Incest

[Kadark]

Yes. I think that's reasonable. Having sex affects only those 2 adults, but having children affects those children.

And why you always gotta call yourself Kadark the Something?

At least be honest and call yourself Kadark the Annoying.

So then, you support eugenics? If the man in a heterosexual couple, for example, has some sort of a disorder which can potentially be passed on to the child genetically, would you say that the man shouldn't be able to have a child with his wife? After all, it "affects the child", as you put it. But ... the only way to enforce this, like with incest, is to sterilize the man so he can not pass on this disorder. Pretty soon, you're sterilizing people who have disorders/some sort of genetic inferiority. Kind of reminds me of Nazi Germany. Sucks getting tangled in your own faulty logic, doesn't it?

Kadark the Principled

 

[Randwolf]

Godwin's alert!!!!!

 

[spidergoat]

Just for Kadark's edification, homosexuality and incest are not illegal, at least in the US. Some cases of incest are illegal if one or both parties are underage. A judge would still frown on it if it comes up for some reason, it's still taboo. It is a bad idea to have children with a close sibling or parent for genetic reasons, but birth control is widely available. There was a case in Germany of a brother and sister falling in love, they had been adopted by separate parents early in life, and never met each other until later. They weren't allowed to marry.

 

[Asguard]

interesting spider, in Australia incest is an indiatble offence. Hence the fact that father and daughter were charged with incest even though she was 30 and so well and trully able to concent to sex

 

[Simon Anders]

Soon after homosexuality's legalization, bestiality and incest become legal as well. If a man and another man can be together, why not a man and his family member? A man and his beloved pet? People often ignore the bigger picture.

Kadark the Wild

And once you start talking about women like this

Whoever made that list really needs a dick in their mouth.

Rape is not far behind. Oh, look, it's already here.

 

[James R]

Kadark:

Do animals consent to being killed and eaten? Of course not, but it's still a legal process practiced by nearly every community throughout the world.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Same thing applies for sex: you don't need to ask for an animal's consent.

Why not?

I also notice that you are defending incest by referring to the oft-expressed "two consenting adults". Thanks for confirming my initial statements, James - you legalize homosexuality, and abominations such as incest surely can't be far behind. Whether or not it becomes commonplace is irrelevant, because homosexuality itself isn't common (even if we are using the ridiculously exaggerated figures of 10% of the population being gay). Who knows how many people will practice incest once it becomes "socially accepted"? That sure doesn't sound like any type of society I'd want to live in.

What's your problem, if there is consent, and no chance of procreation?

Please explain.

 

[Cellar_Door]

John99:

That is interesting, hard to believe though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W.Clerke_table.PNG

And another paragraph I found...

Consensual mutually desired adult incest is very rare, found almost exclusively between kin who were separated early in life and therefore did not experience early association and the related development of the natural adaptation for incest avoidance.[2] Consensual incest between adults is criminalized in most countries, although it is seen by some as a victimless crime.[7]

 

[Cellar_Door]

Incest is wrong from biological perspective...as it creates mutations...

No, it creates a reduced gene pool. This in itself is a far from an ideal situation, but take adult cell cloning - there is no worse a risk. However, this is practised widely and with much less public abhorrence.
Look at the children of the 'Austrian Cellar' case. They were bright and perfectly normally formed children.

Rather, we should look at the physiological trauma incurred by incest on any offspring. If you knew a boy who you knew was the result of a brother/sister relationship - would you treat them as you would any other kid?
No, and neither would society.

 

[Randwolf]

No, it creates a reduced gene pool. This in itself is a far from an ideal situation, but take adult cell cloning - there is no worse a risk. However, this is practised widely and with much less public abhorrence.
Look at the children of the 'Austrian Cellar' case. They were bright and perfectly normally formed children.

Rather, we should look at the physiological trauma incurred by incest on any offspring. If you knew a boy who you knew was the result of a brother/sister relationship - would you treat them as you would any other kid?
No, and neither would society.

Look at the children in this case:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/165618/can_incest_ever_be_acceptable.html?cat=41

The story of their twisted relationship emerged this week as the pair announced plans to take their case to Germany's highest legal body, the constitutional court, in a bid to legalize their shocking union. What is tragic and astonishing is that they are doing so despite the fact that two of their children can barely walk or talk. Experts believe that such birth defects are caused by inbreeding.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/165618/can_incest_ever_be_acceptable.html?cat=41

"Experts believe that such birth defects are caused by inbreeding."

You disagree with this?


Anyway, other than the potential for f***ed up kids, if it is truly consensual, where's the harm?

 

[River Ape]

homosexuality and incest are not illegal, at least in the US.

I find it hard to believe incest is legal anywhere in the US. In some states, I am pretty sure first cousin marriages are illegal.

