Should incest be illegal?

[CLAX1911]

So what about gay incest? What about incest between two consenting adults who can't bring children anyway?

What about it?

Should your utopian government get themselves involved in their bedroom too or just in the bedroom of two related people who can bring children together?

Don't care.

And there are people with genetic disorders that can pass that disorder to their baby, too. Should the government be included in their bedroom as well?

an incestuous couple wouldn't just be passing on their genetic disorders they would be creating new ones.

 

[CLAX1911]

How do you feel about sexual contact between two adults with Down Syndrome? Or dwarfism? Should that be illegal?

No...

 

[maquiscat]

Nate. It's sick.

Sick things must be illegal.

So then sex with/between fat people needs to be illegal? Quite a number of people find that sick.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

A significant number of people feel that homosexuality is gross and immoral. Is this a sufficient reason to make it illegal?

Heck, take it the whole 9 yards. Interracial sex was/is considered gross and immoral. Is that sufficient to make it illegal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

To short answer is YES, incest should be criminally illegal as a matter of social policy.

Long answer? Why should it? Universally? Is there a difference if a child can't be produced?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Apocalypse]

What about it?

Don't care.

So I'll assume not caring means you don't argue for a law against incest in such cases as the ones I described since you don't care one way or another.
So you're fine with incest being legal and believe the government should only involve itself in the case of related people who can bring babies to the world by having sex with each other. Correct?

an incestuous couple wouldn't just be passing on their genetic disorders they would be creating new ones.

Huh? You're not making sense on that one. What is the difference? A child born with genetic disorder will carry it through with him one way or another.
There is no difference.

 

[CLAX1911]

Long answer? Why should it? Universally? Is there a difference if a child can't be produced?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Several reasons sex between closely related people is often exploitative like a parenting a child or an uncle and a niece or nephew or even an older sibling. Another reason is they produce children with inbred genetics and that can cause problems

 

[lwf]

No...

So then what is the difference? So long as the participating parties are able to consent, where do we get the authority to forcibly prevent them from sexual contact through the threat of criminal charges?

 

[maquiscat]

Yes incest should absolutely be illegal. Incest is sexual activity between members of a family. It not only should be illegal between members that are related by sanguinity but also affinity.

Yes it discriminates against incestuous couples as it should. incest if continued through several generations causes horrible maladies.

This isn't even closely comparable to same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage it's two people who are not related committing to one another. Incest involves simply sex between two people who are related.

So why the affinity? Especially when you cite genetic reasonings. Why shouldn't say, Greg and Marsha Brady be allowed to get it on after they are full adults?

Also, and especially since legal marriage doesn't involve sex, nor does sex require legal marriage, should legal marriage be withheld from related couple? For this last question answer for both sanguinous and by affinity, please.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Wan]

Another reason is they produce children with inbred genetics and that can cause problems

Incestuous relationships do not always produce children with genetic defects. Assuming that both parents carry no deleterious genes.

 

[Apocalypse]

Incestuous relationships do not always produce children with genetic defects. Assuming that both parents carry no deleterious genes.

That is also correct.

 

[lwf]

Several reasons sex between closely related people is often exploitative like a parenting a child or an uncle and a niece or nephew or even an older sibling. Another reason is they produce children with inbred genetics and that can cause problems

Children are unable to consent to sex, so any sexual contact with children regardless of familial relations or lack thereof is child sexual abuse.

And if the genetic problems caused by people with genetic disorders who reproduce is not sufficient to outlaw sexual contact between people with those disorders, how is it sufficient to outlaw incestuous sexual contact between consenting adults?

 

[maquiscat]

Everybody is going to be directly affected when the child is born.

This would certainly be true with two unrelated people who both have a high probability of a disorder. Why wouldn't we also restrict them?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Good because it's clearly not. An Uncle or father raping a niece or daughter has no connection to same sex marriage.

You didn't think it through did you?

False equivalency. Incest is not automatically rape, statutory or otherwise.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Apocalypse]

Several reasons sex between closely related people is often exploitative like a parenting a child or an uncle and a niece or nephew or even an older sibling. Another reason is they produce children with inbred genetics and that can cause problems

There already are laws against child abuse.
And if you ban one act that may produce children with genetic disorders you must by that logic ban them all. It's a slippery slope.

 

[CLAX1911]

So I'll assume not caring means you don't argue for a law against incest in such cases as the ones I described since you don't care one way or another.

It means I don't care. . If you want to form a civil rights movement based on men who want to have sex with their brothers or fathers by all means do it, I wish you luck.

So you're fine with incest being legal and believe the government should only involve itself in the case of related people who can bring babies to the world by having sex with each other. Correct?

