The Ultimate Betrayal

Re: # 363
``There is no logical and uniform basis of ethics in the world that applies under all conditions and is accepted by everyone………``
Romair,i think this last line of yours sums it all up.Their can either be a value system based on religion(any) where one has no authority to question the rules,its all laid out and followed,or at the other extreme is a system which will continously change in the light of new definitions of freedom.The only possible compromise is where the state doesnt interfere in religion,and lets people of every faith follow what they think is right for them. i think India is an example(however this system is ridden with its own problems)

Ana, I hope I have not offended you,I only wanted to leave you and everyone else on the board with a thought.

Dost-Mittar/Jang #: Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to, by design, be affected by popular opinion. In fact, the whole purpose of an efficient judicial system is to ensure that the individual rights of a person are protected, even against the majority view. Hence, justice systems should have nothing to do with what the majority thinks or does not think. On most issues, this is how the justice system works in the West. However, on some issues, as Dost-mittar pointed out, it still sways with the wind. This is a weakness in the system….

Similarly, secularism, as philosophy, by design, is supposed to protect the rights of an individual, along religious lines, regardless of what the majority religion dictates. As an example, if Pakistan were secular, Ahmedis would be considered Muslims, by the State. Even though, an overwhelming majority of the population of Pakistan, at a personal level, does consider them non-Muslims. There isn’t a single political party in Pakistan, which considers them Muslims. However, the courts would rule in the favour of Ahmedis, regardless of what the majority thinks.

The point being, judiciary should have nothing to do with majority opinions……..It is supposed to rely only on proof and on consistently following one principal – whatever that principal maybe (in the West it is secularism and individual rights)……..

Gay marriage and sexual unions of any kind should be legal in the above-mentioned two systems. It is really a no-brainer. In a secular system, one cannot ban gay marriage, incestual marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. based on the majority’s religious beliefs. In a system that protects individual rights, one cannot ban them; unless it is proven that they harm the society. So far, on this site, no one has been able to provide a single argument on why they harm society. I cannot provide one either, even though, I oppose both incest and gay marriage. Neither can the 50% of the Canadians and the higher % of the Americans, who oppose it……….Which is why, if consistent judicial principles are followed, and not affected by majority opinions, all of the above would be legal in Canada……..

This brings us to polygamy. If you can prove that it will harm women’s rights then it would be illegal. However, I don’t see how that can be proven. When something is made legal, it doesn’t mean, the State is forcing everyone to practice it. It means that it is allowing the tiny minority, who wants to practice it, the right to practice it, because the practice isn’t harming society, in general.

I read somewhere that individuals in Utah, where Mormons live, are going to push the legality of polygamy, based on the same argument as the legality of gay marriage. Once the courts decide that they can redefine marriage, I think the argument would become valid. Someone would have to prove that two adult women consensually marrying one adult man is harmful to the society. Proof is not based on majority views. Could you highlight how it harms women’s rights; specifically since, two women living with a man and having sex with him is not considered illegal. At best, it can just be considered deviant behaviour by the majority……

Incest falls into the same category. However, I don’t think it will be legal, because hardly anyone is interested in it. Hence no one will push its legalization, on the basis of individual rights. However, there are groups interested in polygamy. Personally speaking, I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, incest, incestual marriage, and polygamy (other than in very minor cases, where the woman may herself want to indulge in it, because she wants to certain legal rights, which she will not get as a divorcee). But if I were to go to a court in Canada, which truly practiced blind justice, I don’t think I could win my case, since I don’t know how I could prove that anyone consensually practicing the above, is doing any harm to me…….

There is no logical and uniform basis of ethics in the world that applies under all conditions and is accepted by everyone………

romair..

``I think polygamy will be legal in the USA in a generation or so, if gay marriage becomes legal...... ``

i dont get this leap of logic ....polygamist will have to make a case that polygamy is not disturbing to the society, womens rights etc....the kind of argument gays have been making for decades before there is the acceptance (50% in canada, 25% in alabama) ..in older days gay-life was equated to pedophilia and -ve life-style, now there is a distinction..-ve lifestyle is -ve lifestyle gay couples are just that).

also, i dont think there is any vaccum..all i see is a robust debate.

Romair#356:

I am not sure if your assumptions are entirely valid. Courts and justices do not act in a vaccum. In the U.S, especially, the appointment of justices itself depends upon which way the wind is blowing, as the current raging controversy in the U.S shows. In the final analysis, it is the will of the people that prevails.

