Should incest be illegal?

[maquiscat]

Nope. That would be an incestuous marriage. You just make this stuf up as you go along, dont you?


Sec. 25.02. PROHIBITED SEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with another person the actor knows to be, without regard to legitimacy:

(1) the actor's ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption;

(2) the actor's current or former stepchild or stepparent;

(3) the actor's parent's brother or sister of the whole or half blood;

(4) the actor's brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption;

(5) the children of the actor's brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption; or

(6) the son or daughter of the actor's aunt or uncle of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means any contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

(2) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(1), in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree

Source?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Nope. That would be an incestuous marriage. You just make this stuf up as you go along, dont you?


Sec. 25.02. PROHIBITED SEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with another person the actor knows to be, without regard to legitimacy:

(1) the actor's ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption;

(2) the actor's current or former stepchild or stepparent;

(3) the actor's parent's brother or sister of the whole or half blood;

(4) the actor's brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption;

(5) the children of the actor's brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption; or

(6) the son or daughter of the actor's aunt or uncle of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means any contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

(2) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(1), in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree

So to expand on my earlier response:

Each state defines incest differently, legally speaking.

Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia

As you can see, many hold intercourse and marriage as two separate things. Legally speaking, incest is neither limited to sex, nor limited to blood.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

That marriage is banned because it's rape. Not because .000001% of people marrying a relative is a DNA threat to society. It's not a DNA threat to society. Never was. Never will be. The law is about rape.

You don't understand why we have the law. That's pathetic.

Your entire BS narrative, excusing southern family rape and pretending DNA is a concern, is heading toward interracial marriage. And you don't even know that. Take a look around you. Who's telling you that BS. Can't you see they're leading you down a path? "If DNA is a concern, what about..." That's where they're taking you. But DNA is not a concern; the narrative employs false premise.


One cannot marry family because it's rape. End of story.

Back in the days when such laws were imposed, even without DNA evidence, they knew there was a clear possibility of genetic defects. It was obvious from lines of parentage historically (famous and within communities). IMO that's where many of the taboos probably started historically.

But in any case, that was the logical basis for legally forbidding close relatives from marrying.

Today, we can screen for many things and really, there's no restrictions on any individuals with inheritable genetic conditions from marrying so IMO it shouldnt be valid 'on that basis' today.

 

[dixon01767]

That marriage is banned because it's rape. Not because .000001% of people marrying a relative is a DNA threat to society. It's not a DNA threat to society. Never was. Never will be. The law is about rape.

A common justification for prohibiting incest is avoiding inbreeding: a collection of genetic disorders suffered by the children of parents with a close genetic relationship.[9]
Incest - Wikipedia


Lets see any published material that says it is instead to prevent rape. The **** bouncing around in that head of yours is meaningless.

 

[dixon01767]

By law, marriage is included in the definition of incest, whether or not sex occurs.

Nope. That would be an incestuous marriage. You just make this stuf up as you go along, dont you?

So to expand on my earlier response:

I just suppied the state statute that refutes your claim above but you are just to dishonest to admit it.

 

[dixon01767]

Source?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

The laws of Texas that directly refutes your assertion that "By law, marriage is included in the definition of incest"

 

[maquiscat]

I just suppied the state statute that refutes your claim above but you are just to dishonest to admit it.

A state statue. I provided all of them. As noted, each state is different.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

The laws of Texas that directly refutes your assertion that "By law, marriage is included in the definition of incest"

My apologies, marriage is included in most legal definitions of incest. Sorry I broad brushed.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

A state statue. I provided all of them. As noted, each state is different.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

My one single example refutes your claim.

 

[maquiscat]

My one single example refutes your claim.

Did you bother to look at the next post?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

A common justification for prohibiting incest is avoiding inbreeding: a collection of genetic disorders suffered by the children of parents with a close genetic relationship.[9]
Incest - Wikipedia


Lets see any published material that says it is instead to prevent rape. The **** bouncing around in that head of yours is meaningless.