 

[Spud Emperor]

Kadark, The pork in the park.

 

[Kadark]

What's your problem, if there is consent, and no chance of procreation?

Please explain.

I just had this discussion with visceral_instinct in this very thread, James. The only way to ensure that procreation does not occur is sterilization; however, the question is then raised, "why are we barring this couple from procreating, anyway?" If your answer is along the lines of, "there is an increased chance for deformities within the baby from incest couples", then it surely doesn't end there, does it? If this is your rationale, then you're (perhaps unconcsciously) supporting eugenics. Why not go one step further and say that all people with some sort of deformity that can pass it on genetically to their children are disallowed from procreating? The reasoning in both scenarios is identical: you want to prevent the potential child from inheriting deformities and whatnot. Of course, the only way to ensure this law's widespread enforcement would be sterilization. Doesn't sound very appealing or moral, does it? It's simply safer to outlaw such a primitive and backward practice, if you ask me. Same thing goes for bestiality and homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Spud Emperor
Kadark, The pork in the park.

Spud Emperor, the ... uh ... /scratches head ... fuck it, just shut the hell up. Nobody appreciates your cheeky one liners, you attention-seeking nuisance. I ought to pimp slap your stupid face.

Kadark the Hypnotic

 

[Gustav]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

/cackle

it is fascinating to observe the reticence and...bashfulness
death and destruction falls within everyone's comfort zone but sex unfortunately does not

blood and gore? bring it on!
tits and ass? we are english, by jove!

 

[Spud Emperor]

. I ought to pimp slap your stupid face.

O kadarkie, you win.
I'm shattered.

 

[Gustav]

The vast majority of people have a biological aversion to it.

citation please

 

[visceral_instinct]

So then, you support eugenics? If the man in a heterosexual couple, for example, has some sort of a disorder which can potentially be passed on to the child genetically, would you say that the man shouldn't be able to have a child with his wife? After all, it "affects the child", as you put it. But ... the only way to enforce this, like with incest, is to sterilize the man so he can not pass on this disorder. Pretty soon, you're sterilizing people who have disorders/some sort of genetic inferiority. Kind of reminds me of Nazi Germany. Sucks getting tangled in your own faulty logic, doesn't it?

Kadark the Principled

I don't think they should be *forced* to be sterilized. I just don't think they should be allowed to marry unless they did.

And there's a difference with the genetic problem thing. A child might not inherit that, but inbreeding is a fairly sure way to have a kid with a defect.

 

[Gustav]

now
lookee here

taboos exists as a proscription against what folks are generally inclined to do
no one that i know is inclined towards instinctual aversions

there is universal taboo against sitting on hot stoves
sounds ridiculous, ja?
trifle redundant cos no one does it

here is the biological imperative as far as sex is concerned..... fuck anything that moves!

pardon
i am in error ...... fuck it if it is still warm!

/cackle

so ah
where is the empirical data for these biological aversions
what is measured? is there a genetic switch......incest on/incest off

/cmao

Cognition and contradiction - On the origin of incest taboos and oedipal fantasies

Sibling Incest

Sociobiological Explanations of Incest Avoidance - A Critical Review of Evidential Claims

A Critique of Leavitt's Review of Sociobiological Explanations of Incest Avoidance

 

[Gustav]

sci sometimes gets so pious and sanctimonious that it is always a lark to see a noob come in and hoist em up by their own petards

i refer of course to.... Kardark - The Final Arbiter Of All That Is Morally Righteous

/snicker

 

[Pandaemoni]

I find it hard to believe incest is legal anywhere in the US. In some states, I am pretty sure first cousin marriages are illegal.

They are not "illegal" in the sense that you go to jail for it, they are just not recognized by the law. I I were to try to marry myself, because I love me so much, the law doesn't recognize that, but no one slaps on the cuffs either.

That said, I think there are laws against incest in many (if not all) states. Some allows consensual sex between legal adults, and focus on sex with minors, some I think really do prohibit sex with relatives closer than first cousins regardless of age. In fact, here's a law review article...

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/june06/note/inbred_obscurity.pdf

 

[Randwolf]

They are not "illegal" in the sense that you go to jail for it, they are just not recognized by the law. I I were to try to marry myself, because I love me so much, the law doesn't recognize that, but no one slaps on the cuffs either.

That said, I think there are laws against incest in many (if not all) states. Some allows consensual sex between legal adults, and focus on sex with minors, some I think really do prohibit sex with relatives closer than first cousins regardless of age. In fact, here's a law review article...

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/june06/note/inbred_obscurity.pdf

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm has a state by state breakdown of cousin statutes in the U.S. It looks like a lot of states allow this, but:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm

Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm



Arizona is interesting:
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm

Yes, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older. If one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, they can marry if they show proof to a superior court judge that one of them is unable to reproduce.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm