How do you justify gay marriage without justifying incest?

[EGarrett]

This is the only logical difficulty I see when I'm arguing gay rights with people. I've said in the past that there is no logical argument against gay marriage, and that's pretty much true, but looking deeper into the justification for gay marriage (people have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm others or harm the functioning of society...and homosexuality does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality, pedophilia and incest are harmful to the animal, the child or the offspring).

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?

[Nogbad]

This is the only logical difficulty I see when I'm arguing gay rights with people. I've said in the past that there is no logical argument against gay marriage, and that's pretty much true, but looking deeper into the justification for gay marriage (people have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm others or harm the functioning of society...and homosexuality does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality, pedophilia and incest are harmful to the animal, the child or the offspring).

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?

What do you mean by incest? I have known 1st cousins who have married. He got the snip. If it is gay incest then there will be no kids anyhoo :)

[EGarrett]

A brother marrying his sister (without having children), or a mother marrying or having sex with her 18-year-old son (again without having children)...

[Rasmus]

This is the only logical difficulty I see when I'm arguing gay rights with people. I've said in the past that there is no logical argument against gay marriage, and that's pretty much true, but looking deeper into the justification for gay marriage (people have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm others or harm the functioning of society...and homosexuality does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality, pedophilia and incest are harmful to the animal, the child or the offspring).

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?

Where is the problem?

If you cannot demonstrate that there is a problem with X, then I will indeed support it. Why should I be against incest in lieu of all the reasons against it?

[Earthborn]

I am assuming you are talking about consensual sexual relationships between direct family members. Still, the question does not make sense; sex isn't marriage. Better questions would be "how do you justify gay sex without justifying incestuous sex?" or "how would you justify gay marriage without justifying incestuous marriage?". At least those questions compare similar things.

I guess it is certainly possible that incestuous couples will also demand that they can legally marry, and perhaps they will make some of the same arguments that are now used in favour of same sex marriage. I also don't think such a thing would necessarily be bad.

But I believe that there is a very fundamental difference between same sex marriage and incestuous marriage, which I think makes it less likely that people in incestuous relationships will feel the need to marry. Civil marriage is something that is organised in most countries as a way for two people who are not family to be treated as family by the government. Incestuous couples are already family and many/most of the government benefits/regulations that apply to married couples already apply to them.

[Retrograde]

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?


OK, iff it's between consenting adults. As for children, well, we breed race horses to close relatives and look how well, um, er, nevermind. There is an increased risk for perpetuating non-desired traits; however, with modern medicine and technology we see a lot of high risk babies surviving today that wouldn't have a generation ago.

[Safe-Keeper]

How do I counter this? I simply point out that it's a red herring and slippery slope, akin to how one could say "no, women can't be allowed to vote, because then children will have to be allowed to vote, too", or "if you eat animal meat, you might as well eat start eating human meat, too". Instead of discussing the topic at hand, you derail the discussion while simultaneously associating your opponent's stance with a social taboo. It's a cunning move, but ultimately nothing more than a fallacy.

If I was to take the argument seriously, I'd say that apart from the risks you undertake when having anal sex, which causes tearing, etc., homosexuality is not hurting anyone. Incest, however, is genetically unsound, and shouldn't be undertaken by unless one partner is sterile. In fact, as far as I know, there are places in the world, among them American states, that allow cousins to marry if one of them is sterile.

But as Earthborn says, incest isn't marriage. Denying people in an incestuous relationship the right to marry won't stop them from getting each others laid.

As for the "gay marriage is pedophilia" argument: Even if homosexuality was similar to pedophilia somehow, and children did feel romantic love and wanted to marry, which they don't, children shouldn't marry for the same reason they shouldn't vote, move away from home, or create and manage their own bank accounts: they're below the age of consent and aren't advanced enough to make such decisions.

So ultimately:
How do you justify gay marriage without justifying incest?I don't. I tell them to get the **** back on topic;).

[Fiona]

Civil marriage is something that is organised in most countries as a way for two people who are not family to be treated as family by the government. Incestuous couples are already family and many/most of the government benefits/regulations that apply to married couples already apply to them.

But not all. I do not mean to suggest this pair were incestuous but, if incestuous gay marriage were legal it might have solved their problem :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7372555.stm

[ImaginalDisc]

Wait, how would you justify prohibiting incest? It produces genetically damaged kids? No parallel argument exists for homosexuality, so the comparison falls flat. What else, it's icky? If ickiness were a valid argument for stopping people from doing things, wear socks with sandals would be illegal.

Why should we prohibit incest, exactly?

How does an opponent of gay marriage who is also an opponent of incest justify prohibiting incest?

[BPSCG]

What, if we allow gay marriage, I'm gonna start ******* my mother?

I bet I don't.

[paximperium]

As already mentioned by "Safe-Keeper" your argument is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid.

It essentially a dishonest or ignorant attempt at linking one issue with another unrelated issue. Instead of discussing "gay marriage", you link it with Incest which are two differing issues only related by sex practice and hated by Christians.

My personal belief is that the government should get out of the "marriage" business. All current marriages should be civil unions(a completely legal and secular based practice) and you can go and get "married" at your local church if you want to call it that.

If you want to discuss the ethics of incest, start another thread.

[GreyICE]

This is the only logical difficulty I see when I'm arguing gay rights with people. I've said in the past that there is no logical argument against gay marriage, and that's pretty much true, but looking deeper into the justification for gay marriage (people have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm others or harm the functioning of society...and homosexuality does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality, pedophilia and incest are harmful to the animal, the child or the offspring).

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?
Well first I'll ask the logical followup question: Since society has the right to arbitrarily restrict what parties can be involved in a marriage, you must logically support the right of countries to restrict based on race and/or religion, correct? It's exactly the fallacy they're using, turned around and thrown in their face.

Then I'd follow up with saying that I do think incest between two consenting adults is fine as long as they don't have children. That is related to my stance on gay marriage only in that I have started from similar base principles to arrive there. But first I'd let them argue themselves out of the race restrictions. If it was a debate, I'd simply use the question above to show the fallacy of the argument, and leave it at that.

[ceo_esq]

As already mentioned by "Safe-Keeper" your argument is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid.

It essentially a dishonest or ignorant attempt at linking one issue with another unrelated issue. Instead of discussing "gay marriage", you link it with Incest which are two differing issues only related by sex practice and hated by Christians.

To raise a slippery slope argument is generally not fallacious so long as one is not arguing that A will inevitably, as a matter of logic, lead to B. A more modest claim that A will or may make B more likely may be mistaken but does not generally involve an error of logic. Such non-fallacious slippery slope arguments are important in matters of legislation and jurisprudence. As Eugene Volokh has noted:

Slippery slopes are … a real cause for concern, as legal thinkers such as Madison, Jackson, Brennan, Harlan, and Black have recognized, and as our own experience at least partly bears out: we can all identify situations where one group's support of a first step A eventually made it easier for others to implement a later step B that might not have happened without A (though we may disagree about exactly which situations exhibit this quality). Such an A may not have logically required the corresponding B, yet for political and psychological reasons, it helped bring B about.

(E. Volokh, "The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope", 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1026 (2003) (internal citations omitted).)


Interestingly, Professor Volokh has written a subsequent article dealing with slippery slope arguments in the specific context of same-sex marriage that is available online (http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf). EGarrett, this might be of particular interest to you in relation to the kind of conversations to which your OP refers.

[articulett]

Most states allow marriage between two consenting adults who are not related (some states allow first cousin marriage... others say they must be at least second cousins)--

Most states do not have (or did not have) laws forbidding sex between same sex couples nor did they allow polygamy, incestuous marriages, nor children to enter into "contracts"-- gay marriage was allowed in some states because it was never forbidden by the words of the law... incestuous marriage is.

[SimonD]

I don't see why we need to justify gay marriage in the first palce. I don't see why they shouldn't suffer alone with the rest of us who are.

[jimtron]

I agree with much of what has already been said. Also I'd point out that there isn't a critical mass of people pushing for the right to marry a family member, afaik; yet there are millions of gay people in the U.S., many fighting for the right to marry, and although a lot of Americans aren't comfortable with gay marriage, I'm pretty sure the majority of them think that homosexuality is OK. I don't think that's the case with incest.

