Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[Berkut]

Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.

Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos.  Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos.  So what's the problem with making incest illegal?

You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.

The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky" doesn't meet the bar, even if there are extensive examples of us previously using exactly that justification for restricting personal liberty. You are in good company, along with everyone else who vehemently opposed rolling back other invasive laws, like bans on inter-racial marriage, segregation, bans on gay sex, gay marriage, cross caste relationships, etc., etc., etc. All those were social taboos as well.

[Berkut]

I just read the German Constitutional Court decision on this case. Their argument is a bit more elaborate than Barrister's, but the general idea is similar. The protected legal value they see is the "family" which has a constitutional protection in Germany and they argue that incest destroys families and familial ties. The ban on incest is a small limitation on personal freedom, so they consider it acceptable to protect families.

Needless to say I find the dissenting opinion much more convincing.

The jist of the decisions is simply "Incest is bad and might destroy families and might result in birth defects - we have zero evidence that it does any of those things, but who cares? It is totally gross. Oh, and by the way, lots and lots and LOTS of other things might destroy families, and in fact are objectively much greater and well understood threats (for example, drinking large amounts of beer) to families, and have a much greater chance of birth defects (like having children after 40 for women), and those things aren't regulated either...so yeah, clearly our reasons are completely bullshit".

[viper37]

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,

Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.

[crazy canuck]

Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.

Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos.  Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos.  So what's the problem with making incest illegal?

You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.

The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky"

Allowing parents to have sex with their adult children goes beyond "icky"

[Zanza]

Needless to say I find the dissenting opinion much more convincing.

The jist of the decisions is simply "Incest is bad and might destroy families and might result in birth defects - we have zero evidence that it does any of those things, but who cares? It is totally gross. Oh, and by the way, lots and lots and LOTS of other things might destroy families, and in fact are objectively much greater and well understood threats (for example, drinking large amounts of beer) to families, and have a much greater chance of birth defects (like having children after 40 for women), and those things aren't regulated either...so yeah, clearly our reasons are completely bullshit".

I agree. I don't find their arguments compelling either. But especially on sexual morals the court has changed its opinion over the last decades. Back in 1957 they still considered the Nazi anti-gay law constitutional after all, whereas these days they regularly decide that some particular law is still a disadvantage to gay partnerships. So it will be interesting how this develops. It's obviously not a big topic as there are so few people for whom it actually matters. Perhaps not enough critical mass to actually change the law.

[Barrister]

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,

Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.

In Canada at least, incest is defined as sex between a person and their parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, or sibling.

Cousin sex is legal.

As I said - it's a very narrow law.

[Berkut]

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,

Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.

Yes, that is my understanding as well - you would need multiple generations of compounded incest to see any appreciable effect.

Which is why the entire idea that in a modern society this is an issue is totally bogus. Barring some cult or something, people don't inter-marry over generations. This is the kind of law that has as its foundation religious antiquated morality and a social structure where peoples marriage choices are much more limited than they are today. It is simply a non-issue.

There are very good reasons not to get involved sexually with your siblings. The chance of a birth defect is not one of them. The problem is that the real reasons are grounded in complex emotions and relations, and are not really conducive to codification into law, like many various reasons why you should be careful about who you choose to get into relationships with...

[Barrister]

You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.

Berkut - do you find this to be an effective rhetorical tool?  Do you find it helps to convince people of the rightness of your position?

[Berkut]

Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.

Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos.  Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos.  So what's the problem with making incest illegal?

You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.

The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky"

Allowing parents to have sex with their adult children goes beyond "icky"

So?

The issue for me is that no matter how icky, or beyond icky it might be, I don't feel that *I* have the right to control some 25 year old and tell them that if they make a choice I don't like about having sex with their mom or dad, I have the power to send them to jail, that I know better than they what they should want so surely that I am willing to inflict violence on them if they don't act in the manner *I* demand...all over something that clearly does not and cannot effect me at all.

It isn't my place, or your place, or Barristers place, to say that we know better than some other person what is best for them in totally private matters.

[crazy canuck]

Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.

Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos.  Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos.  So what's the problem with making incest illegal?

You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.

The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky"

Allowing parents to have sex with their adult children goes beyond "icky"

So?

The issue for me is that no matter how icky, or beyond icky it might be, I don't feel that *I* have the right to control some 25 year old and tell them that if they make a choice I don't like about having sex with their mom or dad, I have the power to send them to jail, that I know better than they what they should want so surely that I am willing to inflict violence on them if they don't act in the manner *I* demand...all over something that clearly does not and cannot effect me at all.

It isn't my place, or your place, or Barristers place, to say that we know better than some other person what is best for them in totally private matters.

