The logical corollary of the Archbishop's outburst is that he considers it moral to discriminate against people on the grounds that they choose to behave in a way which is entirely legal. Therefore, his argument is not just with the discrimination law - he clearly wants homosexuality to be outlawed altogether, marching us all backwards four decades.
I conclude that this Archbishop wouldn't know morality if it hit him in the face >:(
They say that like it's a bad thing.The Church of England has already warned that it believes the new laws would make it possible for a gay couple to sue a vicar who refused to bless their same-sex partnership.
We had the same sort of arguments advanced back in 1998 when the Lords blocked the equalisation of the age of consent. The debate even included Lord Jakobovits arguing that it is "undemocratic" for members of a minority to demand the same civil rights as the majority (interestingly, the spellchecker suggests I change his name to "Jackboots").Originally Posted by Jocky
As a former Chief Rabbi whose family fled Berlin between the wars, he really should have known better, as was pointed out by the following speaker.
Indeed.
The equivalence drawn by Lord Jakobovits between the legal regimes for bigamy and incest on the one hand, and homosexuality on the other, is a false one. This is because there are good practical reasons why the former behaviours should be illegal, whereas no such reasons exist for homosexuality.Indeed.
Bigamy has to be a criminal offence because marital status is a legal entity relevant to many areas of an individual's life (not least to taxation), so being married to more than one person could clearly lead to many types of fraudulent behaviour. Incest should be a crime because of the obvious risks to any consequent offspring.
IMO Lord Jakobovits is totally wrong to assert that the law should sanction behaviours because they are immoral. Instead, it should sanction behaviours which are socially dysfunctional. Homosexuality between consenting adults in private is not socially dysfunctional, whereas bigamy and incest are. Ergo, it should not be illegal - completely regardless of anyone's moral opinion of it.
This is the same mistake of which the Archbishop of Birmingham is guilty. He is mistaken in his assertion that the government are attempting to impose morality on him, and it betrays his covert desire to use the legal system to impose his morality on others.
IIUC, this is what Mojo was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong, Mojo).
My preferred solution in this case is to abolish legally-sanctioned marriage altogether. Why should somebody's ability to mate (or lack of it) have legal consequences in addition to the obvious social ones?
One can make such a valid argument based on utility, however not all incestuous behaviour results in offspring (homosexual incest is illegal, even though it cannot possibly result in reproduction), plus there are many non-incestuous activities which can present serious risks to children (giving birth at an old age, for instance).Incest should be a crime because of the obvious risks to any consequent offspring.
A purely rational approach would have to take these into account somehow, and I am not entirely sure how this would best be managed.
(I do fully agree with you that the equivocation of bigamy/incest with homosexuality is a false one).
That's exactly what I was getting at.This is the same mistake of which the Archbishop of Birmingham is guilty. He is mistaken in his assertion that the government are attempting to impose morality on him, and it betrays his covert desire to use the legal system to impose his morality on others.
IIUC, this is what Mojo was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong, Mojo
Ah, I see. I take your point that my defence of bigamy's illegality is contingent on the existence of marriage itself.My preferred solution in this case is to abolish legally-sanctioned marriage altogether.
I would defend the existence of marriage on the grounds that it enforces a desirable stability on couples who are planning to have children (although given that I have young children and my wife has recently left me for another man >:( , I don't know why I'm saying this ??? ).
Furthermore, if you admit the value of marriage in this situation, you have to make the same advantages (tax breaks etc) available to everybody else in the interests of fairness.
I agree that there is no particular rational reason for outlawing homosexual incest, other than in the interests of consistency.One can make such a valid argument based on utility, however not all incestuous behaviour results in offspring (homosexual incest is illegal, even though it cannot possibly result in reproduction), plus there are many non-incestuous activities which can present serious risks to children (giving birth at an old age, for instance). A purely rational approach would have to take these into account somehow, and I am not entirely sure how this would best be managed.Incest should be a crime because of the obvious risks to any consequent offspring.
The thing is that incest pretty much guarantees a significant increase in the risk of serious birth defects just in itself, whereas other factors like lifestyle, age etc vary much more depending on degree, circumstance and so on. [I confess I do not have evidence for this to hand, but I have an idea that this is true and I'm arguing from that presumption. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me evidence to the contrary :) ]
Making incest illegal is therefore a relatively easy line to draw - the ancient societal taboo against it is there for good reason. The other risk factors are, as you say, much more difficult to address without putting unwarranted limitations on individual freedom.
Edited to add:
Understood - but the best discussions are those which take interesting turns, don't you thinkI do fully agree with you that the equivocation of bigamy/incest with homosexuality is a false one
All anecdotes aside, I don't buy the "stability" argument at all. Marriage is not going to make an iota of difference to a couple who are genuinely not suitable for each other (except adding extra legal hassle to the breakup which makes it more difficult for everybody, including any children), whilst for couples who are suited the marriage is a pointless extra.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I do not believe that is true.The thing is that incest pretty much guarantees a significant increase in the risk of serious birth defects just in itself, whereas other factors like lifestyle, age etc vary much more depending on degree, circumstance and so on.
The BUPA page on Down's Syndrome suggests that there is a 1 in 10 probability that a woman over 48 will have a baby with DS, which falls well within the scope of "high risk" in my book. Conversely, the article on Answers.com indicates that inbreeding does not in fact cause birth defects directly, but increases the frequency of homozygotes which may cause problems down the line if a particular defect is caused by a recessive gene.
My conclusion therefore is that, from a purely utilitarian basis, there is a far stronger case for forbidding women over 48 from having children, than there is for prohibiting incest.
Absolutely.Understood - but the best discussions are those which take interesting turns, don't you think
And he added that "those who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors. They have no mandate or competence to be so."
Rather foolish of His Grace to draw attention to the question of his own mandate or competence to offer moral tuition. ???
On the more general point: he seems to be arguing that the secular arm of the church, in providing services to the public ( not in internal doctrine or arrangements) , should have a licence to indulge in exactly the sort of discrimination that is forbidden, because unjust, to secular bodies. Benefit of clergy, eh?
I do not entirely agree, but I hope you'll forgive me if I leave this thread of the conversation there right now. Given my present circumstances, I do not feel inclined (not perhaps even qualified) to argue the pointAll anecdotes aside, I don't buy the "stability" argument at all. Marriage is not going to make an iota of difference to a couple who are genuinely not suitable for each other (except adding extra legal hassle to the breakup which makes it more difficult for everybody, including any children), whilst for couples who are suited the marriage is a pointless extra.
I did not mention my own situation in order to advance anecdotal evidence BTW - but it's more or less impossible for me to think about these issues at all right now without concerns for my childrens' future dominating my thoughts. She only left me three weeks ago, and things are a bit difficult right now ...
I'm not sure I buy this argument. It's not just about the chances of a defect in an individual birth - the consequences of inbreeding go far beyond the immediate generation. In addition, I understand there are significant mental health risks involved in incest between related individuals who are not of the same generation (particularly parent-child relationships).My conclusion therefore is that, from a purely utilitarian basis, there is a far stronger case for forbidding women over 48 from having children, than there is for prohibiting incest.
Also, I am unconvinced that increased risk of Downs Syndrome is a sufficient reason for outlawing something. As I'm sure you know, and as I know from personal aquaintance, many people with Downs are quite capable of becoming functional members of society.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks