Same-sex marriage legal in US, but NOT gay incest marriage? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14656715
Source?


It's a lot more prevalent than we tend to think:

Social Work Today wrote:Sibling Sexual Abuse — Uncovering the Secret
By Margaret Ballantine, PhD, MSW, LCSW-R, and Lynne Soine, DSW, MSW, LMSW
Social Work Today
Vol. 12 No. 6 P. 18

Many children do not see themselves as victims of sibling incest, and many families and professionals fail to recognize the abuse.

Their story startled the nation. In February 2011, 19-year-old twins Kellie and Kathie Henderson, sitting on the stage with Oprah Winfrey, told their horrific story of 10 years of sexual abuse by two brothers and, eventually, their father. Motivated by the desire to inspire other incest victims to come forward and report such abuse, the Hendersons revealed the often-shocking details of their experience, six years after a neighbor in whom they had finally confided rescued them.

This story of sibling and paternal sexual abuse reflects a social problem that is far greater than acknowledged by official statistics, policymakers, and service providers (Finkelhor, 1980). Known as incest, family sexual abuse is shrouded in secrecy and social stigma. Hidden from relatives, communities, schools, and neighbors, incest is underreported, underrecognized, and often goes unpunished, leaving child victims to suffer in silence and adult survivors to manifest myriad psychosocial problems (Daie, Witztum, & Eleff, 1989).

Sibling sexual abuse is the least recognized form of incest, while sexual abuse by related adults in a family receives the most attention. Meanwhile, victims of sibling abuse remain unseen, waiting to be found and helped. Social workers are in a unique position to lead the effort to uncover the injuries of sibling incest and promote a climate that supports victims in disclosing their experiences and receiving appropriate services.

The prevalence of sibling sexual abuse in American society is not well documented. Researchers estimate that the rate of sibling incest may be five times the rate of parent-child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1980). These rates are based on reported incidence, and incest is known to be underreported. Sibling sexual abuse has been dismissed as “child’s play” in many cases and/or as a normal aspect of sexual development. More recent research has documented the traumatic, long-lasting, and damaging effects of sibling incest (Carlson, Maciol, & Schneider, 2006; Weihe, 1997). When sexual acts are initiated by one sibling without the other’s consent, sibling incest is, most often, a serious and secret problem.

Numerous factors converge to assure that in many instances—perhaps most—sibling sexual abuse remains undisclosed and unaddressed. Victims often do not see themselves as victimized, and families as well as professionals fail to recognize the abuse. The secret remains hidden, camouflaged by play and tangled in the complex dynamics of abusive sibling relationships. Incestuous behaviors are too often invisible in stressed, chaotic families. Additionally, professionals who fail to recognize indicators and opportunities to foster victim disclosure may overlook the presence of sibling incest.


And the activity between siblings has proven to be harmful:

NCBI wrote:Although sexual activity between children has long been thought to be harmless, child on child CSA experiences, such as those involving siblings, is increasingly being recognized as detrimental for the emotional well-being of children as adult on child CSA [5-7]. While adult-to-child interactions in which the purpose is sexual gratification are considered abusive, sexual behaviours between children are less clear-cut as there is no universal definition of sexual abuse that differentiates it from normal sex play and exploration [8]. Although a 2 to 5-year age difference between children was first suggested as necessary to consider sexual behaviours between siblings to be incest [9], this criterion is being questioned as studies have shown this age difference to be much lower in many substantiated cases of child-to-child abuse [10]. This formulation of CSA is in keeping with the recommendations from the 1999 World Health Organization Consultation on Child Abuse Prevention, where CSA is defined as any activity of a sexual nature ‘between a child and an adult or another child who by age or development is in a relationship of responsibility, trust or power, the activity being intended to gratify or satisfy the needs of the other person’.


AFAIK wrote: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


Oh, well one German set of siblings tried to stay together. I guess that ends my, "strong conclusion," that these cases are, "usually willingly ended." I think that the fact that these things are exceptionally rare and almost never last is proof enough that they are exceptionally rare and almost never last.
#14656721
No need to get snarky. You backed up your claim by linking to a story about one couple who broke up after learning about their situation and I wasn't convinced by anecdotal evidence that was easily contradicted. I guess that makes me an anti-intellectual arsehole in your eyes.

