Mother and son in love in N.M. will go to jail to defend their relationship

[Blue3]

Bringing up "natural law" isn't usually the sign of a winning argument, especially in a country where the U.S. government isn't supposed to take sides between religions/denominations (or lack thereof), and protect everyone's right to their own religious beliefs. And I'm a universalist Christian... I believe it's Jesus who saves, but he saves everyone.

I understand why taking care of the sick can be legislated from a moral point of view. Society is trying to protect, heal, nurture the objective health status of individuals.

What is the nonreligious, objective rationale behind making this illegal? Isn't this something that, if anything, would better be achieved through non-government means? (ex: shunning)

[AelroseB]

This isn't even a matter of natural law or morality.  It's a violation of the intimate and sacred trust that children give to their parents, simple as that.  Any child born from such a relationship should be taken from the "couple's" custody, as tragic a situation as that would be.

[Santander]

What is the nonreligious, objective rationale behind making this illegal? Isn't this something that, if anything, would better be achieved through non-government means? (ex: shunning)

Do you need to be religious to recognize that those who engage in incest are sick and need to be treated? The concept of natural law is independent of religion. In fact, the liberal social contract is built around recognizing the fact that there is such thing as natural law and natural rights, and that government's authority ultimately comes from the need to uphold natural law and defend natural rights.

We can only compel these sick individuals to be treated if we codify that their behavior is a violation of natural law and the good morals of society in our laws. Extrajudicial punishment such as the "shunning" you describe is lawless, dangerous, and incompatible with liberal society.

[Blue3]

Natural laws and natural rights aren't a real thing. They don't exist (unless by natural laws you means things like the laws of physics).

Again... what is the nonreligious, objective rationale behind making this illegal?

And by shunning, I'm saying what people already naturally tend to do about this kind of thing: just stay away from them, stop hanging out with them, etc. I don't see what's see extrajudicial and dangerous about that. It's what people in this very thread are doing.

[Santander]

Natural laws and natural rights aren't a real thing. They don't exist (unless by natural laws you means things like the laws of physics).

Again... what is the nonreligious, objective rationale behind making this illegal?

And by shunning, I'm saying what people already naturally tend to do about this kind of thing: just stay away from them, stop hanging out with them, etc. I don't see what's see extrajudicial and dangerous about that. It's what people in this very thread are doing.

Yes, because not hanging out with people is such a scientifically-proven method of curing mental illness.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

The sentence is wrong. I wouldn't necessarily mind legislating against this if it meant putting those in the relationship through some long-term required counseling.

[Blue3]

Natural laws and natural rights aren't a real thing. They don't exist (unless by natural laws you means things like the laws of physics).

Again... what is the nonreligious, objective rationale behind making this illegal?

And by shunning, I'm saying what people already naturally tend to do about this kind of thing: just stay away from them, stop hanging out with them, etc. I don't see what's see extrajudicial and dangerous about that. It's what people in this very thread are doing.

Yes, because not hanging out with people is such a scientifically-proven method of curing mental illness.

What did you think I meant by shunning? And you should read up on Confucian philosophy, there's ways to influence people without getting the government and the use of force involved.

And again, why does the government need to mandate treatment? (mental illness is never cured, only treated). Even if I supported government getting involved, I don't think treatment would be the right way to go (just place a restraining order against both of them, for each other). It's not necessarily a mental illness either, even if it's disgusting to almost everyone (myself included), it was their choice.

Again (3rd time)... what is the nonreligious, objective rationale behind making this illegal?

For example, with legalizing polygamous marriage, there are real legal/contractual issues that would need to be worked out. With beastiality, it's because they can't consent. With necrophilia, the corpse is the property of the morgue/cemetery/hospital/family. What's it with this case, with two over-age consenting adults?

[KingSweden]

Gross.

I wonder what opebo would have to say about this.

[Devout Centrist]

Eh.

[Santander]

What did you think I meant by shunning? And you should read up on Confucian philosophy, there's ways to influence people without getting the government and the use of force involved.

