Incest laws are an example of "Big Government".

Great Debates
1

So recently I saw a story about two adults who had consensual sex, but they were mother and son. Apparently there are laws against incest, remarkably in majority of the world. Maybe I shouldn’t be as surprised as I am, but I think it’s abhorred that Government would suggest you cannot have consensual sex with a family member. If they are an adult, if it’s consensual, then it should be legal. If we’re going to argue it’s unethical, then that’s a super slippery slope. So I conclude it’s under the basis of inbreeding causing birth defects. Which I don’t have any real evidence of, but I assume it isn’t too bad considering the monarchies in Europe.

I can’t be the only person who feels this way. Yes, I condone incest. If you believe that is wrong, then what about condoning homosexuality? What about homosexual incest, that way the ONLY barrier you have is the ethical reasoning behind it. What really triggers me here is how people complain about big government, yet think fundamental things like incest should be regulated by the government. Sure pedophilia is wrong, rape is wrong, but those aren’t just ethical reasons. They literally damage people. Incest harms no one. Arguably at most it harms a child if one if born.

This has to change, what kind of sicko thinks he has the right to say who you can and cannot have sex with? So long as they’re consenting, and of age, there is nothing wrong with it. Even if they’re mentally retarded, in the eyes of the law they can be tossed around like a ranch dressing salad. Absolute and utter hypocrisy, I am beyond livid right now.

(This is what I was referring to: Mother And Adult Son Face Felony Incest Charges | HuffPost Latest News )

2

In the purest abstract, yeah, you’re right.

You also aren’t going to win this fight, any more than I’m likely to win the fight to legalize public nudity. (Another “big government” intrusion on our natural rights.)

Ask yourself: is this the hilltop you intend to die on?

Maybe you should join the crusade against Gerrymandering, or Voter Suppression, instead: battles we have a chance of winning.

3

The OP might want to read up on inbreeding depression. Much like vaccination, reasonable people understand this. It’s an almost universal taboo for a reason. It happens a lot with many domesticated animals (and on occasion, due to population bottlenecks, wild animals), so it’s not like nobody has ever seen this before.

Royal families rarely inbred to the extent you are suggesting. There were lots of royal cousins, of course, but they were usually distant genetically and geographically, often of different (official) ethnicity. The royal families, despite not being genetics experts back in the day still recognized the problem, and did “royalty shopping” (marrying off your children to royals from other countries), although after several generations all the royals ended up being distant relatives. That’s how we ended up with the King of England and Kaiser of Germany being cousins, or the last Empress of Russia being quarter English (the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, and mostly German, marrying a mostly German man who was “officially” Russian). Now royals not only avoid marrying other royals, they often marry “commoners”. Duchess Kate Middleton is a “commoner” (from a very rich family, she met her now-husband at an exclusive private school).

Of course, sometimes that did happen. Take a look at Carlos II of Spain, the ultimate example of why you shouldn’t do that. (A somewhat exaggerated example, however, as it took multiple generations of inbreeding to do that.) Or the last “pharaohs” of Egypt, who ended up being really feeble and (mostly) unintelligent. The last Cleopatra had some fresh blood in her though. Or that unfortunate German couple who found out after they got married that they were siblings separated at birth. (Four children, one of whom suffered from mental retardation and one suffering from learning disabilities.)

That’s not even getting into the psychological dimensions. While the OP’s example was consensual, it usually isn’t. Most victims are underage when it happens to them.

This isn’t even something that affects the OP, so why get worked up?

TLDR: It should be avoided as it frequently results from unequal, coercive relationships (not Lannister twin scenarios), and if there’s a child there’s a substantially higher risk of birth defects (depending on how related they are). People avoid drinking alcohol while pregnant and try not to be infected by the zika virus too. (Is drinking alcohol while pregnant a crime? I would call it wrong, but I don’t know if it’s actually a crime.)

4

And that would actually have a positive effect if the battles were won.

The societal taboo against incest is so strong that (I imagine, with no actual personal knowledge or experience) those engaging in it would already be keeping it pretty dark, in which case the chance of the law getting involved would be minimal anyway.

5

Thinking of Ghastly’s Ghastly Comic, an (obscene!) web-comic.

