Should Incest Be Illegal?

[Annie]

[color=darkgreen]I most definitely do not agree with incest, in any way. Royalty or poverty, incest/interbreeding between family members isn't right. Why? Medical reasons, mainly. Who would want to risk their children with physical and/or mental handicaps and/or retardation? Who would risk their child's mentality and emotional stability as they grew older?

I sure as hell wouldn't risk it. It's hard enough to be a "normal" child/teenager in today's society. And having that shadow of "your parents are blood related?" over right behind you wouldn't help at all. Besides, if you were the parent of a child who was conceived during an act of incestuous intercourse, how would you be able to keep that from your child? How, when the child [i]may[/i] be physically disfigured, could you explain to them why they look the way they do?

I just don't see how incest could ever be considered "okay". Now, for the topic at hand: it's kind of impossible to say that incest could be illegal. How would that be inforced, for one. You can't stop people from having sexual intercourse. And I don't see how sexual acts could be regulated. [/color]

[Doukeshi]

[COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=1]I know. We're going to put a chip in every human being in the world, a chip that records the genetic code of everyone you have sex with. If it registers that someone you are having sex with has a similar genetic code to you then [I]fzzzt[/I], little electric shock. Of course that may not be a deterrent, I mean some people get off on some crazy stuff soooo, it also sends a little alert to the local police station, so you can expect PC Plod to come knocking any time now ^_~.

Hows that for police action.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Dagger]

[quote name='Annie][color=darkgreen']And I don't see how sexual acts could be regulated. [/color][/quote]
Actually... many states had anti-sodomy laws (some applying both to heterosexuals and homosexuals, some applying only to homosexuals) until very recently. I know there was a 2003 (?) Supreme Court case in which the justices ended up ruling that the anti-sodomy laws in Texas were unconstitutional, so I'm not really sure about the status of such laws now. I believe that this case, however, resulted from the actual arrest of a homosexual couple.*

And interestingly, oral sex is still illegal in quite a few states--including my own, if I recall correctly. Although I'm not sure that anyone really takes such laws seriously.

*Everyone, please note that this is just an example, not an invitation to bring homosexuality into the discussion.

~Dagger~

[Delta]

[COLOR=#95005E][SIZE=1]Which reminds me of my father's hometown. Everyone there is related by blood to everyone. My cousin has a child with a third-degree relation, and since our law has it that "incest" reaches up to the fifth degree, they're pretty much guilty of it. But if I remember correctly, no one among them villagers was born abnormal. The only oddball there is a ridiculously intelligent person who went mad because he can't afford to go to college.

They're all sharing insanely good genes, I say.
doukeshi's zapper will go [i]fzzzt! fzzzt![/i] like crazy over there.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=doukeshi03][COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=1]I know. We're going to put a chip in every human being in the world, a chip that records the genetic code of everyone you have sex with. If it registers that someone you are having sex with has a similar genetic code to you then [I]fzzzt[/I], little electric shock. Of course that may not be a deterrent, I mean some people get off on some crazy stuff soooo, it also sends a little alert to the local police station, so you can expect PC Plod to come knocking any time now ^_~.

Hows that for police action.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Heh that'd be a great solution to the problem, I can just imagine some poor sod walking down the street with his groceries and suddenly he gets a shock and drops everything. It's very doubtful that it could ever been introduced as some of the technicians might just get a kick out of shocking people they know, it'd be the dawn of a whole new age of practical jokes.[/SIZE]

[Roxie Faye]

[color=#9933ff]*nod* about the royal family inbreeding. Tsarina Alexandra (wife of Tsar Nikolas) was a carrier of the haemophiliac gene. Only males can be born with haemophlia & their son, Alexi, had it. He had someone watch over him all the time. That's where Rasputin got involved, because the Tsarina believed he was the only one who could cure Alexi's affliction, or rather, make the bleeding stop once it began.

I have a book in fron of me, with their lineage, so here it is: Alexandra is the daughter of Ludwig IV of Hesse & Alice, who is the dauther of Queen Victoria - both women are carriers of the haemophiliac gene.

Nicholas' parents are Tsar Alexander III & Dagmar. Nothing interesting on his side. Alexandra's own brother, Frederick, was a haemophiliac. He was 3 years old when he died.

And no, you can't challenge me on this because it's from a book, and since my sister is a Romanov freak, I know everything about them. ^^

BUT that further proves the point that incest that leads to children should not be allowed because of genetic reasons. [/color]

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]I... can't believe what I'm hearing. "Incest is wrong, but who are we to stop it from happening?!"

Let's talk about social contract for a moment. Every society (something in which every person - especially if you can read this - is in) has a social contract. To say that one has no responsibility by this contract and can also willingly bring into it an irregular person is ludicrous. You are potentially creating a life that will more than likely suffer. I don't see how you CAN'T make that illegal.

