[SilkGarnet]

I understand the logic of two relatives mating causing a higher likelihood of reproducing deformed and mentally challenged children, but same-sex couples can't reproduce. And the logic of the government telling you who you can marry and love should be able to apply to all sorts of love between two consenting adults, not just two adults that aren't related. Also, incest marriage and relationships have been acceptable in many societies and cultures for centuries, including America. And the reasoning that relatives marrying can errode the dynamics of a family does not make sense because people have been saying the same thing about same-sex couples, but many same-sex couples have proven that they can start a family better than many opposite-sex couples. So why wouldnt a same-sex incestuous couple be any different? It could be even a stronger familial bond because it was always a family relationship even before adopting children! Why is the government dictating what is taboo and isnt in someones personal life? For centuries, homosexuality and incest have fluctuated from taboo and not taboo in various cultures and civilizations.

Also, the "slippery slope" reasoning that opposite-sex incest couples would want to marry if same-sex incest couples are allowed makes no sense because people have been using the "slippery slope" rebuttal for same-sex marriages, but now gay marriage is allowed!

Someone help me understand this confusing law!

[Saeko]

This post is not even half as clever as you think it is.

Personally, I don't appreciate being played and there are no forum rules about arguing against gay marriage, so it would probably be for the best if you just explicitly say what you really want to say.

EDIT: But on the much more interesting topic of incestuous marriage, I can't think of any good reasons why such marriages should be illegal.

[anarchist23]

Incest is definitely a no no. For example you can't have a big brother dominate a younger brother and force him into a sexual relationship and marriage, or a father and his son being married and having a sexual relationship. Or a mother and daughter, the list goes on.

edit.
In a family there is a pecking order, families are hierarchical in nature and the young or weak should be protected.

[Dagoth Ur]

I don't think that is fair Saeko. I think OP genuinely longs for a world where he no longer has to conceal his brotherly desires.

[Heinie]

Tutankhamun truly loved Ankhesenamun.

[anarchist23]

Robert Crumb and one of his infamous cartoons of the sixties. It seems pretty tame compared to the stuff you get on YouTube.

[The Immortal Goon]

Anarchist is essentially correct in that there are power dynamics in a family that make the consent issue really fuzzy.

It's why cousins can usually marry, but a father can't marry a daughter.

[AFAIK]

I'll post this here since my thread seems to have fallen flat.

I just read about a Swedish youth party that has decided to advocate for sibling incest and necrophilia to be legalised (the grown up wing of the party was very dismissive of their position). After perusing a discussion of the story I realised that criminalising incest is a form of eugenics.

If you ban incest because of the risk of birth defects and other problems you should also ban people with various hereditary genetic diseases from procreating. Beloved British actor Warrick Davis has dwarfism and is married to a woman with a different form of dwarfism. Their first child inherited both strains and died shortly after birth. The doctors explained that there was a 1 in 4 chance of this happening- much higher than the incidence of such serious complications due to incest.

If you ban incest due to concerns about power dynamics you should also ban any relationship between anyone who has any authority over their partner, which sounds pretty tyrannical and dystopian.

I think it's better to justify the ban by saying it's an "uh-yuck" response and society needs strong taboos in order to maintain social cohesion. Legalising such niche sexual pursuits would be more trouble than their worth in any case.

[Saeko]

I would honestly love to hear a Marxist analysis about why incestuous marriage is pro or anti-worker.

[Frollein]

After perusing a discussion of the story I realised that criminalising incest is a form of eugenics.

You say that as if it was a bad thing.

If you ban incest because of the risk of birth defects and other problems you should also ban people with various hereditary genetic diseases from procreating.

That's right, you should.

If you ban incest due to concerns about power dynamics you should also ban any relationship between anyone who has any authority over their partner, which sounds pretty tyrannical and dystopian.

Uh, no, it doesn't. Allowing people to abuse their authority to force sexual favours sounds pretty tyrannical and dystopian to me. What about doctors and patients, priests and altar boys, soldiers and their commanders? Should they also all have sexual relationships because legally protecting the weaker partner of that hierarchy is "pretty tyrannical and dystopian"?

Weren't you the poster that argued that pedophiles are ok as long as they don't act on their impulses? Are you trying to sneak your pedophiliac sympathies into this thread?

[The Immortal Goon]

Yeah, I was going to add that it's already illegal in most cases to have sexual relations with someone you have emotional control over. A psychiatrist can't have sex with his or her patients, teachers can't have sex with their students, etc.

In most cases after there's a period of time or some clear distance they can pursue relations (where I am, I could have a relationship with an of-age student so long as we could show she would never be my student again).