Confucianism is incompatible with liberalism, which is why China and Korea cannot become liberal societies for the foreseeable future, even if Korea lampoons Western institutions and government. We don't believe in Confucianism, we believe in liberalism.

[Speed of Sound]

I wonder what opebo would have to say about this.

I still can't believe he's gone. He would have been a hilarious addition to this election cycle.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What did you think I meant by shunning? And you should read up on Confucian philosophy, there's ways to influence people without getting the government and the use of force involved.

Confucianism is incompatible with liberalism, which is why China and Korea cannot become liberal societies for the foreseeable future, even if Korea lampoons Western institutions and government. We don't believe in Confucianism, we believe in liberalism.

Why do you claim to believe in liberalism?  That whole thing about using the law to warn the wicked of their ways or face God's judgement doesn't really fit into that, does it?

[Santander]

What did you think I meant by shunning? And you should read up on Confucian philosophy, there's ways to influence people without getting the government and the use of force involved.

Confucianism is incompatible with liberalism, which is why China and Korea cannot become liberal societies for the foreseeable future, even if Korea lampoons Western institutions and government. We don't believe in Confucianism, we believe in liberalism.

Why do you claim to believe in liberalism?  That whole thing about using the law to warn the wicked of their ways or face God's judgement doesn't really fit into that, does it?

Liberalism was founded upon the belief that natural law and divine revelation both originated in God. I believe in liberalism because I am a Christian and I believe that liberalism is the most moral organizing philosophy for government. Liberalism does not disavow religion, in fact, true liberalism demands piety.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What did you think I meant by shunning? And you should read up on Confucian philosophy, there's ways to influence people without getting the government and the use of force involved.

Confucianism is incompatible with liberalism, which is why China and Korea cannot become liberal societies for the foreseeable future, even if Korea lampoons Western institutions and government. We don't believe in Confucianism, we believe in liberalism.

Why do you claim to believe in liberalism?  That whole thing about using the law to warn the wicked of their ways or face God's judgement doesn't really fit into that, does it?

Liberalism was founded upon the belief that natural law and divine revelation both originated in God. I believe in liberalism because I am a Christian and I believe that liberalism is the most moral organizing philosophy for government. Liberalism does not disavow religion, in fact, true liberalism demands piety.

"Liberalism" is a hard concept to discuss since there are so many definitions of it running around, without any having a special claim of legitimacy.  But liberalism has tended ever since the Enlightenment to shed itself of any connection to revelation; and be reliant on some concept of a secular social contract, with an increasingly vague and tenuous attachment to natural rights,  attempting to anchor itself in ideas of mutual interest and security rather than eternal truths.

I don't understand what "liberalism" means if it involves neither a distinction between religion and law, nor a belief that some ethical matters are beyond the purview of the state.  If it just means the belief in an eternal law that cannot be contravened by either a king or a mob, that is hardly unique to liberalism, nor incompatible with Confucianism.

[Blue3]

What did you think I meant by shunning? And you should read up on Confucian philosophy, there's ways to influence people without getting the government and the use of force involved.

Confucianism is incompatible with liberalism, which is why China and Korea cannot become liberal societies for the foreseeable future, even if Korea lampoons Western institutions and government. We don't believe in Confucianism, we believe in liberalism.

Japan and South Korea did fine. A lot of people also misunderstand Confucianism, which is about how to have an organized society without government or the use of force.

And you completely ignored the rest of my post.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't think Confucianism is typically considered an anarchist philosophy, unless you want to resort to some pointless What The Historical Confucius Really Taught argument or something. Mencianism is pacifist, but that's not the same thing.

[Santander]

"Liberalism" is a hard concept to discuss since there are so many definitions of it running around, without any having a special claim of legitimacy.  But liberalism has tended ever since the Enlightenment to shed itself of any connection to revelation; and be reliant on some concept of a secular social contract, with an increasingly vague and tenuous attachment to natural rights,  attempting to anchor itself in ideas of mutual interest and security rather than eternal truths.

