Not to get in the absurd “incest equals illegal drugs” argument, but a couple points i’d like to make.
First, many of the popular breeds of domestic cats and dogs are the result of incestous inbreeding. The Somali Cat, a long haired Abyssinian, was produced by taking a few mutant long haired abyssinians and breeding them together repeatedly over generations. (That could have been clearer but you know what I mean) This method produces healthy animals, but over time inbreeding leads to a predominance of unhealthy recessive traits. Thus an incestous mating between sis and bro might lead to a healthy child, but if a whole clan bred amongst themselves for generations, You’d probably see some defects arise.
2nd, While my general social libertarian side doesn’t have a problem with incest between consenting adults, you gotta wonder…I mean I don’t want to sound like Dr. Drew here, but what sort of messed up upbringing could lead someone to get excited over the thought of sleeping with a relative.
I just can’t picture a healthy person desiring an incestous relationship.
Larry Borgia: There are lots of things that I can’t picture healthy people doing, but if everything’s consensual, who am I to impose my definition of “healthy” on someone else?
Having been properly scolded by Notthemama… here is my take on the OP.
I’d rather somebody was carrying on a consentual incestual relationship than smoking crack/pot/whatever…
Why? Simply put, after having sex a brother and sister can safely get into a car and go out for dinner and movie.
After smoking dope, a person’s judgement is impaired and he/she should not be behind the wheel of an automobile.
What a ridiculous comparisson/contrast to have to try and make!
I’m not sure where I stand on the subject of legalized pot but I’m sure as hell closer to not caring about what related adults do in their bedroom than what they smoke before merging into traffic.
Those seem to be from the same set of codified rules that the other links were. Are there any states of the USA, or countries of the world, where relations with cousins are forbidden?
Bricker noted that Virginia law includes the following:
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of incest, but for argument’s sake… isn’t the motivation for a taboo or legislation against incest related to the fear that two close relatives might produce a handicapped child? Why extend the prohibition to two people who are not genetically related?
I suspect to discourage the idea of purchasing a personal sex slave. And the sibling dynamics are going to be complicated enough, anyway, without adding sex.
But I would like to point out that it has been a while since AvenueB-Dude posted in this thread. What’s the matter, dude? Convinced? Scared? Still standing by your OP? Still think Coldfire is stupid and deserves to be beaten with his own logic?
It would seem that way, from that graphic. All the blue states are supposed to have the “Western model,” and the text explains that that includes a prohibition against cousins. But I live in NC and it is blue, but I looked in GS 14-178, 179 and it doesn’t seem to be so. I looked up one other blue state, Montana, and it’s not so there either (see 45-5-507 ). That map doesn’t seem to be reliable. But I am not a lawyer.
Um. Doesn’t it take several generations of such activity for problems to occur? And aren’t they actually pretty damn rare? I know several people who have had children with their own father (one of them had like 5 kids with her dad, oen of them a daughter who continued on to have a child with him too!) and none of them had any kind of problems.
I don’t really see the appeal in having sex with a family member, but I don’t see anything inherantly wrong with it if both are adults. I think that the whole “handicapped” thing is baloney (like I said, it would take a lot more than just a brother and sister getting it on) but following that logic, should handicapped people be allowed to marry and have children? What if their handicap is on that is likely to be passed on to children? Should it be illegal for them to have kids? If not, tell me the difference.
–
From an actual catalog: “Disco balls create an enchanting, dazzling effect of light shafts, adding movement and glamour to any occasion” the Abrams’ bris was certainly memorable
O p a l C a t www.opalcat.com
I did not imply that we should impose our standards on something we find obnoxious. I assure you nothing could be further removed from my philosophy. I was merely saying that while incest could be seen as a “rational choice” between consenting adults, it can only really be seen that way in the abstract. If you found that an aquaintance of yours was sleeping with her brother, I don’t think you’d simply say “oh well, that’s her choice.” I think you would wonder what kind of upbringing led her to such a twisted sex life. However I think we can both agree with the immortal words of Dr. Nick Riviera: “There’s no need to get the law involved.”
The chance of defects in an incestual relationship is small, but still a risk.
The obvious solution is a homosexual incestual relationship.
Between consenting adults, of course!
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
Possibly. I will fully admit to the fact that I have no medical evidence backing up my remark that interbreeding produces handicapped children. At least, nothing to back up the likelihood of that. We all seem to agree that, at least if interbreeding is continued for some generations, birth defects and/or other handicaps will occur. And that’s were I get to my real point: ethics is [not about the laws of probability. If several generations interbreed chronologically, and birth defects occur at a certain stage, the logical conclusion can only be that the quality of the genes deteriorates with every stage (generation) of interbreeding. I don’t care how small the loss of quality is for the first step in the sequence: it means these two so-called conscenting adults are deliberately taking the risk of producing a baby with genes worse than the ones they have themselves. That is why it is unethical, even if they do take birth control measures. As long as there is a chance of pregnancy, incest is just WRONG.
Let’s continue.
I’m sorry, Opal, but that information right there tells me these people you mention have a shitload of problems. And if all this was achieved with conscent, it is even worse. So let me get this straight: you know a guy who impregnated his daughter, and then later on also impregnated the baby born from the first example of incest? I’m glad all these people are in good health, but surely you’re not trying to tell me there’s nothing WRONG with it?
Yes, (physically) handicapped people should be (and are!) allowed to get married. I am unsure what to say about the second part. It would largely depend on likelihood of a handicapped child, the gravity of the possible handicap, and the impact it would have on the life of the child. I’m pretty sure it is impossible to draw an exact line here and now. I can, however, tell you the ethical difference between two handicapped people considering a child and two relatives considering a child.
The handicapped couple has not chosen to be handicapped, whereas the incestuous couple chooses to make a morally dubious decision, to say the least.
It IS hard to draw the line in the case of handicapped people having children. But here, we can at least talk about calculated risks that are morally debatable. An incestuous conception or the possbility thereof is just beyond morality and should be comdemned in the strongest possible terms.
No. Virginia Code § 18.2-365 provides that any person, being married, who voluntarily has sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse is guilty of adultery, which is punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. Adultery between persons forbidden by law to marry is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
What’s the difference? In the Commonwealth, a Class 4 misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum fine of $250, while a Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2,500.
For what it’s worth, Va. Code § 18.2-344 forbids fornication: “Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.”
I am unaware of any prosecutions in recent years under either of these code sections.
It’s just that nothing turns my crank faster than people who won’t stick to the point in a discussion.