[Gregory]

A brother marrying his sister (without having children), or a mother marrying or having sex with her 18-year-old son (again without having children)...

I don't justify it; if a brother and sister want to marry, it's no business of mine; as you say, who's it hurting? Liberty hall, I say.

[Rasmus]

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?


One could be a good little sceptic, of course, and simply tell them that one does, in fact, "support" incest.

(Minor derail on the choice of words here: I don't "support" gay marriage. I am in favour of it being legal. I would think gay people can get married all by themselves without any help or assistance from me. But that might be an issue I have with English as a second language ...)

Anyway, I am uncomfortable with the argument that incest should be illegal because of increased risks of the potential offspring. First of all, I think (but might be wrong) that the risk has been greatly exaggerated. Secondly, and more importantly, the same restriction is not applied in cases with a much greater risk, i.e with people who already have known genetic defects.

[Ysidro]

How do I what now? I'm sorry, but it doesn't follow. I justify gay marriage without justifying incest because they have nothing to do with one another! But thanks for trying, please enjoy the home game.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why should we prohibit incest, exactly?
Because I don't have a sister.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Because I don't have a sister.

Ah. But do you have a brother? :evilgrin:

[Suddenly]

What, if we allow gay marriage, I'm gonna start ******* my mother?

I bet I don't.

Must.... Not..... Make..... Joke......

(erghhhhhhh!!!!!)

OK... I'm over it.

I think I do this the same way I justify gay marriage without justifying having sex with BPSCG's.... (erghhhh!!!!)

Sorry. I'm really over it now.

Anyway....

As someone pointed out, the marriage vs. incest isn't a problem. More of a problem would be justifying gay sex without justifying incest among willing partners with no chance of pregnancy. As a moral issue, as the sterile brother and sister humping away doesn't effect me outside of giving me the willies... I don't care. Have at it.

As a matter of law it is not so simple. The difference being that virtually no birth control method short of wholesale removal of reproductive organs is foolproof, and there is a pretty good state interest in avoiding the nasty effects of inbreeding. A wholesale ban may be slightly too broad for that purpose as it may include harmless sex. Making "chance of pregnancy" an element of a crime is a bit too much of a burden and would justify the state obtaining detailed medical records and maybe even examinations via the power to investigate crime...

However, one could also claim that the state has an interest in keeping incest taboo as to avoid any chance of the conduct becoming more acceptable and then taking its toll on the genetic pool.

To sum up, in theory there isn't much immoral with bro and sis tearing one off when pregnancy is impossible as it does not affect me or any other innocent party outside of getting the willies. However, in practice there are legitimate reasons for a state to ban the conduct.

[Beerina]

How do you justify gay marriage without justifying incest?

One must be clear what one means here.

If you mean what consenting adults do behind closed doors, then you indeed justify both those, and other activities, and properly so.

A free people do not hire a government to regulate their sexuality. As the wise sage Madonna once said, "Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."

And let's face it. Laws about incest have nothing really to do with potential birth defects, and everything to do with politicians taking advantage of the historical ickiness factor left over from the ignorant history of humanity.



But if you mean child abuse or rape, then of course that's wrong. But that's already wrong, for other reasons than relativity, and properly so.

[bjornart]

I'd be willing to bet* that the ratio of loving, consensual relationships to abusive relationships is magnitudes lower for incestous relationships, even between adults, than for non-incestous relationships.

That would be my reason for keeping the laws against incest.

[Crude joke removed]

*Actually I wouldn't, since I dislike betting, but I like the phrase.

[geni]

In fact, as far as I know, there are places in the world, among them American states, that allow cousins to marry if one of them is sterile.

Which is in clealy discriminatory. One off cousin marrage is not much a problem (most of the issues kick in when families keep doing it).

Or are you suggesting we ban marrage for over 40s unless one of them is sterile?

[Lothian]

Welsh virgin- Girl that can outrun her brother.


Carry on.

[Safe-Keeper]

Or are you suggesting we ban marrage for over 40s unless one of them is sterile?Didn't think of that one. Thanks.
:goes back to thinking box:

[nightwind]

Well, I've read through this and I have yet to see one good argument against either incest or gay marriage.

And as far as incest between very close kin, if one partner is sterile, not going to be a chance of genetic problems.

Big deal.

[articulett]

Most states have laws forbidding the marriage of close relatives.

Most states have laws forbidding children from marrying or marriage to multiple partners or animals.

States don't usually have laws requiring that the parties marrying be of the opposite sex. No laws need to be changed in any state to allow same sex marriage. A law has to specifically state it's illegal technically to forbid it-- hence the rush to DOMA and state laws about (ha) keeping marriage sacred or whatever.

Legally, separate is not equal... and not allowing privileges to some people that you don't allow to others because of their sexual orientation is a violation of equal rights.

As long as no first cousin marriages are allowed no matter what your gender or sexual orientation, then no one's rights are being violated under the equal protection clause. Homosexual rights ARE being violated if their state has not declared that marriage must be between a man and a woman-- and they may be doing so even if they have passed such a law-- at one time you could not marry between races in some states-- that was held to be a violation of the equal protection clause. Homosexual marriages are seen as a similar violation legally.

[autumn1971]

Why prohibit incest? Have you people looked at the British royal family?
Talk about icky.

[Loss Leader]

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?


What is the chance that an incestuous relationship started out as a consensual pairing of two adults, free from duress or overreaching?

How does that chance compare to the chance that a homosexual relationship started out as such?

The possibility of allowing a home environment where children are preyed upon by more mature, sophisticated and sexually secure adults outweighs whatever freedoms are denied to incestuous but otherwise consenting adults.

[Michael C]

My neighbour's cats are an incestuous crowd: the oldest mother has had children from her own sons and grandsons, these children have bred amongst themselves, and so on. They all seem to be doing just fine.

I don't see any reason to ban incest. I do see reasons to ban fathers or mothers from having sex with their under-age kids, but that's another story.

Does anybody have some serious information about the real genetic dangers of a brother and sister pair having children?

[Gregory]

What is the chance that an incestuous relationship started out as a consensual pairing of two adults, free from duress or overreaching?

I don't know; what are the chances?

Furthermore, does this argument apply to siblings of about the same age-group? If so, how? I mean, I can see the potential for abuse if you let parents and kids go at it, but brothers and sisters? What about cousins?

I can see outlawing sex between someone and his/her legal guardian; but if that's what you want to do, why invoke incest at all?

As for genetic defects, etc, is it illegal for mothers to drink and smoke during pregnancy? Because if it isn't (and you don't think it should be), there's something seriously wrong with outlawing incest based on the possibility of "birth defects."

[Bill Thompson]

This is the only logical difficulty I see when I'm arguing gay rights with people. I've said in the past that there is no logical argument against gay marriage, and that's pretty much true, but looking deeper into the justification for gay marriage (people have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm others or harm the functioning of society...and homosexuality does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality, pedophilia and incest are harmful to the animal, the child or the offspring).

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?

Noone is born with a natural urge to hump thier mom or dad or sister.

[articulett]

There's an increased risk because they are likely to share the same recessive genes since they have half their genes in common... giving each recessive gene a chance a one in 4 chance of appearing in any given mating. But the odds are still better than 85% that the kids will be fine unless you know in advance both are carriers of something like sickle cell or cystic fibrosis... most people don't know what they are carriers for until an offspring has two copies of a recessive gene.

Incest is illegal but I don't think it's likely to be prosecuted amongst consenting adults... there is the social "ick" factor, however. Marriage laws forbidding it are cloaked in rape laws and the fear of medical freaks... but I think it's more of a social ick factor that has evolved...

We aren't the only primate that finds close kin "undesirable" as sex partners. Female baboons, chase out the dominant male (their dad) when they come of age... because they are, no doubt, eager for a change.

[Darth Rotor]

Noone is born with a natural urge to hump thier mom or dad or sister.

Curious: how do you know this?

[articulett]

Noone is born with a natural urge to hump thier mom or dad or sister.

How do you know? I suspect some men do find themselves having such urges--natural or not. I suspect fewer women do.

[Darth Rotor]

How do you know? I suspect some men do find themselves having such urges--natural or not. I suspect fewer women do.
Are you suggesting that the Elektra complex is a myth?

[articulett]

Nope. Just that the Oedipus Complex is more prevalent... and males are more likely to have strong but socially unacceptable sexual urges...

