• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why should incest be illegal?

ravdin

Illuminator
ravdin
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
4,985
I decided to start this thread as a response to the "plural marriage" thread, but this is a serious question and not a parody. If we're to redefine marriage to include legally recognized gay pairings and polygamy, then why should, say, a brother/sister marriage be illegal?

Note that I'm not asking why it's a bad idea. I'm just asking why it should be illegal. Most of us cross culturally find the idea of marrying our siblings to be abhorrent and don't require legal sanctions to prevent us from doing it.

Also, in case you're wondering, I'll state for the record that I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage.
 
It should.

Their children are more likely to inherit genetic disorders. They are also more likely to be teased and taunted, emotionally scarred by the idea they came of incest, have confused relationships with their parents and grandparents and have other social problems stemming from the fact they were born of siblings.

Also, a scenario of childhood abuse stretching into adulthood is very possible. Say a 14-year-old brother rapes his 6-year-old sister and continues taking advantage of her for years and then decides to marry her when they are adults. It's actually often happened that rapists and their victims continue a relationship or start dating and even marry. Same with victims of sexual harassment. Even with victims of pedophilia- they continue seeing the abuser for years. So it wouldn't be surprising if victims of incest did the same with their abuser.
 
ravdin said:
I decided to start this thread as a response to the "plural marriage" thread, but this is a serious question and not a parody. If we're to redefine marriage to include legally recognized gay pairings and polygamy, then why should, say, a brother/sister marriage be illegal?
Click to expand...

Because it opens the door to all sorts of abusive scenarios.

I notice you've carefully chosen one of the most innocuous-sounding (and one of the rarest) form of incest (between-siblings). How would you feel about father-daughter incest? How would you feel about brother-sister incest with a twenty-year difference in their ages? How would you feel about raising a girl specifically with the intent to marry her off to a family member so that the money stays in the family?
 
ravdin said:
I decided to start this thread as a response to the "plural marriage" thread, but this is a serious question and not a parody. If we're to redefine marriage to include legally recognized gay pairings and polygamy, then why should, say, a brother/sister marriage be illegal?

Note that I'm not asking why it's a bad idea. I'm just asking why it should be illegal. Most of us cross culturally find the idea of marrying our siblings to be abhorrent and don't require legal sanctions to prevent us from doing it.

Also, in case you're wondering, I'll state for the record that I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
It should be illegal to protect the health of children. The Amish don't marry their brothers and sisters but they are having big problems with inbreeding. The Amish are mostly perhaps with a very few converts in the mix are all related to an original 200 people. They are having problems such as mental retardation and organ malfunctions. Why should children and society be burdened unecessarily?
 
It shouldn't.

EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Their children are more likely to inherit genetic disorders.
Click to expand...

So are children of some ethnic pairings. Or children of parents who both have the same disease, or mental problems, alcoholism, obesity. Etc.

They are also more likely to be teased and taunted, emotionally scarred by the idea they came of incest, have confused relationships with their parents and grandparents and have other social problems stemming from the fact they were born of siblings.
Click to expand...

This is no reason to make it illegal.

Also, a scenario of childhood abuse stretching into adulthood is very possible. Say a 14-year-old brother rapes his 6-year-old sister and continues taking advantage of her for years and then decides to marry her when they are adults.
Click to expand...

That's rape, not incest. And plenty of kids are raped by non-family members.

It's actually often happened that rapists and their victims continue a relationship or start dating and even marry. Same with victims of sexual harassment. Even with victims of pedophilia- they continue seeing the abuser for years. So it wouldn't be surprising if victims of incest did the same with their abuser.
Click to expand...

Not surprising, but no reason to make incest illegal. And again, by "victims of incest" I think you mean "victims of rape". These aren't necessarily the same thing.
 
Alex Libman is almost certainly about to burst in here extolling his mad Libertarian world view, so I'll post this and then get the hell out of here:

Straight incest is problematic, as their children may suffer severe genetic problems (Darwin's kids anyone?). Gay incest, on the other hand, can surely cause no harm. It all seems a bit gross, but who chooses for whom the heart should beateth?...
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
It should be illegal to protect the health of children. The Amish don't marry their brothers and sisters but they are having big problems with inbreeding. The Amish are mostly perhaps with a very few converts in the mix are all related to an original 200 people. They are having problems such as mental retardation and organ malfunctions. Why should children and society be burdened unecessarily?
Click to expand...

I don't think the proposal is to force family members to breed. It's to allow the choice, along with all the possible drawbacks.

