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

[Blue3]

Who am I to judge?

The government should have higher things on its list of priorities, in any case.



EDIT: shouldn't this be in Political Debate or Individual Politics?

[Blue3]

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.

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone.

.

[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)

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Blue3]

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

Exactly. There are plenty of gay friends of mine who called me a bigot because when I hear about a mother and son in a sexual relationship, I want to throw up.

Wanting to throw up is one thing.  Wanting to keep the activity illegal is another, and nobody has yet put forward a convincing argument in favor of that that doesn't just rely on the first point.

HOLY sh**t, LOL, yes they have!  You're just ignoring them.

For one, multiple people have touched on what should be a universally accepted truth: this is not consent, as a son or daughter cannot give true consent to his or her parent by the very nature of the term.  They're inherently unequal.

No, and definitely not in this case (reunited years after adoption).

The argument boils down to ickiness.

You know what I found even more icky than incest? Transgenderism. Do I think transgender people should be thrown into jail? No.

[Blue3]

Look at the rest of that paragraph:

You know what I found even more icky than incest? Transgenderism. Do I think transgender people should be thrown into jail? No.

(and yes, I'm friends with and have worked alongside trans* people, and believe in unisex bathrooms too)

My point is, we shouldn't let personal "ickiness" feelings influence political and legal issues.

[Blue3]

But there really is no reason to feel that "transgenderism" is "icky" personally. That is like saying "I support the civil rights act, but I don't want blacks moving into my neighborhood personally."

No, it's more like the opposite of that. It would be like saying you personally don't want to hang out with black people, but you fully support the Civil Rights Act and integration and nondiscrimination and equality. I find something "icky"... and I'm fine with it.

I also find mustard gross. Am I trying to ban mustard? No. I just won't eat it for myself.


This whole post just demonstrates how you and others here don't seem to be truly listening. There is no reason to feel anything is "icky"... it's a feeling, an admitted inherent bias, not the result of a thought process. No one chooses what they find "icky."

(and for the record, I said I find transgenderism icky, not transgender people... as in the actual act of physical transformation)

[Blue3]

Do you read?

I personally find transgenderism "icky", the physical transformation. Not people. And I don't let my personal "ickiness" bias my political views.

Just like I don't think my personal "ickiness" towards incest should automatically make it illegal either, going back to the thread topic.

I also feel the same way about transhumanism, with people who want to someday replace their body parts with mechanical parts, or nonhuman-animal parts, or genetically-designed artificial organic parts. That's something I'm undecided on politically.