What's wrong with incest?

[Mock Turtle]

So, in your opinion, should incest (of all kinds) be banned under the law?

No, not necessarily. I think it depends on many things - most of which I haven't really looked into sufficiently so as to form an opinion. I don't have an adverse reaction to just ban it. it's more down to any harms that might occur than anything else. No religious convictions for example. The power thing is the obvious one though.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Are we talking same sex sibling sibling relationships of the same age? It sounds like a very narrow exemption that would require investigation on a case by case basis to maintain that no coercion/abuse could be lurking in the history. While that very well might be a class where we could offer individual exemptions doing so would require asking the individuals involved to give up privacy rights and to overcome presumptions. In other words, when we have sufficient governmental interest to ban such relationships, should we on the basis of some small class spend government funds and time to ensure that the right to marry is available for this class?

It is a tough question. I see no reason however to extend anything more than a rational basis test to these laws. Siblings are not a "discrete and insular" minority or have not traditionally faced discrimination. On a rational basis these laws past muster and while I may understand that this means some individuals will not have the right to marry when it no way conflicts with a governmental interest, the group's right, (as a whole), does conflict with legitimate governmental interest.

Not just same sex sibling relationships, but also heterosexual sibling relationships. This is arguably not such a small minority.

And why should the government's interest extend to policing only incestuous sexual relationships for the reasons you provide, rather than other kinds of sexual relationship where there is the potential for abuse (or the birth of unhealthy offspring)?

 

[Deidre]

Usually it's done with children, by adults who are taking advantage of their position as parents, older siblings, etc. It's not consenting sex, often times. I've read a few articles about this, and even when it's a brother and sister, nearly the same age, there still seems to be a lack of consent on one or the other's parts.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Genetic issues are a problem. I guess you could screen for those, but it's probably for the best to avoid it.

Why is it probably for the best to avoid it?

Are you saying if the kids he had sex with weren't related to him it would be better?

Au contraire, I am saying that child sexual abuse is the problem in the example given (rather than incest).

My mother is deep into genealogy. She discovered my father and my mother are 4th cousins, confirmed when they had to have a blood test for some reason I forget and they had details in the blood that only made sense if they were related. Mental illness and various other disorders run rampant all over my family tree. I think the only reason my brother and I can "fake" being normal so well is we think that the two genetic lines with lots of screw ups merged and somehow we ended up getting some of the "pure line" back before the lines split up.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm really sorry to hear that.....

gives internet hug

My mother only revealed it quite late on in her life, which was the sad part, as she had kept it secret from all others too. One just wouldn't have guessed it either, since she was just so capable and bubbly, with hardly a care ever it seems. She just seemed to devote her life to us children. We never met her father and she and a brother did say he was a brute and drunkard though, perhaps hinting that life was very hard, but none of us guessed it might have been so bad. Don't know how she survived to be such a lovely person. I suppose her natural personality enabled her to do so, and her sister was very much like her too - a nice and bubbly person. Her sister was taken away with my grandmother when she left him at some stage, leaving my mother and several others to face life alone with him. Just horrible.

 

[Naama]

My mother only revealed it quite late on in her life, which was the sad part, as she had kept it secret from all others too. One just wouldn't have guessed it either, since she was just so capable and bubbly, with hardly a care ever it seems. She just seemed to devote her life to us children. We never met her father and she and a brother did say he was a brute and drunkard though, perhaps hinting that life was very hard, but none of us guessed it might have been so bad. Don't know how she survived to be such a lovely person. I suppose her natural personality enabled her to do so, and her sister was very much like her too - a nice and bubbly person. Her sister was taken away with my grandmother when she left him at some stage, leaving my mother and several others to face life alone with him. Just horrible.