"You know what, it's wrong for people to strut around society naked, but who are we to stop them?" or "You know, it's pretty messed up for people to fling dung everywhere, but who are we to stop them?" How silly! There's no logic supporting "we have no right as a society that maintains each others' existence to make any compromise" (the statement itself even, I hope you realize, isn't logical in the least).[/COLOR]

[Doukeshi]

[COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=1][QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]I... can't believe what I'm hearing. "Incest is wrong, but who are we to stop it from happening?!"

Let's talk about social contract for a moment. Every society (something in which every person - especially if you can read this - is in) has a social contract. To say that one has no responsibility by this contract and can also willingly bring into it an irregular person is ludicrous. You are potentially creating a life that will more than likely suffer. I don't see how you CAN'T make that illegal.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Well technically that's like saying you shouldn't allow people with recessive mental or disability genes to reproduce. Also, we're not just talking about reproduction here, essentially its all about the sex, that's what people don't like.

In your own home, you can pretty much do what you want as long as it isn't harming another individual. This is different from you saying people can walk around naked and we can't stop them etc, because that is effecting the community, its harming other people in sense (although this is debatable)

Therefore you can have sex with your sister if she consents to it, its crazy, weird, creepy and ay other word you can think of to that effect, but not illegal. I personally don't think anyone should do it, but to make it illegal would encroach on your private rights.

(ya know, I'm saying this but I'm not even sure it is legal in the UK. Also I think it [I]should[/I] be illegal but I am looking at the subject from a rational point of view.)[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[James]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]
"You know what, it's wrong for people to strut around society naked, but who are we to stop them?" or "You know, it's pretty messed up for people to fling dung everywhere, but who are we to stop them?" How silly! There's no logic supporting "we have no right as a society that maintains each others' existence to make any compromise" (the statement itself even, I hope you realize, isn't logical in the least).[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I think you're misunderstanding the angle that people like me are coming from, though.

First of all, how on earth is this law going to be policed? Are you going to have cops in people's bedrooms or what?

Secondly, what right do you have to legislate people's sex lives? As I've repeatedly said, I don't think anyone here is actually agreeing with incest. But many of us acknowledge that it's literally impossible to police people's individual sexual activities.

Conservatives frequently have this backward notion that people's bedrooms should be somehow controlled by legal standards. That's utter nonsense. Not only is it impossible to police, but it's a massive invasion of privacy - isn't the whole idea to keep Government [i]out[/i] of people's private homes, so that it may deal with issues that actually matter?

I think doukeshi actually summarises the point pretty well. There's a key difference between incest among consenting adults and, say, rape or pedophilia. In the latter cases, we are talking about unwilling participants being forced into an act of violence. In the former case, we're talking about two adults having sex.

I may not have an interest in incest, but I have no right to literally stop those two adults from having sex. It's none of my business what they do in their bedroom. I don't know why people are so interested in people's sex lives, honestly. lol[/color][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]Don't confuse "law" with "law enforcement." It's [B]law[/B] that a person on a subway purchase a ticket, but it is [B]enforced[/B] by random inspections.

I really think you are overdramatizing the whole privacy issue. There are a ton of cases where, without ever being in a place, a crime was discovered and the culprit was apprehended and punished. Also, suspcious activity - even if it takes place in the bedroom - is a good enough reason to enforce a law, or at least to look into matters. Just as much as sex can take place in any private setting, so can things like murder. This creates a problem if the government is just going to turn a blind eye.

The current logic you are employing is that if a murder happens inside a bedroom, there should be nothing done about it (or there can't be anything done about it). Afterall, it's their bedroom and the privacy of their bedroom is certainly impossible to circumvent. If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means.

Regardless of this logical flaw, enforcement is not the issue at hand. It's absolutely irrelevant to what becomes a law. Hypothetically, if there was no way to enforce life protection (i.e., stopping people from killing one another), then by way of your logic, it might as well not be illegal. Hell, P2P was unstoppable at one time, and look at it now. Only after specific laws were created for it did (more) effective methods of enforcement come into play. Just because there appears no way to maintain privacy and law enforcement doesn't mean that's the case. Also, there's the case of greater good at stake - but again, to talk about enforcement is to get off-topic.

And a significant number of people will follow a law, even if it's not enforced. Some people even believe that following certain laws are necessary, even if you are 100% sure of not getting caught. If it's wrong, it should be illegal. Plain and simple. Maybe for people who do not reside in a society, we have no right to intervene, but even then...[/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] Don't compare apples to oranges. Murder is totally different from incest. Logic can be applied differently to different cases.

As everyone else has said... if there is law made against incest, law enforcement would be lacking. Perhaps if there was a law against incest marraige...but I think there already is. I'm not sure.

