one would have to screen the entire population for such genetic markers.

Not if the disease was already manifesting itself to the extent that it had been diagnosed.

I can attest that the rates for genetic disease and…how can I say…just plain weirdness in the offspring

I’m sure you could provide me with plenty of anecdotal evidence.

You grew up amongst Mennonites?

For example, the state certainly has a compelling interest in reducing expected birth defects. However, the mere existence of that compelling state interest can’t justify laws forbidding sexual activity between 1st cousins without also forbidding sexual activity between certain individuals with the same genetic diseases.

Well, as I said, the law must be narrowly tailored, as well. In your example, consanguinity is KNOWN to be a factor wrt the propensity of genetic birth defects. Having grown up surrounded by close knit Mennonite communities where marrying second or third (and I even know of at least 2 sets of first cousins married to eachother), I can attest that the rates for genetic disease and…how can I say…just plain weirdness in the offspring, is affected. For your hypothetical law wrt pairing anyone with genetic traits, one would have to screen the entire population for such genetic markers. A HUGE privacy invasion that totally consumes any marginal societal usefulness. However, the issue of cousins is, for all intents and purposes, “prescreened”. We already know that these two specific people propagating holds greater risk. That risk may never manifest itself, but it is enough of one such that the relatively (hah!) small burden of consanguinity laws out weighs the benefits.

Again, no one is denying that there is not a cost to freedoms. The issue is whether those costs outweigh the benefits.

And, for what its worth, if there was no greater risk of genetic defect in cousins, I don’t suppose I would have any problem eliminating those laws.

I think it is fair to point out that age of consent only works one way.

Indeed. Which further proves that chronological age is simply a proxy for metrics which truly matter – which further weakens those statutes. You know that statutes are meaningless if successful convictions aren’t probable. I believe that age of consent laws will be vulnerable to weakening social stigmas associated with sexual activity.

That does not, however change the fact that 1) I believe there is a compelling state interest in age of consent laws and 2) I do not believe there is for DADT. And that, when you cut through all the muck, is the relevant question (at least practically, if not philosophically).

I understand what you’re saying, but: 1) there can still be debate about whether or not the state interest is compelling; 2) the mere existence of compelling state interest can’t be the only criterion for regulating sexual activity.

For example, the state certainly has a compelling interest in reducing expected birth defects. However, the mere existence of that compelling state interest can’t justify laws forbidding sexual activity between 1st cousins without also forbidding sexual activity between certain individuals with the same genetic diseases.

Is 18 too young for individuals with IQs or EQs two standard deviations lower than normal? Three standard deviations lower than normal? Four?

I think it is fair to point out that age of consent only works one way. One can still establish that a person does not have the capacity for consent even though one is OVER 18.

You need to retract one of your two statements. Which one will it be?

Ouch. I retract the latter. I was wrong, and I do not recall why, equating “compelling state interest” with “arbitrary” in that post. I don’t believe that. Poor, poor, poor post on my part. Looking back, I can kinda figure out what I was TRYING to get at, but I said it absolutely incorrectly and you are right to point this out. In my opinion, and actually in any rational opinion, compelling state interest is a much higher standard.

Duly chastened. And point taken. That does not, however change the fact that 1) I believe there is a compelling state interest in age of consent laws and 2) I do not believe there is for DADT. And that, when you cut through all the muck, is the relevant question (at least practically, if not philosophically).

I said that a rationale was the difference between arbitrary and nonarbitrary.

You’re so busted.

Now you’re claiming that rationale precludes any measure of arbitrary despite your earlier claim that something was “completely arbitrary” if it simply lacked a state interest which you found compelling.

a law where there is no compelling state interest, and therefore completely arbitrary in its discrimination.

Gee, it looks like someone needs to learn that the existence of a mere “rationale” is far BROADER than a “compelling state interest.”

You need to retract one of your two statements. Which one will it be?

Which brings us back to the question of what age of consent laws you support.

Frankly, I don’t know. What was socially acceptable in Shakespearean times? Should that matter? Do the complexities of modern society require an older age of consent? If so, should the age of consent be raised as societal complexities evolve?

Currently, the existing psychological evidence that certain menstrual women and ejaculatory men are too young for certain sexual activities is pathetically weak. It’s easily argued that compelling evidence should be required to override nature.

Is 18 too young for individuals with IQs or EQs two standard deviations lower than normal? Three standard deviations lower than normal? Four?

So, I don’t know, and I personally don’t care about getting it right. But I do know this. The age of consent laws are pretty weak – weak enough that I’m convinced that future convictions might be at risk – especially since societal sexual stigmas continue to diminish.

BTW, I only chose consent age as one example.

