Should two consenting adults be free...

[GepperRankins]

i reserve the right to think they're fucking weird, but i don't think they should be locked up or anything

[sparsely]

The Senate (not the courts!) should write whatever law they have to to provide whatever distinctions societal mores demand..

whoa.
this is just a bad idea.
I realize that that is basically what is done, though it's thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Morals, popular or not, are an insufficient basis for law, especially any restrictive law. Morals are inherently based on beliefs, cultural myths and other intangibilities that vary wildly from person to person. By adopting one you marginalize the others, creating unrest and instability within. Not to mention that you'll have to rewrite law every time some new social trend comes along.
The rules we make are for ourselves; for the physical world we live in, and the boundaries of our bodies. The counsel of the wise - both secular and sectarian - should always be sought, but we must take care to not attempt, through law, to satisfy an dogmatic ideaology; but rather, estabish careful boundaries based on the limitations we find in our examinations and assessments of that which which is also physical.
If we accept the posit that we only know a small amount of all available knowledge, then we must also realize that any declaration we make is going to be, at best, somewhat shortsighted.
So it becomes easier to see why laws should instatiate liberty, not control.
This is why equality is mentioned so early in the Declaration of Independence.
Our commonality and that which affects us as a whole must always be stressed, and not distracted from by our differences.

Given all that, we could say incestual relationships are lawful so long as the parties use protection when having sex, or promise not to have children
Because we realize that such probhibitions are both unenforcable and overtly intrusive, it becomes easier to prohibit any incestuous relationship.
What the penalty should be, I don't know.
I have diffiuculty with the idea of criminalize and jailing people simply for having sex with each other, but unless the individuals are separated completely, any law regarding such situations would be ineffective...we all know people are pretty much going to do what they want to do, especially in matters of the heart.

I guess that's the long way of saying i don't really have a good answer
[/soapbox]

[Busyman]

I voted no because legal sexual free-for-alls would invalidate any wrongdoing as it relates to current marriage law.

Pretty easy one.

Incest, relating to increased risk in having defective children, is also a good reason.

This poll was made to be broad and for everyone to pile on yes answers which is why I was specific in my initial answer.

[j2k4]

The Senate (not the courts!) should write whatever law they have to to provide whatever distinctions societal mores demand..

whoa.
this is just a bad idea.
I realize that that is basically what is done, though it's thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Morals, popular or not, are an insufficient basis for law, especially any restrictive law. Morals are inherently based on beliefs, cultural myths and other intangibilities that vary wildly from person to person. By adopting one you marginalize the others, creating unrest and instability within. Not to mention that you'll have to rewrite law every time some new social trend comes along.
The rules we make are for ourselves; for the physical world we live in, and the boundaries of our bodies. The counsel of the wise - both secular and sectarian - should always be sought, but we must take care to not attempt, through law, to satisfy an dogmatic ideaology; but rather, estabish careful boundaries based on the limitations we find in our examinations and assessments of that which which is also physical.
If we accept the posit that we only know a small amount of all available knowledge, then we must also realize that any declaration we make is going to be, at best, somewhat shortsighted.
So it becomes easier to see why laws should instatiate liberty, not control.
This is why equality is mentioned so early in the Declaration of Independence.
Our commonality and that which affects us as a whole must always be stressed, and not distracted from by our differences.

Given all that, we could say incestual relationships are lawful so long as the parties use protection when having sex, or promise not to have children
Because we realize that such probhibitions are both unenforcable and overtly intrusive, it becomes easier to prohibit any incestuous relationship.
What the penalty should be, I don't know.
I have diffiuculty with the idea of criminalize and jailing people simply for having sex with each other, but unless the individuals are separated completely, any law regarding such situations would be ineffective...we all know people are pretty much going to do what they want to do, especially in matters of the heart.

I guess that's the long way of saying i don't really have a good answer
[/soapbox]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win.

[Busyman]

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Good point.

[vidcc]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

I agree everyone has the right to expect to have a say about the "public world" we live in (within certain boundaries), but not the private world other consenting adults live in.

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win.