Thanks for the legit links.
#14656733
What would even be the point of an incestuous marriage? Legally, marriage serves to make people relatives, next of kin. If you are already close enough relatives that you could not marry (first cousins can marry in some places) then you are already immediate family. You can designate any of your family members as your next of kin.
#14656746
Obergefell and the DOMA decision are all about homosexuals not wanting to pay estate taxes. So what it all comes down to is tax breaks for breeding should have been ruled unconstitutional, but instead we have law that doesn't make any sense at all. For that reason alone, I have antipathy for homosexuals and their supporters. If we really just want to say what's what, why not just admit that homosexuals don't want to pay taxes and made up a bunch of bullshit arguments to that end and the Supreme Court liberals signed on to that bullshit hook, line and sinker?

Otherwise, why are other perversions not entitled to preferential tax treatment too?
#14656784
I think that it is horrible practice in general for the government to concern itself with culture. There is no good reason that I can see for having 'legal' marriages that can't easily be circumvented. There should be no laws on who may marry whom. I understand that this could lead to some unpleasant situations, but a line could always be drawn at relationships in which one person has, by virtue of some external factor, unequal power over the other if the statistics support this (e.g., if 80% of incest relationships end in abuse).

Having the government involved in marriage is old-fashioned and will likely have little bearing in the future as many people now simply live together as unwed partners. I live in a very conservative small town and this happens. It is akin to having 'in god we trust' on the coins. Useless and not representative of our collective ideologies, but mostly harmless.
#14656887
Heinie wrote:It is stale bigotry to refer to homosexuality as a perversion. You are in the company of religious fundamentalists.

Get an education. "Gay marriage" is "perversion" by definition. You people accuse others of avoiding the scientific method until it comes to something you prefer, like homosexuality or other deviant behavior. Then, accurate terminology seems to bother you. Accurate terminology has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism.
#14656900
blackjack21 wrote:Get an education. "Gay marriage" is "perversion" by definition. You people accuse others of avoiding the scientific method until it comes to something you prefer, like homosexuality or other deviant behavior. Then, accurate terminology seems to bother you. Accurate terminology has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism.

Bigotry does, however.
#14656906
blackjack21 wrote:Obergefell and the DOMA decision are all about homosexuals not wanting to pay estate taxes.


There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections that come with marriage. The estate tax is paid by 0.2% of people. Obergefell was a consolidation of cases, none of which were about an estate tax.

blackjack21 wrote:So what it all comes down to is tax breaks for breeding should have been ruled unconstitutional, but instead we have law that doesn't make any sense at all. For that reason alone, I have antipathy for homosexuals and their supporters. If we really just want to say what's what, why not just admit that homosexuals don't want to pay taxes and made up a bunch of bullshit arguments to that end and the Supreme Court liberals signed on to that bullshit hook, line and sinker?


I have some antipathy for people for people who don't understand marriage rights, estate taxes, and my right to marry someone that I love.

blackjack21 wrote:Otherwise, why are other perversions not entitled to preferential tax treatment too?


You are a wonderful person.
#14656926
Lexington wrote:There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections that come with marriage. The estate tax is paid by 0.2% of people. Obergefell was a consolidation of cases, none of which were about an estate tax.

The DOMA decision was directly about a lesbian that wanted the benefits of intestate inheritance. Obergefell included the fact that homosexuals want social security and other benefits as well.

Lexington wrote:I have some antipathy for people for people who don't understand marriage rights, estate taxes, and my right to marry someone that I love.

You still can't marry your mother even if you love her. "Gay marriage" is about giving homosexuals money that they otherwise would not get. I don't get the benefits either, because I'm straight and single. Instead of promoting law that makes sense, or striking down marriage as a condition for receiving benefits, the court just made a monstrosity of law itself.

Heinie wrote:Bigotry does, however.