I think it also should be illegal if it's exploitative or if it's an adult and child.

Huh? You're not making sense on that one.

it's very simple, if you are inbred you are prone to unique genetic problems based on the fact that you are inbred. A person who is not is not.

What is the difference? A child born with genetic disorder will carry it through with him one way or another.
There is no difference.

if you can't see a difference between passing on an inherited genetic abnormality and creating new ones by inbreeding then this discussion cannot continue.

You have to first accept the fact that someone who is inbred it's prone to problems that someone who is not in bread is not prone to.

 

[CLAX1911]

There already are laws against child abuse.

and there are laws against incestuous child molestation. I agree with those laws.

And if you ban one act that may produce children with genetic disorders you must by that logic ban them all. It's a slippery slope.

what if I were just to support banning all sexual acts that lead to inbreeding?

 

[CLAX1911]

So then what is the difference? So long as the participating parties are able to consent, where do we get the authority to forcibly prevent them from sexual contact through the threat of criminal charges?

I don't have the authority I'm not enforcement.

 

[CLAX1911]

This would certainly be true with two unrelated people who both have a high probability of a disorder. Why wouldn't we also restrict them?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

no it isn't because two people that having a child that aren't related have zero possibility of producing a child that is inbred.

 

[CLAX1911]

False equivalency. Incest is not automatically rape, statutory or otherwise.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I didn't say it was so it's not a false equivalence.

 

[maquiscat]

It's not just that there's disapproval. Incestuous relationships couldn often do involve coercion, end child abuse. if you have two consenting people of legal age that are related it leads to genetic anomalies in the children that aren't present in none incestuous relationships.

There are already laws against coercion and child abuse, so to what point additional laws? And even if we could justify restricting sex on potential genetic defects (which should then include both related and non related couples) what is the justification on those who cannot produce children?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Apocalypse]

It means I don't care. . If you want to form a civil rights movement based on men who want to have sex with their brothers or fathers by all means do it, I wish you luck.
I think it also should be illegal if it's exploitative or if it's an adult and child.

Not just gays. Any couple of relatives that cannot bring children, by your reasoning, has no reason to not be allowed to have sex with each other "as long as it's not exploitative or an adult and a child" (= Already illegal, so needless to mention).

So you believe incest should be allowed. You oppose a specific case where two relatives might end up bringing children together.

it's very simple, if you are inbred you are prone to unique genetic problems based on the fact that you are inbred. A person who is not is not.

if you can't see a difference between passing on an inherited genetic abnormality and creating new ones by inbreeding then this discussion cannot continue.

You have to first accept the fact that someone who is inbred it's prone to problems that someone who is not in bread is not prone to.

I can see the difference on the factual level. What I don't see is why you think that couples who may pass one kind of a genetic disorder should be allowed to have children while another couple that can create a different kind should not be allowed to. If your issue is with children suffering a genetic disorder, then clearly you would oppose all kinds of actions that result in that, not just sex between relatives that may or may not end in such.

 

[CLAX1911]

Children are unable to consent to sex, so any sexual contact with children regardless of familial relations or lack thereof is child sexual abuse.

No argument there.

And if the genetic problems caused by people with genetic disorders who reproduce is not sufficient to outlaw sexual contact between people with those disorders, how is it sufficient to outlaw incestuous sexual contact between consenting adults?

because incestuous childbearing produces inbred children.

 

[Wan]

because incestuous childbearing produces inbred children.

So what? Not all inbred children have genetic defects.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not just gays. Any couple of relatives that cannot bring children, by your reasoning, has no reason to not be allowed to have sex with each other "as long as it's not exploitative or an adult and a child" (= Already illegal, so needless to mention).

there is a reason to outlaw incest between childbearing couples you're just ignoring it.

Inbreeding produces inbred children. Inbred children have a higher propensity for health problems non inbred children don't.

Make the statement I just made not true then you have an argument. Otherwise you're finished.

So you believe incest should be allowed. You oppose a specific case where two relatives might end up bringing children together.

quit making straw man fallacies

I can see the difference on the factual level. What I don't see is why you think that couples who may pass one kind of a genetic disorder should be allowed to have children while another couple that can create a different kind should not be allowed to.

if you can't see a difference between an inbred child and a non inbred child this discussions over no sense can be made to you.

You lack the ability to comprehend the discussion.

If your issue is with children suffering a genetic disorder, then clearly you would oppose all kinds of actions that result in that, not just sex between relatives that may or may not end in such.

no this is another straw man fallacy why can you not argue without making straw man fallacies.

There is a difference between an inherited genetic condition and inbreeding. if you can't understand that you can't comprehend this discussion so it's over.