Why should incest be illegal?

[quarky]

Reproductive controls are 'icky', yet, if it was possible to have them, in some sort of egalitarian fashion, the world would benefit. Such a sticky mess.

At some point, we won't be able to afford complete reproductive freedoms.
Its a good idea to discuss, however uncomfortable it seems.

Sex and reproduction could be seperate issues.

 

[HansMustermann]

Can you entirely eliminate it as a possibility ? I would prefer that 99 potential incestees are denied their opportunity to prevent a single case of abuse in the same way that I would deny 99 15 year olds the opportunity to have sex to proctect the 100th

While this is indeed a noble goal, let's take protecting people against their will to its logical conclusions then. So it's ok to forbid something to prevent a 1% chance of something bad happening, right? I'm just going by your numbers.

A quick googling and jaunt to the website of the American Bar Association, reveals such things as:

"In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female)."

Whoa, 25% is _way_ more than your 1% threshold. I'd say let's forbid marriage or any kind of long-term intimate arrangements, then. You know, to protect all those women.

"Another national survey found that 34% of women were victims of sexual coercion by a husband or intimate partner in their lifetime."

Seems pretty clear to me that if we're going to forbid incest because it _might_ involve coercion, we better forbid marriage entirely because about 34% of it ends up with coercion. We're not talking forbidding 99 innocents to save the 100%, but about saving a whole 1 in 3. I trust you will agree that something has to be done.

"13% of adult women had been victims of completed rape during their lifetime"

Jesus F Christ... a whole 13%? Damn, we should pass some more legislation. Let's castrate all the men, so that doesn't happen any more.

But then maybe we don't even need to go that far, because...

"In 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. Of people who report sexual violence, 64% of women and 16% of men were raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner. This includes a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date."

... 2 in 3 get raped by an intimate partner or ex-partner. It seems to me like if we forbid sex entirely, we'll save 2/3 out of 13%, or about 8-9% of women from a rape. No doubt you will agree that the sacrifice is worth it.

And if we go as far as to keep them entirely segregated, we might prevent 80% of rape cases.

"Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001." and "In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims."

By jove, we're talking serious violence and murder here. We'll literally save thousands of lives by stopping people from getting intimate.

Etc.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should realize that if we already have laws against coercion, assault and rape, we should apply those, not start forbidding unrelated X just because it may lead to Y which in turn may lead to Z and that surely leads to rape

 

[ravdin]

I'm guessing that ravdin started this whole thread because he's got a really hot sister

I'll send you her number if you like. I know you're a happily married man but we'll probably officially sanction polygamy sooner or later.

 

[Cavemonster]

Common law.

Unconscionable contracts are often unenforceable and duress can negate consent.

Edit: "Adhesion contract" was a mistype so I changed it.

I don't see how this protects a single person.
Marriage contracts can be broken with simple, irreconcilable differences, or just by the will of one party in some states, the problem isn't that the child would be legally trapped in the marriage, but that marriage would transform a behavior that is always taboo and illegal, into one that only needs to be hidden until age of consent law kicks in (15 or 16 in many parts of the US)

The potential for this abuse is clear, and it clear that the law would be abused. What you haven't shown is that there is any demand among older parent/child couples. The abuse records clearly show the demand among those who would misuse a change in law.

It is clear who is protected by a ban on parent/child sex/marriage, it is up to you to show that this is outweighed by those hurt by such a ban.

 

[Skeptic]

If you don't understand the difference between a dog and an adult human, I don't know what to say.

Boy, have we heard this before.

First the "gay marriage" folks told us that polygamy will not follow, because if we cannot recognize the difference between one person and many, they don't know what to say.

Now the "pro polygamy" folks tell us incest will not follow, because if we cannot recognize the difference between blood relations and non-relations, they don't know what to say.

Now "pro incest" folks are telling us bestiality will not follow, because if we cannot recognize the difference between an animal and an adult human, they don't know what to say.

But any society that is perverse enough to recognize as "marriage" a sexual threesome between a man and his two (adult) sons -- as the "it's none of the government's business to not recognize incestual, gay, or polygamous marriages" folks would have it -- had already taken leave of its senses, and has no way to judge anything as forbidden.

That, and not any logical argument, would determine what would be accepted as marriage -- and therefore, bestiality surely would be accepted next, and, soon after that, pedophilia as well.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Boy, have we heard this before.

First the "gay marriage" folks told us that polygamy will not follow, because if we cannot recognize the difference between one person and many, they don't know what to say.

Now the "pro polygamy" folks tell us incest will not follow, because if we cannot recognize the difference between blood relations and non-relations, they don't know what to say.

Now "pro incest" folks are telling us bestiality will not follow, because if we cannot recognize the difference between an animal and an adult human, they don't know what to say.

But any society that is perverse enough to recognize as "marriage" a sexual threesome between a man and his two (adult) sons -- as the "it's none of the government's business to not recognize incestual, gay, or polygamous marriages" folks would have it -- had already taken leave of its senses, and has no way to judge anything as forbidden.

That, and not any logical argument, would determine what would be accepted as marriage -- and therefore, bestiality surely would be accepted next, and, soon after that, pedophilia as well.

Slippery slope argument so noted. But suppose I said ok gay marriage, polygamy, and incest then assured that beastiality and pedophillia wouldn't occur?

In anycase, the slippery slope argument is also a non-sequitor. We're still in the realm of consenting, adult, humans with gay/polygamous/incestuous marriage.

 

[Z]

Actually, the reasons for incest to be illegal is the same as for why polygamy should be. It's so one person doesn't hog all the good stuff. Gotta spread it around!

No fair not sharing!

You know, you may be joking, but I honestly think this is at the secret heart of most people's objections to polyamory (maybe not so much to incest - that's just yucky). The idea that one person could get more than one spouse is infuriating to all those who either can't get one at all, or despise the one they already have. I think that's why there was such a hatred of divorces for so long, too - if your church didn't allow divorce, that meant you were stuck forever rubbing some fat wench's bunions, while the guy across the hamlet, who belonged to the other church, could trade in for a new model every five years.

Basic human jealousy.

I was an only child, so I have no qualified opinion on sibling incest. But given my parents, all I can say about adult-offspring incest is EWWWWW!!!!

I, too, need to go bleach my brain now.

 

[quarky]

Bestiality is such a harsh word...especially with dolphins.

Bi-species love is a possibility that needn't be ugly or illegal.

 

[JimBenArm]

Next thing, you'll be telling me I can't marry my inflatable doll!

Alice won't like being told we can't be together. In fact, she's going "Oh!" at this very moment!

 

[Z]

Next thing, you'll be telling me I can't marry my inflatable doll!

Alice won't like being told we can't be together. In fact, she's going "Oh!" at this very moment!

She said the same thing last night - well, for a while, when her mouth wasn't busy.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

As the author of the polygamy thread (who sadly has had very little time to keep active in it), I felt compelled to at least drop $0.02 here.

I don't believe it should be illegal in of itself, just as I don't believe polygamy should be, in of itself.

Are there issues that will naturally arise unique to incestuous marriage? Of course, but do the concerns necessarily weigh enough to flat out make it illegal?

Obviously any biological progeny resulting from such a relationship will be the main issue, but incestuous marriages don't necessarily cause incestuous offspring.

I don't have a source right now (and pressed for time), but I believe there are a handful of states in the US that allow the marriages of close family members (excluding immediate family) as so long as the couple can prove that:

- one or both are sterile.
- one or both are past fertile age.
- one or both promise to become sterile.

I don't see why incestuous marriage would be much of a problem. I readily admit that incestuous marriages would cause fewer problems than polygamous/polyandrous marriages.