See above.

That's the basis of all laws, everywhere, in all time periods. And whatever your personal moral basis for viewing laws as legitimate, they have no more validity than anything you listed.

Yeah, but I like smart-ass comments . . . .

[dogmush]

Why are those the lines you have drawn, and how are they more valid or less arbitrary than any other? Why are animals property in all senses except that of sexual intercourse? I can kill my animal, or have a doctor mutilate it for aesthetic reasons, or even allow it to be damaged for animal testing: and yet you're ok with banning a person from having sex with it?

Why are you such a freedom hating statist?

We have laws against animal cruelty as well.  they recognize that while an Animal is property it is also alive.  You can kill your property, but you are limited to doing it humanely*.  Animal testing is regulated for the same reasons, and you can't just drop your pet off and say "throw some shampoo in it's eyes".  So there is current president that there are limits to what you can do to your animal property.

That would then, I think, but the onus on the lover in question to prove that his animal enjoyed, or at least wasn't traumatized by the activity.  I do shudder to think what that court hearing would be like.

There are other cultures** where beastiality is much more accepted.  I have seen a guy railing a sheep on the side of a major highway.  While those cultures have issues, I don't really think farm animal fun time is the cause.

*as painlessly as possible is the normal standard

**not all cultures are =, and I am not endorsing beastiality here.  Just pointing out that where practiced it hasn't exactly led to crazy let's screw everything/one mores.

[makattak]

We have laws against animal cruelty as well.  they recognize that while an Animal is property it is also alive.  You can kill your property, but you are limited to doing it humanely*.  Animal testing is regulated for the same reasons, and you can't just drop your pet off and say "throw some shampoo in it's eyes".  So there is current president that there are limits to what you can do to your animal property.

That would then, I think, but the onus on the lover in question to prove that his animal enjoyed, or at least wasn't traumatized by the activity.  I do shudder to think what that court hearing would be like.

There are other cultures** where beastiality is much more accepted.  I have seen a guy railing a sheep on the side of a major highway.  While those cultures have issues, I don't really think farm animal fun time is the cause.

*as painlessly as possible is the normal standard

**not all cultures are =, and I am not endorsing beastiality here.  Just pointing out that where practiced it hasn't exactly led to crazy let's screw everything/one mores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Bestiality

Consequences I've been pointing our since the beginning of this debate. (As in more than a decade ago.)

[Balog]

We have laws against animal cruelty as well.  they recognize that while an Animal is property it is also alive.  You can kill your property, but you are limited to doing it humanely*.  Animal testing is regulated for the same reasons, and you can't just drop your pet off and say "throw some shampoo in it's eyes".  So there is current president that there are limits to what you can do to your animal property.

That would then, I think, but the onus on the lover in question to prove that his animal enjoyed, or at least wasn't traumatized by the activity.  I do shudder to think what that court hearing would be like.

There are other cultures** where beastiality is much more accepted.  I have seen a guy railing a sheep on the side of a major highway.  While those cultures have issues, I don't really think farm animal fun time is the cause.

*as painlessly as possible is the normal standard

**not all cultures are =, and I am not endorsing beastiality here.  Just pointing out that where practiced it hasn't exactly led to crazy let's screw everything/one mores.

None of that addresses the basic question, why do we have those laws and what is their moral basis?

[dogmush]

OK.  Why do we have beastiality laws?*  Incest I can see for inbreeding, but that seems to be a non issue for sheep.

Other then the ick factor, why are they still on the books, and how are they different from the recently repealed laws against sodomy?

*Since you asked, and I don't want to seem like I'm dodging anything, I don't really know why.  I would assume some combination of gross, Bible, and maybe cross species disease?  If Swine Flu is bad what does Swine Syphilis do?

Also, in a Squirell! moment it just occured to me:  Do animals (non primate) have STD's?  You never here about it, and most animals aren't exactly monogamous.

[Balog]

OK.  Why do we have beastiality laws?*  Incest I can see for inbreeding, but that seems to be a non issue for sheep.

Other then the ick factor, why are they still on the books, and how are they different from the recently repealed laws against sodomy?

*Since you asked, and I don't want to seem like I'm dodging anything, I don't really know why.  I would assume some combination of gross, Bible, and maybe cross species disease?  If Swine Flu is bad what does Swine Syphilis do?

Also, in a Squirell! moment it just occured to me:  Do animals (non primate) have STD's?  You never here about it, and most animals aren't exactly monogamous.

The whole point of asking questions like that is to get people thinking about the basis of laws, and what is an acceptable vs not acceptable reason to have those laws. Most folks don't ever actually stop and think about that.

[Perd Hapley]

When do we scrap the taboo on non-consensual behavior?