In Canada, polls show that opinion on Gay marriages is equally divided, this is why the governments have been moving gingerly on this issue. While the courts have taken up the issue of Gay marriages as an issue of minority rights, they are able to do so only because the public opinion favours such an approach. If you think that any court will take up your right to have three wives or Patrick`s right to have sex with a minor, you are greatly mistaken because the public will revolt against it. Above all, the Canadian constitution has a notwithstanding clause which allows the governments to over-rule court judgements. Alberta, I believe, has promised to do exactly that if the federal government passes the Gay Marriage bill.

But I think that we secularists have to accept your contention that if the majority of the population changes its views regarding polygamy, incest or sex with consenting minors, this would become legal. By the same token, if the majority turns totally rationalistic and decides that religious books should be banned because they promote irrational myths, this could also happen. One can only say that this has not happened over several centuries and is unlikely to happen in the next several generations.

Sorry for butting in so late. Urstruly was right in saying that the relegion brings all the norms of sexual behaviour. In Islam it is the life of prophet. Prophet first married the mother figure in his life. His last marriage was with the daughter figure in his life.

Jang/Raw_Dust: I think these discussions highlight the vacuum that exists in society, and which is slowly being unraveled: what is the basis of ethics? That is the multi-million dollar question. How do we decide what is deviant and what is not? In cases of lack of consent it is easy. Lack of consent makes the action deviant, like rape, murder etc.

But what if there is consent on both sides?

I think there is no single basis of people`s ethics. It is based on where, how and in what timeframe they were brought up. After that, they develop a standard, and then apply it. I never think twice about marraiges between first cousins. To Americans, it is sickening. To the new generation of Westerners (the ones who grew up with gay marriage and homosexuality being legal), homosexuals will be normal. Something they will never think about twice. But I find it sickening and wrong.

Incest is the same. It is no more, ``deviant`` than anything else. It doesn`t even have a correct definition that applies in all cultures. However, I find it deviant amongst siblings. Not for any practical reaons. Just based on my upbringing.

In fact, it is pretty hard to provide a reason for finding incest and/or homosexuality to be deviant, other than people not wanting their kids to turn to it..........

The world will be a different place in a generation or so, if the legal systems continue to adjudicate along the same lines they are doing, right now........People will not think twice over various sexual unions that many people find sickening today.......e.g. I think polygamy will be legal in the USA in a generation or so, if gay marriage becomes legal......

You can live with three women and have sexual relations with all three. But if you marry all three, even with consent, you go to jail.........Go figure!! The exact opposite of the sodomy example........

romair, i think you are right about incest being illegal..but things are kinda strange. even sodomy is illegal e.g. in massachusetts, but you can get a gay marriage. go figure.

even in the great non-liberal state of texas

Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (June 2003). Texas sodomy law ruled unconstitutional by US Supreme Court.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

shishapa sir:
You brought up a valid argument against consenting-adult-incest but it was inadequate; like in chess if you try to mount a castling later in the game to reinforce your defenses sometimes turn out to be counterproductive as you and i had witnessed. :-)

cheers.

ana #349: I believe the criteria used in the legal system (in the West, at least) is not whether a majority of the people think that an act is damaging to the society. It is whether they can prove that an act is damaging to the society. If they cannot prove it, then the decision goes in favor of the individual rights of person committing the act.

This is the basis of the Western legal system, at least, as I understand it. It gives priority to individual`s freedom over social customs.........

Without getting into the useless liberal/secular and religious/non-religious debate, I think, at the basic level, one has to define what criteria and principle one is going to use as a framework for deciding what is legal and illegal.

The reason homosexuality is legal in the USA and the reason that gay marriage is legal in most of Canada, is not because a majority considers it unharmful. There isn`t a single state in the USA where the majority population votes in favor of gay marriage. And I assume a majority of Americans would not want their kids to grow up to be gay. This would indicate that, at a persona level, they see something wrong with it.

However, the courts have ruled in favor of homosexuality. And in two cities in favor of gay marriage, in the USA (and most of Canada, and much of Europe). The reason is that those opposing this, were unable to prove that gay marraige or homosexuality causes problems to the society. They only felt it did. So the courts ruled in favor of the rights of the individual homosexuals..........

Incest is the same. As are various other relationships, like polygamy, polyandry etc. It doesn`t matter whether people think that is causes problems to the society. They will have to prove it. If they cannot, then the rights of the individual wanting to practice it, will be given more importance........

So the importance thing is not to link or de-link homosexuality with incest, or with anything else. The important thing is to define one principal and use it across the board. Not only on areas with which one feels comfortable.........

