Yeah, except the person you’re defending.

That’s simply untrue, and your own citations demonstrate it. OP is clearly not discussing pedophilia, child marriage, age of consent, or any of the other issues you are trying to use as a distraction from the trouble you’re having with consensual adult incest. Bad faith argument; have a good day.

Bad faith argument. None of that is being challenged. Have a good day.

Bad faith argument. None of that is being challenged. Have a good day.

Have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

Uh huh. Californias law starts at 14 so what do you have to say about that?

It doesn’t. You’re misreading the incest statute as the age of consent statute. Nothing in the incest statute allows an 18-year-old to have sex with a 14-year-old. That is statutory rape, with or without incest laws or incest being a factor. The minor lacked the capacity to consent to sex with the adult.

Minors do not lack the capacity to consent to sex with other minors. There is no issue of capacity between two 14-year-olds. There is no criminality in such a relationship. Unless the 14-year-olds are related; then they are to be imprisoned. As are the 24-year-old couple. As are the 57-year-old couple.

A 14-year-old having sex with an 18-year-old is still statutory rape, with or without the law on incest. That doesn’t change. We aren’t talking about pedophilia; we aren’t talking about age of consent; we aren’t talking about statutory rape, or rape of any kind.

The median age of first sexual contact is 14, with another 14-year-old. It’s a fair bet that when you were a minor, you had sex with other minors.

Two 14-year-olds having sex with eachother is not pedophilia; it’s not statutory rape. There are no criminal penalties for two 14-year-olds choosing to have sex with eachother. Unless they are related by blood. Then, they can be sent to state prison. This is bigotry.

Two 24-year-olds, being well above the age of consent, there is no serious question that they are “old enough”. They are capable of consent, and consent is granted. Completely inoffensive relationship; the state has no interest in intervening between them. And yet, if they discover they are biological kin, they are to be imprisoned. This is bigotry.

The pedophilic insinuations you are making play no role here. They serve only to distract. And yet you keep raising them, again and again. You insist on this unreasonable assumption that “old enough” doesn’t actually mean “old enough”, to distract and detract from the underlying issue. Engage in good faith, or don’t engage at all. Discuss the same-age couples above. Justify the california law calling for them to be imprisoned. Justify depriving them of their right to free association. Justify stripping them of their personal agency regarding consent. Justify leaving their future to the whim of judicial discretion.

Or concede that incest should not be an inherently criminal matter.

Have a nice day.

We don’t assume people wanting to take part in incest are altogether reasonable, logical or for that matter moral so assuming any of those things is the unreasonable thing to do.

That is a rhetorical fallacy called “begging the question”. Rejected.

you simply assume benevolence when there’s no evidence that that is the case.

In the field of philosophy, “Hanlon’s Razor” is the most relevant concept. In law, it’s called the “pro reo principle” or the “rule of lenity”. Related, the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”. We should, indeed, assume benevolence until malfeasance is positively proven.

Basically, reasonableness is the default state. We don’t need any sort of evidence to assume reasonableness. We need evidence to demonstrate unreasonableness.

Here, that means “old enough” is, actually, what any reasonable person would deem old enough. OP is not making any sort of argument regarding the current age of consent laws. OP’s argument is that, whatever society deems an appropriate age of consent, an incestuous relationship initiated above that age of consent (with capacity and with consent) should also be legal.

But again what happened to the rest of your argument and all those non existent fringe cases that are already legal in North America?

They certainly exist. Marriage, for example, has a wide variety of financial and legal benefits and consequences. Incestuous marriage is criminal. I don’t need to provide a full, comprehensive list of all the ways that criminalizing incest affects every possible victim of anti-incestuous bigotry. Any social or legal distinction is sufficient to question the need for that distinction.

Where’s the litter box for the furries?

Any reasonable, hypothetical person, hearing the phrase “old enough” would assume an age where the individual had acquired the requisite mental capacity. Any assumption of a lesser age is simply unreasonable.

Where the assuming party has been granted full license to adopt any reasonable meaning they want, refusal to do so is simply in support of a bad faith argument.