Internet hugging intensifies

 

[MonkeyFire]

That's an aspect of the one thing I hate. Basically you would be hate food. I can tolerate anything, but dis-belief will harm you to the grain.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Usually it's done with children, by adults who are taking advantage of their position as parents, older siblings, etc. It's not consenting sex, often times. I've read a few articles about this, and even when it's a brother and sister, nearly the same age, there still seems to be a lack of consent on one or the other's parts.

Child sexual abuse is arguably distinct from incest though, and I'd contend your assertion that most sibling-sibling sexual relationships between adults are not consenting (some maybe, but why necessarily the majority?).

 

[Vouthon]

Your argument might well apply to parent-child sexual relationships, but what of sibling-sibling sexual relationships (involving consenting adults of a similar age)?

I view it as morally wrong, even if the siblings or close relatives (i.e. uncle and niece) consent to the union and refrain from bearing children. That is certainly less irresponsible and reprehensible than incestuous reproductive sex but it is still taboo in my eyes.

St. Augustine condemned endogamy, because he argued that (in addition to the health risk if offspring are involved), marriage served the purpose of bringing people together who would not otherwise be united in bonds of love and amity.

When you married a close relative, you were thwarting that purpose because you were not bringing two different families together, since you and your spouse were already related.

Therefore, as an important tool of social utility, endogamy would have to be rejected as bad for the common good of society, leading as it does to isolationism and nepotism within kinship groups. Such powerful kin groups hold back state-building and democratization to this day in some parts of the world.

Why would we aspire to create closed communities? Enlarging the orbit of one's social relations and bringing different "tribes" of people together is more desirable than a bottleneck.

Where reproductive sex is involved, it becomes much graver and reckless in nature. There is a remarkable letter from Pope Gregory the Great (540 – 604) in the sixth century AD, which explains the church's opposition to marriage within the kin group as follows:

A certain secular law in the Roman State allows that the son and daughter of a brother and sister or of two brothers or two sisters may be married (i.e. first cousins). But we have learned from experience that the offspring of such marriages cannot thrive [in terms of health/life expectancy/infertility]. Sacred law forbids a man to uncover the nakedness of his kindred. Hence it is necessary that the faithful should only marry relations three or four times removed, while those twice removed must not marry in any case, as we have said


​

For some inexplicable reason, the Catholic Church was one of the first institutions in global history (if not the first, actually) to recognise that marriage between close cousins raised the children's risk of being born with birth defects or other health problems.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

That's an aspect of the one thing I hate. Basically you would be hate food. I can tolerate anything, but dis-belief will harm your manhood.

Sorry?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Internet hugging intensifies

There's a bit about this in my journal. Thank you.

 

[Skwim]

The thread title is pretty self-explanatory. But just to expand a little, how do you define incest - how closely-related does someone need to be - and why do you think it is wrong (assuming you do - if you don't, why not?)?

PS

From Wikipedia.

Laws regarding incest. . . "vary between jurisdictions, and depend on the type of sexual activity and the nature of the family relationship of the parties involved, as well as the age and sex of the parties."

Laws regarding incest are sometimes expressed in terms of degrees of relationship. The consanguinity (but not affinity) relationships may be summarized as follows:

The degree of relationships is calculated by counting the number of generations back to a common ancestor. Most laws regarding prohibited degree of kinship concern relations of r = 25% or higher, while most permit unions of individuals with r = 12.5% or lower. In some US states, cousin marriages are prohibited. Also, most laws make no provision for the rare case of marriage between double first cousins. Incest laws may also include prohibitions of unions between biologically unrelated individuals if there is a close legal relationship, such as adoption.

.

.
​

 

[Shaul]

Both of them seemed to find the experience beneficial.

They sound like the exception that proves the rule. I heard of a guy that juggled lit sticks of dynamite that had a good time too, but I don’t recommend it for everyone.

 

[Curious George]

Not just same sex sibling relationships, but also heterosexual sibling relationships. This is arguably not such a small minority.

And why should the government's interest extend to policing only incestuous sexual relationships for the reasons you provide, rather than other kinds of sexual relationship where there is the potential for abuse (or the birth of unhealthy offspring)?

Male-female relationships also have a higher potential for potential so brother sister relationships would present additional reasons to prevent. This reasoning does exist in other areas. But, how are you going to test for that without violating privacy or discriminating based on disability? I suppose that we could declare discrimination against familial status but does familial status a discrete and insular minority? I just do not see it. Siblings are relatively common. Granted, one cannot change ones status as a sibling, but I do not think that siblings are a minority or have faced traditional discrimination. I just cannot see any reason to see this as anything more than rational basis. And through that lens the government has more than enough reason to disallow it.

I am sorry, I just do not see any reason to extend protection. We have clearly outlined rational reasons to prevent incest. We have noted that the laws are certainly related to that end. What more do you want? I get that some who do not fit into these reasons are denied the right, but these are exceptions to the general rule. I cannot see a reason to extend protection to this segment and carve out exceptions to the existing law. The existing law passes all necessary requirements.

 

[Skwim]

Most countries around the world don't consider first-cousin marriage incest. Though it doesn't sound healthy to me either.

Dark blue: First-cousin marriage legal
Light blue: Allowed with restrictions or exceptions
Orange: Legality dependent on religion or culture2
Red: Statute bans first-cousin marriage
Pink:Banned with exceptions
Maroon: Criminal offense
Gray: No available data
Source: Wikipedia

.
​

 

[Vouthon]

Dark blue: First-cousin marriage legal
Light blue: Allowed with restrictions or exceptions
Orange: Legality dependent on religion or culture2
Red: Statute bans first-cousin marriage
Pink:Banned with exceptions
Maroon: Criminal offense
Gray: No available data
Source: Wikipedia

.
​

I don't believe first cousin marriage should be declared illegal at the state level.

However, I do think that it is best advised against if the couple are planning to start a family together. At the very least, information about the risks for any offspring should be made available to them, in the interests of responsible parenthood.

In a societal sense, high rates of first cousin marriage are not good for public health.

 

[Jumi]

Dark blue: First-cousin marriage legal
Light blue: Allowed with restrictions or exceptions
Orange: Legality dependent on religion or culture2
Red: Statute bans first-cousin marriage
Pink:Banned with exceptions
Maroon: Criminal offense
Gray: No available data
Source: Wikipedia

.
​

Exactly so

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Why would we aspire to create closed communities? Enlarging the orbit of one's social relations and bringing different "tribes" of people together is more desirable than a bottleneck.

I'm curious your feelings on marrying childhood friends is then, as they certainly can be so close to be very much part of the same 'tribe without actual familial ties. I've personally loved my husband since I was a preteen.
(No, we are not related , for anyone curious about the implication.)

 

[MonkeyFire]

Sorry?

You should be.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Male-female relationships also have a higher potential for potential so brother sister relationships would present additional reasons to prevent. This reasoning does exist in other areas. But, how are you going to test for that without violating privacy or discriminating based on disability? I suppose that we could declare discrimination against familial status but does familial status a discrete and insular minority? I just do not see it. Siblings are relatively common. Granted, one cannot change ones status as a sibling, but I do not think that siblings are a minority or have faced traditional discrimination. I just cannot see any reason to see this as anything more than rational basis. And through that lens the government has more than enough reason to disallow it.

I am sorry, I just do not see any reason to extend protection. We have clearly outlined rational reasons to prevent incest. We have noted that the laws are certainly related to that end. What more do you want? I get that some who do not fit into these reasons are denied the right, but these are exceptions to the general rule. I cannot see a reason to extend protection to this segment and carve out exceptions to the existing law. The existing law passes all necessary requirements.

Okay, so what do you see as the general rule here? I'm afraid I still don't get what the rational reasons are that pertain to incest that don't also pertain to certain other kinds of sexual relations that aren't prohibited by law.