One guy calls another guy a “M…F…” The other guy goes home to his mother and says, “We’ll have to move to another town, again. Our secret is out.”

6

Since it is at legally required to serve alcohol to pregnant women that order it in NYC, it’s not everywhere, but I found a site that that says it’s illegal in 18 states.

7

This is exactly why it’s unacceptable. People shouldn’t have dirty dark secrets. Homosexuality was eventually accepted by our culture because so many people had this dirty dark secret about what turns them on. I’m sure the same goes for many things in many cultures throughout human society. The most relevant to my knowledge being middle eastern muslims partaking in pedophilia and doing their best to suppress any outcry about it. Especially on behalf of the government(I can’t remember what they’re called, but government officials specifically police had “errand boys” who were sexually abused in a specific middle eastern country, vice did a documentary on it).

I realize perfectly well there is no talking points for incest. There are plenty of other things to take as seriously for injustice. However if no one is willing to give any thought about these things, they will never change. There is a reason why even have the concept of “changing someone’s sexuality”. It’s because people who were sexually orientated a certain way didn’t have enough of a talking point to stand up for their rights.

I’m not even sure what I want kind of argument I want to spark here. I really just want to bring attention to this issue, more so than I can sending a few emails to someone who quite frankly doesn’t give a damn.

8

Given that incest (for varying definitions of incest) is one of the three universal taboos occurring in every tribe and society, laying this particular prohibition at the feet of “big government” is rather silly.

Fee free to oppose such laws, but if you are serious, you are more likely to win with a move to change the definition of particular acts to get them outside the definition of incest than you are to actually get society to overthrow a universal taboo simply by invoking the “big government” boogeyman.

9

There were taboos against incest long before “Big Government” was invented. Genetic effects can be dire–especially after generations of inbreeding. And there’s often a coercive element–when one party is under age.

I suggest you find another “cause.”

10

Fair enough it’s more of a social taboo than a big government issue. However that taboo is forsaken. How does pedophilia become less of a taboo in many cultures than incest? How does literal rape become a lesser evil than consensual sex? The point here is it’s hypocritical. Once we fought for the rights on behalf of someones sexuality specifically homosexuality, we open pandora’s box. There is no going back as someone who feels it’s the “american way” to uphold freedom and justice across the boards. Hypocrisy even if historically embedded, is not something I see as “American”.

I have the freedom to contribute to politicians for their careers. I have the freedom to move my business out of this country to another one yet still operate inside the country. I have the freedom to be a racist belligerent bigot. I even have the freedom to exploit mentally handicap people for my own sexual pleasure. I am an American, If I want to have sexual intercourse with my mother as an adult I very well have the right to do so. Whether it is been social taboo for millenniums or not, I have the right to have sex with whoever is willing to consent and has the mental capacity or at least biology to do such things on their own will. That’s the theory anyways.

I’m just now learning this is not the case. There are laws in place regulating who I have intercourse with beyond that of reasonable boundaries (age, mental status). This is an injustice that is not brought to light because of the conservative way of thinking it’s a taboo. It’s not harming anyone, at most it harms a child who may be born or corrupts our gene pool. However couldn’t the exact same be said for homosexuals within my own life time?

11

It’s been touched upon, but unlike gay marriage, incest laws don’t come from a place of ‘eww gross’ they actually come from science. I’m going off the top of my head here, but IIRC, certain genetic diseases that can be recessive and not do anything for generation after generation after generation of family members and and not doing anything when one of those people has a child with someone that doesn’t have that trait will suddenly show up when two family members, both with the same recessive gene. Since it’s genetic, it runs in the bloodline and therefore more likely that two people in the same family are likely to carry it vs two random people.

Just as a totally random example (and I have no idea if it’s the case here). Maybe half my family carries a recessive gene for cerebral palsy (I know one cousin has it). If two recessive genes can cause it, inbreeding is more likely to cause offspring with it. OTOH, if we mate with other ‘random’ people, the chance that one of our mates will also carry that gene are statistically less.

