Should Incest be legal between consenting adults?

I always thought incest between a parent and their adult child was legal, but apparently not, according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States

I'm really shocked that a man could have consensual sex with his adult daughter and be treated by the justice system as worse than many murderers, rapists, and even pedophiles.

The main argument in support of these laws is based on the genetic problems that kids born out of an incestual relationship will face. The problem with this reasoning is that if you're going to make it illegal for people to procreate based on the genetic outcome, what's to stop lawmakers from making it illegal for autistic parents to have children? What about families with a history of cancer or heart disease?

I do think incest is a little strange and out there, but as long as it's between consenting adults, I don't see why the government wants to stick it's nose into the business of others.

I also find it interesting that Homosexuality was viewed almost the same way fifty years ago as incest is today. Many people complained back then that it would destroy society and it hasn't, so I wouldn't be too worried if people tried to repeal these incest laws a couple decades from now. But then again, there's not that many people clamoring to have sex with their relatives, so incest is probably a non-issue in the grand scheme of things.

So do you guys think Incest between consenting adults should be legal, or do you think it should be illegal at all costs?

 

If it's two consenting adults, who am I to say what's bad? Let them do what they want to do, just make sure that they can leave whenever they want to.

 

I voted no.

Not because i think it's immoral or taboo or icky - but because our laws are to serve the 'general welfare' needs of the nation.

Incest has a very high potential in reeking havoc on a family involved (directly) and to society as a whole (indirectly).

In a normal relationship, a couple can divorce - divide property and even deal with custody issues - and that's chaotic and damaging enough.

A daughter can't as easily divorce herself from a father. A son - from his mother - etc.

Especially, when other blood relatives are caught in the middle along with any children the incestual couple may have produced.

 

Incest? What....you guys want to make America look like the Royals in Britain? Ugh.....Even they have the good sense to let heir blue-bloods marry commoners now.

 

Close family members can never truly consent without familial pressure

 

I sort of agree with that. The power relationship that is inherent in the parent child relationship doesn't magically vanish when the child is of legal age. It's like a correction's officer having sex with a female prisoner. You can say it's consenting all you want, but there is an inverse power relationship there, so that it can never truly be consensual in the way we think of them for people entering relationships.

 

Hey if two guys can marry then all else should be OK too right? (we're all going to hell).

 

Yep.....I'm waiting for the first split-personality person to get married........to their other personality.

 

I dont care what consenting adults do with each other. Has no effect on my well being.

 

So you think multiple people should be allowed to marry each other to then right? Like two women and one man or two men and one woman?

 

It should be legal. I am not saying it cannot have negative effects sometimes. But who dares to dictate to others what to do in their own bedrooms? Youd have to be some fascist to do that.

However I am open to the idea that incestual reproduction, not sex, should be illegal. In that case we have third innocent victim, the child. It depends on how high the risk is, tough. It may also be cumulative over more generations.

If the risk is high enough, then maybe they should.

 

As long as they are consenting adults, Its none of my business. I dont think the government should regulate marriage at all.

 

So you are fine with 100 people all marrying each other in a giant group marriage? You must be accepting of this since you say it should not be regulated in anyway.

 

If they so choose. Its really none of my concern. Government should not be allowed to regulate love between consenting adults.

 

I was really disappointed when I saw who started this thread because it's somebody that I really like and respect, so it makes what I'm about to say a little harder. But I'm going to say it anyway because it needs to be said.

What kind of person even asks something like this? Once upon a time this was such an absurd idea that it didn't even require a response. A simple slap upside the head and a "What the hell is wrong with you?" would have been sufficient. But we've now reached this ridiculously moral relativist place in our society where we just try to approach everything from a completely philosophical standpoint and thoroughly reject the idea of simply knowing better. The problem with this is that philosophy can literally be used to justify anything. No matter what it is. Philosophy without reason is dangerous. Because it leads to brainwashing.