All religions have a bag of rules they want you to adopt or face their condemnation. The world's major religions condemn homosexuality.
#14656941
AFAIK, presumably "genuine" within-family relationships (i. e. not rooted in any sort of prior abuse) would always be rare due to the Westermarck Effect - there seems to be a crucial period in childhood wherein people living close to each other develop a psychological barrier to experiencing sexual attraction. This includes probably even those unrelated by blood, as was observed in Israeli kibbutzim where children reared in the same groups would rarely go on to marry each other as adults. The Genetic Attraction Syndrome like with that German pair happens precisely because in such cases the Westemarck Effect tends to be circumvented (that is, the future couple was separated before it could begin to work).


mikema63 wrote: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.)


That's my view as well and I think we should seriously reconsider whether the right to reproduce is to be inalienable (although I would rather argue for it from the angle of reducing harm of the sufferers themselves than of the potential cost to society, since the latter can take pretty ugly turns). One major theoretical problem here is having to come up with some non-arbitrary metric to determine if a medical condition is truly so grave as to call for alienatig the rights of prospective parents. Even besides this obviously getting such changes through in any Western country would be a civil-rights clusterfuck.
#14656944
blackjack21 wrote:Obergefell and the DOMA decision are all about homosexuals not wanting to pay estate taxes.


Lexington wrote:There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections that come with marriage. The estate tax is paid by 0.2% of people. Obergefell was a consolidation of cases, none of which were about an estate tax.


blackjack21 wrote:The DOMA decision was directly about a lesbian that wanted the benefits of intestate inheritance. Obergefell included the fact that homosexuals want social security and other benefits as well.


I'm glad we got here, blackjack21. We went from "This was about not wanting to pay estate taxes" to "the benefits of intestate inheritance" and social security, and other benefits as well.

I hope you see the point now that it wasn't just "homosexuals not wanting to pay estate taxes." Maybe you care to list the other thousand plus benefits that homosexuals were pleading for before the court in order to recognize their marriages?

blackjack21 wrote:You still can't marry your mother even if you love her.


And the sun rises.

blackjack21 wrote:"Gay marriage" is about giving homosexuals money that they otherwise would not get.


Yeah, about that, let me quote the Obergefell opinion:

Anthony Kennedy wrote:Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their perspective. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest of time.” App. in No. 14–556 etc., p. 38. He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year, they welcomed another son into their family. The new baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan, however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives.

Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment, which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden.


So these three things - to be named on a death certificate, to be named as a parent, to have your marriage disappear when you cross a state line:

You're going to tell me marriage is about money?

I'm going to put this back here since you didn't bother:

blackjack21 wrote:Otherwise, why are other perversions not entitled to preferential tax treatment too?


Perversion.

Here's Justice Kennedy, again:

Anthony Kennedy wrote:No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.
#14657251
I'll support the ban on incest due to the high risk or abuse and genetic defects within offspring but how do we go about investigating and prosecuting cases of incest if they usually involve an abuser and a victim? Should the incest charge just be a springboard for investigating abuse and how do we ensure we are prosecuting and protecting the right people?
#14770258
AFAIK wrote:

“Legalising such niche sexual pursuits would be more trouble than their worth in any case.„


Legalising gay marriage was difficult to do but that didn't stop the government from completing the process. The trouble might not be worth it in your perspective but this is a subjective case, same-gender incestuous partners will probably feel it is worth it.

a) Incest and Logic

mikema63 wrote:
“It is better in all cases to have actual logical reasons for the things you do and believe.„

AFAIK replied: “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.„


AFAIK, I don't believe that any conclusion an individual acts upon is damaging because of its logical factor.

For example: Lets say a sister, Anna pursues a consensual loving incestuous relationship with her older sister, Elsa. Anna can't find any logical wrong reasons not to pursue this relationship. The damaging factors here are emotional damaging aspects for example ignorant peers that are shunning them.

The logical factor itself is not causing any damage here. To not pursue things (that you actually want to pursue and that are backed up by logic) because your feelings are going to get hurt is not a reason why something is wrong to pursue, or why same-sex sibling incest specifically is wrong.