Are you in favor of sterilizing all women over 40 because there's a much higher risk for birth defects in their children?
 
Well, I will agree that there's less of a rational justification for not letting someone marry a close relative than there is for not allowing polygamy, but my answer here is the same as my answer there:

Why should it be allowed? It's unpopular, there are, as outlined above, some legitimate concerns about the health of that type of relationship (or at the very least some big question marks), and there are no constitutional issues mandating it.
 
At least polygamy is part of a culture and mostly entered into by consenting adults. It's a choice and a lifestyle that may be questionable but can't be called perverted.

Incest is simply sick.
 
In my view, morality shouldn't be legislated unless a person is hurting another person. So if two or more consenting adults want to exchange sex for money, or have gay sex, or whatever--I don't see why the government should stop them (again, as long as we're talking about consenting adults). Inter-family marriages shouldn't be legal though, because, as has been pointed out, any kids from that marriage could have genetic disorders.
 
Define incest and marriage. I say take away the religious aspects of marriage and call it a civil union. At that point any two people should be allowed to do it. My mother is very old. If she and her sister want to form a civil union for all the practical financial and legal reasons (incurring debt, making health decisions, etc), why shouldn't they be permitted?

As for outlawing sex among family members, I don't see it as anything other than a moral issue. Sure, inbreeding can be an issue, but it can be an issue without incest. Other factors come into play in regards to birth defect rates. Should we regulate those people?

Would lesbian incest be okay?
 
Of course incest should never have been criminalized.

But then, polygamy has a legitimate problem with recursive incestual marriages that have literally raised a generation or two of handicapped people in rural Mormon communities. Is the problem there incest, or polygamy?

It's polygamy. And the fact that most of those marriages are underage and forced, i.e., rape.

OP is right. Most people's disgust at incest is more than enough to take care of any scares about genetic abnormalities causing handicaps. The next step is to better fight rape culture that allows things like forced polygamy to exist.

------

I'm with Undesired Walrus. Gay incest should be the least of our worries. If anything, it's possibly the safest sex around. No fertility, yet you know your partner's family history for things like heart problems, thyroid cancer, and mental illness. You're probably very compatible; same background, education, wealth, etc.

Sick? Oh, eeneyminniemoe, you and your taboos and your racist screen name... har har
 
The reasons against incest are not just about birth defects. Diversification of the gene pool is essential for an organism's survival, and in particular for developing immunity to diseases.
 
Cainkane1 said:
It should be illegal to protect the health of children.
Click to expand...

So would you support banning women over 40 from getting pregnant? As women get older the risk of genetic birth defects becomes greater. Wouldn't it also be a benefit to society to prohibit fertility treatments for older women?

Also, how about adopted siblings? The stigma seems to be the same if they're raised together, but since they're not closely related the risk of genetic disorders would be the same as any other couple.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Alex Libman is almost certainly about to burst in here extolling his mad Libertarian world view, so I'll post this and then get the hell out of here:

Straight incest is problematic, as their children may suffer severe genetic problems (Darwin's kids anyone?). Gay incest, on the other hand, can surely cause no harm. It all seems a bit gross, but who chooses for whom the heart should beateth?...
Click to expand...

Gay incest is intriguing. I wonder how common it is. Doesn't get much press.

Yet, regular incest without reproduction, perhaps deserves its own classification. Incest that is manipulative; non-consensual; rape-like; deserves a seperate category. If 2 siblings were in love, and chose to live together, and even have safe sex, wtf. I say let them.
 
Non-procreative consensual incest between adults should not be illegal. AFAIK, this is not actually prosecuted. If it happens, it usually happens in secret. It would be hard to prosecute anyway.

If there's a social safety net and society bears the burden for care of a lifetime of care required in case of birth defects, then I think that society is well within its rights to prohibit procreative incest.
 
I think I'll come in and espouse my mad libertarian views. In my insanity to believe that government should be as un-intrusive as possible and that individual liberty is safe-guarded against politicians and the tyranny of the majority I'd have to say that I really don't find any practical reason to illegalize incestuous marriage. I should state that there is absolutely nothing in the law that stops family members from having sex with other family members and nothing that stops them from being common-law man and wife. Now maybe you can make an argument that they shouldn't have kids but that the government shouldn't offer them a way to be legally married?

For mad libertarian bingo go ahead and mark Supports legal matrimony of: Gays, Polygamists, and Incestuous Marriage. Marriage to children and animals is still off for me, I’m not quite that bonkers just this moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom