NY Post - ‘Consensual incest’ should be decriminalized, advocates say

[HenryChinaski]

I.... agree. Consensual incest should not be illegal. Change My Mind.

I've yet to come across an actual, valid argument for them being illegal - every argument against it that I've seen, quickly falls apart or shows flagrant double standards, and typically just ends up being a complicated excuse to say "eww, it grosses me out, so it should be illegal" (plenty of things gross me out, including incest, yet I don't think the government has any place telling people not to do it - incest, guys having sex with guys, transgender people having sex with anyone, fat people having sex with anyone, eating cilantro, etc.).

If some grown adult wants to marry, or have a romantic/sexual relationship with another grown adult who happens to be related to them, they should be able to.

‘Consensual incest’ should be decriminalized, advocates say

Consensual incest advocates are rooting for an anonymous New York parent who wants to marry their own adult child. Australian Richard Morris, who is pushing to change incest laws in about 60 countr…

nypost.com

You got a hot sister or something?

You got an inability to ****ing read the OP or something?

You're the one advocating ****ing your sister if you so choose. that's pretty nasty dude

 

[Gondwanaland]

You got a hot sister or something?

You're the one advocating ****ing your sister if you so choose. that's pretty nasty dude

Which part of this:
"(plenty of things gross me out, including incest, yet I don't think the government has any place telling people not to do it - incest, guys having sex with guys, transgender people having sex with anyone, fat people having sex with anyone, eating cilantro, etc.)."

did your small little reptile brain not manage to read and comprehend?

But thanks for making it clear you can't come up with an argument.

 

[lurchadams]

You, my friend, are a moron who clearly did not read my OP in which I said that personally, things like incest, homosexuality, etc., are not things that I like, endorse, or would do. Yet I support the rights of others to do those things. How is this a hard concept to grasp? I don't have to approve of or endorse something to think the government shouldn't make it illegal. I don't smoke weed, can't even stand the smell. Yet I support the right of others to choose what to put in their body without the government making it illegal.

Clearly freedom is something you are incapable of understanding.

"You would support the right of others to do those things" <-- This an endorsement.

When someone such as you, an clear denier of his own perversion calls me a moron, it's a compliment.

So, thanks!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

why would anyone necessarily need to know they are 69th and 71st cousins? just have sex ....no children.

That isn’t incest.

 

[Gondwanaland]

"You would support the right of others to do those things" <-- This an endorsement.

No. It is not. It is allowing other people to behave freely as they wish.

When someone such as you, an clear denier of his own perversion calls me a moron, it's a compliment.

So, thanks!

And there you go with the idiocy again because you cannot formulate an actual argument.

 

[Mithrae]

See, here you go making stuff up. No, there is not a major power imbalance anymore than other currently-accepted relationships. And no, incest does not consist solely of 'parent/offspring relationships' either.

There obviously is a major power imbalance between a kid/young adult and the parent who raised her, and that - the increased potential for coercion and particularly grooming - obviously is a problem for assuming valid 'consent' in such a relationship. Other relationships with a major power imbalance do exist, yes, but that problem doesn't magically fix the obvious problems of parent/offspring relationships and, as I pointed out, A) those other imbalanced relationships aren't exactly "accepted" just difficult to legislate on and B) they're a tiny fraction of legal relationships, the exception rather than the norm, whereas the power imbalance would be the overwhelming norm for parent/offspring relationships.

As for cousins etc., I largely agree with what Roguenuke posted. It's not the all-or-nothing issue you seem to be trying to make it out to be. There are excellent reasons for concern over parent/offspring relationships and to a lesser extent younger/older sibling relationships (in addition to the genetic thing, which I don't know much about). But those reasons don't seem to apply so much to cousins, so by all means if it can earn popular support rules against that may as well be changed.

 

[Mr Person]

Don't bite.

This is just a hamfisted attempt to try to get you to say things which OP will then use to attack gay and trans people. They won't be applicable, of course, because different things are different. But that's what OP wants to do anyway.

Don't bite.

 

[Cameron]

I.... agree. Consensual incest should not be illegal. Change My Mind.

I've yet to come across an actual, valid argument for them being illegal - every argument against it that I've seen, quickly falls apart or shows flagrant double standards, and typically just ends up being a complicated excuse to say "eww, it grosses me out, so it should be illegal" (plenty of things gross me out, including incest, yet I don't think the government has any place telling people not to do it - incest, guys having sex with guys, transgender people having sex with anyone, fat people having sex with anyone, eating cilantro, etc.).