Nah, I didn’t abandon anything. I’ve presented my whole argument, and I’ve adequately rebutted every point you’ve made. You have yet to provide any sort of justification for intruding on personal agency of competent adults. You’ve yet to provide any compelling state interest for interfering with freedom of association, both of which are necessary for criminalizing behavior.

We got hung up on age because you have insisted on inserting insinuations of pedophilia where underage participants are explicitly excluded.

I had a much better discussion elsewhere in this thread, where we were able to delve deeper into more important issues. The principal difference between that conversation and this one is that (for the most part) the parties argued in good faith, rather than assuming malfeasance. I don’t think either of us convinced the other, but we did more broadly address the topic, rather than getting ourselves hung up on a pedantic discussion of an inconsequential phrase.

I feel this conversation has devolved to a point where no further insight is forthcoming. Thanks for playing.

Bad faith argument. Rejected. “Old Enough” is sufficiently descriptive to reject your insinuations of pedophilia.

Old enough is wildly unspecific

True, and irrelevant: OP’s argument does not depend on this specificity. OP’s argument prevails no matter what age you decide is “old enough”. OP’s argument requires you remain consistent on that point: You cannot provide an age that is simultaneously “old enough” and “not old enough”. OP’s argument requires that you only consider participants above that age; “not old enough” remains a criminal offense.

You are continuing to make bad faith arguments. Engage in good faith, or do not engage.

“Old enough” is sufficiently specific for you to assume “old enough”. Assuming anything less than “old enough” from the phrase “old enough” is a bad faith argument.

They don’t make that distinction,

They do. You cited them using the phrase “old enough”.

It’s statutory rape under 18 bud.

Then “under 18” is clearly not “old enough”.

I don’t know why you’re having so many problems with this. The phrase “old enough” left no room for you to argue lack of capacity due to age. Perhaps if you started engaging in good faith, this would be a more productive discussion.

I see. OP used the phrase “old enough”, and you think that refers to something other than “old enough”.

We aren’t having a discussion on the appropriate age of consent. We are having a discussion on incest. We will not be considering any participant unless YOU deem them “old enough”. We will only be talking about people that meet your definition of “old enough”. Feel free to raise the age of consent to 21, 25, 47. Whatever you deem an appropriate age is the age we will be using.

Insisting that OP is referring to underage individuals when they say “old enough” is intellectually dishonest. Engage in good faith, or don’t engage at all.

You say “horseshit” like you’re disagreeing with me, but then you specifically cite text/images that demonstrate my argument and refute your own point about “rape”.

In each of your citations, OP specifically refers to “capable” and “consent”. OP is specifically referring to scenarios where “consent” is not in question. Your arguments about “rape” are outside the scope the OP described. OP is clearly not talking about rape.

literal Father daughter mother son incest.

In one of your citations, OP explicitly states that grooming should be illegal. Grooming is a separate crime.

Grooming involves a power imbalance, such as student/teacher, coach/athlete, doctor/patient, jailer/inmate, and yes, parent/child, where the parent raised the child as a minor. Under grooming laws, the social inferior is not deemed capable of consent. OP is not proposing the scenario you are talking about. The scenario you’re talking about is already criminalized without incest laws.

I’ve posed this before, and nobody has yet to respond to it: Genetic Sexual Attraction is a widespread phenomenon well known to those familiar with adoption, where upon reunification as an adult, an adoptee and the biological kin of that adoptee develop strong sexual attraction toward eachother. This same phenomenon has been found to be common among half-siblings of the same sperm donor. With separated full siblings. With “Kissing Cousins” who rarely interact as children.

What legitimate interest does society and the state have in suspending the right of free association and criminalizing these individuals?

Moreover what your describing is in general already the way the system works

It’s not. Even consensual incest between capable adults is criminalized, much in the same way that homosxuality between consenting adults was previously criminalized.

Sounds like God has a foot fetish and a humiliation kink.

Your last argument reflects neither OP’s position, nor mine. It is a strawman that exists entirely within your own head.

OP’s argument explicitly applies only to situations where both capacity and consent are present. Any case of “rape” requires the absence of at least one of these conditions.

Engage in good faith, or do not engage at all.