If you want to look at it from a government perspective, if you live around me, you’re probably helping to pay for my cousin’s insurance if she’s on any kind of social welfare or her family gets any money from the goverment to help pay for her disability. And, for sure, your insurance is higher because of the extra payouts made to her. The less inbreeding, the more your taxes go down.
Couple of things of note that I think are important:
1)In certain parts of the country incest is a bit more lax than it is in other parts. For example in RI the only rule is that you can’t get married. In MN, you can’t have sex with a first cousin or closer.
2)Hypocrisy? I feel like people toss that word around without know what it means? What do you mean by it. Are you suggesting that the people or person that made and/or uphold that law are themselves involved in invest, because that would be hypocrisy.
3)It doesn’t ‘hurt nobody’ at best, it costs the tax payers money, at worst it further spreads genes that are generally considered unwanted without people realizing it.
4)The biggest one, if you want to have sex with your kid, go nuts, but ya know what…keep your mouth shut about it. Do you know why they were arrested for it? Do you know why thus was on the news? Because they made it public knowledge (they got married). If they had just boinked each other in the privacy of their own house and not said anything to anyone else, no one would have ever known.
The same goes for the pot/heroin/meth head that keeps to himself, has a steady job and pay his bills but ends up getting arrested because he mentions it to a neighbor who drops a dime or the person that does [something else bad that doesn’t hurt anyone] and posts pictures on facebook about it.
When it comes to crimes that don’t involve anyone else, if you keep your yapper shut and do it in private, you’ll probably stay out of trouble.

12

Wait what? You want to know why you can have sex with a woman that’s ready, willing and wants to have sex with you, but it’s wrong to violently penetrate someone that actively and vocally is telling you to leave them alone? Are you serious?

Again, I don’t think you understand what hypocritical means. It doesn’t mean ‘I don’t agree with it’ and while we’re here, ‘freedom’ doesn’t equal anarchy or absence of laws or I can do whatever I want. What if someone said ‘I think this burglary law is stupid and hypocritical, it’s a free country I can go anywhere I want’ and just walks into your house and takes all your stuff. Freedom, amirite.

You’re correct up until the point about incest, that’s illegal. Like it or not, it’s illegal. It’s not ‘taboo’, it a jailable offense.

How? If we work under the assumption that sometime in the next 50 years science finds a way for men to impregnate men or women to impregnate women AND we find that a statistically significant amount of those offspring have some sort of problem, I could forsee it being made illegal or heavily regulated. But it’s not the case, it’s not even on the horizon, comparing incest to gay marriage/sex isn’t the same, so it’s really not worth fighting the hypothetical since it doesn’t really relate.

13
  1. Yes, because they had an invested interest in upholding public appeal. Hillary clinton was against gay marriage her entire career, then suddenly shes for it. If we accept the assertion homosexuality is normal, then we must also assume we can accept other sexual preferences. In this case being incest, I could even argue pedophilia but that would be a different topic, still the same principle applies.

In relation to your point, if we claim homosexuality is acceptable within closed doors, we must also claim incest is acceptable, and even pedophilia. You have a dare I say evil way of viewing this. Letting people stay isolated is never a good thing. It breeds further conflict. I’ll try to give an example: If a family commits incest, then their children (who are a result of incest) are subjected to it but see society rejects them it. This causes not only social conflict but conflicts of interests. It causes these people to become more indulgent… less attuned with society as a whole. Ultimately it is a form of social isolation.

Maybe I’m just being naive here, but I believe people behave better when they don’t feel what they are doing is wrong. At least in retrospective they are. Nobody is truly a bad person. The things people do, the things we ridicule them for, the things they feel doesn’t out weigh the social stigma of it all, are all a fundamental part of being human beings. Anyone can make the claim you’re a terrible person for A B C, but the fact is you are a person. You are committing A B C. So long as ABC doesn’t negatively affect XYZ then there is nothing wrong with it. Sure put in a hundred other variables, but the fact remains it’s liberty. Something this country fundamentally was founded on.

14

That was satirical questioning to emphasis my point. Perhaps I’m just bad at constructing my thoughts.

Not being black and white here. I’m stating the fact once we do something, we can’t undo it. By allowing homosexuality as the norm, we must also accept other sexual preferences are justifiably equal to homo and hetero sex. Arguing it’s unethical, or causes social dilemma is hypocritical to the fact we’ve accepted homosexuality. I believe the analogy here is clear.

Disregarded. I do not care what the current laws are, just because Jim Crow laws were real, doesn’t mean I would of discriminated against blacks.

