I am against incest.

[Phillip V]

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?

[Berkut]

No.

[garbon]

Llamas!

[The Brain]

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?

Hell no.

I remember back in 2003 I used to ask new people on Languish what they thought on incest, cannibalism and polygamy (or was it something else?). Anywho, it's all good.

[Martinus]

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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Incidentally the definition of incest is rather unclear, it depends on the culture and society.

[Viking]

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.

[DGuller]

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

This just validated the "slippery slope" argument.

[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).

[Martinus]

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

This just validated the "slippery slope" argument.

The entire history of human progress is a "slippery slope" argument. "If we give our wimminfolk a right to vote, next thing you know they will elect a negro to be the US President".

[C.C.R.]

Just so long as they don't legalize gay incestual marriages...

[Martinus]

Just so long as they don't legalize gay incestual marriages...

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

[C.C.R.]

Just so long as they don't legalize gay incestual marriages...

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

[AnchorClanker]

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.

[Valmy]

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.