PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?

[mota bhai 2,675]

I do think incest will probably hit the courts at some point. The odds are increasing that half siblings might accidentally marry due to sperm banks and the lack of tracking of parentage.

If parentage is not tracked, then how would they ever know?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

How is he supposed to respond to you if you don't specify what you disagree with?

You ever been fishing >?

during crappie season you put your poles over the side of the boat and you lower the jig into the water. Then you turn the motor on slow. Then you get that slight tug and you know you are about to reel in a slab crappie.

[mota bhai 2,675]

You ever been fishing >?

during crappie season you put your poles over the side of the boat and you lower the jig into the water. Then you turn the motor on slow. Then you get that slight tug and you know you are about to reel in a slab crappie.

Translate that into the language of the cubicle-bound now, so I may understand?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Translate that into the language of the cubicle-bound now, so I may understand?

what do you call that

[Darnell 8,478]

Because of you, I just disabled images on VJ again.

On an account less than 12 hours old? Interesting !

[Darnell 8,478]

Danno (back to Post #1)

This was first reported in 2010.

see http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/12/10/professor-david-epstein-charged-incest-his-daughter

I'm wondering what's transpired since? Oh Joy - more google fu.

looks like a plea-bargain, plead guilty to a lesser charge mid 2011 (sorry, it's huff-a-#######) -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/david-epstein-daughter

Edited April 8, 2013 by Darnell

[Karee 4,190]

Translate that into the language of the cubicle-bound now, so I may understand?

AJ is that you?

[mota bhai 2,675]

AJ is that you?

Until site moderation tells me I must answer that, I won't.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Until site moderation tells me I must answer that, I won't.

Oh! You jai lat?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Oh! You jai lat?

No worries. Er-ting irie mon.

[Darnell 8,478]

If parentage is not tracked, then how would they ever know?

Well, perhaps in this particular instance, there was a name matchup on the woman's birth certificate combined with a longish history of her living in the same domicile as her father?

[SMR 368]

This argument wasn't made by the side of those who were in favor of the constitutionality of Prop 8, to my knowledge. This is probably because your argument runs very, very close to a similar one that was popular in the past and is now considered embarrassing. In the 1950s and 60s southern states lined up to make the argument that all sorts of racist laws weren't really equal protection problems because when you really think about it, they kind of fall on blacks and whites evenly. For example, a law against interracial marriage could be said to equally prohibit whites from marrying blacks as it does blacks from marrying whites, so where is the equal protection problem? Similarly, segregated schools could be said to merely prevent everyone from attending integrated schools. Sure, black people were prohibited from attending white schools, but white people were also prohibited from attending black schools, so in a way, everyone is being treated equally, in that they equally are being prevented from integrating.

As recently as a ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas the state of Texas made the argument that laws against sodomy don't violate equal protection because they prohibit heterosexual men from having ####### sex with other men just as much as they prevent homosexual men from doing so. In fact, during oral arguments, Texas opened up with the (really quite bizarre) claim that Lawrence was never really proven to be a homosexual, and in fact could have merely been a heterosexual man who enjoyed having ####### sex with other men. If its possible that Lawrence isn't part of some sort of class of protected people, the argument went, then the whole idea of a equal protection claim falls flat. In the end, it was argued, the statue only "descriminates" against people who engage in illegal conduct.

But Texas lost that case, and the Supreme Court found that the law was "targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.... A State can of course assign certain consequences to a violation of its criminal law. But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law. The Texas sodomy statute subjects homosexuals to a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass ... cannot be reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause."

Similarly, in Loving, the Court found that while laws against interracial marriage can be said to fall on blacks and whites equally, the fact that a racial distinction is being drawn means that the legislation is subject to strict scrutiny, and that the laws in question are "obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."

I would argue that proposition 8 is similarly situated. The proposition does prevent straight people from marrying people of the same sex (why would they ever want to?) in the same way that the statue in Texas prevented straight men from having ####### intercourse with other men (why would they ever want to?) and in the same way that segregated schools prevented white people from attending run-down schools built for blacks (why would they ever want to?). So yes, you can twist anything into an argument that people are being treated equally. But there has to be a higher scrutiny of these laws, and such scrutiny would quickly find that the purpose of these laws is to punish an unpopular class of people, period. Gay marriage isn't illegal because of some compelling reason of state, it's illegal because people find homosexuality to be yucky and thus making gay sex and gay marriage illegal is a good way to punish them for being such yucky people. That's all it's about. The laws against having sex with your daughter have a totally different purpose: they are illegal to prevent coercion, rape (who can say that a minor daughter has true power to consent to her father's demands?), the medical problems that arise with children born of incest, etc. Those are all compelling interests.

I disagree insofar as race is not a characteristic that can be objectively and consistently defined in a non-recursive manner (beyond a reliance on physical characteristics). (Put another way, there is no good way to prove what race a person is.)

[mota bhai 2,675]

I disagree insofar as race is not a characteristic that can be objectively and consistently defined in a non-recursive manner (beyond a reliance on physical characteristics). (Put another way, there is no good way to prove what race a person is.)

That is almost identical to the argument being advanced in so-called 'educated' circles with respect to gender. Once marriage equality ceases to become a political football, watch for that to be next.

It's a real shame this software doesn't allow for tagging of users. I'd like to tag Danno here.

[SMR 368]

That is almost identical to the argument being advanced in so-called 'educated' circles with respect to gender. Once marriage equality ceases to become a political football, watch for that to be next.

It's a real shame this software doesn't allow for tagging of users. I'd like to tag Danno here.

But gender is completely different. It's quite simple to create a consistent, objective, non-recursive definition of gender.

[mota bhai 2,675]

But gender is completely different. It's quite simple to create a consistent, objective, non-recursive definition of gender.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?