I’m not actually sure why it is hypocritical to say “X is okay, Y is not”, even if the reasons for making those determinations are arbitrary.
It would be hypocritical to say “X is not okay” while engaging in activity X, but I don’t see how that applies to this situation.
The effort, of course, was to equate X and Y, so that “X is okay, but X is not” appears contradictory, if not hypocritical per se. A lot of amateur rhetoricians charge hypocrisy when any form of contradiction is perceived, and a lot of charges of contradiction are justified by false equivalences.
(And I’ve got the lyrics to “Uncle Fukka” going through my head now.)
I honestly don’t know, but I’d be doubtful if it worked like that. Why would viability be linearly related to the coefficient of relatedness?. It’s only linear if you know that the defective allele exists in the two individuals, and not every family has such alleles in the first place. One of the classic examples is Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews, and while many AJs are carriers, not all are. You couldn’t just say that AJ siblings have a 25% (or 50%) chance of conceiving a child with Tay-Sachs unless you know they are carriers.
I’ll have to search for a cite later, but going from memory, I think the probability of a genetic defect for random coupling is something like 3-4%, for cousin-cousin mating it goes up to about 6% and for sibling mating it goes to about 9%. But that number also raises to around 7% for random mating when the woman is over 40 years old, so we need to keep that In perspective.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with sexual/romantic relations between close relatives, so long as:
But that’s just me. I understand how most people find it squicky; it’s in the nature of animals that reproduce sexually to avoid relations with close relatives.
In any case, it certainly isn’t a prohibition by “big government.” Every government has these rules, from villages and townships, and even pre-industrial tribes, all the way up to Red China. If a small town in Maine were to hold an open democratic council, where everybody who showed up got to vote, they would maintain the ban on incest.
(Also the ban on nudity. They’ve seen Mr. and Mrs. Van der Haafen in swimsuits, and that was plenty enough.)
I don’t expect incest to be legalized.
So I don’t see who’s going to fight for it.
I won’t be shocked to see polygamy legalized, though.
The coefficient of inbreeding simply estimates the (very large!) total number of an individual’s rare homozygous alleles. These alleles can be good or bad. but the more an individual has, the greater the chance that some of them will be disruptive.
I’m not saying it is hypocritical, I am just saying that there does not appear to be any principled justification for differing treatment.
If Alabama wants to outlaw homosexual sodomy and the courts say “no” because Alabama’s belief that such activity is immoral cannot trump the right of free people to engage in sexual activity in private, then I don’t see how the same courts could rule differently if we substitute “adult incest” for “homosexual sodomy.”
I’m not saying they are the same thing, but the same justification is used for banning both of them, and both have the same long tradition of being prohibited by governments since time immemorial.
I wasn’t kidding above. It’s legal in New Jersey. Marriage of close family members is not allowed but there is no prohibition on sex as long as both are adults.
Well, there’s the inbreeding issue, which is not a factor in any homosexual coupling, even if the participants are closely related.
To be as consistent as possible, I suppose, any incest ban should be aimed exclusively at heterosexuals.
Incorrect.
The arguments against homosexual sex were basically
[ul]
[li]“eww”[/li][li]God says not to[/li][/ul]
The arguments against incest are basically
[ul]
[li]“eww”[/li][li]God says not to[/li][li]dangers of inbreeding (which may or may not be realistic)[/li][li]coercive power relationships that damage people (parent-young child incest, essentially, pedophillia between related parties)[/li][/ul]
So while, arguably, we have eliminated the first two on both lists, two additional ones remain for incest. In this thread those arguing it should be legal are whittling away at the genetic concerns both via data on actual effects of inbreeding and arguing for birth control when the partners are fertile, and slicing out situations such as parent/young child as being a sub-set of pedophillia. That doesn’t mean the argument has been made, we’re still discussing it.
Now, maybe there might be a society that would allow homosexual incest but not heterosexual (due to concerns about inbreeding), or allow sibling incest but not parent/child, or some other variation, just as there have been societies that largely banned incest but either condoned it in royalty or even somewhat mandated it for royals.
Still, there is no requirement that incest be legalized because homosexual sex is legalized any more that legalizing homsexual marriage mandates polygamy or marriage to animals.
If we’re to believe conservatives oppose “big government”, is the OP suggesting conservatives are pro- (or at least not con-) incest?
I believe the argument for SSM wasn’t “sex is not about procreation” but “marriage is about far more than just procreation”. Homosexual sex was already legal in most jurisdictions, maybe all.
So what else is marriage about? It’s about creating new family, and society recognizing your partner as your next-of-kin. I would argue that it superfluous for those who are so closely related as to be affected by the incest laws. They already are family, and so long as they avoid marrying someone else, they can designate each other as next-of-kin already. So they don’t need marriage.
No, it isn’t what the laws were based on. If you read my post, you’d know I wasn’t arguing that it was. The laws were originally based on societal taboo.
I was saying that this is what justifies the laws now. And I do not think it is “antiquated thinking” at all (is that even an argument?)
Surely you know what a “rhetorical question” is? Yet you respond as if it was literal.
Whether you “care” or not isn’t part of the debate.