It's true of dogs, anyhow.

[Darth Rotor]

Nope. Just that the Oedipus Complex is more prevalent... and males are more likely to have strong but socially unacceptable sexual urges...

It's true of dogs, anyhow.
Since we were discussing humans, I posit you this question:

Is the issue having the urges, or acting on them? Your assertion was that the urges were less (how you'd know that is a mystery) whereas acting on those urges might be more easily collectible via evidentiary means.

Was that your intended point: more likely to so act on the urge?

[Loss Leader]

As for genetic defects, etc, is it illegal for mothers to drink and smoke during pregnancy? Because if it isn't (and you don't think it should be), there's something seriously wrong with outlawing incest based on the possibility of "birth defects."



I didn't say anything about birth defects. I was talking about the need for a child or teen to have a psychological safe haven, a place where he or she is sheltered from the psychosocial demands of the outside world. It is from this shell that a teen can emerge, experiment with adulthood and scurry back when it becomes too overwhelming. It is imperative for the proper psychological development of children that there be no sexual demands placed on them in the home. Anything that weakens the incest taboo, including allowing marriage between consenting adult relatives, is too dangerous to children.

See Malinowski.

[plumjam]

Are you suggesting that the Elektra complex is a myth?

:D
Very good, Darth.
That gets a nomination.

[ponderingturtle]

OK, iff it's between consenting adults. As for children, well, we breed race horses to close relatives and look how well, um, er, nevermind. There is an increased risk for perpetuating non-desired traits; however, with modern medicine and technology we see a lot of high risk babies surviving today that wouldn't have a generation ago.

We let people with dominant mutations that are known to be the same and cause at least as many problems as incest is likely to cause marry and have children, some even promote it(I am talking about various forms of dwarfism, and little people of america).

The genetic health argument seems a very poor rational for the law now that we know so much more about genetics and can much more specificaly target such problems.

I don't see anyone pushing for a law outlawing breeding between people who have known genetic problems in common.

[ponderingturtle]

I'd be willing to bet* that the ratio of loving, consensual relationships to abusive relationships is magnitudes lower for incestous relationships, even between adults, than for non-incestous relationships..

And if a different class of relationships was shown to have the same ratio's would you favor criminalizing it as well?

[articulett]

I think it's pretty well known that across the board.. given any sexual aberrancy of fetish... you are more likely to find men who engage in it or find it "no big deal" or risk a lot to indulge it than women... I presume that includes incest. Most men are not into incest-- but most promoters of incest or those who "would do it' if it was "socially acceptable" are probably men. Men, by far, are the most likely perpetrators of unwilling incest and statutory rape incest.

But I'm not going to derail because you thought I said something I'm not saying. I think the smart people can figure out what I'm saying.

There are no female equivalents of this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3896492.ece

And yet, we don't know how prevalent this "kind of thing" is... because we only know the cases that come to light for some reason.

But the thread was about incest versus gay marriage. The latter is not specifically forbidden by most states... the former is. Most state marriage laws allow marriage between 2 consenting adults who are not closely related. Gender differences are not specified in most states' marriage statutes... or, rather, they weren't. Relatedness was.

*note to self: put stupid people back on ignore... let the kiddies talk at each other.*

[Neally]

My personal belief is that the government should get out of the "marriage" business. All current marriages should be civil unions(a completely legal and secular based practice) and you can go and get "married" at your local church if you want to call it that.I agree. Who and how many people in a union should be a personal decision, not a governmental one.

[Michael C]

There's an increased risk because they are likely to share the same recessive genes since they have half their genes in common... giving each recessive gene a chance a one in 4 chance of appearing in any given mating. But the odds are still better than 85% that the kids will be fine unless you know in advance both are carriers of something like sickle cell or cystic fibrosis... most people don't know what they are carriers for until an offspring has two copies of a recessive gene.

A cousin of mine married his first cousin. Their first child had muscular dystrophy. They were told that they had such and such risk (I can't remember what odds were named) that subsequent children would have the disease, but they were not prevented from having more children. In fact they did take the risk and had two more, who were OK. But those children might have had muscular dystrophy as well.

Should the law prevent such a couple from having children, when the risk of a particular genetic disease has been discovered? I'd say no. Certainly, if the reason for banning incest is to prevent the spread of this sort of genetic disease, then those who want to ban incest should also want to ban couples known to have a common genetic defect.

[ImaginalDisc]

I think it's pretty well known that across the board.. given any sexual aberrancy of fetish... you are more likely to find men who engage in it or find it "no big deal" or risk a lot to indulge it than women... I presume that includes incest. Most men are not into incest-- but most promoters of incest or those who "would do it' if it was "socially acceptable" are probably men. Men, by far, are the most likely perpetrators of unwilling incest and statutory rape incest.

But I'm not going to derail because you thought I said something I'm not saying. I think the smart people can figure out what I'm saying.

There are no female equivalents of this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3896492.ece

And yet, we don't know how prevalent this "kind of thing" is... because we only know the cases that come to light for some reason.

But the thread was about incest versus gay marriage. The latter is not specifically forbidden by most states... the former is. Most state marriage laws allow marriage between 2 consenting adults who are not closely related. Gender differences are not specified in most states' marriage statutes... or, rather, they weren't. Relatedness was.

*note to self: put stupid people back on ignore... let the kiddies talk at each other.*

Wow, Fritzl, eh? Way to take an outrageous and extreme case and pretend it's a blow against all men.

That's of course ignoring that you, as a matter of fact, wrong.

http://www.exfamily.org/index.htm

The family of god encouraged mothers and fathers alike to abuse their children.

[articulett]

Muscular Dystrophy is X linked and their male children would have been at risk no matter who she mated with. Spinal Muscular atrophy is recessive and if both partners carried the mutation, each offspring would have a one in four chance of passing it on. Tay Sachs is big in the Jewish Community (and much worse than muscular dystrophy or atrophy)--often people are tested and the "rabbi" determines who can and can't marry based on the tests.

I don't think the law has any business in who sleeps with who unless there is not consent or a minor is involved. I'm not against them giving incentives for people to act responsibly or in a manner that lessens risk to society (Don't have tons of babies the state will need to support and educate). I don't think any marriage between consenting adults should be prevented. If there are privileges associated with marriage--be it rights of survival or anything else-- then I don't think the government has any rights keeping consenting adults from engaging in it.

Personally-- peoples sex lives, like their beliefs, are things I'd prefer to them to keep to themselves. I'm all for everybody having every right and freedom allowed by law just so long as I don't have "witness" it or respect it. I think the government has no business being involved in victimless "crimes"... I do think they have a right to get involved when people (such as the polygamists in Utah) are spawning children that will be drawing from welfare and taxes and resources, and society, while spawning more who do the same.

I was a genetic counselor. I am for pre-implantation testing of embryos when people know what disease they are at risk for-- that means discarding embryos with the disease-- couples in your cousins' situation can ensure that they do not have another child with the disease. But a lot of religious people find that abhorrent too. I would feel worse knowing that I was bringing a child into the world with something like "
Battens disease" when I could have avoided implanting the embryo had I tested in advance.

I think states claim to ban incest for this supposed fear of harm to potential children... they used to do the same with mixed race couples... But I don't think this ban holds up. I'm also not sure how many closely related people wish they could get married, but can't.
Even if first cousin marriage is disallowed in one state, it's legal in others, and must, therefore, be recognized by all states if it occurred in a state where it's legal. First cousins share 1/8 of their genes in common. I don't know if there is a slew of people sharing more genes than that who desire to marry each other. I don't desire to marry anyone at present... no matter what their genetic combination or sex. But I cannot see why I or anyone should have any say over whom consenting adults want to wed.

[articulett]

Wow, Fritzl, eh? Way to take an outrageous and extreme case and pretend it's a blow against all men.

That's of course ignoring that you, as a matter of fact, wrong.

http://www.exfamily.org/index.htm

The family of god encouraged mothers and fathers alike to abuse their children.

I'm not trying to make a claim against all men... just noting that incestuous urges appear to be more prevalent in males... the Oedipus complex more prevalent than it's opposite. In fact, I made it a point to say that I realize most men are not incestuous... but most perpetrators of unwanted incest are men. Why don't you hear what I'm actually saying instead of derailing further? You do understand the difference between these two statements, don't you? If not, I need to put you on ignore with the other slow folk.