Prudence is the act of using common sense to make decisions rather than rationalization. It is the act of knowing the correct course of action because it is simply obvious without needing to play Socrates over everything. It is the very foundation of the western value system. One of the biggest problems with our culture today is that prudence is virtually extinct. Our people have been systematically dumbed down and taught to believe that this is a virtue. That seeing things in fluid terms where nothing is concrete somehow makes them freer instead of the reality that it simply makes them more confused. It's not that reality ceases to exist. It's that they've been conditioned to no longer see it. If you spin somebody around in circles and then tell them to walk north, north doesn't become subjective because they are now disoriented and can no longer distinguish north from south. Due north is still exactly where it's always been. But without a compass, there is no way to find it. And this is where the human component of the internal compass comes in. It's the guiding force inherent within all of us that tells us the right direction to go. It's always there. But too many of us waste our time spinning around in circles and staggering around aimlessly trying to convince ourselves that "our subjective north is what's north for us." Because we've forgotten that we even have a compass. And nobody in society teaches us to find that compass and really follow it anymore. Instead it just bombards us with external stimuli and tries to lead us in various directions. Like taking the dizzy person's hand and telling them, "Here, come this way. This will be north for you. Trust me." The first step in manipulating somebody is to confuse the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them. It's Saul Alinsky 101.

This is why you don't (*)(*)(*)(*) your kids even when they are adults. Because if you shut out all the outside noise of society, you already internally know why it's wrong. Nobody has to tell you. It's obvious.

As a parent, I am thoroughly disgusted by the premise of this thread. And I would not hesitate to knock any man out who touched his child inappropriately even after they were grown. Because that is not something a man does. A man knows better.

 

I definitely understand your argument. The reason I started this thread was after I found out that it was illegal after thinking that it was legal, even though it's a socially taboo behavior. I don't know why I was shocked. I just was.

Personally, I agree that kids born out of incestual relationships will have problems and steps do need to be taken to stop that, but how does society regulate stuff like this? While I don't think incest is right from a nature standpoint, criminalizing it with life sentences or decades in prison seems extremely authoritarian, especially since many murderers, rapists, and pedophiles don't even get such punishments.

The only conclusion I can see is that couples that engage in incest should get themselves fixed, since mentally ill children are almost always the result.

Also, I'm sorry if the thread came off that way. I just like asking controversial questions and then seeing where people stand on the issue. No harm was intended.

 

And the children generated in this 100 people marriage, are you fine with how the custody might be arranged? Who pays child support. Did you think about any of this in your very quick and thoughtless answer?

 

How would it be any different? Custody battles would be between birth parents, just as they are now.

 

Why would it be between birth parents If the children were raised by the "village"?

 

No matter what the situation, there is maximum of two people who have full parental rights, if the state has to get involved, and it has parental rights, then the parental rights of the birth parents have been stripped, temporarily or permanently. No parental rights, no reason to expect custody.

 

Much ado about nothing. Nobody's business as long as we are talking about consenting adults. IMHO.

 

Full parental rights? Now I know you do not know what you are talking about. Right now today one person gets assigned as the custodial parent and one as the visiting parent. Step parents can also have some parental rights even though they are not the birth parent. Even grandparents can have some form of visiting rights.

If a child is born in a communal environment and raised communally with "free love" getting purveyed the whole time, nobody knows who's child is who's anyway. What do you say about one of these communal born children?

 

Visitation, is not custody. A step parent will never have the power an absent parent has, unless a step parent adoption is done, and that takes the absent parent to have his/her parental rights stripped, or surrendered.

You really just want a reason to control people who don't share in your definition of marriage. Anti liberty at its best.

Dna tests quickly decide whos kid is who, if it comes to that.

 

Nice to see you, Uni... been awhile! Buckle up, this could be a bumpy ride...

A person who is interested in the opinions of others?

I think you need to read the OP a little more carefully. AM did not make any moral argument about this topic--simply a legal one. So, I'm sorry, your claim of 'moral relativism' in this instance is a bit moot.

If we wish to live as free men, we ought to be very careful about which we ask the government to "protect" us from. Incest may be disgusting, but I'm having a hard time justifying asking the government to protect me from being disgusted.

I think you are treading dangerous ground when you ask the government to wield your moral compass for you--at least if you wish to live in a nation of free men.

Again, free men do not need government to point them north... as long as those free men agree to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is--in my view--the root of liberty.

The very thought of it is stomach-churningly disgusting, about that there is no doubt. But I say again: do we want government to 'protect' us from disgust?

And this is the problem with your argument--you can not divorce your emotions from the topic.

I agree. But you can knock him out all you want... it will serve no purpose other than to sate your emotions... YMMV.

 

I do not want anything to change at all from how it has been for thousands of years. You apparently want to change how marriage has always been. I think it should be affected if it is going to be by legislators making laws.