We were born with brains and not meant to make decisions like zombies or based on pure emotion and animal instinct. Animal instinct informs my brain that incest is yuck because this instinct wants the human race to survive. But this animal instinct is primitive and humans are better than this, better than blindly following this instinct. Logic revises incest and informs me that same-sex incest won't even influence the gene pool. Suddenly it's not so yuck to me anymore. Emotions towards debatable topics cannot be used to motivate the universal rightness of the topic because your emotions isn't applicable to every individual in this world, thus logic has to be used.

b) Power dynamics

AFAIK wrote: “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 agree with this. Most relationships in the world has a power dynamic on mild, moderate and severe scales; the one partner is often more dominant and the other more submissive. The power dynamics involved doesn't necessarily mean the relationship is an abusive relationship. As long as the power dynamics doesn't cross the line where one partner is underage and one is an adult, power dynamics isn't a sufficient reason against non-abusive (consensual) incest. In the case of child/adult incest: the child thinks he/she knows what he/she wants but his/her personality is still developing and this individual might consent to things he/she will regret later very very much. This will thus be the wrong type of dom/sub relationship because of dubious consent.

Frollein wrote: “Allowing people to abuse their authority to force sexual favours sounds pretty tyrannical and dystopian to me.„


It seems you are confusing incest in general with the abusive type of incest and thus have no sufficient point why consensual incest is wrong.



c) Emotional Control

The immortal goon wrote: “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„


All Incest ≠ emotional control. The emotional control you're referring to related to this incest topic is only applicable to guardian figures and their underage family members. No one can practice control over an adult's own emotions except for the adult herself/himself, unless it is an abusive relationship (often using violence and manipulation as a control method and is present in non-consensual incest).

For example, lets say Elsa and Anna are consensual adults in an incestuous relationship. If Elsa, the older sister, tells Anna she wants Anna to have sex with her tonight, Anna will say no way if she doesn't want to because Anna can make her own decisions. If you think that Elsa can still manipulate Anna then you should remember that Anna's non-relative ex-boyfriend could have also been manipulating her. Manipulation isn't dependant on Elsa and Anna's incestuous relationship but on the individuals they are themselves.

We are discussing the rightness/wrongness of incestuous relationships. You seem to be motivating why abusive incest is wrong. Not all incest is abusive so the emotional control point that you're trying to make against abusive incest is not applicable against all incest in general, just like the emotional and physical control point against rape is not applicable against all sexual intercourse for example.

On the same-sex incest topic I believe that incest is right when:

a. It is Consensual (non-abusive)
b. They are Adults. No underage partner involved with an adult (still wondering if it is right if both of them are underage and has equal responsibility towards each other- do they really know what they want and really consent?)
c. They are same-sex as the topic suggests

Male/Female incest

Because the percentage of genetic defects are so low (same as with a mother that is over the age of 35) I'm not against this type of incest when:

A) It is consensual
B) The partners are both adults


I am against chain incest though. It is where incest is repeated in the same family line. The birth defect persentage will grow in this case. If the parents of a child are blood family it doesn't necessarily mean that incest is also the child's cup of tea though or that it will be repeated by the child.

My conclusion is that incest should be accepted as the exception and not as the rule. Incest only becomes a problem when it's on big scale. For people creeped out by the possibility of incest, remember: just because you know that you can have incest, doesn't mean you want to do it, likewise: just because you can date that random no-relation guy on the street doesn't mean you're into him. Can ≠ want to ≠ have to. And when you don't want to have incest you shouldn't forbid other couples who want this type of love life consensually.

Solution: Legalise all-gender incest with strong criteria of a) consensuality and b) only adults. Make second or third family line of incest (where the parents are blood related) illegal (or where genetic effects becomes scientifically significant.)
#14770266
Its amazing the lengths some people will go to create prejudice against Gay men. they even make claims like:

Gay men have a significantly higher levels of sexually transmitted deceases.
Gay men have a lower life expectancy.
Gay men incur higher medical costs.
Heterosexual men must subsidise Homosexual men under Obamacare.

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]