Is anyone seriously contending that women are just as likely as men to desire or engage in or coerce "incestuous" relationships? You have got to be kidding me. I guess you think they are as likely to kill people and rape and be pedophiles and murders too?

Look, I know most men are nice, law abiding people-- but the most vile and monstrous of human beings are also men. Having a Y chromosome puts men (in general) on the more extreme ends of the bell curve in some situations-- good and bad. If you are hearing more than that or taking it personally, the problem is in your head-- and I can't fix that.

The post was about incest... Darth derailed with an assumption that I thought the "Elektra complex" is a myth. It didn't follow from what I said. Moreover, I think anyone would say that the "Oedipus Complex" is a much more recognized "complex"-- mythological or not... based on a good reason. I don't know any females that are turned on by their brothers or fathers... I have heard guys say things about 1st and 2nd degree relatives, that I find icky. I know multiple females molested by relatives... I don't know any men that have that problem. I suspect this is more likely than not for most people.

I think the number of female incest perpetrators who are not "victims" is relatively small compared to the males. Perhaps you have statistics I'm unaware of... I have no idea if there are a slew of females that would be signing up for marriage of if incestuous marriages were legal... I suspect you'd see the Polygamous men going for it and convincing their nieces that god wants it... but I just don't see a lot of women saying, "yeah... I can finally marry my creepy Uncle!"

[ponderingturtle]

What is the chance that an incestuous relationship started out as a consensual pairing of two adults, free from duress or overreaching?

How does that chance compare to the chance that a homosexual relationship started out as such?

The possibility of allowing a home environment where children are preyed upon by more mature, sophisticated and sexually secure adults outweighs whatever freedoms are denied to incestuous but otherwise consenting adults.

And this is why Woody Allen needs to spend a very long time in prison.

[Lonewulf]

I will support articulett in saying that, yes, males do seem to have a higher tendency for fetishes than females from what I've seen. I'm not sure if you'd count "incest" as fetishism, as that sounds more like a relationship issue than a fetish, but I dunno.

For instance, I find it hard to find other females that share my own personal fetish, even though the males are so prevalent I assume any of the online "females" to automatically be males in the circles I run.

But other than that, i don't know enough to support her on any other of her claims.

[Darat]

"How do you justify gay marriage without justifying incest?" - Easy - show them a photo of my brother.

[ponderingturtle]

I will support articulett in saying that, yes, males do seem to have a higher tendency for fetishes than females from what I've seen. I'm not sure if you'd count "incest" as fetishism, as that sounds more like a relationship issue than a fetish, but I dunno.


I wonder is anyone going to bring evidence to back this assertion or are we just going to take the anectodes?

I don't think that it is not a supportable idea, the statistics of how many men cheat vs women who cheat, would lead to some ideas that are workable that would explain that.

[articulett]

And this is why Woody Allen needs to spend a very long time in prison.

Yes, I don't know of anything more related than a first cousin paring that was consensual-- though I know of males who will say it was... but the females tend to differ. I think it's like pedophilia... the perpetrator has a vested interest in seeing his victim as "asking for it" or "enjoying it" or "consenting" and can manipulate accordingly.

I would want to hear from a woman specifically arguing for the right to marry a close relative before I would even imagine there are women out there who would be "fighting for" such a right.

I don't think forbidding a marriage license to such couples is likely to produce much outcry from any women... probably not a lot of men either. I don't think government sanctioning has much to do with whether incest occurs or not.

Woody Allen's attractions are none of my business. It appears the adults were consenting--
It's icky... but lots of people are attracted to things I find icky.

[Lonewulf]

I wonder is anyone going to bring evidence to back this assertion or are we just going to take the anectodes?I didn't even realize I needed to. It's a pretty well-known reality.

But hey, if you're right and there is just as many females as there are males in all fetishes, that would be great. I'd LOVE to find more women that share my fetish. When you find them, tell them to stop hiding, okay?

I don't think that it is not a supportable idea, the statistics of how many men cheat vs women who cheat, would lead to some ideas that are workable that would explain that.Uh. "Fetish" doesn't mean just "have sex" or "cheat on people" or "want to have sex with people". You do know that, right?

[ksbluesfan]

I don't have a huge problem with incest between two consenting adults as long as they make it impossible to have children together. It's not my thing, but neither is homosexuality. I don't have a problem with polygomy either as long as all parties are consenting adults. For me, one wife is all I can handle.

[articulett]

I wonder is anyone going to bring evidence to back this assertion or are we just going to take the anectodes?

I don't think that it is not a supportable idea, the statistics of how many men cheat vs women who cheat, would lead to some ideas that are workable that would explain that.

What evidence... that perpetrators of unwanted sex crimes including incest or more likely to be men? What evidence would you consider sufficient-- crime statistics? people killed during crazy sex acts? Incest convictions? Gender of people who pay for incest scenarios (via porn or hooker reenactment?) -- a survey of how many people scream "who's your daddy?" during sex vs. "who's your mommy?"?

And what does that have to do with the OP again? This was a Darth derail. I never made the claim that we are arguing, but yes, I do think it's obvious that males are more likely to be attracted to "forbidden" fruit than women... and I think there's a pretty strong evolutionary algorithm behind that too.

[ponderingturtle]

What evidence... that perpetrators of unwanted sex crimes including incest or more likely to be men? What evidence would you consider sufficient-- crime statistics... people killed during crazy sex acts? Incest convictions?


Consider the sex of those who write all the homosexual incestuous fanfiction.

There have been some who argued here that the conviction rate of when boys are abused by older women is much much lower then when you reverse the sexes.

THis is all unsuported by good evidence. Why is wondering if reality reflects common knowledge something you seem to be against?

[articulett]

Last chance... what exactly are you asking for evidence of and what would you accept as evidence... and how does this relate to this thread?

I stated an opinion. I don't care if you share that opinion. I think there's plenty of evidence to support my opinion, but I can't even tell what you are saying... much less what sort of evidence you would find acceptable if anything. It sounds like you are offended by the notion that men (in general) are more likely to engage in coercive incest than women... you just can't fathom that anyone could think this... is that right?

If I can't figure out what the hell you are saying, I'm not going to play along... okay? I'll let you converse with those who understand you and whom you can understand... Just answer my questions simply and I'll try and oblige--otherwise I feel drawn into a larsenesque derail.

[Michael C]

I don't have a huge problem with incest between two consenting adults as long as they make it impossible to have children together.

Are you also against making it impossible for a "normal" couple to have children if the two people are found to have a specific genetic defect in common?

[ponderingturtle]

Last chance... what exactly are you asking for evidence of and what would you accept as evidence... and how does this relate to this thread?

I stated an opinion.
No you made a claim.

Saying that you think incest is gross is an opinion, stateing that group X has higher incidents of such behavior is a claim.

It is rather like I would be supprised if anyone here would respond "Oh that is just your opinion" to claims of high correlations between homosexuality and child molestation.

You have failed to show that it is not a cultural trend that it is more noticed when men do those things than when women do them.

[ponderingturtle]

Are you also against making it impossible for a "normal" couple to have children if the two people are found to have a specific genetic defect in common?

Apparently we need to bring back forced sterlization.

[Lanzy]

Most states allow marriage between two consenting adults who are not related (some states allow first cousin marriage... others say they must be at least second cousins)--

Most states do not have (or did not have) laws forbidding sex between same sex couples nor did they allow polygamy, incestuous marriages, nor children to enter into "contracts"-- gay marriage was allowed in some states because it was never forbidden by the words of the law... incestuous marriage is.

Any idea how states determine this? I have a lot of first cousins but none of them share my last name, who tells the state?

[Darth Rotor]

Just that the Oedipus Complex is more prevalent... and males are more likely to have strong but socially unacceptable sexual urges
Your claim, and one related to the topic of incest. Please try to keep up.
I think it's pretty well known that across the board.. given any sexual aberrancy of fetish... you are more likely to find men who engage in it or find it "no big deal" or risk a lot to indulge it than women... I presume that includes incest. Most men are not into incest-- but most promoters of incest or those who "would do it' if it was "socially acceptable" are probably men. Men, by far, are the most likely perpetrators of unwilling incest and statutory rape incest.
Please stay on topic.
But I'm not going to derail because you thought I said something I'm not saying. I think the smart people can figure out what I'm saying.
You claimed to be able to quantify the matter of urges, whereas the matter of actions is more easily supported. I also tend to agree that the matter of actions is as you suggested, if that was where you were headed, which is why I asked, rather than going into some sort of bullhorn toting attack mode. I was offering you an out, and a chance to clarify.
*note to self: put stupid people back on ignore... let *
Putting yourself on ignore, are you?