And yet, some we do.
For example: as a society, we discourage in many cases adults having sex with other adults who are in positions of power, influence and authority over them: for example, doctors and patients, teachers and pupils, officers and enlisted persons.
Cites:
Teachers can’t have sex with students in many jurisdictions:
Officers/other ranks too:
Far from being “antiquated thinking”, many of these prohibitions are reasonably recent. The better attack is that they are ‘bad modern thinking’, if you want to attack it.
Given the evident modern need to address the alleged societal problem of persons with improper influence using that influence to indulge in sexual relationships, it simply stands to reason that family relationships - the most obvious example of a relationship of influence - ought to be included.
That’s a statement of libertarian principle, but not, alas, an accurate description of the actual laws of our society. As amply demonstrated above, there are numerous examples where that principle is ignored.
We can argue all day over whether such libertarian principles are a good thing or a bad thing, and maybe we should, but first let’s get some sort of acknowledgement about what the actual trends in the law are here. This isn’t “antiquated”, it is modern.
There are always going to be cases in which the presumption doesn’t hold true (that goes for “underage sex” as well, of course). Not that I would concede that siblings don’t have influence over each other.
Well, any two people in a relationship have influence over each other. I don’t think there’s any reasonable expectation that twins have the sort of power imbalance that typically exists in incestuous relationships. But yeah, there are always exceptions.
Heh, to expand on this - that’s the problem with regulating any behavior where the facts exist along a continuum. You can always find individual cases where the facts don’t fit the alleged motivation for the law in the first place.
Take age of majority, the analogy we’ve been working from. Everyone agrees (I hope) that adults having sex with four-year-olds ought to be prohibited. But it is trivially easy to attack existing age of consent laws for inconsistency, arbitrariness, or pointing out exceptions where they ought not to apply.
For example - one can point to the fact that the alleged ages of consent vary by jurisdiction and over time, meaning that the same person is judged to be “fully competent” in one time and place, and “utterly incompetent” in another - in some cases, simply by stepping across a border.
So why have such laws that create strict liability for (say) having sex with those under 16, and not just judge every case on its own merits? Because individual justice as a goal has to be measured against other societal and legal goals, like predictability, consistency, and use of scarce judicial resources.
A bit off topic but I’m just suggesting conservatives uphold tradition over policy. A more blatant example would be abortion. Conservatives want government to regulate our sexuality and prevent us from having abortions, both of which are liberties. What I’m really saying here is it’s hypocritical, that is the main point of all of this.
Liberties are violated without a reasonable thesis. As people have already argued, the counter argument against incest is either of two things: Ethics, or lack of genetic diversity. There is little to no scientific evidence proving a single inbred child will result in a corrupted gene pool. At this time I do not believe we have sufficient knowledge to say a generation of inbreeding will result in anything worst than what we are on a daily basis exposed to. (at least for pregnant women or soon to be pregnant)
If a family wants to inbreed to keep their blood line pure, they should have every right to do so. Big Government has no justification for telling us who to have sex with. Neither ethical or scientific. My main argument by incest is those who are of age, and consent to it. There is still the problem of sexual manipulation, however if that’s the argument then we need to disallow having sex with the mentally handicap because they may not be capable of processing such things, and easily manipulated.
So, I fully expect “Barack Obama” to lead the Incest Pride Parade. With his Mom & his daughter at his side! Let us know the date & time so we can call the news media!
A family wanting to inbreed to “keep their blood line pure” will involve numerous gernerations. The Hapsburgs have already been mentioned. And the aristocratic family of Toulous-Lautrec; note the basket case in this family portrait.
Oh, abortion! So, this is actually a cunning & subtle attack on the right to choice. Not just on homosexuality.
Incestophobic bigotry is hateful. Why be disgusted or hateful of grown people living their lives peacefully?
Is it because there isn’t a critical mass that is politically exploitable? And since when is the legitimacy of a sexual act correlated with the chance of viable offspring?
My earlier post questioned your use of “hypocrisy”. Sure, conservatives (and in fairness, liberals and indeed most anyone on any political spectrum) may be making arbitrary determinations about what they are okay and not okay with, but it’s only “hypocritical” if they engage in a behaviour that they claim to want banned.
I could buy that easily with abortion (famous essay on the topic) for some conservatives, but who are the private incest practitioners who are public incest-ban promoters?
Sure, a generation of inbreeding. And one piece of litter won’t pollute the environment in any significant way.
How many generations in a “line” ? I presume more than one child will have to be involved, since one child alone isn’t going to be reproducing at all, incestuously or otherwise.
Well, the government doesn’t have to be “Big” - there are numerous historical examples of these kinds of laws and taboos that long-predate modern forms of government, unless you mean that a government that bans incest is “Big” by definition, in which case the adjective is useless.
While I recognize the basis of your argument, the best I can offer is that I wouldn’t personally oppose the striking of anti-incest laws, to the extent of limiting it to consenting adults, etc. That said, good luck rounding up supporters.
But if this whole line of argument is some kind of red herring, leading to a conclusion of “well, since we can’t legalize incest, we should re-criminalize homosexuality”, then you shouldn’t have wasted your time or ours.