"People commonly say blahblah". Wiki citation.

Spare me.



Stop supporting family rape by supporting incestuous marriage. This isn't the South during Reconstruction. No raping family members.

And stop pretending incest is not rape. That's horrifically creepy. You're basically engaged in rape apology.

Where do you think this stupid narrative (incest should be legal) comes from? It comes from rape apology. The whole thing is basically, "I'm unclear about rape". It's a gas-light to recruit the intellectually and morally unstable.

 

[dixon01767]

Lets see any published material that says it is instead to prevent rape. .

"People commonly say blahblah". Wiki citation.

Spare me..

Couldnt find ANYTHING, could you

 

[ecofarm]

Couldnt find ANYTHING, could you

You need to learn why incest is rape so you don't go about being all creepy.

 

[maquiscat]

You need to learn why incest is rape so you don't go about being all creepy.

You have yet to support that. Rape is rape. Blood ties have nothing to do with whether or not informed non coeresed consent was given.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

You have yet to support that. Rape is rape.

Family dynamics makes incest rape - always.

Wanting rape victims to be married to their abuser is horrific. You believe raping someone means owning them. That's the only way to support marriage to a rapist.

 

[maquiscat]

Family dynamics makes incest rape - always.

Wanting rape victims to be married to their abuser is horrific. You believe raping someone means owning them. That's the only way to support marriage to a rapist.

Your first error is conflating legal marriage with sex. A legal marriage exists independent of whether or not sex is present.

Support that family is dynamics makes incest rape always. I can disprove you instantly with all the cases of incest and marriage that have occurred with siblings and such who never grew up together and didn't know they were related when it happened. How is that rape? Are you suggesting that two consenting adults who are related, knowingly or unknowingly, are committing mutual rape?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

You need to learn why incest is rape so you don't go about being all creepy.

Im the one who thinks Incest should be illegal. I was speaking of marriage. And marriage isnt rape. And even though in the past, rape of a woman by her husband wasnt a crime, it is now a crime in all 50 states.

 

[dixon01767]

Your first error is conflating legal marriage with sex.

Court cases can change the legal meaning of marriage in the 21st century, but they dont erase the dawn of civilization through the 20th century history of legal marriage that WAS inexoracly linked to procreation and the formation of nuclear families. To quote the Supreme court 20th century-

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

But we have 21st century marriage which is all about helping gays feel better about their homosexuality. Now gay butt sex is also equally fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. They are just like the breeders now. Equal in all ways.

 

[maquiscat]

Court cases can change the legal meaning of marriage in the 21st century, but they dont erase the dawn of civilization through the 20th century history of legal marriage that WAS inexoracly linked to procreation and the formation of nuclear families. To quote the Supreme court 20th century-

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

But we have 21st century marriage which is all about helping gays feel better about their homosexuality. Now gay butt sex is also equally fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. They are just like the breeders now. Equal in all ways.

Despite what SCOTUS says, there is no objective evidence that marriage is required for the survival of the race. Procreation is all that is needed. And quite frankly I do not see marriage, as a legal institution, in and of itself as any sort of basic right. In the sense of Freedom of Association, sure, but there really isn't any true support for marriage as a legal right separate and apart.

Which then means that should we decide to have marriage as a legal institution, then it needs to be available to all adults. Or, logically, if we were to define it as something that is based upon procreation, then it must be denied to any pairing that cannot have children. Meaning that women with hysterectomies or tubal ligations are not allowed marriage, as well as men with vasectomies.

Like many other violations of rights that were laws, such as slavery or women not being able to vote or hold office, past laws are not automatically upholding of rights, nor can we guarantee future laws will be. Which is why we have to fight to ensure they do uphold rights.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Despite what SCOTUS says, there is no objective evidence that marriage is required for the survival of the race.

