DiscussMormonism.com

Australian man fathers a baby with daughter

Apparently this is a result of what psychologists call genetic sexual attraction. So apparently what they experience is natural. What I'm wondering is this: why do we (or at least Aussies) allow the government to intervene in the case of incest, but yet we don't intervene in other high-risk marriages if they aren't incestuous? Are we simply legislating morality? If so, is it fine to continue to ban homosexual marriages or even homosexual intercourse (the judge forbade the father/daughter couple from intercourse)?

Of course I see obvious differences between homosexuality and incest namely that incest is risky to the offspring whereas homosexuality carries no inherent risk to offspring and that someone whoexperiences genetic sexual attraction will likely be able to find another suitable partner who is not genetically related. However, I'm wondering why that risk isn't sufficient to prohibit marriage or intercourse for other risky couples with known genetic conditions. Furthermore, isn't genetic sexual attraction natural, or at least as much so as homosexuality? Also, even if some bisexuals could find a suitable partner of the opposite sex, should we legislate to influence them to choose what we want? Do anti-incest laws but the allowance of marriage with known high-risk of genetic defects give the church a leg to stand on when it opposes gay marriage?

Oh, and on the subject of genetic sexual attraction, since many Utahns are related to each other through polygamy, do Utahns tend to find other Utahns more attractive?

asbestosman wrote:Australian man fathers a baby with daughter

Apparently this is a result of what psychologists call genetic sexual attraction. So apparently what they experience is natural. What I'm wondering is this: why do we (or at least Aussies) allow the government to intervene in the case of incest, but yet we don't intervene in other high-risk marriages if they aren't incestuous? Are we simply legislating morality? If so, is it fine to continue to ban homosexual marriages or even homosexual intercourse (the judge forbade the father/daughter couple from intercourse)?

Of course I see obvious differences between homosexuality and incest namely that incest is risky to the offspring whereas homosexuality carries no inherent risk to offspring and that someone whoexperiences genetic sexual attraction will likely be able to find another suitable partner who is not genetically related. However, I'm wondering why that risk isn't sufficient to prohibit marriage or intercourse for other risky couples with known genetic conditions. Furthermore, isn't genetic sexual attraction natural, or at least as much so as homosexuality? Also, even if some bisexuals could find a suitable partner of the opposite sex, should we legislate to influence them to choose what we want? Do anti-incest laws but the allowance of marriage with known high-risk of genetic defects give the church a leg to stand on when it opposes gay marriage?

Oh, and on the subject of genetic sexual attraction, since many Utahns are related to each other through polygamy, do Utahns tend to find other Utahns more attractive?

I for one am tired of the clichéd idea that you can't legislate morality. You can't legislate anything but morality (though it may be bad morality). Laws are saying what is acceptable and what is not....a moral choice.

The Nehor wrote:I for one am tired of the clichéd idea that you can't legislate morality. You can't legislate anything but morality (though it may be bad morality). Laws are saying what is acceptable and what is not....a moral choice.

But surely you see the difference between legislation against stealing and legislation about how much to pay workers on legal holidays? I'm all for legislating the bare minimum for society (minimum because I hate government meddling), but I'd be upset if someone outlawed meat because their morality makes them vegetarians. Similarly, I would be upset if alcohol is banned because "God says so" instead of because society has decided that the risks are far too great (I don't think they are, but I leave it as a possibility) just as we have decided such for heroin, cocaine, etc. Then again, I would be upset if junk food was banned because of the obesity epidemic. Just because many people don't control themselves doesn't mean I donn't. I weigh a healthy 160 at 6'1.

The Nehor wrote:I for one am tired of the clichéd idea that you can't legislate morality. You can't legislate anything but morality (though it may be bad morality). Laws are saying what is acceptable and what is not....a moral choice.

Morality is relative. Who gets to decide what is moral and what isn't?

Some idiot in Iran decided it isn't moral for women to drive cars.... how cliché

http://www.lexxus.com/burka2.bmp

I'm the one in yellow... I was feelin' frisky that day. ;)

asbestosman wrote:Australian man fathers a baby with daughter

Hey it worked for Adam!

asbestosman wrote:

The Nehor wrote:I for one am tired of the clichéd idea that you can't legislate morality. You can't legislate anything but morality (though it may be bad morality). Laws are saying what is acceptable and what is not....a moral choice.

But surely you see the difference between legislation against stealing and legislation about how much to pay workers on legal holidays? I'm all for legislating the bare minimum for society (minimum because I hate government meddling), but I'd be upset if someone outlawed meat because their morality makes them vegetarians. Similarly, I would be upset if alcohol is banned because "God says so" instead of because society has decided that the risks are far too great (I don't think they are, but I leave it as a possibility) just as we have decided such for heroin, cocaine, etc. Then again, I would be upset if junk food was banned because of the obesity epidemic. Just because many people don't control themselves doesn't mean I donn't. I weigh a healthy 160 at 6'1.

I do see the difference but then it becomes a question of what morality should we legislate. A much more profitable place to begin rather than vague accusations of someone else forcing their morality on you.

The Nehor wrote:I do see the difference but then it becomes a question of what morality should we legislate. A much more profitable place to begin rather than vague accusations of someone else forcing their morality on you.

Sure. I brought up the "legislating morality" thing because people often complain about it but don't realize that anti-incest laws are a case where it almost directly speaks against what they're talking about: morality that does not have a secular basis (yes, secular morality exists and isn't really that horrible). Sorry to them, but if anti-incest laws have a secular basis then why don't we forbid other genetically dangerous marriages? Oh yeah, because of another secular moral: eugenics is bad. I like to argue within someone else's value framework. I find that more effective than stomping my foot and saying I won't budge because of my convictions.

Yeah, but no one is answering asbestos' most intriguing question of all:

asbestosman wrote:Oh, and on the subject of genetic sexual attraction, since many Utahns are related to each other through polygamy, do Utahns tend to find other Utahns more attractive?

The Nehor wrote:
I for one am tired of the clichéd idea that you can't legislate morality. You can't legislate anything but morality (though it may be bad morality). Laws are saying what is acceptable and what is not....a moral choice.

I don't think I understand your point. In my city, you are required to register your bicycle. According to your argument, all law is morality. How is registering your bicycle an act of morality?