Neat trick.

DR

[articulett]

Any idea how states determine this? I have a lot of first cousins but none of them share my last name, who tells the state?

I don't know... heck... I think there are problems determining the gender of some people. I think it's just part of the questions they ask you on the application process, and then your marriage is "null" if you dishonest... like on an insurance policy.

I think you sign a statement saying that you meet the requirements of being able to get married in your state with the requirements being listed. I doubt anyone would tell the state or check... unless family or people were bothered by it... which could happen. But like bigamy... I bet there wouldn't be a lot of investigation given to the matter. Most people can find some state that will marry them legally and then it applies to all states they might move to.

[articulett]

No you made a claim.

Saying that you think incest is gross is an opinion, stateing that group X has higher incidents of such behavior is a claim.

Nope... this is what I said... see "an opinion" (you can tell by the word "suspect") SNAP

how do you know? I suspect some men do find themselves having such urges--natural or not. I suspect fewer women do.

It's an opinion I still hold and it's backed up by crime statistics and personal experience and knowledge of incest victims and people who express incestuous thoughts. I suspect no amount of evidence would be enough to convince you otherwise, but I don't think any evidence is needed for that opinion of mine for most smart people. I don't want to be drawn into these silly conversations where I have to explain to people the difference between an opinion and a fact and what I meant versus what they've interpreted when it's all a big derail anyhow.

Let me be perfectly clear... you are not making sense to me. I do not care about your opinion regarding incest and who "wants it" and for what reasons. It would take actually data and people to convince me that women were anywhere near as likely to be perpetrators as unwilling victims... You may have convinced yourself that it's observation bias, but then where are these women like Fritzl or the Polygamous Mormon men or the many people serving crimes for incest/statutory rape? Other than in your imagination, I mean? Are they out there leading regimes and running cults and ordering airplanes flown into buildings? Are they start wars, paying people to step on their genitals, or dying of auto-erotic asphyxiation? Abusing power, presiding over nations, buying bizarre sex?

On my planet, women in these roles appear by all means to be strong exceptions to the rule. I thought maybe you had some evidence that women were more than an exception to the rule... apparently not, so you tangent ala claus. I only converse with those capable of conversation. I can't help it; I'm a snob that way. I can never make sense of some people. Oh, btw, I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you, but you suck at analogies... and your sterilization comment above is what is known as a "straw man". :D

Goodbye.

[ksbluesfan]

Are you also against making it impossible for a "normal" couple to have children if the two people are found to have a specific genetic defect in common?

No, I am not, but it might be wise for them to do so voluntarily.

[geni]

Any idea how states determine this? I have a lot of first cousins but none of them share my last name, who tells the state?

Well generaly the state relies on people not trying to get around the law and if someone does try someone being concerned enough to tell them. This is ultimately how rather a lot of the law works.

[geni]

I don't think the law has any business in who sleeps with who unless there is not consent or a minor is involved.

The problem with that argument is that amoung hetrosexual couples that law doesn't know that there may not be a minor involed (only way out of that one involves getting rid if child support requirements).


I'm not against them giving incentives for people to act responsibly or in a manner that lessens risk to society (Don't have tons of babies the state will need to support and educate). I don't think any marriage between consenting adults should be prevented. If there are privileges associated with marriage--be it rights of survival or anything else-- then I don't think the government has any rights keeping consenting adults from engaging in it.

So you are okey with the goverment useing insentives but not okey with it useing marriage as an insentive? What kind of insentives are you okey with it useing?

[ponderingturtle]

Let me be perfectly clear... you are not making sense to me. I do not care about your opinion regarding incest and who "wants it" and for what reasons. It would take actually data and people to convince me that women were anywhere near as likely to be perpetrators as unwilling victims...

As opposed to your current position on these matters which is not based on data at all.

It is just like how based on prison statistics it is trivial to say that that backs up all the needs you have claim that african americans are naturaly more violent and ciminaly prone. But I find it unlikely you would just call that an opinion.

You may have convinced yourself that it's observation bias, but then where are these women like Fritzl or the Polygamous Mormon men or the many people serving crimes for incest/statutory rape? Other than in your imagination, I mean? Are they out there leading regimes and running cults and ordering airplanes flown into buildings? Are they start wars, paying people to step on their genitals, or dying of auto-erotic asphyxiation? Abusing power, presiding over nations, buying bizarre sex?

I don't know what are the statistics on this? You are useing incredibly bad reasoning, by first basing your opinions on what the media promotes for one, and things that you have no real idea what the statistics are.

[ponderingturtle]

and your sterilization comment above is what is known as a "straw man". :D


No, forced sterilization was on the books until relatively recently, and it had many of the same rationals suggested here to be a reason to ban incestuous relations.

[Loss Leader]

No, forced sterilization was on the books until relatively recently, and it had many of the same rationals suggested here to be a reason to ban incestuous relations.


Except the reason I gave.

[luchog]

I'm not trying to make a claim against all men... just noting that incestuous urges appear to be more prevalent in males... the Oedipus complex more prevalent than it's opposite. In fact, I made it a point to say that I realize most men are not incestuous... but most perpetrators of unwanted incest are men.
Correction: Most known perpetrators of unwanted incest are male. There are strong indications that female-initiated incest, particularly of the female/female variety, are dramatically underreported; much the same way that other forms of child abuse by females have been until very recently. The issue is still controversial, and there is still considerable denial of it's existence and prevalence. Some deniers even claim that female-perpetrated sexual abuse only occurs at the instigation of a male third party (eg. they're forced into it, and are therefore not responsible for it); or if not, then it can only be the result of some form of mental illness. There still isn't much reliable information regarding female-perpetrated sexual abuse; particularly incestual sexual abuse.

Female Perpetration of Child Sexual Abuse: An Overview of the Problem (http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/MovingF_Female_perpetrators_Child_sexual_abuse_JUL 94.aspx)
Female Sex Offenders (http://www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx)
Breaking the last taboo: child sexual abuse by female perpetrators (http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/workers/25/37)

[billydkid]

I'm not really getting the connection. First, marriage is a legal contract. Incest is incest. If you had said homosexuality/incest, that would make some sense. My personal feeling is that the state has no business being involved in sex issues or marriage issues and any two adult people should be allowed to have whatever kind of relationship they want to have with each other. The problem with the marriage contract is that the conditions are not specified. If marriage is a legal contract, that's what it should be. If marriage is some sort of spiritual union of two souls, then it should be that.

[articulett]

The problem with that argument is that amoung hetrosexual couples that law doesn't know that there may not be a minor involed (only way out of that one involves getting rid if child support requirements).



So you are okey with the goverment useing insentives but not okey with it useing marriage as an insentive? What kind of insentives are you okey with it useing?

First learn to spell.. then maybe I'll consider you capable of having this discussion with me. Somehow, with the bad spelling, this comes across as one of those woo questions that you don't really want answered and that no amount of evidence would make you change your mind about whatever point you are imagining yourself conveying. You are asking questions to infer some point... try conversing with pondering turtle... perhaps you guys are on the same page.

[Loss Leader]

First, marriage is a legal contract.


No, it isn't.

[Dragoonster]

I have no problem with incestuous marriage. There's no slippery slope in my mind, the distinction of allowable marriage is:

<the parties must be capable of informed consent>

That's it. Allowed under that are:

*polygamous marriage
*incestual marriage
*heterosexual marriage
*homoesexual marriage
*any-sexual marriage

Things disallowed, because of the informed consent restriction are:

*child marriage
*animal marriage
*comatose/totally insane/other states of being incapalbe of consent marriage

Remove the "marriage" bit and that's how I view what sexual relations should be legal too. If two brothers or a woman and five men or a man and five women want to get married, and all know exactly what they're doing, how on earth does that cause real harm to anyone else? It doesn't.