I think you missed the point.  In your rhetorical flourish you tried to characterize BB's argument as society finding the practice to be "icky".  You should address his argument.  It is also ironic that you dont feel you have the "right" to control who an adult has sex with.  Of course you dont.  I dont see how that is relevant.  But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex.  If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Berkut]

You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.

Berkut - do you find this to be an effective rhetorical tool?  Do you find it helps to convince people of the rightness of your position?

I like you, and continue to hold out the hope that at some point reason and rational argument might overcome your totalitarian conservative tendencies.

Will it work? Who knows?

Does it influence others?

Who knows? I like to think it might. I do realize that I am fighting an uphill battle - the history of anti-liberty conservative friction to change is well understood, but on the other hand, in the long run I am very encouraged that the trend, no matter how vigorously opposed by your group, is that these anti-liberal "ideals" almost always eventually fall away.

I can certainly understand the frustration of the anti-liberal group though - it seems like no matter how clearly something really is very icky, it eventually becomes allowed. And we end up with the destruction of the family and marriage and downfall of society that has been predicted to be right around the corner if we don't stop "progress" RIGHT NOW for the lat 2000 years.

[crazy canuck]

I can certainly understand the frustration of the anti-liberal group though - it seems like no matter how clearly something really is very icky, it eventually becomes allowed. And we end up with the destruction of the family and marriage and downfall of society that has been predicted to be right around the corner if we don't stop "progress" RIGHT NOW for the lat 2000 years.

There you go with the "icky" strawman again.

[Barrister]

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,

Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.

Yes, that is my understanding as well - you would need multiple generations of compounded incest to see any appreciable effect.

Which is why the entire idea that in a modern society this is an issue is totally bogus. Barring some cult or something, people don't inter-marry over generations. This is the kind of law that has as its foundation religious antiquated morality and a social structure where peoples marriage choices are much more limited than they are today. It is simply a non-issue.

There are very good reasons not to get involved sexually with your siblings. The chance of a birth defect is not one of them. The problem is that the real reasons are grounded in complex emotions and relations, and are not really conducive to codification into law, like many various reasons why you should be careful about who you choose to get into relationships with...

No, I think the biology against marrying those closely related to you is fairly clear.

This is a useful link:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243

It starts out commenting that the biologic risk of marrying your cousin is actually not that high - maybe a 2-3% increased risk of birth defect.

But when it comes to marrying your sibling it gets worse (the article doesn't mention parent/child, but the same biological factors would apply).  The question is one of recessive genes - there are any number of recessive genes out there which can cause a large number of genetic defects.  Merely having one recessive gene is fine.  But if you have matched recessive genes is when the disease expresses itself.

If you have one of these recessive genes, your sibling has a 50% of having it as well, which means any child has a one in four chance of getting both recessive genes, and thus the genetic illness.

So the genetic risk is real.  And while I suppose you could get around it by asking sibling-couples to have genetic testing before having children, it seems simpler just to ban incest between closely related people.

[grumbler]

You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.

Berkut - do you find this to be an effective rhetorical tool?  Do you find it helps to convince people of the rightness of your position?

I hope he does, and yes, it does.

[Berkut]

I think you missed the point. 

No, I think I exactly hit the point.

In your rhetorical flourish you tried to characterize BB's argument as society finding the practice to be "icky".  You should address his argument.

When you dismiss the parts of his argument that are clearly false, all that is left is "Ewww, gross!". The eugenics argument is bunk, and has been shown to be so, the argument that there are families that will be destroyed absent laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence, and the claim that absent incest laws parents will be having sex with their underage children is negated by the fact that that is ALREADY illegal and enforced.

So what is left?

It should be illegal because we all agree it is gross.

It is also ironic that you dont feel you have the "right" to control who an adult has sex with.  Of course you dont.

Indeed I do not, and by extension neither does anyone else, when it comes to consensual sex between humans capable of making their own choices.

I do not, and no number of collective "I"s do not even when they all get together and agree that some other people sex life is super important to them so they should vote and pass laws restricting it.

I dont see how that is relevant.  But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex.

Why is that?

Why can't adult children decide for themselves? Are they not adults? Are they not, by definition, perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves? What makes you think they need your help to make good decisions, or that your help will actually force them into making good decisions anyway?

Why do you think you know better than them what is best for them?

We are talking about a choice that has no impact on anyone else, so you cannot compare it to the myriad of other ways we restrict adults rights by laws.

If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think if you read anything I wrote, you would realize your sentence is either stunningly ignorant, or simply an attempt to represent my position as something it clearly is not, as I've stated the exact opposite of that several times now.