If some grown adult wants to marry, or have a romantic/sexual relationship with another grown adult who happens to be related to them, they should be able to.

‘Consensual incest’ should be decriminalized, advocates say

Consensual incest advocates are rooting for an anonymous New York parent who wants to marry their own adult child. Australian Richard Morris, who is pushing to change incest laws in about 60 countr…

nypost.com

Inbreeding is bad and there are a whole host of questions about "consent" when dealing with family relationships since the family relationship (if not the sexual relationship) often develops while at least one of the members is underage. That alone is plenty reason to ban incestuous relationships and completely differentiates such relationships from gay, transgender, cross-racial, etc., relationships.

 

[Cameron]

Ah, the first fragile argument emerges. And as I pointed out, we do not prevent Ashkenazi Jews from procreating or marrying, despite the fact that they are highly likely to pass along genetic diseases to their kids. We also don't prevent black people from procreating if they might pass along sickle cell anemia.

In addition, this argument further falls apart when one considers a couple where one or both of the incestuous partners is infertile. And finally it collapses entirely when one considers that there are gay and lesbian incestuous couples, wherein no procreation between the two of them exists and thus there is zero increase in potential for birth defects.



There are all sorts of unequal and power-imbalanced relationships out there. We don't stop them from having their relationships or marrying. In addition, your argument fails in cases where, say, a parent gave their child up for adoption at infancy, and later, when both were adults, found them (knowingly or not), and entered into a relationship with them. So that's that argument well shredded.


See above. That argument fails on quite a few levels listed there.

Appeal to nature fallacy, and, as I noted in the OP always happens, your arguments simply devolved into 'it's icky'.

There is a significant difference between barring someone from having a sexual relationship with a parent or sibling and barring an Ashkenazi Jew or black people with sicke cell anemia from any sexual relationship.

The fact that some incestuous couples may choose not to have children is not a reason to avoid discouraging incestuous relationships. That's like saying that we shouldn't ban rape because some people like rape play, or other people might get falsely accused of rape.

What "unequal and power-imbalanced relationships" do we permit that you are comparing an incestuous relationship to? Your argument that a parent might give up their child for adoption and then twenty years later meet and want to have sex with them only demonstrates the fallacy of your own point -- nothing about that extremely unlikely scenario warrants adopting a policy which allows many many highly problematic incestuous relationships to develop.

 

[Gondwanaland]

There obviously is a major power imbalance between a kid/young adult and the parent who raised her, and that - the increased potential for coercion and particularly grooming - obviously is a problem for assuming valid 'consent' in such a relationship.

But that could be said for non-genetic people who raised you as well. Yet we don't prevent such people from marrying. That's simply not an argument. I could be raised by a family friend or a neighbor while my parents neglect me to drink and do drugs, and even though they're the ones that raised me, I could engage in a relationship with them with no objection from society. You're simply holding double standards based on genetics, and in the end it all boils down to 'I think it's icky'.

Other relationships with a major power imbalance do exist, yes, but that problem doesn't magically fix the obvious problems of parent/offspring relationships and, as I pointed out, A) those other imbalanced relationships aren't exactly "accepted" just difficult to legislate on and B) they're a tiny fraction of legal relationships, the exception rather than the norm, whereas the power imbalance would be the overwhelming norm for parent/offspring relationships.

As for cousins etc., I largely agree with what Roguenuke posted. It's not the all-or-nothing issue you seem to be trying to make it out to be. There are excellent reasons for concern over parent/offspring relationships and to a lesser extent younger/older sibling relationships (in addition to the genetic thing, which I don't know much about). But those reasons don't seem to apply so much to cousins, so by all means if it can earn popular support rules against that may as well be changed.

Okay. So a cousin gets raised by someone's parents alongside them, essentially as a sibling. Whatcha gonna say then?

 

[Gondwanaland]

There is a significant difference between barring someone from having a sexual relationship with a parent or sibling and barring an Ashkenazi Jew or black people with sicke cell anemia from any sexual relationship.

The significant difference being that the latter two are far more likely to pass on genetic problems than the former.

The fact that some incestuous couples may choose not to have children is not a reason to avoid discouraging incestuous relationships. That's like saying that we shouldn't ban rape because some people like rape play, or other people might get falsely accused of rape.

Um, no, it's not remotely like that.

What "unequal and power-imbalanced relationships" do we permit that you are comparing an incestuous relationship to? Your argument that a parent might give up their child for adoption and then twenty years later meet and want to have sex with them only demonstrates the fallacy of your own point -- nothing about that extremely unlikely scenario warrants adopting a policy which allows many many highly problematic incestuous relationships to develop.