Also, I disagree with other stuff in your last comment, but I’m too tired to address it.

Why didn’t you simply state that the existence of rationale was your only standard? Everyone knows that there’s rationale for DADT. Case closed.

Please. That is not what I said at all and you know it. I said that a rationale was the difference between arbitrary and nonarbitrary. I never said a rationale alone, no matter how flimsy, was sufficient to support a law. Case reopened.

However, it’s intellectually dishonest for you to support suppressing the rights of certain individuals from legally engaging in victimless sexual activities while rallying against the mere regulation of other sexual activities simply because society shuns one individual and not the other (and let’s be honest – that’s what this is all about).

It is not intellectually dishonest at all. I fully admit that some innocent people’s rights are suppressed with age of consent. I truly believe that there is a compelling state interest in doing so, and that the good outweighs the harm. I do not believe that to be the case with DADT. That is entirely consistent.

“Oh well. The existence of the bad law is necessary because I believe the state interest for just bad law is compelling.”

Don’t you get it? The fact that there is a compelling state interest means I don’t believe it is a bad law (actually not entirely true: see below). It may be imperfect, but that is not the same as bad. I will grant you (and something that we have not discussed) that a law must be tailored as narrowly as reasonably possible to infringe on a minimum of rights, which is why I think 18 is too high for AoC laws. But is 16 too broad? I think a good case can be made that it is not.

The fact that the state has an interest in preventing murder victims doesn’t justify laws which poorly define murder.

Okay…so it is a matter of having a good definition of consent. I agree. But good does not mean perfect, so some shortcuts, like a strict age limit may be acceptable. Which brings us back to the question of what age of consent laws you support.

You think there is no rationale to this?

Why didn’t you simply state that the existence of rationale was your only standard? Everyone knows that there’s rationale for DADT. Case closed.

I want to know why yours are kosher and mine not.

Technical definitions of kosher notwithstanding, I doubt there’s anything wrong with your ideas regarding of age of consent laws in the simple context of age of consent laws.

However, it’s intellectually dishonest for you to support suppressing the rights of certain individuals from legally engaging in victimless sexual activities while rallying against the mere regulation of other sexual activities simply because society shuns one individual and not the other (and let’s be honest – that’s what this is all about).

Nobody believes that you are actually attempting to justify your support of the suppression of victimless sexual activities and your opposition to the regulation of other sexual activities by saying, “Oh well. The existence of the bad law is necessary because I believe the state interest for just bad law is compelling.” The fact that the state has an interest in preventing murder victims doesn’t justify laws which poorly define murder.

Let’s have some more honesty. Admit that your opinion about this would change if society ceased to shun the one individual.

Second point: hell yes it is germane. You are accusing me of supporting “arbitrary” age of consent laws and yet you yourself admit to supporting some, but refuse to admit your criteria. I want to know why yours are kosher and mine not. Otherwise you are being hypocritcal.

Third point: then why the hell did you begin this line of inquiry? If I had known that all this nonsense had nothing to do, not even tangentially, with homosexuality or DADT I would not have indulged this pointless exercise for so long.

Pathetic.

So what age if consent laws do you support?

That’s not germane.

Third point:

Look. I don’t give a rat’s behind about DADT. I just hate the intellectual dishonesty currently being exhibited by much of society. But, I have no doubt that the courts will dissolve the dishonesty one way or the other. Overall, in the distant future, I wouldn’t be surprised if fewer and fewer age of consent cases fail to generate convictions of individuals charged with crimes that are based on discriminatory laws made in “good faith.”

Absurd.

Second point: So what age if consent laws do you support?

Third point: It has to do with the victims. You don’t think that if all age of consent laws were eliminated, there would not he an increase in the rape of children? You don’t think the benefits of saying “Sorry, you can’t screw that mature for her age15 year old. You have to wait a year.” outweighs the potential damage of drastically increasing the chance that pedophiles or pedarists will prey on children who CANT give meaningful consent?

And, oh yeah… What does this have to do with DADT?

something that is completely arbitrary is more arbitrary than a law which makes a good faith effort to determine when, in general, a person is old enough to give informed consent.

No, it’s not.

do you oppose all age of consent laws?

No, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think many are completely arbitrary and therefore completely discriminatory.

the damage is already done for those incapable of consent

What does that have to do with the defense of the individual on trial?

As to your second point, sure every case is tried on an individual basis, but how hard is it to understand that at that point the damage is already done for those incapable of consent? By your standard, it would not be, per se, illegal to have sex with an 11 year old. Let me ask point blank…do you oppose all age of consent laws? I mean certainly you don’t oppose the notion that sex must be, in fact, consentual. If so, how does the ability to determine consent on an individual basis pertain to DADT?