Decriminalizing incest

[pictor]

The Current is a canadian radio show on CBC, that explores a lot of interesting issues of our times. Certainly, it's Canadian focused in many cases, but they often have articles that apply more globally as well. I like listening to some of their pieces, as I find they do a good job of both critically examining an issue, and also making a point of inviting people to speak from all sides of the issue, giving a fair bit of time to commentary on both sides of the debate.

Yesterday, they ran a piece, just under half an hour, about the merits of decriminalizing incest. You can find it at this link, if you scroll down to the bottom and look for part 3
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200904/20090407.html
You can listen to the piece on the web page as well.

Clearly, I can anticipate the reaction of most people on this site, but it'd be interesting to see what commentary people had that actually contributed to a debate on the subject, rather than the emotional reaction of shutting the idea down.

If you can spare half an hour while doing your other work of the day, and wanted to listen to the article, I think there is a lot of interesting debate made on the subject.

Yes I know, slippery slope *gasp*. Well I don't think there is ever harm in being willing to discuss a topic, whether it changes anyone's mind or not.

I personally struggle with certain gut reactions on this subject that have been programmed into me, and a my logical examination of the topic that makes me wonder whether I can really justify any opposition to it.

Oh, and before anyone goes down this road, this still assumes that other legalities are free and clear (children are still children and off limits, informed adult consent is needed)

[BillBrown]

I've been predicting this for a long time.
It's the next step after homosexual marriage.
All the components are there:

Consenting adults.
No ones business
Outrageous as hell.

It was a slam dunk that liberals would be pushing it.

[Antrel]

There is no reason it should be illegal.

[pictor]

It was a slam dunk that liberals would be pushing it.
I'm certainly not pushing it, but I am trying to open a debate whether there is a justification to oppose it.

Did you have anything further to contribute?

[Antrel]

To expand - the gut reactions you speak of in your OP are all that drive opposition towards the concept. I have a sister close to my age and any such thought is absolutely repulsive. But it's not within my right to criminalize it among others simply for that distaste.

[Guvnah]

No slippery slope?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588 (Defense for polygamists cites gay marriage)

[BillBrown]

To expand - the gut reactions you speak of in your OP are all that drive opposition towards the concept. I have a sister close to my age and any such thought is absolutely repulsive. But it's not within my right to criminalize it among others simply for that distaste.

The repulsiveness of it, is exactly why liberals will promote this.

[Antrel]

The repulsiveness of it, is exactly why liberals will promote this.Why should you be able to criminalize something simply because you're repulsed by it?

[markd]

The repulsiveness of it, is exactly why liberals will promote this.Why should it remain illegal?

Repulsiveness aside....unless that's the basis.

[neoINDIE]

If we all came from Adam and Eve, aren't we all guilty of incest?

[BillBrown]

Why should you be able to criminalize something simply because you're repulsed by it?

The basis of these screw-ball marriage movements is money. I'm convinced of it.

If a man has AIDS, for example, and has no medical insurance, he cannot get insurance because of his pre-existing condition.

UNLESS, he can find someone with a job that will marry him. Then he'll be included as a spouse in the group policy.

Broaden this to legalize sibling marriages and parent child marriages, and that broadens his possible prospects for his sham marriage.

The net result of this, will be employers dropping health insurance as a benefit. They will drop any other spousal benefit, as well. It a matter of time.

[Antrel]

The basis of these screw-ball marriage movements is money. I'm convinced of it.

If a man has AIDS, for example, and has no medical insurance, he cannot get insurance because of his pre-existing condition.

UNLESS, he can find someone with a job that will marry him. Then he'll be included as a spouse in the group policy.

Broaden this to legalize sibling marriages and parent child marriages, and that broadens his possible prospects for his sham marriage.

The net result of this, will be employers dropping health insurance as a benefit. They will drop any other spousal benefit, as well. It a matter of time.What is a "sham marriage?"

[BillBrown]

What is a "sham marriage?"

