No, we don’t. We really don’t have to agree that anything and everything is OK merely because we changed our minds on one type of intercourse.
That’s why “slippery slope” is a fallacy - we can stop the slide at any time.
For example, we can argue that homosexual sex is OK when it’s between consenting adults and no one is harmed by the actions involved, but pedophilia is wrong because a child and and adult can not operate as equals in such a relationship and the preponderance of evidence is that such contact between adults and children is very damaging to the child. Therefore, we can ban pedophilia on the basis of the harm it causes.
Likewise, any incest that would otherwise fall under pedophilia (parent/child) would also be taboo. There is the argument (which may or may not be supported by the evidence) that incestous relationships can result in harm to members of the next generation. And so forth.
The legitimate worry about inbred children can (and should!) be avoided with contraception. The other concern with mother-son mating is just the Ick factor. Still, there’s a good case to outlaw such matings, if only because contraception cannot be mandated.
Yes.
Well, there was on-going inbreeding in the Hapsburg family, but fully half (.125) of Carlos II’s inbreeding (.25) was simply due to his parents’ being uncle and niece.
The child of a mother-son union has inbreeding coefficient .25 — the same as that of Carlos II ‘el Hechizado’ — even if there’s no other inbreeding in the pedigree.
Merely being icky, slightly more likely to create a doofus, or taboo isn’t sufficiently reasonable if people are being intellectually honest. People can rightly argue that having intercourse where fecal matter comes out is icky. Laws against that form of ickiness aren’t typically valid anymore. Are folks with a known inheritable genetic defect prevented from procreating much less copulating? I don’t see laws preventing short people or gingers from breeding.
So I don’t see the intellectual consistency. I only see incestophobic arguments being made due to the fact that there isn’t a critical mass that has sufficient political power to worry about.
Murder and theft, again with varying definitions for each. For example murder and theft have not always been recognized as crimes in some cultures when directed against members outside the tribe or clan even when there have been prohibitions against them within the clan, tribe, or society, or they have not been recognized as crimes or when directed against members who have violated other taboos. Similarly, there have been societies that required incest among royalty, (to prevent outsiders “tainting” the divine legacy), while incest among non-royals has still been proscribed.
Some types of incest, where the participants didn’t have an uneven power relationship for most of their lives, might make sense in this day and age, where conception of a child can be managed. Cousins, say, who are not raised in the same household. Even the unlucky case of siblings raised apart who end up marrying.
I cannot look at the mother and son in that news story and believe that there is a healthy power dynamic occurring. There are reasons other than concerns about the health of the offspring to be against incest. Sexual predation is one of them.
It wasn’t just his Carlos’s parents though – THEIR parents had been inbreeding, and THEIR parents before them, and so on and so on. Cousin marriages and uncle-niece marriages were extremely common in the family.
Whatever the historic origins of the incest taboo might be, the current reason for maintaining the law is similar to that for maintaining the law against having sex with someone underage: a quite reasonable fear that any such sex is very likely to be a product of an unpleasantly coercive power dynamic; so much so as to make it a presumption.
The fact that there are no doubt all sorts of situations in which, in individual cases, it can be demonstrated that such a dynamic did not in fact occur, doesn’t lessen the reasons for having the law in place: that there are limited judicial and societal resources that are better spent elsewhere than on conducting in-depth inquires in each and every case as to whether this particular 15 year old is “really” being improperly pressured into sex, this particular daughter is “really” being manipulated by her father into sex, etc.
Now, maybe it could be made a “rebuttable” presumption, rather than strict-liability. There may be good arguments for that.
Hand-waving. We are talking about adults, and this sounds like something from 100 years ago when people told women not to worry their pretty little heads about things. Or, what some pro-life people today say about women getting abortions.
By that logic, we should outlaw arranged marriages, or marriages between people with a significant age difference. The reason we have age of consent laws is to recognize that adults or people above a certain age can make their own decisions.
This puts the whole “pro-choice” thing on it’s ear!
I’m saying what the laws are based on. You are, of course, free to disagree. But I fail to see how either of those analogies makes the slightest bit of sense.
But why do we care about age at all? I’ve seen exactly the same responses to the age based laws BTW - namely, stripped of your (ahem) more colorful analogies, that it is an example of insufferable legal paternalism.