Actually, when that was written. It was against the law for a man to cohabitate or engage in sex with a woman who was not his wife. He could go to jail. MARRIAGE WAS REQUIRED. Another Supreme Court Quote, 20th century exactly on that point

"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

 

[maquiscat]

Actually, when that was written. It was against the law for a man to cohabitate or engage in sex with a woman who was not his wife. He could go to jail. MARRIAGE WAS REQUIRED. Another Supreme Court Quote, 20th century exactly on that point

"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

All of this highlights my point of there being laws that violate rights. Despite any law, marriage is not a necessity for species survival. At best, a legal fiction, at worse pure correlation/causation fallacy.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Drwisefellow]

There we go down the sloped when the SC legalized gay marriage! This will never stop unless we reverse what they did. Heck, if you asked anyone 15 years ago, what does LGBT stands for no one would have known. When you did explain the meaning you would have witnessed disgust. However, now we are jaded to its meaning. We are a frog in hot water slowly we will be the abnormal!

Mark my word....soon we will witness the advocacy of incest then man boy love then all children! That is why it's a perversion! People who advocate or engage in homosexual perversion have a mental illness thereby all of their thought has a bent preception to it. It's just like an alcoholic who speaks on having rights to drive while drinking and you are a alcholicphobic for not agreeing with them, much less calling it for what it is!

Those who do not heed this warning, you may become susceptible to it's lure. I ask all to love them but hate their sin and never listened to their debates! Good luck you have warned!

 

[maquiscat]

You quoted two of my post and then I guess deleted them? What did you respond to? Given the post that did make it, I am curious as to what you said.

There we go down the sloped when the SC legalized gay marriage! This will never stop unless we reverse what they did.

You are very clueless. This was predicted back when they legalized interracial marriage. So if we're going to reverse it, then you need to take it all the way back. Otherwise you're cherry picking. When it comes down to it, the one consistent criteria has been consenting adults. That is why the pedophilia/beastiality slippery slope argument fails. Quite honestly anyone who thought blood related and multispouse marriages would never come about was a fool, since we are still talking about consenting adults.

Heck, if you asked anyone 15 years ago, what does LGBT stands for no one would have known. When you did explain the meaning you would have witnessed disgust. However, now we are jaded to its meaning.

Again, you are woefully sheltered. LBGT...well the LBG aspect... Has been a common acronym for at least 25 years. And the disgust was pretty much in the minority as of the turn of the century.

We are a frog in hot water slowly we will be the abnormal!

If we are all a given thing then it is not abnormal. Basic statistics. That said, once again, sadly ignorant. Homo and bi sexuality, and transgenderism have remained a consistent rough 5% of the population, both among humans and among animals. And given that there is no pattern of where it will appear, there is no definitive source. 99% of incest cases among consenting adults are between relatives that are not aware of their relationship, such as children separated at birth. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder of the same type as kleptomania. It is not a choice. Many who have it struggle to overcome it and receive little to no help.

Mark my word....soon we will witness the advocacy of incest then man boy love then all children! That is why it's a perversion! People who advocate or engage in homosexual perversion have a mental illness thereby all of their thought has a bent preception to it.

Once again, the standard is consenting adults.

And here is the one thing that most of your ilk miss. This isn't about sex. Right now there are no laws, outside of age restrictions (remember the adult part) and the incest laws that limit who you have sex with. So interracial is legal, same sex is legal, multiple partners is legal....no marriage required. When we are talking about legal marriage the only thing we are actually talking about is a set of legal rights, benefits and responsibilities. Not sex, not love, not children.





Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[whatisanopinion]

This question reminds me of the what ifs concerning polygamists. If gay marriage is legal, then alot of ppl predicted polygamists would be next to proclaim their right to marry multiple people. Being gay, i admit i struggled with this, bc my first thought was.. "well thats going too far bc it invves more than 2 adults".. but i see how thats the same logic people applied to gay marriage. And you wonder.. where the hell IS the line? Im ckmfortable saying people can do what they want if theyre not hurting anyone, but when it comes to legal benefits, what do we do? I always hated when someone would say "well gay marriage.. whats next?? Marrrying an animal??"... but technically speaking.. its a valid question. Tough to be so self aware. But we always adapt.