Incest laws for adults

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I wasn't trying to hide my sentiments at all. I simply couldn't resist, as it is perfectly relevant.

[Dr. Tom 0]

EDIT: For Tom....I am 100% opposed to abortion.

Yeah, I kinda gathered that from your posts in the 5000 threads that reference abortion. Since this one was about inbreeding and how it can possibly be regulated, I was hoping to avoid 5001.

[cynicalprofit 0]

Let them have messed up kids, they'll blend in perfectly with the rest of the world.

[Guest Breetai]

<------ is from Alabama

*Banjo*

[Guest fk teale]

How about if they have no intention of ever breeding? Or say they're incapable - sisters, perhaps. Would it still be illegal for them to bone?

 

There is a perfectly valid social interest in reducing genetic birth defects in the population through the regulation of inbreeding.

 

A similar case could be made against a couple carrying recessive genes that'll predispose their kids to sickle cell or lots of furiously metastasizing cancer. By what rationale do we deny reproductive rights to the hicks and grant them to Mr. and Mrs. Lymphy Rotmarrow?

 

huuugs,

fkt

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

That has to be the most interesting link anyone's ever posted in CE.

 

But, anyhow... I think we need to, by and large, stay the fuck out of the bedrooms in terms of laws. However, in the case of a parental/child relationship, it's almost always a case (forgive my lack of a citation or anything, I think it's pretty much common knowledge) of either rape or coersion, which is something that cannot be tolerated or legalized. That's a case where someone in being taken advantage of, and it certainly needs to be regulated in the most harsh manner.

 

HOOOOWEVER... in the case of in-breeding... while it's not necessarily pleasant to think about, Teale brings up a good point; there is far too much grey matter here to make a true distinction between such things. In such grey situations as this -- at least in terms of social matters, definitely not in nat'l security matters or anything -- I'd prefer to err on the side of a socially laissez-faire position.

 

So, if you don't read the rest of my post, I'm basically saying that parent/child relations should NEVER be allowed, and the others may as well be legalized.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I wasn't trying to hide my sentiments at all. I simply couldn't resist, as it is perfectly relevant.

How so? It wouldn't "protect the unborn." It's keeping people from pissing in the gene pool.

[Firestarter 0]

How about if they have no intention of ever breeding? Or say they're incapable - sisters, perhaps. Would it still be illegal for them to bone?

 

There is a perfectly valid social interest in reducing genetic birth defects in the population through the regulation of inbreeding.

 

A similar case could be made against a couple carrying recessive genes that'll predispose their kids to sickle cell or lots of furiously metastasizing cancer. By what rationale do we deny reproductive rights to the hicks and grant them to Mr. and Mrs. Lymphy Rotmarrow?

 

huuugs,

fkt

Fair enough, and yes, I admit the fact that there is a valid slippery-slope argument to be made against incest laws based on social interests in the gene pool. But how do you get around the undue influence problem?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I wasn't trying to hide my sentiments at all. I simply couldn't resist, as it is perfectly relevant.

How so? It wouldn't "protect the unborn." It's keeping people from pissing in the gene pool.

Sorry. Somehow I confused "prevention of hurting the unborn" by not allowing people to piss in the gene pool with "protecting the unborn". How stupid of me.

[Guest JMA]

<------ is from Alabama

*Banjo*

*waits for the obvious joke about an Alabamian starting a topic about incest*

[Stephen Joseph 0]

its no controversial

 

every government pretty much bans this

 

point to me one modern society that has as one of its core beliefs that incest is good

 

ill be waiting a long time for that one. people saw what ugliness incest did to royalty. its gentically inefficient, and you won't find any examples of its legalness anywhere

[Vyce 0]

Frist got raked over the coals for his remarks about this, but he was right in one regard - Lawrence v. Texas effectively makes consensual incestual sex unprosecutable.

 

Regardless of what your interpretation of how the Constitution defines privacy rights, that has to leave you feeling a little bit oogey.

[Guest JMA]

its no controversial

 

every government pretty much bans this

 

point to me one modern society that has as one of its core beliefs that incest is good

 

ill be waiting a long time for that one. people saw what ugliness incest did to royalty. its gentically inefficient, and you won't find any examples of its legalness anywhere

Regardless of the morality issue, the goverment should not dictate what two adults do it the sack. Sure, it may be icky, but that's not the point. And I'm sure I could easily find countries that do allow it with a Google search. Hell, some States even let first cousins marry...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

do the google search and get back with me

 

you wont find immediate family *mother, son or brother, sister etc...* and i struggle to see the cousins, i think its mostly third cousin which is allowable under law

 

i want to see the search for countries that allow incest. Now im speaking of countries that are at least somewhat modern, so backass tribal kqhfoiskljnfskl africa dont count.

 

and its NOT a morality issue. It's a gene pool issue. Its a proven fact that inbreed propogates individuals who are not physically normal, nor mentally normal. Society creates the rule of "no incest" NOT for moral reasons but for biological reasons. It is the natural conclusion of the reproductive aspect of our species...to produce in quantities equal to or greater than the quantity of previous HEALTHY inhabitants

[Guest JMA]

Does that mean we shouldn't allow retarded people to reproduce? Or what about people with hereditary diseases?

[Guest JMA]

Also, birth defects could be prevented by sibling couplings. Likewise, those who are infertile or are presumably too old to reproduce could also prevent the "pissing in the gene pool" factor.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

you're making arguments, yes, but youre not invalidating my answer nor answering my question.

 

I asked you to find me one country that advocates, or at least doesn't discourage, incestual unions.

 

Because I'm a good guy, I'll actually answer your questions. The modern world has "genetic counseling" for couples looking to have a baby, and this counseling lets them know what possible diseases they might be carriers of, and what the chances are of something "bad" happening with the baby. Pretty much ever couple in the US goes through this during the pregnancy phase, and a good bit of diseases are caught and treated because of the early detection this implies. So, the answer to "should people with hereditary diseases breed?" is "we educate them"

 

Next, you ask about retarded adults having children. Now, unless anyone wants to correct me, I'm fairly certain that counseling goes on at that level too. I don't know how old you are JMA *not an insult* but you may have missed "Life Goes On" which was a sitcom which had a retarded adult as one of its stars, and they explored this. My reason for bringing this up is that there are different grades of mental retardation. My answer here again, is education, if it is possible. If its not, then well, theyre probably not having capable of having kids anyways right?

 

Now, you mention genetic coupling. Won't work. Look, and no offense to Spidey, but if we all started from 1 man and 1 woman, we'd be seriously f'ed up. *looks at world, sees we are messed up, concedes point* /aside Spidey, i think its a great metaphor for when people had no clue how the species began, and it has a good bit of truth to it. dont hate me =)

 

From 2 fixed strands of DNA, over time they will decay, and over time they will be passed on through family. Yes, I will concede the point that genetic coupling might in fact work through a generation, maybe two, but as long as its the same DNA interbreeding, you will end up back at the point the european royals found out: ugly and insane.

 

again, i speak in facts, and I challenge for answers

[Guest Retro Rob]

Regardless of the facts, which no one is disputing, once the government is given some leeway when it comes to people's bedroom, odds are they will use that as leverage in the future to possibly add more restrictions. No one is promoting or suggesting that the US Goverment promotes incest. The majority just doesn't believe that anyone should dictate who is and isn't allowed to sleep together.

[Vyce 0]

Does that mean we shouldn't allow retarded people to reproduce? Or what about people with hereditary diseases?

Retarded people - YES.

 

Hereditary illness carriers - possibly.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Rob, in my home state, the government there repealed bedroom laws aimed against fellatio and cunnilingus about 2 years ago...

 

and thats Georgia.

[Dr. Tom 0]

do the google search and get back with me

 

    Many cultures consider sexual activities with children normal and desirable for the strengthening of the family bonds. These values are reflected in laws, customs and religions. This seems to be particularly true in eastern cultures of Arab countries, India, China, and Japan (DeMause, 1991).

 

And the source of the quote.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Interesting

 

But the bit about not knowing cause from effect as a function of prefrontal cortex problems in arabs.

 

I'd be more believing if I saw it on a actual news site

[Dr. Tom 0]

There were more results. That was just the most direct that I found, since a lot of them had tiny blurbs buried amidst paragraphs of unrelated things. My search criteria, btw, was "countries in which incest is legal." A more refined search might yeild better (and more) results.

[Guest fk teale]

Fair enough, and yes, I admit the fact that there is a valid slippery-slope argument to be made against incest laws based on social interests in the gene pool. But how do you get around the undue influence problem?

Parents exert undue influence over every facet of their childrens' existence. Being racists or socialists or christian scientists is setting just as abominable an example as being married to your sibling. But loving your sister too much can be fixed the same way that hating the darkies or capitalist swine or doctors can be: by education and argumentation. As long as that option exists, I'd rather not force someone into compliance with common sense, no matter how wrong they are. Of course, the instant the line is crossed from simple belief to harm by action/inaction, force is justified. See: christian science, children dying in need of medicine forbidden by. Also: incest, intergenerational.

[MrRant 0]

So many better threads then. Of course this subject will probably pop up in "Fucking Wisconsin" any day.

[Jingus 0]

About a third of these people are still here, about a third have just mysteriously vanished (where did Spicy get to?), and a third of 'em post at the Pit but not here anymore. For that final third, Marney's stance here might raise an eyebrow.