I agree with Jang that incest may not become a legal issue, because most people don`t want to practice it. I cannot see any specific reason for people wanting to have sex with a sibling, when so many other non-sibling candidates, with equal sexual capabilities are available. Unlike homosexuality, where being the same gender is the main issue, there is nothing special about a sibling that sexually does not exist in a non-sibling..........

However, if someone actually raised it as a legal issue, I think the justice system would have to rule in favor of the person raising it, using the same logic that is applied on cases related to homosexuality and other unions, i.e. what you do in your bedroom is your own business, as long as you both are old enough and agree to it, and don`t make so much noise doing it that the neighbor wakes up............

Re: # 353

Ana,
if I may ask,would you by the same yardstick refuse to judge adult incestous realation as deviant?

Re: # 348
Romair I doubt if a relation between a step parent and the children would constitute incest in the true sense.But most certainly sexual abuse must be more common in step relations.

Regarding custody of children,I think its best decided on an individual basis-what if the mother is an alcoholic,indulged in baby battering etc.

slan,

i get where you`re coming from. but again who defines and who judges what is deviant behavior and ``liberalism`` for that matter? i cannot define myself as liberal or secular according to what most interactors here would characterize liberal or secular as. as for same-sex love being deviant, i can`t answer that either. how can my friend who loves someone the same gender as him be involved in deviant behavior, and not i, who love a man. i`m not going to make that judgment.

cheers.

RE # 345
I am sorry for not making myself clear,

As i said `` it is not just incest but child sexual abuse as well`` so incest with a minor is child sexual abuse .

I am not saying that an issue exists by itself but rather everything is interelated and co-dependant . Incest is but one dimesnsion of CSA and it happens more often than we would like to acknowledge.

Re # 346,

Romair , this was a story discussing the anguish of the child and how the father moves on to the next to create the same anguish. It was never meant to be a detailed documentary and a lot of things were left off on purpose as I did not wish to bring it in the forefront.
The most important fact remains the same that incest happened, whatever the reasons and circumstances.
CSA is basically pedophilia so it is not about power like rape but about sex, in the pedophiles mind he loves the child and for him this is normal behavior.

RE: Dionysus:

you wrote:
``The thing is RD that the liberal lunatics first persuaded us to tolerate homosexuality because `what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their buisness` . But we`ve gone WAY beyond all that now. Gays are demanding the right to marriage and to adopt children. They want to be able to express affection in public like normal couples.``

Yep, from the presumed position regarding consenting adults, ALL citizens should have the same rights.

you wrote:
`` One looney liberal on UP a few months ago anouced that anyone who opposed gays kissing in public was `bigotted` If they get their way we could be sitting in the park with our nephews and nieces having to watch two 6`` 3 body builders tongueing each other. It is no longer a matter of what they do in their bedrooms. But if homsexual couples should have the right to express affection in public why not adult-consentual incestual couples? ``

You are right - ALL couples should have the right to PDA. From where you are coming, Bigot seems an apt description though.

you wrote:
``Where does it all end? Where do you draw the line and why?``

Ans: Did you miss something? Line is drawn on Conseting-Adults.

cheers.

PS: this is My understanding of the issues and i cant pretend to be talking from whatever you define to be liberals/lunatics/what have you.

Re: # 349

Ana ,I consider my self a liberal & secular.but i dont believe in defending deviant behaviour,be it homosexuality or anything else.current liberalism is turning out a free for all rule,where every thing is right as long as it doesnt involve someone else.this free for all protected by the state behaviour is bound to produce deviation ,as there is no accountability to any one.and we are not going to be insulated as a society from such deviant behaviour,no matter where we live due to such factors as media and migration.Hence we are not taking of homosexuality or any such social issue as `there`problem,but as a problem which could involve our progeny

achha, i know i wasn`t making myself clear at all. i am not saying there is no relationship at all between incest and childhood sex abuse. of course there is. . . if a parent is involved in a relationship with a child against the child`s wishes, then clearly it is incest and it is childhood sex abuse. and no, we cannot separate the two.

my concern is that we use the general term incest as sex abuse, and that people have used that here to avoid the issue of abuse altogether because in their eyes, if incest is considered as abusive aberrant behavior, then so should homosexuality.

forgive me, but homosexuality is not any more damaging to our society than some of the acts that heterosexuals have engaged in. everything is connected and linked to in one way or the other, but if we are going to hint in the direction that our society is disintegrating thanks to the homosexuals, and the liberals defend this disintegration. . . . then we are in a world of trouble. and it`s not because of gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transsexuals.