. Or that leaving something legal somehow legitimizes it. But that's not the case.
I'm afraid that tends to be the case too often.
mark you down for civil marriages for fathers-daughters.
I thought I was clear that I don't favor it, only that I don't think it should be illegal.
I'll correct it ... mark you down for allowing civil marriages for father-daughters. Oh, while we're at it, group marriages too, I presume.
I don't much favor estate taxes, either. <g>
Me either but we got 'em anyway.
I think laws need to reflect the moral values of the underlying society.
The law does reflect our moral values. It just doesn't get down into the weeds.
I think outlawing immediate family incest is a high enough weed for the law to get involved. That is, its morally offensive enough to outlaw. Furthermore, its inherently corrosive to healthy family relationships and it can hardly be considered truly a relationship free of compulsion. I don't believe there's anyway that father daughter relationship really only began when the daughter turned 21, though thats the cover story.
You don't have to make everything immoral legal (like the 7 deadly sins) and you don't have to pretend law and morality are totally separate either. Yes, laws always reflect our moral values. Whatever they may be.
Re marriages between fathers and daughters, how much overhead would be appropriate to deter the three couples in the country who would want to do that?
If there's only three such couples and I hope there are, then the cost isn't really an important factor.
where's the dividing line and how do you draw it?
1) I would draw it at measurable harm to person or property, someone else's person or property.
Harm to others persons or property being bad is rooted in our moral values. Change our moral values and thats not a problem.
Re the dividing line question - I was getting at slavery - why is slavery, if entered into voluntarily, wrong for a libertarian? |