Because there is something significant about being very young. And what is that?
That it creates an uneven power dynamic - the young are presumed not to have the same abilities to resist persuasion or coercion as those “over the age of majority”.
Now, it ought to be obvious that in some cases this simply isn’t true: the “age of majority” is somewhat arbitrary (for one, it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and there is no evidence that, say, a 16 year old (used to be 14 year old) in Canada is more “with it” than an 18 year old in some US states).
Age isn’t the only thing, though, that creates such concerns. Family relationships (yes, between adults) do as well.
You will have a hard time convincing me that a daughter/father or son/mother relationship isn’t generally concerning from this perspective, while (say) a 17 year old with a 22 year old is.
Could the o-Poster’s motives have something to do with his Username.
An attempt to smear some mud around?
Will this create a Google association between his Username, and the word “incest”?
That’s not what the law was based on. But even if it was, it’s antiquated thinking.
Because children aren’t fully formed. Adults are fully formed. Surely you know that.
I don’t actually care whether it’s true or not. There are all kinds of circumstances that create the potential for an unequal power dynamic, including the very fact of being different genders: Rich/poor, large/small, smart/stupid, old/young, educated/uneducated. And yet we don’t interfere with them.
Adults, unless they are declared incompetent, should be free to make their own decisions and not have someone else evaluate if there is too much of a “power dynamic” involved.
However, following your logic, there should be no reason to prevent twins (of any gender combination) from marrying. No power dynamic involved!!
Am I totally wrong in guessing that people who indulge in incestuous sex derive much of their pleasure from the fact that it’s unlawful (or, at least, not socially accepted)? So, there might not be much of av movement to legalize it.
Well, depends on what you mean by incest. In some US states, cousin-cousin relationships are illegal, but in some states they are not. Some states differentiate between blood and step-relatives, some don’t. What’s incest in state A might not be incest in state B. But I think they all ban immediate family members, by blood.
Well, depends on what you mean by incest. In some US states, cousin-cousin relationships are illegal, but in some states they are not. Some states differentiate between blood and step-relatives, some don’t.
And some would ban relations between a the descendant of a great-grandparent and the great-grandparent (talk about the ick factor!) even though the degree of consanguinity is the same as cousin-cousin.
Just for fun, I mapped out Carlos II’s pedigree to see where most of the inbreeding arises. His grandparents were all different so a great-grandparent pedigree is needed to see any inbreeding. Here are the inbreeding coefficients calculated depending on how far you look back:
Pedigree through 1g -grandparents 0.125 (0.145)
Pedigree through 2g -grandparents 0.156 (0.176)
Pedigree through 3g -grandparents 0.176 (0.196)
Pedigree through 4g -grandparents 0.204 (0.225)
Pedigree through 5g -grandparents 0.216 (0.237)
Pedigree through 6g -grandparents 0.219 (0.240)
Pedigree through 7g -grandparents 0.221 (0.242)
The 0.125 is due to the uncle-niece relationship of Carlos’ parents.
This increases to 0.156 because Carlos’ maternal grandfather (Emperor Ferdinand III) was the nephew of Carlos’ paternal grandmother. After that, the inbreeding relationships become more complicated.
Carlos’ parents were themselves inbred (as a larger pedigree would show). Because of this the 0.125 uncle-niece inbreeding is amplified to 0.145, as shown in parentheses; and similarly for the more distant inbreedings.
Due to biological redundancies, a baby with 0.25 coefficient is much more than twice as likely to be non-viable as 0.125 baby, I think.
You cannot do so in any principled fashion. The arguments against homosexual sex and incest were both “Eeeew” or “That is immoral.” The courts have held that those arguments are insufficient as against homosexual sex. They should likewise be insufficient against adult incest.
It is strange that you would use the “what about the children” argument in opposition to legal incest when your side pointed out that sex is not about procreation in the SSM debate.
So, I’ll turn the argument around. How could we constitutionally outlaw incest between consenting adults when at least one partner is infertile? (Either due to age, homosexual incest, or other medical condition)
The child of a mother-son union has inbreeding coefficient .25 — the same as that of Carlos II ‘el Hechizado’ — even if there’s no other inbreeding in the pedigree.