[dogmush]

The whole point of asking questions like that is to get people thinking about the basis of laws, and what is an acceptable vs not acceptable reason to have those laws. Most folks don't ever actually stop and think about that.

OK we're thinking. I'm thinking what's the point?  As mentioned we have animal cruelty laws on the books if one were to injure an animal. We're right back to me not caring where anyone else's penis has been.

Fistful, nonconsensual (between humans) acts pretty clearly infringe on the natural rights of those that didn't consent. That's why we have laws against those acts.

[Balog]

OK we're thinking. I'm thinking what's the point?  As mentioned we have animal cruelty laws on the books if one were to injure an animal. We're right back to me not caring where anyone else's penis has been.

Fistful, nonconsensual (between humans) acts pretty clearly infringe on the natural rights of those that didn't consent. That's why we have laws against those acts.

What are natural rights, where do they derive from, and why do we care about them?

[dogmush]

Where do you think they come from?

[Balog]

Where do you think they come from?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[dogmush]

Yeah, see I would have gone with something more like this:

every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.

But lets not quibble, as one was cribbed from the other.  Both thought that a person's body was sacrosanct. Which covers Fistful's nonconsensual sideing. 

So we both agree that a person has the right to (at minimum) their body, and that this right does not come from the government they subject themselves (or are subjected) to. So to bring this about full circle, where do these government's get off telling folks what to do with their persons?

Historically, much of the "Common Law" evolved because there was only one major culture making the law.  So it was easy to agree on stuff.  No incest on one end of the spectrum and stoneing rape victims to death on the other.  But the modern world, and most especially America no longer really have one super-majority culture that makes it easy to agree on stuff.  So maybe it is worth re-examining the "common Law" stuff we have left over.  Certainly some of it is good and just (many of the laws protecting children, however misapplied) but some of it is just leftover cultural bias from (in our case) Protestantism.  As a culture we decided that the common laws about slavery had to be repealed.  Well most of us did, some took some convincing. Today human slavery is considered beyond the pale in America.  For the most part homosexuality is tolerated with little to no comment these days. (actual relationships.  Obviously we're still working out the legal details)

Based on the Declaration, you have to ask, since we have made laws saying, for instance, you can't bang your sheep, what purpose do those serve our society.  We are limiting a persons rights over his body and his property for what?

I don't claim to have all the answers except for a default position of "If I don't know, fewer laws are better."  So unless someone could come up with a compelling reason that our society needs to intervene between a man and his sheep, Sure, repeal the laws.  And that's the calculus I try to apply to all such questions, although I am sometimes overwhelmed by my own "ick".

Before anyone asks, it's still my body after I'm dead, no you can't bang it. 

[Balog]

Yeah, see I would have gone with something more like this:

But lets not quibble, as one was cribbed from the other.  Both thought that a person's body was sacrosanct. Which covers Fistful's nonconsensual sideing. 

So we both agree that a person has the right to (at minimum) their body, and that this right does not come from the government they subject themselves (or are subjected) to. So to bring this about full circle, where do these government's get off telling folks what to do with their persons?

Historically, much of the "Common Law" evolved because there was only one major culture making the law.  So it was easy to agree on stuff.  No incest on one end of the spectrum and stoneing rape victims to death on the other.  But the modern world, and most especially America no longer really have one super-majority culture that makes it easy to agree on stuff.  So maybe it is worth re-examining the "common Law" stuff we have left over.  Certainly some of it is good and just (many of the laws protecting children, however misapplied) but some of it is just leftover cultural bias from (in our case) Protestantism.  As a culture we decided that the common laws about slavery had to be repealed.  Well most of us did, some took some convincing. Today human slavery is considered beyond the pale in America.  For the most part homosexuality is tolerated with little to no comment these days. (actual relationships.  Obviously we're still working out the legal details)

Based on the Declaration, you have to ask, since we have made laws saying, for instance, you can't bang your sheep, what purpose do those serve our society.  We are limiting a persons rights over his body and his property for what?

I don't claim to have all the answers except for a default position of "If I don't know, fewer laws are better."  So unless someone could come up with a compelling reason that our society needs to intervene between a man and his sheep, Sure, repeal the laws.  And that's the calculus I try to apply to all such questions, although I am sometimes overwhelmed by my own "ick".

Before anyone asks, it's still my body after I'm dead, no you can't bang it. 

All laws, and by extension all governments that enforce them, can do is "tell folks what to do with their persons."

[Balog]

A lot of it boils down to if one believes that there is relative or absolute morality. Are rape/murder/theft bad because they are bad, or do we merely take a pragmatic look and decide if they are beneficial to society?

[dogmush]

All laws, and by extension all governments that enforce them, can do is "tell folks what to do with their persons."