On another branch of thought: Do siblings who have incestous relationships have a mental or genetic issue? I was almost afraid to ask this, just because of the rudeness of it, but I just wonder. If indeed they do, there is a greater chance that some law is not going to stop them. This whole paragraph has been written solely on a thought, I'm probably wrong in some way.[/color]

[Chaos]

[QUOTE=Havokio][COLOR=Indigo]It should be illegal, whether or not it's the immediate family, or distant relatives. But it also shouldn't. Why?

Adam and Eve. I'm not religious, but I read the bible. Eve was made from Adam. They bore children, and they bore children. If any of this is true at all, then aren't we all byproducts of incest?

On a scientific standpoint, we were also byproducts of incest.

If so, then we are all commiting incest when having sex with ANYONE.

So, if we use this technicality, then having sex would be illegal.

So, yes in normal terms, no in technical.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]


You should be slapped for using a metaphorical, illogical, and whimsical STORY for your basis on this discussion.


On topic, incest, when dealing with immediate and somewhat distant blood relations, should be illegal, for the simple fact that it not only can supply the world with physically and mentally handicapped offspring, but can also further the advance of sexually transmitted diseases. But when you have a very distant cousin or you are related to someone through marriage, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I wouldn't specifically complain. As long as it doesn't have any possible and dire harm to the outside population, I could care less.

[Gelgoog Pilot]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I think you're misunderstanding the angle that people like me are coming from, though.

First of all, how on earth is this law going to be policed? Are you going to have cops in people's bedrooms or what?

Secondly, what right do you have to legislate people's sex lives? As I've repeatedly said, I don't think anyone here is actually agreeing with incest. But many of us acknowledge that it's literally impossible to police people's individual sexual activities.

Conservatives frequently have this backward notion that people's bedrooms should be somehow controlled by legal standards. That's utter nonsense. Not only is it impossible to police, but it's a massive invasion of privacy - isn't the whole idea to keep Government [i]out[/i] of people's private homes, so that it may deal with issues that actually matter?

I think doukeshi actually summarises the point pretty well. There's a key difference between incest among consenting adults and, say, rape or pedophilia. In the latter cases, we are talking about unwilling participants being forced into an act of violence. In the former case, we're talking about two adults having sex.

I may not have an interest in incest, but I have no right to literally stop those two adults from having sex. It's none of my business what they do in their bedroom. I don't know why people are so interested in people's sex lives, honestly. lol[/color][/font][/QUOTE]

You're right, there is no way to effectively police it...but because of the fact that it usually ISN'T two adults performing it but rather an adult and a young child...it makes us want to try and police it...

I'm pretty sure it's illegal in the U.S. can someone back me up on this?...Then again there is all of that incest porn around >.> Don't ask how I found THAT out...

[James]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]
The current logic you are employing is that if a murder happens inside a bedroom, there should be nothing done about it (or there can't be anything done about it). Afterall, it's their bedroom and the privacy of their bedroom is certainly impossible to circumvent. If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means.

[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]You are still fundamentally misunderstanding my point, though. You're telling me not to confuse "law" and "law enforcement" (and I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that they are intrinsically linked), but you are confusing "sexual relations between consenting adults" and "violence perpetrated against an individual".

Your example there is absolutely ridiculous. And it's extreme. I have just finished saying, over and over again, that I am [b]not[/b] talking about a crime perpetrated against someone. I am talking about sexual activities between two consenting adults. There is a key difference there.

This is why I would still keep things such as rape and pedophilia illegal - if a father rapes his daughter, I'm thinking that he's a rapist and a pedophile. And those are the laws under which he should be prosecuted.

But if two adult cousins are having sex in their own house, am I going to go in there and prosecute them? I think that's ridiculous. You are taking two adults and you are telling them that they don't have the right to make a choice about their sex lives - you are effectively legislating sexual acts.

Again, I'll reiterate, just so that there is no confusion.

I am [b]not[/b] saying that a father raping his daughter should be legal. I am drawing a distinction between two consenting adults participating in a sexual act, versus one party preying on another. There is a fundamental difference there - the difference between "sex" and "rape".

Nobody is saying that if a murder occurs in a bedroom that it shouldn't be prosecuted or investigated. That's just asenine. And it totally misunderstands everything I've been saying here thusfar. When I talk about "in the bedroom", I'm talking about sexual acts between two consenting adults. I am [b]not[/b] talking about murder or rape or any other crime where one person is preying on another.[/color][/font]

[Godelsensei]

The basis for creating a law against something is that it is hurting other people.

In the case of incest, one can argue that any child produced through it will be subject to genetic defects, therefore incest is hurting that potential child.

