I am against incest.

[Capetan Mihali]

Alas, I'm the only child.

  I find that incredibly hard to believe.   

[Martinus]

Being supportive of gay marriage, I struggled with whether or not to support incestuous marriage. I wondered if it was hypocritical to give marriage rights to gays, but not to a brother and sister.

I have now come out against incestuous marriage based on the unequal playing field. There is a conflict of interest. The union cannot be fully consenting and free since the two are naturally connected to each other by familial ties and duties.

Is this the right way to look at the issue?

No, not at all.

Incest is a crime because of the possibility of genetic defects becoming manifest in the offspring.
As gay marriage (at this point in time) cannot have offspring, the comparison is ill-fitting at best.

Why is homosexual incest banned then, as well?

And why are we not sterilizing people with genetic diseases? After all, their offspring are more likely to have genetic defects than offspring of close relatives.

[Valmy]

I would care if I had a hot brother. Alas, I'm the only child.

Hehe only an only child would say that.

[Martinus]

I usually agree with Martinus on his two usual issues (ghey freedom and the lies of priests) but in this case I'm just disgusted.

Well I tell it like it is - I see no rational argument for banning incest, especially in such a broad way it is banned now in many countries.

Same goes for zoophilia - sure, charge it under animal cruelty, if the animal is actually being tormented by it, but there is no rational justification for making it a separate crime (especially as, most ridiculously, in many countries zoophilia is penalized more harshly than animal cruelty itself - so you can go to prison for giving a blowjob to a dog, but if you throw the same dog, alive, into a burning furnace, you just pay a fine).

Well the rational reason is based on the defense of the family unit and traditional sexuality.  If those are your goals and you view sex as an irrational and potentially socially dangerous thing then passing laws against that sort of thing are completely rational.

The Liberal view of society as a bulwark to defend individual rights doesn't mesh with that particular vision but you at least should have a basic understanding of why they exist.

It's like saying it is perfectly rational to wage wars in order to kidnap people and tear their hearts out as a sacrifice to bloodthirsty gods, if you believe that this is the only way to appease them and bring yourself good luck.

Only because someone's delusional ideas are consistent with their irrational paradigm, it does not make them rational.

[Valmy]

Why is homosexual incest banned then, as well?

Is it really banned?  I mean how many people get convicted of adult incest every year in the entire Western World?  In alot of states in the US it is ok so long as both parties are over 18 and I suspect where it is technically illegal it is rarely enforced.

[Martinus]

Why is homosexual incest banned then, as well?

Is it really banned?  I mean how many people get convicted of adult incest every year in the entire Western World?  In alot of states in the US it is ok so long as both parties are over 18 and I suspect where it is technically illegal it is rarely enforced.

Well, as far as I know, statutes banning incest do not make difference based on gender of the people involved. I don't know how many people get convicted - I suppose people get convicted for "normal" incest also quite rarely.

[Valmy]

It's like saying it is perfectly rational to wage wars in order to kidnap people and tear their hearts out as a sacrifice to bloodthirsty gods, if you believe that this is the only way to appease them and bring yourself good luck.

Only because someone's delusional ideas are consistent with their irrational paradigm, it does not make them rational.

Wow that is one terrible analogy.  Way to go Mart!

[Valmy]

Well, as far as I know, statutes banning incest do not make difference based on gender of the people involved. I don't know how many people get convicted - I suppose people get convicted for "normal" incest also quite rarely.

Right I meant incest itself.  It is not really banned nobody really cares about it anymore unless there are children involved.  The only reason most of the laws still exist is only because nobody has bothered to change them.

So I simply do not get the comparison with homosexuality 50 years ago.

[Martinus]

I usually agree with Martinus on his two usual issues (ghey freedom and the lies of priests) but in this case I'm just disgusted.

Well I tell it like it is - I see no rational argument for banning incest, especially in such a broad way it is banned now in many countries.

Same goes for zoophilia - sure, charge it under animal cruelty, if the animal is actually being tormented by it, but there is no rational justification for making it a separate crime (especially as, most ridiculously, in many countries zoophilia is penalized more harshly than animal cruelty itself - so you can go to prison for giving a blowjob to a dog, but if you throw the same dog, alive, into a burning furnace, you just pay a fine).

Well the rational reason is based on the defense of the family unit and traditional sexuality.  If those are your goals and you view sex as an irrational and potentially socially dangerous thing then passing laws against that sort of thing are completely rational.

The Liberal view of society as a bulwark to defend individual rights doesn't mesh with that particular vision but you at least should have a basic understanding of why they exist.

Besides, the same arguments can be used to defend criminalization of gay sex. So I am not really arguing with that mindset.

I am addressing the mindset (represented by many people on this board), who do not want to make gay sex a crime and even support gay marriage, but consider incest or zoophilia something that should be criminalized. I am trying to find a rationale.

Viking said that it disgusts him - which only shows that the opposition is based on the "yuck" feeling, which is never a good reason to base laws on, especially involving sex. And as much as I find a sex with an animal or a close relative disgusting, I do not see why it should be banned for people who enjoy it and are not otherwise hurting the animal or another human being.

[Martinus]

Well, as far as I know, statutes banning incest do not make difference based on gender of the people involved. I don't know how many people get convicted - I suppose people get convicted for "normal" incest also quite rarely.

Right I meant incest itself.  It is not really banned nobody really cares about it anymore unless there are children involved.  The only reason most of the laws still exist is only because nobody has bothered to change them.

So I simply do not get the comparison with homosexuality 50 years ago.

I think incest is illegal in many European countries.

[Valmy]

I think incest is illegal in many European countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

It is technically illegal in lots of places...but they probably are archaic laws nobody enforces.

[Phillip V]

Imo, criminalization of incest is based on a double standard. The arguments used against incest can either be addressed by application of other existing laws (e.g. child abuse or power abuse laws can be used to criminalize "problematic" incest, without having to ban all incest) or are concerns that otherwise are not applied equally (e.g. the argument about genetic mutations in offspring, even if it is sound, nonetheless does not hold water, unless we also ban people who suffer from genetic diseases from breeding; besides, if that argument was used to ban incest, we should only ban incestuous procreative sex - sex with contraceptives, non-vaginal sex or homosexual sex should all be allowed).

Personally, I expect that in the next 20-30 years incest will follow the same route homosexuality did over the last 50 years.

To elaborate on my point, a father and a daughter have an intrinsically unequal relationship from the start, so a marriage between the two cannot be reasonably free or consenting.

[garbon]

To elaborate on my point, a father and a daughter have an intrinsically unequal relationship from the start, so a marriage between the two cannot be reasonably free or consenting.

While unlikely, it isn't impossible.

[Caliga]

I don't think incest between consenting adults should be illegal, including incestuous marriage.  However, it's not something likely to come up all that often, since the Westermarck Effect is usually going to make it completely undesirable.

[vinraith]

I don't think incest between consenting adults should be illegal, including incestuous marriage.  However, it's not something likely to come up all that often, since the Westermarck Effect is usually going to make it completely undesirable.

Yes, that plus the social stigma nearly makes the legalities redundant.