[Lonewulf]

No, it isn't.It isn't?

But isn't one of the major things about marriage the state-sponsored benefits, that the U.S. government grants? That certainly seems legal to me.

According to Wikipedia on the subject:

It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

So it seems like you'd have to back up this statement if you want us to accept it.

[geni]

First learn to spell.. then maybe I'll consider you capable of having this discussion with me. Somehow, with the bad spelling, this comes across as one of those woo questions that you don't really want answered and that no amount of evidence would make you change your mind about whatever point you are imagining yourself conveying. You are asking questions to infer some point... try conversing with pondering turtle... perhaps you guys are on the same page.

Ad homs are noted. Now do you actualy have a case?

[Safe-Keeper]

Correction: Most known perpetrators of unwanted incest are male. There are strong indications that female-initiated incest, particularly of the female/female variety, are dramatically underreported; much the same way that other forms of child abuse by females have been until very recently.Goes for all kinds of abuse and harassment carried out by women, doesn't it? If I was to pinch a girl in the butt in a bar, chances are she'd slap me in the face and have me thrown out. Reverse the scenario, with a girl pinching me, and suddenly nobody cares (unless I slap her - then I'm thrown out for being violent).

Society is growing more mature when it comes to abuse of women, which is great. It tends to forget, though, that girls, too, can be "bad guys".

Ad homs are noted. Now do you actualy have a case?Look, I hate to say it, but I agree with geni here. There's absolutely no reason to attack others for their poor spelling or grammar unless it's really bad (ie. making the text hard to read and comprehend), but even then, I'd prefer a more polite approach.

[ponderingturtle]

Except the reason I gave.

Yes, but it applies to many legal relationships as well, as my citing of woody allen pointed out.

It seems a highly imprecise method of acheiving the goals atributed to it.

[sphenisc]

I have no problem with incestuous marriage. There's no slippery slope in my mind, the distinction of allowable marriage is:

<the parties must be capable of informed consent>

That's it. Allowed under that are:

*polygamous marriage
*incestual marriage
*heterosexual marriage
*homoesexual marriage
*any-sexual marriage

Things disallowed, because of the informed consent restriction are:

*child marriage
*animal marriage
*comatose/totally insane/other states of being incapalbe of consent marriage

Remove the "marriage" bit and that's how I view what sexual relations should be legal too. If two brothers or a woman and five men or a man and five women want to get married, and all know exactly what they're doing, how on earth does that cause real harm to anyone else? It doesn't.

This would still allow marriage of someone who is capable of informed consent but hasn't given it. Are you really in favour of permitting forced marriage?

[articulett]

Safekeeper,

The whole "argument" was based on a derail over an opinion I had that I think is well supported by facts. It wasn't about the OP. And I think it's more than obvious that no matter how many examples of women who are defy the norm... males are by far the people who are the most likely to be "driven" by incestuous feelings than women. Most people find incest with 1st degree and 2nd degree relatives --icky and abhorrent. But those who are known perpetrators of such an act despite a less than willing partner-- are much more likely to be men... while victims of such activities are much more likely to be women. Look, I know of a brother who demanded his sister give him oral sex in exchange for her drug fix. It seems so gross... and I'm sure this happens more than I am aware of between brothers and sisters... somehow I doubt even one percent of such cases involves the sister requesting sex in exchange for drugs.

I'm not going to derail and I don't care to argue as to degrees of prevalence.

And geni's whole point was a straw man. If it makes sense to you, feel free to argue it. I prefer a more intelligent on topic discussion based on the OP and what was actually said. I have no patience for straw man arguments regarding things I never said. It's Clausian and childish. Of course, I have no qualms with others indulging. I just prefer a different level of discussion with a different caliber of people. I'm sure everyone prefers to discuss things with those who understand them or can make sense of what they are saying.

As far as I'm concerned this is a conversation based on a straw man that has no point and is a derail from the OP. I have no interest in discussing why some people imagine I"m saying something I didn't say nor why some people believe that women are just as likely to have incest compulsions as men. I don't think marriage is an "incentive"-- I thought it was a right that consenting people get to engage in for which there are social and contractual benefits.

For whatever reasons, assorted states have laws that forbid incest. I don't think most people have a problem with these laws and I doubt there are a huge mass of incest couples seeking legal marriage. There are, apparently, a lot of gay couples seeking legal marriage and their laws don't forbid it in the way it does forbid close relative marriage.

In answer to the question in the OP, you can justify gay marriage, because most states don't have laws that deny it in their marriage laws... most states don't (or didn't) state that marriage needs to be between two people of the opposite sex. On the other hand, most states do have laws regarding the degrees of relatedness in regards to marriage. Hence, legally, incest is already illegal for whatever reasons... while gay marriage is not... it often requires a state to violate the equal protection clause, in fact-- the one that was invoked when states did not allow couples of mixed races to marry.

If this doesn't make sense or goes over someone's head or you are hearing something that isn't there or want to talk about which gender is more likely to have incestuous leanings or whether marriage is an incentive or what my secret motives are... you'll have to discuss that with someone who cares more than I do. I answered the OP because I have legal knowledge on the subject. The reset was an attempt to address a clausian derail... but as soon as I know whom the straw man derailers are... I put them on ignore so as to avoid wandering into the abyss where I'm always trying to explain why their straw man or opinion or imagined expertise is wrong or incoherent or off topic.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled to inflicting it on me. So if you forgive me, I'll go with my own version of whom I think is being polite and what "cases" I feel are worth arguing. I have no idea what "case" geni was talking about. If you do and want to argue whether I have one-- be my guest. Just don't expect me to participate in conversations I can't make sense of.

[Loss Leader]

It isn't?


No, it isn't.


But isn't one of the major things about marriage the state-sponsored benefits, that the U.S. government grants? That certainly seems legal to me.


Yes. That doesn't make marriage a contract, though.


So it seems like you'd have to back up this statement if you want us to accept it.


No, I don't. However, you are invited to educate yourself about the legal definitions of "contract" and of "status" if you would like to learn more. You certainly don't have to, though. Just like you don't have to learn how to do an apendectomy in order to trust that a doctor knows how to do one; you don't have to go to law school to trust that a lawyer knows the difference between the "marriage contract" and the real meaning of "contract."

[articulett]

How is marriage classified in law?

[Lonewulf]

So, Loss Leader doesn't wish to back up his statement, even though the evidence seems to point away from it.

Naturally.

Well, no need to waste my time here.

[Loss Leader]

How is marriage classified in law?


It is something like a status. In many ways, it's the last status in law. Being white used to entitle you to certain rights that others didn't have, as did being a landowner. There were negative statuses - being a slave, being a woman - that entitled you to fewer rights. And then there's childhood.

Except for being a child, marriage is the only other status there is. It is the only other time that who you are counts towards how the law treats you. It is also the only voluntary status; people can enter and leave almost at will.

But, even with all of that, marriage still functions a little like a contract in some ways. There are aspects of marriage that are just between the two individuals. That doesn't make marriage a contract, though, any more than it makes your hand a foot.

Marriage is just ... marriage. There is nothing else like it.

[articulett]

Marriage vows are more of a "contract".

Marriage licenses are more of a "license".

Marriage is an "institution". ?

[quixotecoyote]

Marriage vows are more of a "contract".

As an analogy only. Good luck suing for breach of contract if if tries to divorce you before death do you part. Of course, you could say alimony and whatnot fill that role, but again, analogy.

[articulett]

I know... I spent some time in law school. It made my head feel like it was going to explode.

I have no desire to sue anyone for anything. Any taste I have for law has been more than sated.

[Dragoonster]

This would still allow marriage of someone who is capable of informed consent but hasn't given it. Are you really in favour of permitting forced marriage?

Forced how? If by physical coercian than that should be a crime of assault or threatening assault and be illegal. If by social ostracizing if they don't marry, then that's a social concern the parties should either abide by, or live with if they refuse to marry.

These are things that have nothing to do with the types of people marrying, but rather the reasons for marriage. Which is outside the scope of what I was arguing over. Duress and pressure would/could apply equally to every person I listed and be another issue for all of them.

[Beerina]

Marriage vows are more of a "contract".

Marriage licenses are more of a "license".

Marriage is an "institution". ?

Marriage was something The People did, amongst themselves. It is a public declaration, with witnesses, of a promise of eternal committment to each other.

