There wouldn't have needed to be a biblical limit if that were the case.
No, quite the opposite. You demonstrate my point. The biblical limit of 7 years was the term for which he was rented. The term, slave, is used broadly. If he were a chattel slave, there would be no term. His property status would be permanent.
I don't think you don't get the context here. The bibilical injunction was to prevent an Israelite from being held permanently. If the only slavery in existence prior to the command were bond servants held for a term there wouldn't have needed to be a limiting command. And by limiting the restriction to Israelites, it still allowed slaves of foreign origin to be held permanently. BTW, when English (and other European) law eventually allowed indentured servitude, the normal 7 year term was likely taken from this passage. Further I think this was how Christianity eliminated slavery in Christendom. It was when European powers made colonies abroad with slaves of foreign origin that lifelong servitude re-emerged.
1) I'm only exercised that people are arguing on behalf of legalization of incest and legal recognition of incestuous marriage.
So far you have not demonstrated that that is happening. Your accusation of me was unfounded.
I only imagined that you said you would allow legal recognition of marriage of fathers and daughters?
Perhaps you're similarly imagining support from other quarters.
I actually don't know of any others so far that would allow legal recognition of incestuous marriages, but there probably are such folks.
For gays to be a protected group, they have to have some essential quality that defines them, not just a common behavior. You may not recognize that essential quality as inherent but that's still the basis.
What is the essential quality that defines homosexuals other than homosexual behavior? You're right - I do think homosexuals are just people like anyone else except for their sex lives.
We don't set up anti-discrimination laws for behavior cohorts. Women are a protected class because of their essential female quality, not because they are prone to have babies.
We do set up anti-discrimination laws for one behavior cohort now. At least some places. As for women, I can define essential qualities that define them from men.
Me, I think one is either for recognizing incestuous marriages or against such recognition. Where is the blur?
I understand your binary approach. (I've just finished the chapter in "Moral Politics" on the Strict Father perspective. Good and evil. Failure to advocate the moral order is immoral. I get it.
Actually it would be amoral, not immoral. But thats the first step to immoral, practically speaking.
You are interested only in the morality factor. I am interested as well in the liberty factor. I judge that the affront to liberty is greater than the affront to morality.
I am of course also interested in liberty as a value. Our disagreement may be that I judge the affront to morality to be greater here than the affront to liberty. The liberty to screw your daughter ...... No. Thats not a liberty I will defend.
I will come down on the side of liberty without hesitation whenever there is no victim.
I think there are victims here. I don't believe a young woman reaches the age of 21 and says hey, I want to bed my Dad suddenly. Thats the cover story here - that everything started after she turned 21. I think this "relationship" has been going on for a long long time. The mother is another victim and I believe she is likely the one who brought this to light. Did you know this man and his wife were written up as a model couple not too long ago? From the Columbia Daily Spectator:
>>>>>The Spectator reports that Epstein is married to another Columbia political science professor, Sharyn O'Halloran, though a recent update to his Facebook page says he is single. The couple was featured in a 2008 Spectator article about professors who "bring love to work." "Our complementary skills lead to a great partnership," O'Halloran told the Spectator. >>>>>>
What happens next depends on how well Dad groomed his daughter.
Just because he's not punished under the law does not mean he's not punished. Society will punish him in various ways unless he keeps it secret.
How?
I think you're just dancing around the issue.
I understand why it looks that way to you. I am not a binary person.
Actually, isn't elevation of individual liberty to a point where its the only consideration - morality doesn't count - a binary view too?
Actually I think I'm less binary. I can recognize both liberty and morality as good things to advance. I just draw the line on the other side of liberty to screw your daughter.
And as far as advocacy, again I think extending legal recognition of parent-child marriage amounts to practical approval.
I agree. Which is part of why I wouldn't advocate it.
Ah, I would say this is a different position than what I understood you to take earlier.
Remember my point about the status quo being the default? If we were starting with a clean sheet of paper, then I would have the law be silent on it. But we aren't. Changing something from illegal to silent does sent a message of approval and I am not comfortable with that.
Okay. Re the clean sheet of paper, I don't make the assumption we enter a world without pre-existing laws. I see no need for a clean sheet of paper construct.
At some point, your own expressions of moral disapproval could become hate speech.
It's only hate speech when it disapproves of a class, not when it disapproves of a behavior. I can condemn murder on the steps of the Capital with a bullhorn and it will not be hate speech.
I think the distinction between disapproval of incest and disapproval of people who commit incest is too small to worry about. I disapprove of what this guy did and him for doing it. I think the blame for the daughter is less but as she continued ( imo) the sexual affair into adulthood, she should bear some too. |
