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

[Santander]

There is no grey area. It's wrong, and if you disagree, your "morality" is below the level of human dignity.

[Santander]

The is horrible and anyone who says who am I to judge?, should be put in a mental institution.

Ideally, we need to move to the place where we no longer need government. If we require government to regulate every aspect of our life, we'll never get there. Jailtime and fines aren't the answer to something like this. I don't like it, but it's none of my business. Why should I judge other people? If there's a God, then God will judge them, I shouldn't feel the need to have society inflict punishment on others for a private thing that's none of my business.

Yes, God will judge them. But we cannot have a moral or civil society without legislating some degree of morality. We must warn the wicked of their ways and take care of the sick, and if we do not, it is we who will be judged by God for doing nothing. A mother and son who are involved in incest are clearly very, very sick people, and we cannot just take a nihilistic, libertarian view of their actions. We have a duty to treat these people and a duty to collectively affirm that incest is an immoral violation of natural law.

Making something illegal does not mean we have to send people to prison over it. There are other types of facilities and institutions we could use to treat these people, but doing nothing is not an option.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Santander]

Wow, when you thought this thread couldn't get any worse...

[Santander]

According to whose psychiatric diagnosis?  Yours?  Their overwhelming contravention of societal norms is not convincing enough for me, in this case, to force a relationship between two adults into illegality.  Your socially authoritarian logic here is the same used to keep homosexuality illegal.

Uh, no. Come back when you learn how to read.

[Santander]

When RINO Tom and I are in agreement over a social issue and you're on the other side...