Right.  but society can also confer advantages.  For example, I don't like to farm.  So the implicit agreement with "society" is that we will allow a government to tell us what to do with certain aspects of our persons for some sort of tangible benefit.

They can tell us where to crap, so we don't all get sick.
They can take some of our labor, but will provide armed men to make sure the inevitable folks that break the contract get nabbed.  

and so forth.

We also right laws so that folks have a clear example of other folk's persons and labor.
Don't kill folks.
Don't take their stuff.
She really meant "No"

Thirdly we have some laws left over from when folks didn't think so much, everyone pretty much agreed, and they wanted to control dissenting opinions.
Can't buy alcohol on Sundays.
Can't smoke weed.
Girls have to have shirts on at all times.

Not all of that third subset are bad even if they came about from flawed thinking.  But it's worth examining them and either fitting them into the "tangible benefit that outweighs infringing on your natural rights" category, or dumping them.

<shrug> Most sex laws were, I feel, pretty obviously crafted to control and shun deviants*.  That's not really a good enough reason to take control from the individual.  

*Dictionary definition there.  One who deviates from an established norm.  Not the definition with the implied negative baggage.

[dogmush]

A lot of it boils down to if one believes that there is relative or absolute morality. Are rape/murder/theft bad because they are bad, or do we merely take a pragmatic look and decide if they are beneficial to society?

FWIW I believe in an absolute morality.  Rape/Murder/Theft are inherently bad in their own right.

I also know that laws exist legislating things that are far beyond the reach of that inherent evil.  It's worth getting rid of the laws that overreach, while being careful of actual evil acts.

[Balog]

FWIW I believe in an absolute morality.

Ok, honest question here because I've never actually understood this.

As an atheist, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I've seen it presented as "they have universally undesirable externalities" which I understand. But making a moral judgment of something as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" would seem to require an appeal to an external factor over and above pragmatism. Not trying to fight, just honestly never heard that explained by any of my atheist friends, many (all?) of whom ascribe to absolute morality.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, nonconsensual (between humans) acts pretty clearly infringe on the natural rights of those that didn't consent. That's why we have laws against those acts.

It's clear now. We have those laws now. There is no reason to think those laws (or the consensus view of them) will be any more permanent than others.

We are busy changing (or trying to change) the meaning of fundamental concepts today. There is not much reason to think that "consent" will not someday be interpreted as, "she didn't run away as soon as she saw me, so she was into it."

[Boomhauer]

Kind of longing for the days when we didn't discuss *expletive deleted*ing farm animals and family members....

[BlueStarLizzard]

Ok, honest question here because I've never actually understood this.

As an atheist, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I've seen it presented as "they have universally undesirable externalities" which I understand. But making a moral judgment of something as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" would seem to require an appeal to an external factor over and above pragmatism. Not trying to fight, just honestly never heard that explained by any of my atheist friends, many (all?) of whom ascribe to absolute morality.

Because we can think for ourselves? Just because you need "right", "wrong", "good" and "bad" defined for you by a book, doesn't mean everyone else does.

[dogmush]

Ok, honest question here because I've never actually understood this.

As an atheist, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I've seen it presented as "they have universally undesirable externalities" which I understand. But making a moral judgment of something as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" would seem to require an appeal to an external factor over and above pragmatism. Not trying to fight, just honestly never heard that explained by any of my atheist friends, many (all?) of whom ascribe to absolute morality.

I'm not an atheist. I don't generally talk about my spirituality on the Internet because it's very personal to me.

I also go out of my way to make sure no hint of religion seeps into my thinking and talking about laws because 1. I don't think laws should be religiously based and 2. I don't want to give anyone the "I don't believe in that God, so that laws doesn't apply to me" out.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm not an atheist. I don't generally talk about my spirituality on the Internet because it's very personal to me.

I also go out of my way to make sure no hint of religion seeps into my thinking and talking about laws because 1. I don't think laws should be religiously based and 2. I don't want to give anyone the "I don't believe in that God, so that laws doesn't apply to me" out.

I could kiss you right now.

:)

[Boomhauer]

Have any WV APS members checked in yet on this issue? This is squarely in their wheelhouse for sure

[Hawkmoon]

I never knew how much of a kill joy Michigan was.

MICH. COMP. LAWS SERV. § 551.3 (2013). INCAPACITY; PERSONS MAN PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING
A man shall not marry his mother, sister, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or cousin of the first degree, or another man.

So who's left besides the sheep?

If he's a preacher he probably can't marry a parishioner. If he's a teacher he for damn sure can't marry a student. If he's a doctor many would look askance if he married a patient (especially if he's a shrink type doctor).

[Perd Hapley]

Because we can think for ourselves? Just because you need "right", "wrong", "good" and "bad" defined for you by a book, doesn't mean everyone else does.

And you think abortion should be legal, right?