You bring up a good point on the definition of liberalism and the evolution of liberal philosophy. I should clarify that I was referring to a Lockean type of liberalism.

[Blue3]

I really don't think Confucianism is typically considered an anarchist philosophy, unless you want to resort to some pointless What The Historical Confucius Really Taught argument or something. Mencianism is pacifist, but that's not the same thing.

It's what my Confucian philosophy professor from China taught, using the text of the Analects of Confucius. If I look up my old notes I could use quotes.

There's a reason why the CCP originally tried to stamp out Confucianism. Only in recent decades have they decided to embrace it as part of China's cultural legacy, but they've twisted it with legalism and the need for government to maintain social harmony, which totally alters the textual and historical message. Confucius believed in re-establishing social norms that would keep order at a time when China was falling apart but refuted how some advocated a heavy showing of government force to reimpose order (and Confucius believed those social norms, not laws, were what made China so successful in the past), gentleman-like professionalism in the bureaucracy, and how education and an enlightened population was the key to it all. (Taoism, of course, went further, saying education wasn't even necessary, but reattuning with nature and living authentically) Confucius wasn't completely anarchist, but he didn't think more government and more law were the answer when it came to social order, favoring minimal government.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't think Confucianism is typically considered an anarchist philosophy, unless you want to resort to some pointless What The Historical Confucius Really Taught argument or something. Mencianism is pacifist, but that's not the same thing.

It's what my Confucian philosophy professor from China taught, using the text of the Analects of Confucius. If I look up my old notes I could use quotes.

There's a reason why the CCP originally tried to stamp out Confucianism. Only in recent decades have they decided to embrace it as part of China's cultural legacy, but they've twisted it with legalism and the need for government to maintain social harmony, which totally alters the textual and historical message. Confucius believed in re-establishing social norms that would keep order at a time when China was falling apart but refuted how some advocated a heavy showing of government force to reimpose order (and Confucius believed those social norms, not laws, were what made China so successful in the past), gentleman-like professionalism in the bureaucracy, and how education and an enlightened population was the key to it all. (Taoism, of course, went further, saying education wasn't even necessary, but reattuning with nature and living authentically) Confucius wasn't completely anarchist, but he didn't think more government and more law were the answer when it came to social order, favoring minimal government.

Thanks for elaborating. I think I've probably learned about Confucianism from a somewhat outdated perspective.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Incest is messed up, but I don't particularly care for putting these folks behind bars over it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Never thought I'd say this, but this thread is a perfect example of "who am I to judge" attitude going too far.

[Joe Republic]

Never thought I'd say this, but this thread is a perfect example of "who am I to judge" attitude going too far.

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why the consenting relationship itself should be illegal.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Never thought I'd say this, but this thread is a perfect example of "who am I to judge" attitude going too far.

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why the consenting relationship itself should be illegal.

OK, in this particular case (parent-child incestous relationship) one may argue that severe psychological effects outweights consent. Due to a very specific parent-child dynamics I simply don't believe it being in any way "healthy".

[Santander]

Never thought I'd say this, but this thread is a perfect example of "who am I to judge" attitude going too far.

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why the consenting relationship itself should be illegal.

Those who engage in parent-child incest are sick and mentally incapable of consent. It is impossible to have a consensual parent-child sexual relationship. Don't be ridiculous.

[nclib]

Honestly, the only arguments for this being illegal are definition of consent and potential for birth defects. I suppose one could argue that a parent/child sexual relationship can't be truly consensual. However, in this case, it's pretty clear that both partners romantically love each other. Another issue is are both the mother and son mentally healthy. I know it's easy to assume they aren't, but I don't think this can be proven across the board for mother/son sexual relationships, especially this case as the son was put up for adoption as a newborn and they met as adults.

On a tangent, once I heard a discussion about consent for adults with disabilities. It's interesting because we need to protect the vulnerable, but adults with disabilities are sexual beings and should be allowed to have healthy sexual relationships.