David Epstein’s lawyer is talking.
Epstein's lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, gave comment to ABCNews.com:
"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," Galluzzo said.
Speak for yourself. Is this a tactic, or is he really that prejudiced? Maybe Epstein needs a different lawyer, like one interested in actually getting stupid laws struck down.
"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different?
Organization. Many of the civil rights groups that have claimed they support the rights of consenting adults have not stood up for the rights of all consenting adults. We need solidarity.
Galluzzo continued: "If we assume for a moment that both parties [involved in incest] are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?"
Because we still have people in power who want to control the sex lives of others.
It is nice to see some allies pop up here…
ABC News has taken to Facebook to ask its fans and viewers: "Should incest be permitted between consenting adults?"
Of course it should. Several allies commenting agreed…
My mother taught me that I can do anything I want as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others. My mother was right. As weird and repulsive as the idea of an adult father-daughter relationship is to me, I can't tell these people what they can and can't do. Nor can anyone else. They're not hurting anyone. It's a free country. Posted by: Jack | December 15, 2010 at 01:30 PM
Thanks, Jack.
People should be left alone to do whatever they want as long as it's not hurting anyone or anything. Posted by: HJ | December 15, 2010 at 01:59 PM
Thanks, HJ.
consenting adults should be able to do as they wish....Posted by: tw | December 15, 2010 at 02:49 PM
Thankts, tw.
Some political social conservatives are going to pieces. One writes…
I loathe incest because I’m a sane human being with a functional gag reflex, and doubt the continued survival of any society that would fail to punish it without hesitation.
So again, they don’t have a logical argument against legalizing consanguineous love and sex. It is just “I don’t like it, so nobody should be allowed to do it.”
Someone leaving a comment showed more intelligence…
There are two reasons for prohibiting incest between consenting adults. The first is that it leads to having children with birth defects. If that is sufficient justification for the state to prohibit sexual intercourse, then we are admitting that state-imposed eugenics is acceptable. From which it follows that people with hereditary diseases and deformities should be legally prohibited from breeding as well. Especially since the latter are more likely to produce defective offspring than incestuous unions. If government imposed eugenics is morally unacceptable, then this justification for criminalizing incest between consenting adults must be unacceptable as well.
The second reason is that incest is morally offensive. But many are morally offended by miscegenation and homosexuality. Which is more important, that consenting adults be allowed to have sex with each other without interference from the state, or that these rights be denied on the grounds that people find certain sexual unions to be disgusting. (by disinterested_spectator)
Why are consanguineous lovers singled out? They aren’t the only relationships people find offensive. The heterosexual ones aren’t the only ones that have a higher risk of birth defects. These reasons are really ruses to hide mere bigotry.
why can’t adolescents have incest relationships? cause they cannot have sex except to love them.
ReplyDelete