A marriage that is entered into for no other reason, than material gain, with both parties being aware of this.
Sham marriages are common, to obtain resident alien status in this country.

They are illegal, if Immigration can prove it.

[handle]

There is no reason it should be illegal.

I have heard and read in the past that it causes genetic disorders, more-so with future generations.

Not to mention that it is morally repugnant.

[BillBrown]

I have heard and read in the past that it causes genetic disorders, more-so with future generations.

Not to mention that it is morally repugnant.

You'll be directed to studies claiming that there are no genetic disorders.

In a few years when kids are being targeted for marriages, you'll be shown studies that this kind of thing doesn't hurt them.

These "studies" are a dime a dozen. There is always an expert ready to sell out.

[pictor]

If we all came from Adam and Eve, aren't we all guilty of incest?
snap! :)

[pictor]

I have heard and read in the past that it causes genetic disorders, more-so with future generations.

Not to mention that it is morally repugnant.
As has been somewhat facetiously mentioned, there *are* many studies that suggest the genetic issues are virtually non existent in the scope of a single generation or two. Over multiple generations, the risks do multiply yes, and certainly, while the risk is actually minimal, it is not non-existant. Perhaps that is enough reason to ban it, although in truth, that is an argument to ban incestuous procreation, not relationships (as the two are not inherently linked)

Morally repugnant however is no basis for a legal battle. Morality is individual and subjective. Laws must be based on an objective evaluation of the harm it is meant to mitigate.

[JimGP20]

What is a "sham marriage?"


A really really bad sham marriage is called a sham wow marriage. :cool:

[neoINDIE]

snap! :)

Oh yeah, then God wiped out everyone but Noah and his family, and the family tree started over again...

[Antrel]

A marriage that is entered into for no other reason, than material gain, with both parties being aware of this.
Sham marriages are common, to obtain resident alien status in this country.

They are illegal, if Immigration can prove it.Given that churches regularly perform ceremonial marriages, can't it it be argued that all legal marriage contracts are for the purpose of material gain?

[BillBrown]

Given that churches regularly perform ceremonial marriages, can't it it be argued that all legal marriage contracts are for the purpose of material gain?

Anything can be argued.
I can testify that my marriage wasn't.

[handle]

As has been somewhat facetiously mentioned, there *are* many studies that suggest the genetic issues are virtually non existent in the scope of a single generation or two. Over multiple generations, the risks do multiply yes, and certainly, while the risk is actually minimal, it is not non-existant. Perhaps that is enough reason to ban it, although in truth, that is an argument to ban incestuous procreation, not relationships (as the two are not inherently linked)

Morally repugnant however is no basis for a legal battle. Morality is individual and subjective. Laws must be based on an objective evaluation of the harm it is meant to mitigate.

Morality does not just affect the individual but also society. Our founding was affected by the Judaeo-Christian morals and belief system. Morals dictate to us what is wrong/right acceptable or not.

[Jalend Skyr]

Hrmm...incest. I know my family overseas marries 1st cousins like its going out of style.

Nasty as hell to me...normal for them in that culture...

But where in the constitution does it address this? Bleh.. common sense has died.

[pictor]

Morality does not just affect the individual but also society. Our founding was affected by the Judaeo-Christian morals and belief system. Morals dictate to us what is wrong/right acceptable or not.
Morals dictate what is right and wrong (in your eyes, in my eyes, etc...).
Objective, provable harm dictates what is legal and illegal.

[LoneStarHero]

I see no reason that incest should be illegal. Consensual sex between adult family members does not harm anyone. It is a waste of taxpayer's money to prosecute and incarcerate folk who do not harm society.

The argument in the CBC piece is that the children from such unions have a higher potential to be developmentally flawed. I find that to be a slippery slope to banning other couples who have a higher than average chance of having children with defects. It's eugenics pure and simple and no basis to base law from.

The other is the "yuk factor", which holds no water.