False equivalence? How: Because if two people consent to sex, and do not have a child, nobody is harmed in the process. Unless you’re trying to argue psychological issues or social ramifications, I do not see an argument being made here.

15

So, this OP is just a clever way of expressing homophobia.

Really not that clever.

16

A gay couple cannot have a child (without technical assistance.) An incestuous couple is at risk. The two cases are not equivalent.

You might have a point regarding social change. Gay sex used to be taboo also, and had a very high “ew, yuck” factor in society. That has changed. Group marriage is also popping up again, and may be rehabilitated. So, who knows: maybe brother-sister marriages – with clear restrictions on pregnancies – might be tolerated by society some day.

I’m not going to join that crusade at this point in time. Wake me when there have been a couple of court cases supporting it.

17

I didn’t say you have an evil way of viewing this, I just used your words about the rape thing.

As far as Hillary, she A)didn’t create the incest laws and B)to be fair, when homosexuality first started to become mainstream in the 90’s, a lot of people were against it. It was different, it was new, people didn’t understand it and resisted the change. Would you prefer if she continued to say ‘nope, not under my watch’ or said ‘hey, I’m okay with it now, what can I do to help’? People came around, they’re allowed to do that. I’m not sure how that makes her a hypocrite WRT to incest. If she was sleeping with Chelsea while siccing the feds on other people for doing the same thing, that would be different. For example, pro-lifers that get abortions, they would be hypocrites. If you can show me where Hillary was saying that incest should be illegal and then was outed for sleeping with a blood relative, we’ll talk. 'til then, no dice.

FTR, I’d suggest you don’t argue the case for pedophilia.

And that homosexuality is acceptable behind closed doors = pedophilia and incest are also acceptable. That reeks of strawman to me. All I was saying there is if they kept to themselves they wouldn’t have been caught or arrested, I didn’t say if it’s right or wrong, just that they probably shouldn’t have made their relationship public in the eyes of the law.

Seeing your most recent post on preview, I’m confused. First, I think you need to look up the definition of hypocrite. Saying that having sex with one group of people but not another is not what makes you a hypocrite. The word doesn’t even make sense there…unless I don’t understand what it means.

False Equivalence. You’re right, comparing incest to homosexual sex is a false equivalence. They both involve having sex (equivalence), one is with a member of your family, the other is with someone of the same gender (false). So it’s a fallacy to say that since gay sex is legal, incest should be as well. As much as I hate slippery slope stuff (but you started it with the pedo thing) to go all A Modest Proposal, that’s like say ‘homosexual sex is legal, so why can’t I have sex with my dead cat?’.

@Bridget I’m not sure if he’s against gay sex or it this is an odd way to attempt to legalize pedophilia (and rape).

I’m not even sure why I’m arguing with someone that asked “How does literal rape become a lesser evil than consensual sex?” as part of an argument for incest. That’s an odd thing to start off an argument with. It’s not even like the discussion had a long winding road and ended up there. It was just a non-sequitur a few posts in.
Hey, maybe I’m wrong, maybe all my posts are one big fallacy, I’ve never been good with this Great Debates stuff. Anyone else is free to take over or tell me I’m wrong.

18

Bad science. The chances of genetic defects are only slightly larger than average. There are many instances where couples are much, much more likely to pass on “genetic defects” to their children, but who are allowed to marry.

Inbreeding can become a problem, genetically, if it is carried on for several generations. But even then, we tread on shaky ground if we start forbidding people to have sex because of the specific of their DNA.

19

It’s legal in New Jersey. Yay us.

20

True, “modern” incest laws came about at a time where the genetics were not quite well understood and a big concern was the risk of “degeneracy”, whatever that was supposed to mean.

But incest prohibitions in general come from time-immemorial proscriptions designed to favor the creation of interfamilial (rather than intra-) bonds and prevent major family conflicts. Which led to things like royals routinely marrying cousins but wanting to annul marriages because of relations more distant than that.

And as things stand right now, recent events don’t indicate any likelihood of change. In fact, where jurisdictions have had their laws merely be silent in the matter of consenting-adult incest, all it takes is some pearl-clutching about it in the media for a bill to be filed explicitly re-outlawing it, so hush now Loach ;).