Should Incest be legal between consenting adults?

Well, yes and it's not just because it's disgusting but also because it would reduce the amount of people with problems. I mean how irresponsible is it to run the risk of bringing another person into the world knowing that person is not going to have a full life.

We arrest people for walking in the street for being nude. It's extremely rare though that the crime is actually committed.

And sorry some people just don't care about what others think and know to be wrong.

In fairness what punishment would you propose?

 

Because you just shouldn't love your son or daughter that way, alright. To me it's just not right.

 

Thank you. Someone else on this thread has some sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Like you can just take the genetic argument out of it. Laughable.

 

I don't see where I said that at all. I will not try to make a comparison between the two groups. You shouldn't have sexual relations with family members. I stand firm on that.

 

There can be a great big gaps BETWEEN things that are legal and illegal. We tend to think that anything legal can be promoted and anything illegal should be punished. I don't believe consensual incest should be punished. Shunned, maybe.

 

You need to read my post more carefully: I said "Let's take genetics out of the equation." There are many forms of sexual contact that will not result in pregnancy. Should we put related consenting adults in jail for those acts? If so, why?

 

So what? If it is a violation of equal protection under the law then it is a violation of equal protection under the law.

As a citizen of this country I have a vested interest in not having marriage turned into a farce.

 

that just isn't true, it's an absolute myth...

 

what is known? what studies have been done?...none because there are no controlled studies on incest...our ancestors were all hunter gatherers at one time, sex with relatives among hunter gatherers was common that's how we ended up with ethnic groups with similar appearances, small populations/geographic isolation/inbreeding...

 

I did. But I consider the genetic problems as being an essential part of what the law is designed to protect against.

But if I were to further support the law I would say it is because familial relationships are uniquely different from the ones with other people.
How? to be honest I don't think there are words to define said difference.

Should we put adults in jail for this. Yes. Because sometimes you do need to protect people from themselves.

 

the laws were in place long before genetics became a science...the laws were religious/social in origin not genetic...

incest does not create mental illness or physical defects, it only increases the the odds of those issues occurring if two parents both have those preexisting tendencies...the opposite is also true, two closely related parents with superior mental attributes or physical abilities also increase the odds of passing on those traits...

 

You don't need a geneticist to tell you that incest as you said raises the chances of illness because it was observed long before.

It doesn't matter what exactly causes these disorders only that the increase of those illnesses are proportionally higher in incestuous relationships than normal ones.

From wikipedia

Now back to the base of the discussion. Would it still be wrong if incest was committed without an offspring?
Yes because the threat is present that a child could be born to such a couple.

 

I voted yes in the poll but do not think the state should discourage the taboo concerning incest, namely on grounds of the point raised by Lil Mike on the first page of this thread.

 

On that point we will never agree. If we are to be free men...

 

In the words of Edmund Burke
"Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed."

 

I was addressing the myth that incest causes illness and should be not allowed for that reason, it doesn't cause disease, so that logic is void...

no because those same threats are present in unrelated partners and genetic testing could determine that as well...even when those preconditions are present in unrelated adults there are no legal restrictions on them having sex, marrying or having children and there never will be any restriction...so unrelated adults with genetic preconditions can play genetic roulette with their offspring but related pairs can't?

the only legitimate reason for denying incest is the familial control factor where a one individual can dominate/control another family member so that's not truly consensual...but as that can be true in the general population as well, so imo it comes down to the choice of consenting adults...too icky for me to consider but I'm not going pass judgement on others for doing so...

 

I agree with little mike as well but then I think who am I to tell an adult who they can boink...I've known non related adults females and males who were in abusive marriages where they were mentally and physically dominated by a spouse...it becomes a problem with incest when it involves adolescents who are coerced into those relationships, but there are already laws in place for those situations with unrelated individuals...

 

Not it's not. It raises the risk of disease above the norm in comparison to non-incestuous births.

Because it's not genetic Russian roulette. As I've said repeatedly that it raises the chance of illness substantially higher.

You're straying from the point. We're talking about the justification for the outlawing of incest. What you're implying is that for fairness that people with say asthma shouldn't be allowed to procreate.
We're not talking about the fairness of the law.

Well that's one good reason for it. If you're not willing to pass judgement then I will.

 

it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it it's still wrong...genetic defects from incest is only 1.7-2.8% higher than the general populations rate of 3-4%, non related african americans have a higher rate for producing children with the sickle cell defect...

ya we are, being fair and equal is the goal in a secular society...what consenting adults do with each other is their own business, if an incestuous couple wish to marry and have children and are prevented because of potential defective genetics than all other couples should require a genetic screening before marriage or conceiving children...and you're also assuming an incestuous couple even want kids, or one of the couple is sterile, or if they are an incestous gay couple...this issue debate isn't biologically based, it's religious morality...and religious morality has no supremacy/superiority in a modern secular society...

 

Regarding the genetic effects of incest, they may be additive. So if incestual reproduction goes on for more generations, the risk may increase substantialy.

 

That's not true. Did you even look at that wiki quote?
I can even show you a few more studies which have higher rates.

Only of this particular law. Not the general laws which I was referring to. Because in your earlier post you wrote.

If this was valid it would mean that a new law would have to be implemented thus straying from the current topic of whether the current incest laws in the US are just.

So if that's true then if applying for a job as a machinist and the other candidate is missing his arms. Then does that mean that he should have an equal chance as the intact candidate? Well that's fairness and equality for you.

And no it's not the goal. The meaning of secular is to separate the state or at least to be non-aligned from religion.


I'll simplify my stance. I believe it's plain wrong and that for the act of incest to be committed it should like all other crimes be punished.

 

ya it is, separating secular civil law from religious law/dogma...incest laws are religious laws, no better than sharia law...

unless it's coerced from a minor sex between two consenting adults is not a crime, it's religious dogma which I do not accept in secular society...the laws as they are are wrong...

 

I think it's blatantly obvious that it shouldn't be.

While this looks convincing at first, if we applied this principle evenly almost nobody would be able to have sex. Is sex not a normal part of marriage? Couldn't you equally argue (to a greater degree, in fact), that married couples are pressured into it and hence cannot consent?

If there is actually coercion involved (have sex with me or I'll hurt you, fire you, etc) then obviously that's not okay. But indirect "pressure" within families is a joke of a justification for enforcing morality on those who don't want it.

I'm reminded of the old saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help", the man replies "please don't."

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest

"A group of genetic counselors reviewed the research on the biological consequences of sex between relatives (consanguineous relationships) (here). They found a surprisingly small increase (about 4 percent) in birth defects among the children of married cousins. Incest between first degree relatives, however, was a different story. The researchers examined four studies (including the Czech research) on the effects of first degree incest on the health of the offspring. Forty percent of the children were born with either autosomal recessive disorders*, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual deficits. And another 14 percent of them had mild mental disabilities. In short, the odds that a newborn child who is the product of brother-sister or father-daughter incest will suffer an early death, a severe birth defect or some mental deficiently approaches 50 percent."

*Autosomal recessive disorders include Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia.

The review identified a significant increase in disorders among offspring which resulted from first degree mating. The cumulative effect of multi-generational matings (recurrent inbreeding) even among second and third degree relatives would definitely increase the risks.

 

Is it not dogmatic of a person to adhere to an ideology without the restraint of common sense and decency.

I've made my case.

There's nothing more to be said.