I could be raised by a neighbor while my neglectful parents drink and drug their lives away, with the neighbor being more a parent to me than my biological ones. Yet I could enter into a sexual relationship and marry that neighbor. Your objection simply isn't valid because we allow people in unequal and power-imbalanced erlationships to marry all the time. Boss employee relationships. Pastor and congregant relationships. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Inbreeding is bad

Only if continued over numerous generations. And even then, we don't stop other people from 'breeding' when they are highly likely to pass on genetic disorders.

and there are a whole host of questions about "consent" when dealing with family relationships since the family relationship (if not the sexual relationship) often develops while at least one of the members is underage. That alone is plenty reason to ban incestuous relationships and completely differentiates such relationships from gay, transgender, cross-racial, etc., relationships.

Except that happens all the time in non-incestuous relationships. 20 year olds dating 15 year olds. Many don't even blink an eye at it. Not a valid objection.

 

[Cameron]

(1) The significant difference being that the latter two are far more likely to pass on genetic problems than the former.

(2) I could be raised by a neighbor while my neglectful parents drink and drug their lives away, with the neighbor being more a parent to me than my biological ones. Yet I could enter into a sexual relationship and marry that neighbor. Your objection simply isn't valid because we allow people in unequal and power-imbalanced erlationships to marry all the time. Boss employee relationships. Pastor and congregant relationships. Etc. etc. etc.

(1) No the difference is between the degree of hardship placed on the person whose relationship is being prohibited. It is a pretty insignificant infringement of liberty to bar someone from having a sexual relationship with the 2-15 members of their nuclear family.

(2) Boss-employee relationships and pastor-congregant relationships are not similar to incestuous relationships, where the close emotional bonds almost always initially form while one member is underage. Yes there are a handful of random scenarios you can come up with where maybe the concern doesn't exist or maybe a similar concern would exist in a non-incestuous relationship. But we don't decide not to ban problematic things just because the ban is not an absolutely perfect fit. Again, we are dealing with a very minor infringement of liberty compared to a host of potentially seriously problematic social behaviors involving underage children.

 

[lurchadams]

No. It is not. It is allowing other people to behave freely as they wish.

And there you go with the idiocy again because you cannot formulate an actual argument.

DUDE!

Quit being a dick. Either you support he behavior or you don't. "I don't believe child molestation but I support the right of others to do it?"

Seriously, mods.. . ding me! This guy's either a goon or a total whack job!

 

[Gondwanaland]

(1) No the difference is between the degree of hardship placed on the person whose relationship is being prohibited. It is a pretty insignificant infringement of liberty to bar someone from having a sexual relationship with the 2-15 members of their nuclear family.

One could just as easily say it's also a pretty insignificant infringement of liberty to bar a gay dude from having sex with another random dude.

(2) Boss-employee relationships and pastor-congregant relationships are not similar to incestuous relationships, where the close emotional bonds almost always initially form while one member is underage. Yes there are a handful of random scenarios you can come up with where maybe the concern doesn't exist or maybe a similar concern would exist in a non-incestuous relationship. But we don't decide not to ban problematic things just because the ban is not an absolutely perfect fit. Again, we are dealing with a very minor infringement of liberty compared to a host of potentially seriously problematic social behaviors involving underage children.

You can try to handwave away the power imbalances I listed, but that only makes your objection of power imbalances for incest look all the more like special pleading and insignificant.

 

[Gondwanaland]

DUDE!

Quit being a dick. Either you support he behavior or you don't. "I don't believe child molestation but I support the right of others to do it?"

Seriously, mods.. . ding me! This guy's either a goon or a total whack job!

Nope, sorry. I don't have to support the behavior to be against the government being able to make the behavior illegal, etc.. But do continue to show you don't have an argument.

 

[Cameron]

One could just as easily say it's also a pretty insignificant infringement of liberty to bar a gay dude from having sex with another random dude.

No, barring a gay man from having sex with men is a much more significant infringement of liberty, insofar as it eliminates entirely his field of potential sexual partners, not 2-15 potential sexual partners.

You can try to handwave away the power imbalances I listed, but that only makes your objection of power imbalances for incest look all the more like special pleading and insignificant.

No, your response is the dismissive "handwave," insofar as you haven't addressed the actual distinctions at all. You are the one who is dismissing the very serious and real concerns surrounding incestuous relationships and children in favor of a handful of random and highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios, so it is your objection that looks like "special pleading."