But these controls already exist. For a father and daughter, this kind of distance is a lot higher ask than for a teacher and student or psychiatrist and patient.

[mikema63]

I would honestly love to hear a Marxist analysis about why incestuous marriage is pro or anti-worker.

It depends on whether or not you consider sex a form of labor. Though role-playing capitalist and proletariat could be fun.

In all seriousness I suspect it's anti-worker in so far as it's not really good for anybody.

If you ban incest because of the risk of birth defects and other problems you should also ban people with various hereditary genetic diseases from procreating. Beloved British actor Warrick Davis has dwarfism and is married to a woman with a different form of dwarfism. Their first child inherited both strains and died shortly after birth. The doctors explained that there was a 1 in 4 chance of this happening- much higher than the incidence of such serious complications due to incest.

I am not opposed to not allowing people with serious genetic disorders to have children, nor am I opposed from not allowing fetus' with such disorders from coming to term. Not only do children with extremely severe learning disabilities or something similar represent a large cost to society and their families for the rest of their lives but they are often forced into rather terrible conditions and situations. I consider more a mercy than anything. (Note that this doesn't include relatively minor things like a minor physical or mental disability with which you can still have a perfectly happy life.)

If you ban incest due to concerns about power dynamics you should also ban any relationship between anyone who has any authority over their partner, which sounds pretty tyrannical and dystopian.

This is standard practice throughout society. Most companies won't even allow you to work under a relative, much less a spouse or partner. Even if it's not explicitly illegal it is massively frowned upon, and rightly so.

I think it's better to justify the ban by saying it's an "uh-yuck" response and society needs strong taboos in order to maintain social cohesion.

It is better in all cases to have actual logical reasons for the things you do and believe.

[AFAIK]

I think you guys are right about the power dynamics when it's a parent-child relationship. I'm not sure about adult siblings though. I'm open to being convinced if anyone wants to argue the point.

It is better in all cases to have actual logical reasons for the things you do and believe.

Yes but then you end up with a lot of cognitive dissonance or end up pursuing things to their logical conclusions, which is often extremely damaging.

[mikema63]

What specifically about logical conclusions is damaging?

[Saeko]

What specifically about logical conclusions is damaging?

You might end up like me, so it can only be a good thing.

[Heinie]

Yeah, I was going to add that it's already illegal in most cases to have sexual relations with someone you have emotional control over. A psychiatrist can't have sex with his or her patients, teachers can't have sex with their students, etc.

In most cases after there's a period of time or some clear distance they can pursue relations (where I am, I could have a relationship with an of-age student so long as we could show she would never be my student again).

But these controls already exist. For a father and daughter, this kind of distance is a lot higher ask than for a teacher and student or psychiatrist and patient.

Maybe you have laws in your country that forbid a doctors from marrying patients and teachers from marrying students but that is not the case in any European country I know of. You might be confusing the law with professional ethics.

[AFAIK]

"The Final Solution" sounds pretty ominous to me, mike.

[The Immortal Goon]

Maybe you have laws in your country that forbid a doctors from marrying patients and teachers from marrying students but that is not the case in any European country I know of. You might be confusing the law with professional ethics.

It's mostly professional ethics, for sure.

But I'm not confused, there are actual laws. I specified the psychiatrist for that reason. And the teacher situation will mostly be a regional law and not a national or (often) even a state one. But law nonetheless.

The point is that the unequal power in a romantic relationship is already something society objects to.

I'm not sure about adult siblings though. I'm open to being convinced if anyone wants to argue the point.

Adult siblings is what should be underlined there. But one isn't born an adult. A younger sister that has been repeatedly abused by an older brother throughout childhood shouldn't be allowed to then turn around and marry her brother. And, whatever the cause of the rise of incest related pornography, it remains a fantasy and not a reality.

An actual situation where two siblings are going to marry each other is almost certainly going to be rooted in some kind of abuse.

The rare situation where two siblings meet each other later in life and marry tend to be very rare, and usually willing ended by the participants.

[mikema63]

"The Final Solution" sounds pretty ominous to me, mike.

Those are just words though, and your simply expressing your feelings about those words. That has nothing to do with logical conclusions.

[AFAIK]

OK Mike I take it back

An actual situation where two siblings are going to marry each other is almost certainly going to be rooted in some kind of abuse.

Source?

The rare situation where two siblings meet each other later in life and marry tend to be very rare, and usually willing ended by the participants.

I'm not sure how you reach a strong conclusion after reading about one case that I can contradict after a simple search;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17690997

I'm genuinely curious about this (on an intellectual level you perverts) so any recommended reading is welcome.