Like polygamy, my only concern is the potential for minor children to be coerced into sexual relationships. However, sex with a child is already a crime.

[pictor]

The argument in the CBC piece is that the children from such unions have a higher potential to be developmentally flawed. I find that to be a slippery slope to banning other couples who have a higher than average chance of having children with defects. It's eugenics pure and simple and no basis to base law from.
That's a really good point actually. We are quite happy to permit people with genetic defects (leaving aside the argument of what is a defect, as opposed to a variation) right now to produce children, where the odds of that child sharing that defect considerably higher. If that's no issue, then the 0%-low% chance that a child of an incestuous relationship will suffer anything unusual they would not have otherwise doesn't hold any water.

[tinydancer]

So we aren't just talking brothers and sisters. We're going to go the whole 9 yards and let fathers screw their daughters when they turn 16 or 18 and visa versa for Moms and their sons.

As long as the younger party hits the age of consent. Interesting. We have so evolved haven't we.

Hey, you could cut down on Hallmark card's that way. Only one Father's day card would be needed and no Grandpa cards considering Dad is just Dad.:sick:

[markd]

So we aren't just talking brothers and sisters. We're going to go the whole 9 yards and let fathers screw their daughters when they turn 16 or 18 and visa versa for Moms and their sons.

As long as the younger party hits the age of consent. Interesting. We have so evolved haven't we.

Hey, you could cut down on Hallmark card's that way. Only one Father's day card would be needed and no Grandpa cards considering Dad is just Dad.:sick:We've all agreed that it is repulsive, but we haven't really seen a lock solid argument for it remaining illegal.

[supreme_war_Pig]

The Current is a canadian radio show on CBC, that explores a lot of interesting issues of our times. Certainly, it's Canadian focused in many cases, but they often have articles that apply more globally as well. I like listening to some of their pieces, as I find they do a good job of both critically examining an issue, and also making a point of inviting people to speak from all sides of the issue, giving a fair bit of time to commentary on both sides of the debate.

Yesterday, they ran a piece, just under half an hour, about the merits of decriminalizing incest. You can find it at this link, if you scroll down to the bottom and look for part 3
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200904/20090407.html
You can listen to the piece on the web page as well.

Clearly, I can anticipate the reaction of most people on this site, but it'd be interesting to see what commentary people had that actually contributed to a debate on the subject, rather than the emotional reaction of shutting the idea down.

If you can spare half an hour while doing your other work of the day, and wanted to listen to the article, I think there is a lot of interesting debate made on the subject.

Yes I know, slippery slope *gasp*. Well I don't think there is ever harm in being willing to discuss a topic, whether it changes anyone's mind or not.

I personally struggle with certain gut reactions on this subject that have been programmed into me, and a my logical examination of the topic that makes me wonder whether I can really justify any opposition to it.

Oh, and before anyone goes down this road, this still assumes that other legalities are free and clear (children are still children and off limits, informed adult consent is needed)

Meh....if the long struggle for equal rights for gays is any indication, incest will be legal loooong after all of us are dead.

[RickRhetoric]

I personally struggle with certain gut reactions on this subject that have been programmed into me, and a my logical examination of the topic that makes me wonder whether I can really justify any opposition to it.

Uh-oh. We'll be praying for you.

[Samm]

There is no reason it should be illegal.

Yeah... whats wrong with it if she is good lookin' and you aren't begeting, aye? ;)

[LoneStarHero]

Yeah... whats wrong with it if she is good lookin' and you aren't begeting, aye? ;)

The desire to control the breeding of others is a throwback to a certain totalitarian regime in Germany back in the 1930's and 40's not to mention a dark time in our own national history.

[Samm]

The desire to control the breeding of others is a throwback to a certain totalitarian regime in Germany back in the 1930's and 40's not to mention a dark time in our own national history.

The desire to control breeding between siblings goes back a hell of a lot longer than that... :neutral:

[Values]

Ha ha ha!
Where are we, and why are we in this hand basket?

