Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[grumbler]

Incest destroys our genetic heritage.

Technically, it preserves it from being diluted. 

Indeed.  There is considerable evidence that incest is responsible for the path that evolution took with the species homo sapiens.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?

I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.

So I would say...no?

Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?

I don't.

Everything you have posted treats sexual relations between parents and their children as being the same as between any other adults.

Just because there are differences doesn't mean that those differences justify legal sanction. You have to show that the difference is such that the restriction on personal liberty is justified. That pointing out that it is different is meaningless And claiming that I have claimed that there isn't any difference is just fallacious. The burden is not on me to show that there is no difference, the burden is on you to show that the difference is material enough to justify legal sanction over personal liberty.

Your justification is that all adults should be able to freely choose whomever they wish to have sex with.  Your general theory of liberty necessarily needs to ignore the fact that there are significant differences between the relationship of close family members (the relationship between a child and parent is one that I thought you would at least concede) and relationships between other adults. 

The question of burden is an interesting one.  Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.

[Eddie Teach]

The question of burden is an interesting one.  Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.

If the siblings involved are all over 18, why would younger/older matter? Sometimes younger siblings dominate.

[Berkut]

Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?

I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.

So I would say...no?

Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?

I don't.

Everything you have posted treats sexual relations between parents and their children as being the same as between any other adults.

Just because there are differences doesn't mean that those differences justify legal sanction. You have to show that the difference is such that the restriction on personal liberty is justified. That pointing out that it is different is meaningless And claiming that I have claimed that there isn't any difference is just fallacious. The burden is not on me to show that there is no difference, the burden is on you to show that the difference is material enough to justify legal sanction over personal liberty.

Your justification is that all adults should be able to freely choose whomever they wish to have sex with. 

Does that not seem like a pretty reasonable starting point? I am surprised you find issue with it.

Your general theory of liberty necessarily needs to ignore the fact that there are significant differences between the relationship of close family members (the relationship between a child and parent is one that I thought you would at least concede) and relationships between other adults. 

It certainly does not need to ignore it, it just needs to accept that there isn't anything about it that violates the basic concepts that state that adult individuals have the *right* to make their own choices, and in order for the state to intervene and interfere, the state has to prove that there is some kind of reason why it should do so, it has to have some kind of significant interest in the matter. Normally, and in most cases, this is the desire to protect other individuals rights to make their own choices. That is not the case here, clearly, since we are talking about a case where all parties involved have made the free choice themselves - so here we actually have the state interfereing in two people free choice.

The other justification for interfering in personal liberty is some kind of compelling state or societal interest - some kind of situation where the individual rights in question must take a back seat to a compelling overall societal interest that the exercise of their liberty is somehow causing great damage too...but that clearly is not the case either. People private sexual relationships have no significant bearing on anyone but themselves.

So again, just because it is "different" does not validate your desire to impose you personal views on others. Being "different" is not a crime, or at least it should not be...

The question of burden is an interesting one.  Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.

You are asserting that all such relationships, must by definition be abusive, first of all. You have not shown that to be true.

You are also asserting that THIS particular theoretical "abusive" relationship between consenting adults is different from all other abusive relationships between consenting adults such that THIS one should be banned by law while the others are allowed. The burden here is on YOU to show that that this one is different - not on me to show that it is not. My positions is that this should be treated in the exact same manner we treat any potentially abusive relationship between consenting adults in respects to the law. We do nothing at all under the presumption that adults can make those choices themselves, and the state has no place or even competency to make those judgments better than the participants such that it warrants such a fundamental violation of their privacy and rights to keep the state out of their bedroom.

[Berkut]

The question of burden is an interesting one.  Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.

If the siblings involved are all over 18, why would younger/older matter? Sometimes younger siblings dominate.

The key to this justification is that there MUST be a victim, at least in theory. Of course, in the way the laws are written, there actually doesn't have to be - this is one of the nearly unique circumstances where we have a law that allows the state to throw everyone in jail - all perps, no victims! I can see why Beebs likes it so much.

[The Brain]

I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.

[crazy canuck]

The question of burden is an interesting one.  Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.

If the siblings involved are all over 18, why would younger/older matter? Sometimes younger siblings dominate.

Because they have had 18 years together before they are adults.  Earlier in the thread I referenced a incest case heard years ago.  A father had groomed his daughter from a young age to believe that she should be his second wife when she turned 18.  After she was 18 he started having sex with her.  Throughout he kept her isolated from the world so that she never really understood what was really happening.  Then one day, in her late 20s, she made a friend who found out what was happening.  By that time the father and his daughter had two sons.  The neighbours thought they were a lovely family of a father looking after his single parent daughter and her two sons.  But then the friend went to police with the real story.

At trial the father made the same arguments Berkut and other are making here.  The Court had no problem concluding that the harm of allowing this sort of predatory relationship to occur outweighed any claim to an infringement of rights.

One can easily see the same sort of grooming taking place with older siblings.

For those making the genetic argument the Court also concluded that the medical evidence was that the infringement of rights could not be justified on that basis.

[crazy canuck]

I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.

More like the burden is on those making a silly claim that a relationship that is clearly suspectible to terrible abuse should be treated like any other relationship.

[The Brain]

I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.

More like the burden is on those making a silly claim that a relationship that is clearly suspectible to terrible abuse should be treated like any other relationship.

FWIW I don't think you understand the issue.

[Berkut]

Hard cases make bad laws.

[Barrister]

CC - I don't suppose you have a citation for that case?

[derspiess]

I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.

Or maybe the burden is on those not wanting to keep bans in place to explain why the ban should be lifted.

[garbon]

I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.

Or maybe the burden is on those not wanting to keep bans in place to explain why the ban should be lifted.

I don't know I mean this seems like the sort of thing that courts will eventually decide (as I doubt anyone will use political muster to get this passed in various legislatures).

[The Brain]

I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.

Or maybe the burden is on those not wanting to keep bans in place to explain why the ban should be lifted.

OK BB.

[derspiess]

Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo.  If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.