Incest carries a higher risk of abnormalities, not a guarantee. There are whole groups of people that carry greater risks of passing on genetic flaws to their children e.g. Sickle Cell Disorders, Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease. Should we legislate against these people having sex?

But the point is about consenting adults and what they do in private should be of no concern to anyone but themselves.

[Busyman]

There are whole groups of people that carry greater risks of passing on genetic flaws to their children e.g. Sickle Cell Disorders, Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease. Should we legislate against these people having sex?

Another good point. Speaks volumes actually and kinda makes the fact of incest/birth defects moot unless it's coupled with restrictions regarding other genetic disorders.

If incest is singled out then it would have to be solely on moral grounds in light of your post.

[Rat Faced]

whoa.
this is just a bad idea.
I realize that that is basically what is done, though it's thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Morals, popular or not, are an insufficient basis for law, especially any restrictive law. Morals are inherently based on beliefs, cultural myths and other intangibilities that vary wildly from person to person. By adopting one you marginalize the others, creating unrest and instability within. Not to mention that you'll have to rewrite law every time some new social trend comes along.
The rules we make are for ourselves; for the physical world we live in, and the boundaries of our bodies. The counsel of the wise - both secular and sectarian - should always be sought, but we must take care to not attempt, through law, to satisfy an dogmatic ideaology; but rather, estabish careful boundaries based on the limitations we find in our examinations and assessments of that which which is also physical.
If we accept the posit that we only know a small amount of all available knowledge, then we must also realize that any declaration we make is going to be, at best, somewhat shortsighted.
So it becomes easier to see why laws should instatiate liberty, not control.
This is why equality is mentioned so early in the Declaration of Independence.
Our commonality and that which affects us as a whole must always be stressed, and not distracted from by our differences.

Given all that, we could say incestual relationships are lawful so long as the parties use protection when having sex, or promise not to have children
Because we realize that such probhibitions are both unenforcable and overtly intrusive, it becomes easier to prohibit any incestuous relationship.
What the penalty should be, I don't know.
I have diffiuculty with the idea of criminalize and jailing people simply for having sex with each other, but unless the individuals are separated completely, any law regarding such situations would be ineffective...we all know people are pretty much going to do what they want to do, especially in matters of the heart.

I guess that's the long way of saying i don't really have a good answer
[/soapbox]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win.

He does.

Morals are not universal and laws should never be made based upon them.

I have no respect for such laws and have no hesitation about ignoring their existance if they happen to be in the way of stopping me doing what i want.

Any Law that can be ignored and is totally impossible to enforce should be removed, as they both deminish the respect for the rest of the legal system, and take resources away from enforcing real and important Laws.

Laws should only be there to protect society and the individual from harm. How or who someone has sex with in the privacy of their own home has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of society.

[Busyman]

All this, then, to say that the very idea of societal mores is passe, that people, other than on an individual basis, should have no say about what type of world they wish to live in, and the idea of individual rights trumps all others, even though this personal control you wish to preserve and hold sacrosanct (in only the most sectarian way, of course) must, by virtue of your definition of it, end at the front door of your house or the edge of your property, beyond which lies the arena of public interface, in which milieu none of your personal beliefs hold sway.

What you do in your bedroom has no import for that world, until you have to bring a physically- or-mentally-impaired person into it; I suppose, though, that technology will allow you to spot the flawed examples and abort them...

Point, set, and match.

You win.

He does.

Morals are not universal and laws should never be made based upon them.

I have no respect for such laws and have no hesitation about ignoring their existance if they happen to be in the way of stopping me doing what i want.

Hogwash. Walk around your front yard naked then.

[vidcc]

Hogwash. Walk around your front yard naked then.

If your yard has a fence that screens out public view including from the upper floors of adjacent buildings you can (or at least should be able to IMO) do just that. It is when you no longer do it privately that it can come under "public decency" codes.
I hasten to add that there should be nothing immoral about the human body, we all have one. just some are not so easy on the eyes.

I think in taking just a sound bite from rat's post you have mis-represented him

Laws should only be there to protect society and the individual from harm. How or who someone has sex with in the privacy of their own home has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of society.