[Nevarwinter]

You can't legislate morality. Contrary to Chairman Maobama's ignorance, we are a christian nation.

If you want to have intimate relations with your kids or your siblings, move somewhere it's acceptable. I hear Bahrain is nice this time of year.

[Antrel]

Anything can be argued.
I can testify that my marriage wasn't.Why did you get married through the state?

[BillBrown]

Why did you get married through the state?

Because I didn't know any other way to get married.
If I hadn't, after 7 years of living together, we would have been married anyway, according to my state.

[Antrel]

Because I didn't know any other way to get married.
If I hadn't, after 7 years of living together, we would have been married anyway, according to my state.You really didn't know to go through a church, or a private ceremony with a pastor?

[BillBrown]

You really didn't know to go through a church, or a private ceremony with a pastor?

I don't know what point you're trying to make.
We did have a private ceremony with a pastor.

[Antrel]

I don't know what point you're trying to make.
We did have a private ceremony with a pastor.If you were married under God, what drove you to get married under government as well?

[BillBrown]

If you were married under God, what drove you to get married under government as well?

Because I wanted to.
I really can't believe I'm even arguing this.

[Antrel]

Because I wanted to.
I really can't believe I'm even arguing this.Your definition of a "sham marriage" was one entered into simply for material purposes. If you were already married under God, what possible benefit other than material could come from government marriage?

If I may ask, why did you want to get married under the government?

[BillBrown]

Your definition of a "sham marriage" was one entered into simply for material purposes. If you were already married under God, what possible benefit other than material could come from government marriage?

If I may ask, why did you want to get married under the government?

What does being "married under God" mean.
I'll need a scripture that outlines how to do that.
As a Christian, I'll need it from the New Testament.

[Livey]

How many incestuous consenting adults are arrested each year in the United States? Is this a law that is enforced? Why are we even talking about this?

[Antrel]

What does being "married under God" mean.
I'll need a scripture that outlines how to do that.
As a Christian, I'll need it from the New Testament.Alright, insert any given significance of a religious marriage. In any respect, what does government marriage add to that aside from material benefit?

[BillBrown]

Alright, insert any given significance of a religious marriage. In any respect, what does government marriage add to that aside from material benefit?

I need a scripture outlining how to be "married under God".
Your position was that if I was married under God, why did I need to be married under the government.
I can't answer that until you tell me how I could have been married under God.

[Safiel]

How many incestuous consenting adults are arrested each year in the United States? Is this a law that is enforced? Why are we even talking about this?

Actually, you make a good reason why the law should be taken off the books, as it is very rare that this law is ever enforced. Most people inclined to engage in such consenting incestuous activity are already doing so. If it was legalized, you would see AT MOST a trivial increase in incestuous activity and likely none at all.

Most people have a natural aversion to incestuous behavior. This is an instinctive aversion, designed to promote genetic diversity. It is those few people who lack this natural aversion that are likely engaging in incest. The vast majority of people who are naturally adverse to incest are not suddenly going to lose that adversity.

[CID_0687]

There's this family that lives in our town...they're inbred...I live in Alabama, so well...the entire family has mental problems, they're all mentally disabled, some of them are physically disabled, and they're all living off the government.

The matriarch of the clan passed away about 10 years ago...these morons rode around with her dead in the backseat of the Chrysler for 4 days...they got pulled over by the police, they said they thought she was just sleeping.

Folks wanna be involved in incest, ok...whatever...they should be sterilized though....there's enough morons in the world as it is.

[Sketch]

If we all came from Adam and Eve, aren't we all guilty of incest?

what about adam & eve's children - who did they have sex with?

[Isabella123]

Is it criminal?? People are going to jail for this? My in-laws live in NC, and see inbreds all the time- maybe their parents don't realize it's illegal. Anyway, the reason marriage exists is to protect children, and legalizing so-called gay marriage and incestual marriage is harmful to children. Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean you should.