That some arrogant folks came along and called themselves "government" (just a string of letters), then used threats of violence to declare themselves The Only Ones Permitted To Decide What A Marriage Is is a somewhat new concept historically.

Oh, in their quest for power, they allow legacy marriages performed by religious figures that they, the arrogant ones, also permit. But that's really for show, and isn't competition for the real power, which consists of deciding who may get married, as well as collecting their rediculously high fee to shove a piece of paper into a file cabinet.

[articulett]

I know... government, law, religion... it just seems like endless opinions and semantics about nothing of substance to me. I can't relate. I understand the game more or less-- and the reasons as to how it helps maintain order... but it's all so boring and meaningless to me for the most part... it's kind of about how to spin the truth you "want" from the facts that are to do what you "want to do" and not get in trouble for it by those who don't want you to do it.

The more you try to find out the "why" or the reason or the definition behind the terms and rules the more illusory and ridiculous it all seems sometimes.

[jberryhill]

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?

Forgive me if it's been pointed out in this thread, but:

1. Some states permit cousins to marry.

2. Some states do not permit cousins to marry.

3. Some states permit cousins to marry on the condition that the couple will not have children - specifically, Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Wisconsin. So those states have apparently adopted your reasoning already.

Map of cousin marriage laws here:

http://www.cousincouples.com/info/states.shtml

[Loss Leader]

as well as collecting their rediculously high fee to shove a piece of paper into a file cabinet.


$40.00 in my state. And 2.3 million people got married in 1999 in the US. That's $81,200,000.00. Compare that to the 2008 federal budget of $2,900,000,000,000.00. So, that 81 million is ... not much at all. I don't think the government is in it for your forty dollars.


The more you try to find out the "why" or the reason or the definition behind the terms and rules the more illusory and ridiculous it all seems sometimes.


It may seem that way but it isn't. There's a logic to the law. It's organic; it evolves. That makes it look messy up close. But it's quite beautiful when you see the whole machine at work.

[luchog]

The whole "argument" was based on a derail over an opinion I had that I think is well supported by facts. It wasn't about the OP. And I think it's more than obvious that no matter how many examples of women who are defy the norm... males are by far the people who are the most likely to be "driven" by incestuous feelings than women.

Nope, not supported by "fact" as I previously noted.

That's merely your assertion, which you have not presented evidence to support.
For whatever reasons, assorted states have laws that forbid incest. I don't think most people have a problem with these laws and I doubt there are a huge mass of incest couples seeking legal marriage. There are, apparently, a lot of gay couples seeking legal marriage and their laws don't forbid it in the way it does forbid close relative marriage.
In the early part of the previous century, there weren't many people who had a problem with anti-miscegenation laws. It took a lot of effort by a small group of people to get that changed.

"It's the law" is a bad justification for any assertion or worldview. The law changes constantly to reflect changing social standards. And it's very different in different parts of the world. What makes your part of the world superior to all other parts?

In answer to the question in the OP, you can justify gay marriage, because most states don't have laws that deny it in their marriage laws... most states don't (or didn't) state that marriage needs to be between two people of the opposite sex.

So, by this logic, you'd opposed gay marriage if the majority of states had laws banning it?

Incidentally, you're wrong. Here's a bit of news for you: as of May 16, 2008, 41 states have statutes prohibiting gay marriage. 27 of those have constitutional amendments defining marriage as "between a man and a woman". So by your logic, you should opposed gay marriage, since "most" states do. http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=310206

After Massachusetts issued the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples, voters in 13 states in 2004 rushed to rewrite their constitutions to limit marriage to heterosexuals. Two more states passed constitutional bans on gay marriage in 2005 and eight more in 2006. Arizona in 2006 became the first and only state so far to reject a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage.


Since 1973, 42 states, including California, passed so-called Defense of Marriage statutes, which define marriage as solely a heterosexual union. Most of these laws are modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere.

California is the only state to have ruled such statutes unconstitutional and thrown them out. Due to the Federal DOMA, no other states are required by Full Faith and Credit to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states.

Such an initiative passed in my state. So far, attempts to re-write the constitution haven't made it to the state Congress; but they're still being made.

But wait, it gets worse:

Michigan and Ohio are among 17 states whose constitutional gay-marriage bans are written broadly and go beyond defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman to potentially prohibiting other rights of same-sex partners.


Incidentally, all of the current crop of presidential candidates have gone on the record opposing the legalization of gay marriage, although a few on the left have made weaselly allowances for a "civil union with equivalent legal privileges".

On the other hand, most states do have laws regarding the degrees of relatedness in regards to marriage. Hence, legally, incest is already illegal for whatever reasons... while gay marriage is not... it often requires a state to violate the equal protection clause, in fact-- the one that was invoked when states did not allow couples of mixed races to marry.

Nope, sorry. Nearly all the states in the Union have laws prohibiting gay marriage; and over half of the states have constitutional amendments limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex; which trumps any "equal protection" clauses.

If this doesn't make sense or goes over someone's head or you are hearing something that isn't there or want to talk about which gender is more likely to have incestuous leanings or whether marriage is an incentive or what my secret motives are...

I would suggest you aquaint yourself more closely with the facts before daring to castigate other people for correcting your errors or making spurious "straw man" accusations.
I answered the OP because I have legal knowledge on the subject.

Incorrect and insufficient knowledge, apparently. Improve your knowledge to come in line with current reality, and you might find the rest of this thread a lot more comprehensible.

[Fiona]

Sexual child abuse in a defined Swedish area 1993-97: a population-based survey.
[My paper] A Carlstedt, A Forsman, H Soderstrom
Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Göteborg University, Sweden. anita.carlstedt@rmv.se
Attempting to avoid some of the most common methodological problems involved in research on sexual child abuse, we collected data on crimes, perpetrators, and sanctions in all convicted cases of sexual child abuse in a defined population during a 5-year period. This approach provided amply documented and ascertained cases with precise definitions and descriptions of the crimes involved, no clinical referral bias, and minimal dependence on memory effects. The results are valid for the small proportion of cases that lead to conviction in the context of Swedish legislation. Structured data were collected from the court dossiers in all cases of sexual crimes against minors (less than 15 years of age) tried and sentenced at the courts in the Västra Götaland region of Sweden between 1993 and 1997. The total number of 496 sentences for sexual crimes during the study period included 203 cases of sexual child abuse (40.8%) with 283 victims and 196 perpetrators, all men. Girls were victims in 85% of the cases, boys in 12%, and boys as well as girls in 3%. Sexual penetration had occurred in 54.5% of cases and the total proportion of hands-on crimes was 83%. Most perpetrators, 72%, were well known to the child. The most severe offenses took place within the family. A wide range of acts were classified as sexual child abuse, but most common was sexual penetration of a female child by her biological father or a family friend.

and

http://www.incesttraumacentar.org.yu/letters_reports/statistics.pdf

and

http://www.icasa.org/uploads/adult_survivors_of_incest.pdf

FWIW

[billydkid]

$40.00 in my state. And 2.3 million people got married in 1999 in the US. That's $81,200,000.00. Compare that to the 2008 federal budget of $2,900,000,000,000.00. So, that 81 million is ... not much at all. I don't think the government is in it for your forty dollars.





It may seem that way but it isn't. There's a logic to the law. It's organic; it evolves. That makes it look messy up close. But it's quite beautiful when you see the whole machine at work.Then what, exactly, are they in it for? What purpose on God's green earth does it serve? It looks like nothing except the perpetuation of beauracracy. How that is beautiful I have no idea. If you mean by "evolve", grow incessantly, I would agree.

[thesyntaxera]

Wait, how would you justify prohibiting incest? It produces genetically damaged kids? No parallel argument exists for homosexuality, so the comparison falls flat. What else, it's icky? If ickiness were a valid argument for stopping people from doing things, wear socks with sandals would be illegal.

Why should we prohibit incest, exactly?

How does an opponent of gay marriage who is also an opponent of incest justify prohibiting incest?

The problem I am seeing with this argument is that the numbers of people who actually engage in willful incest are incredibly low. I would say that if a couple of family members wanted to engage in incest one would also need to question why they want to do this in the first place. Chances are most of these individuals are suffering from other issues, probably mental in nature, and these issues are probably affecting their reasoning process. That alone should be a reason to not justify incest. It is common knowledge that nearly every incestuous relationship produces, not only genetically damaged children, but emotionally damaged individuals.