However, if one of the participants is sterile, or if the couple is homosexual, there is no possibility of harm coming to a potential child. If a man and a woman, both capable of reproduction, are involved in an incestuous relationship, but use multiple contraceptives and do not plan to, under any circumstances, have a child (morning-after pill, etc...), no one is being hurt through the act of incest.

Therefore, incest should not be illegal, as long as there is no chance of it resulting in the birth of a child.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Yeah, this is starting to get into the territory that I've been talking about - not outlawing a specific consentual adult relationship.

Whether you outlaw reproduction or not, I don't know. And again, I don't know how that would be policed. I also don't really know about the whole genetic defect thing...I suspect that none of us here are experts on that subject. So that's a big question mark, which in turn places a question mark over the whole question of how else you'd legislate this type of thing.

But still, my intention isn't even to argue that there should be no laws relating to this type of thing (ie: health or reproduction laws). My only point is that the government has absolutely no business policing the relationships of consenting adults.[/color][/font]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Just to point out to everyone, the only problem with cousins marrying etc. is social stigma. The risk of deformity or mental retardation is above that of the general populace, but nowhere near the extent of direct family. So, cousins 'getting together' isn't much of a problem, genetically. The blood is considered 'diluted' enough that there is a fairly low chance of birth problems.[/size]

[Momiji Love]

[SIZE=1]Incest is not only against my religion,but also my morals. Its not like I'm all 'ew! You messed around with your cousin!' or anything.The issue comes up in my art class and at the lunch table all the time.My 3rd cousin by marriage Tyler and I are constantly reminded,"If you're third cousins its okay" and other comments such as.

And Rheanna and Kim who are obsessed with "The Ring 2" and the part where the momma says to the boy warming up (with clothes on) in the bathtub of hot water,"Do you want me to get in there with you?"

I just think they should've chose their words more carefully.Its just the perverseness (sp?) of society. :animesigh

But I don't think it should be illegal.What can you do about it? Love happens.[/SIZE]

[Godelsensei]

[QUOTE=Momiji Love][SIZE=1]And Rheanna and Kim who are obsessed with "The Ring 2" and the part where the momma says to the boy warming up (with clothes on) in the bathtub of hot water,"Do you want me to get in there with you?"

I just think they should've chose their words more carefully.Its just the perverseness (sp?) of society.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I haven't seen the Ring, but I can assume that it was just a mother being affectionate.

Secondly, perverse and perverted are different words! They mean completely different things! Gah!

(I can't stand people making that mistake...nothing against you in particular. : /)

[Momiji Love]

[SIZE=1]None taken dahlin.I'm used to my uncultured and gutter-minded classmates.Not to say you are like that but yeah.

And I choose to say perversness instead of trying to make up a word (i.e. pervertostidity...yeah.)

Its just the spelling.Please note the blonde's -(sp?)ing- after the word.Not so sond cheeky or anythin'.

And to sta on subject,I would like to applaud James.Very good points sir.[/SIZE]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Perversity, lol.

Incest is perhaps something that can't be adequately licensed against. But I do think that it should be illegal. What people do behind closed doors should be private, and only their business. But if a child is formed, the parents should be found guilty of a crime, and charged accordingly. It's not fair on the child.[/size]

[Kamuro]

yes yes, it's not fair to the child, I'm not sure I would bring it the legal extent, but it is definitely morally wrong. However, people are able to make their own decisions and as Baron previously pointed out, the risks involving cousins are much lower then previously identified. And there is a difference between two cousins and a mother and son or father and daughter. There is certain extents to incest and theres lots more to be considered then "its wrong" concerning the creation of a law against it.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='vegeta rocker']Not to preach or anything but its God's will that stuff like that not go on. Anybody i know who has gone against god in this way has had a lot of trouble. It just isn't meant to happen.[/quote]
Though I am not a theist, I am well versed in christianity. Wouldn't the children of Adam and Eve be guilty of incest? After having children, there would be only immediate family members to all. The sons had do have sex with someone, mother or sister.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Oh, no!1!! goD dUZN't lyK inCeST!1! im d00mED!!!1

But really. "I know people who've committed incest and had bad stuff happen to them". Well, I know perfectly nice people who've had horrible stuff happen to them. It's a fool's logic.

"I eat a clove of garlic every day, and I've never been attacked by a vampire. It [b]must[/b] work!"[/size]

[Chaos]

[quote name='vegeta rocker']Not to preach or anything but its God's will that stuff like that not go on. Anybody i know who has gone against god in this way has had a lot of trouble. It just isn't meant to happen. That's my opinion.[/quote]

Sorry, but I just have to comment on this.

Yet, at the same time, God gave us free will, according to the Bible and related preachings. Also, God has also sworn to never act upon the mortal realm again after the Great Flood until the end of our time. So, I don't think he's going around smiting the girl next door for diggin' on her older brother.

"OMG U PHAIL"