[Isabella123]

You can't legislate morality? Let's see- it's wrong to steal, kill, and lie on your tax return- sounds like legislating morality to me.

[JohnRandolph]

Cousins - cause they're great for practice....
:cool:

[JohnRandolph]

You can't legislate morality? Let's see- it's wrong to steal, kill, and lie on your tax return- sounds like legislating morality to me.

I had a poli sci professor who suggested that morality was the only thing that could be legislated.

[Nevarwinter]

You can't legislate morality? Let's see- it's wrong to steal, kill, and lie on your tax return- sounds like legislating morality to me.

No, that's criminalizing a moral decision. You can't take the law off the books and suddenly think it'll be okay to do it or that you'll be accepted with open arms by a community.

It's like trying to tell the amish they now have to use electricity or join the rest of the civilization because it's just silly they live like they do. No matter how many laws you pass or remove, it won't change belief.

[LoneStarHero]

How many incestuous consenting adults are arrested each year in the United States? Is this a law that is enforced? Why are we even talking about this?

The topic was on the CBC.

[JudasGoat]

Why should you be able to criminalize something simply because you're repulsed by it?

so we should stop demonizing people for bigotry, right?

[badkarma]

Wouldn't making this legal put a lot of girls that reach the age of consent in the position of having to prostitute themselves to there own fathers in order to stay at home?

[Antrel]

so we should stop demonizing people for bigotry, right?I couldn't honestly give less of a **** about your prejudice or who you hate. I'm a bigot about a great many things. The moment bigotry is imposed on others is when it crosses the line.

[JudasGoat]

I couldn't honestly give less of a **** of who you hate. The moment bigotry begets reflecting legislation is when it crosses the line. Then again, any legislation does, but that's an entirely different matter.

Glad to hear it, but there are a lot of folks on your side of the aisle that feel differently about "hate".

[Antrel]

Glad to hear it, but there are a lot of folks on your side of the aisle that feel differently about "hate".Man, if you know where these folks on my side are, let me know.

[JudasGoat]

Man, if you know where these folks on my side are, let me know.

it's not meant as some kind of insult. Perhaps I have misjudged you, if so I will gladly apologize. but reading several of your posts in different threads you strike me as having a more liberal mindset.


edit to add; I'm quite confident that the great Peter Griffin is on your side, but I have not seen him on here in a very long time. He is missed.

[Antrel]

Get the liberals to support a free market and I'll cuddle with them.

[JudasGoat]

Get the liberals to support a free market and I'll cuddle with them.

but will you offer them peanuts...?

[neoINDIE]

what about adam & eve's children - who did they have sex with?

?

Nobody has ever been able to give me an answer to that.

[Samm]

How many incestuous consenting adults are arrested each year in the United States? Is this a law that is enforced? Why are we even talking about this?

Because it is a Discussion Board. Did you read the OP?

[Samm]

it's not meant as some kind of insult. Perhaps I have misjudged you, if so I will gladly apologize. but reading several of your posts in different threads you strike me as having a more liberal mindset.


edit to add; I'm quite confident that the great Peter Griffin is on your side, but I have not seen him on here in a very long time. He is missed.

This is not a Liberal issue... it is a Libertarian issue.

[BillBrown]

what about adam & eve's children - who did they have sex with?

We don't know. Scripture doesn't say.

God created Adam and Eve, He may also have gone on to create more humans.

A better question is who did Noah's children have sex with.

[Samm]

We don't know. Scripture doesn't say.

God created Adam and Eve, He may also have gone on to create more humans.

Yes he may have, but that is pure speculation.

A better question is who did Noah's children have sex with.

Noah's sons brought their wives along... but his daughters either were chaste and barren or had sex with him, a brother, or nephew.

[neoINDIE]

Yes he may have, but that is pure speculation.



Noah's sons brought their wives along... but his daughters either were chaste and barren or had sex with him, a brother, or nephew.

That must have been one rockin ark.