Gay marriage on the other hand has never, as a direct result of two homosexuals engaged in a willful union, produced anything but a typical couple who happens to be gay...no genetic defects, no emotionally scarred victims...nothing.

I have yet to see how gay marriage does anything bad, nor have I ever seen a reasoned argument against it. I honestly don't think there could be one that is logically cogent and convincing.

How does one justify banning gay marriage despite the fact that a man can get a sex change, and then marry another man?

[wdimac]

Then what, exactly, are they in it for? What purpose on God's green earth does it serve? It looks like nothing except the perpetuation of beauracracy. How that is beautiful I have no idea. If you mean by "evolve", grow incessantly, I would agree.

It helps them to sort things out when things go wrong - when the marriage dissolves or a spouse gets sick or dies. There are rights and obligations you take on when entering a marriage. If you want the state to back up those rights, you register your marriage with them. Outside of that you are free to create whatever kind of relationships you want. Just don't expect the state to agree it's a marriage when your ass ends up in court.

[GreyICE]

The problem I am seeing with this argument is that the numbers of people who actually engage in willful incest are incredibly low. I would say that if a couple of family members wanted to engage in incest one would also need to question why they want to do this in the first place. Chances are most of these individuals are suffering from other issues, probably mental in nature, and these issues are probably affecting their reasoning process. That alone should be a reason to not justify incest. It is common knowledge that nearly every incestuous relationship produces, not only genetically damaged children, but emotionally damaged individuals. Given that the increased risk is about 4%, I'm not sure your common knowledge is, well, common. [citation needed]


Gay marriage on the other hand has never, as a direct result of two homosexuals engaged in a willful union, produced anything but a typical couple who happens to be gay...no genetic defects, no emotionally scarred victims...nothing.Well, given that I have yet to hear of one producing children with no outside genetic material (I can feel the wit homing in with a transsexual gay marriage now, just don't) your point is noted and irrelevant.

[ponderingturtle]

The problem I am seeing with this argument is that the numbers of people who actually engage in willful incest are incredibly low. I would say that if a couple of family members wanted to engage in incest one would also need to question why they want to do this in the first place. Chances are most of these individuals are suffering from other issues, probably mental in nature, and these issues are probably affecting their reasoning process. That alone should be a reason to not justify incest. It is common knowledge that nearly every incestuous relationship produces, not only genetically damaged children, but emotionally damaged individuals.

So are you claiming that everyone who marries their cousin is emotionally dammaged? That could well be crinimal incest.

There are so many variables that catagorizing them is impossible, and as it only goes by blood relation not any actual historic relationship, it is impossible to say.

[Beerina]

$40.00 in my state. And 2.3 million people got married in 1999 in the US. That's $81,200,000.00. Compare that to the 2008 federal budget of $2,900,000,000,000.00. So, that 81 million is ... not much at all. I don't think the government is in it for your forty dollars.

Federal != state

And yes, the $81 million isn't even all that much for some of the larger states, if they took the whole thing. However, at a city/county level, that's a few more hires.



Government is in it because they have to pick up the pieces when people want a divorce. There is some utility here, as there is for requirements for unique VIN numbers, titles, and license plates for cars, with respect to theft.

But that doesn't mean the government isn't gonna start charging you $100 per year to give you a little peel-off sticker.

[DoubtingStephen]

I justify gay marriage without justifying incest in much the same way that I justify gay marriage without rebuilding a 1936 Chevrolet coupe.

I perform the former task without performing the latter task.

[Professor Yaffle]

Cousin marriages has been in the news in the Uk a lot fairly recently as a result of some comments by an MP.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/11/genetics.medicalresearch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1655722,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/11/religion.medicalscience

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/science/war-in-medical-community-over-cousin-marriage-$1225128.htm


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=cousin+marriages+uk&meta=

[Mashuna]

And this is why Woody Allen needs to spend a very long time in prison.

Well, that and Match Point.

[thesyntaxera]

So are you claiming that everyone who marries their cousin is emotionally dammaged? That could well be crinimal incest.

Not exactly. I am claiming, from my experience in mental health work, that in all the cases of incest I have seen or heard about the people involved obviously had other problems that would need to be factored in, and that every time incest was committed it had a negative effect on both of the people involved...granted these are people who are conditioned by modern western society to think that it is wrong to begin with...There are probably plenty of instances in history where it has worked well for some...

There are so many variables that catagorizing them is impossible, and as it only goes by blood relation not any actual historic relationship, it is impossible to say.


Well, that is what psychiatry as an area of research does. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty, but you sure can look at statistical data and get a pretty decent picture painted for you...in this case.

[Dragoonster]

Not exactly. I am claiming, from my experience in mental health work, that in all the cases of incest I have seen or heard about the people involved obviously had other problems that would need to be factored in, and that every time incest was committed it had a negative effect on both of the people involved...granted these are people who are conditioned by modern western society to think that it is wrong to begin with...There are probably plenty of instances in history where it has worked well for some...

I imagine the general populace has plenty of problems that should be "factored in"...well, factored in if one actually wants to be consistent.

Should "factoring in" be a prerequisite to all marriages, or just incestual ones? Perhaps just homosexual ones? How about everyone under 20, considering many who want to marry may be influenced by other problems?

The only prerequisite should be reasonable good mental health granting informed consent. The types of marriage partners should be a completely separate issue.

[Lonewulf]

I justify gay marriage without justifying incest in much the same way that I justify gay marriage without rebuilding a 1936 Chevrolet coupe.

I perform the former task without performing the latter task.Well, I don't do any of those, so I guess I shouldn't attempt to justify gay marriage at all?

[ponderingturtle]

Not exactly. I am claiming, from my experience in mental health work, that in all the cases of incest I have seen or heard about the people involved obviously had other problems that would need to be factored in, and that every time incest was committed it had a negative effect on both of the people involved...granted these are people who are conditioned by modern western society to think that it is wrong to begin with...There are probably plenty of instances in history where it has worked well for some...

ANd as you started from a mental health field that would seem to be a highly biased starting point.

I agree that changing from a parental relationship to a sexual relationship is likely to be bad for most people. But why is it that if they are adopted, or a step child it becomes all nice and legal? Also say half siblings raised appart would be covered while they don't have the history that would seem to be different from the prior relationship issues, but legaly covered

Incest laws seem to be very bad at targeting the things people are actualy worried about.


Well, that is what psychiatry as an area of research does. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty, but you sure can look at statistical data and get a pretty decent picture painted for you...in this case.

Maybe, but homosexuality was defined as mental illness for a long time and I am sure many of the same arguements where marshalled. I don't know about the quality of the evidence used though.

I am not claiming that it is not correlated with problems in I just don't find the arguements against it being illegal to be a good way of preventing what people are actualy concerned about.

[Loss Leader]

Federal != state

And yes, the $81 million isn't even all that much for some of the larger states, if they took the whole thing. However, at a city/county level, that's a few more hires.


Except the $81 million figure is nationwide. There are 19,429 city governments in the United States. So that works out to ... $4,169.02 per municipality. That's not a few more hires. That's not even one more hire. That's about enough for one part-time kid to do a few hours of paperwork a week. Strange, that's exactly the amount of work that granting marriage licenses entails.


But that doesn't mean the government isn't gonna start charging you $100 per year to give you a little peel-off sticker.


You live in a democracy. If the government charges you a fee for something, it is because you and those around you voted people into office to charge that fee. If you don't like it, vote for someone who will repeal it. Lord knows, in any given election there are enough of them.

[Professor Yaffle]

Here's an interesting page on the history of who you couldn't marry in the UK (eta: though I think there have been more recent changes regarding in-laws than are detailed here).

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html

Now that we have civil partnerships, I wonder if there are any similar familial restrictions on this.

ETA - just checked and there are - so it is obviously not just about preventing incestuous offspring.

http://www.uk-civil-partnership-act-2004.co.uk/s-T

[Beerina]

and

http://www.incesttraumacentar.org.yu/letters_reports/statistics.pdf

and

http://www.icasa.org/uploads/adult_survivors_of_incest.pdf

FWIW

Sexual child abuse has nothing to do with what adults choose to do behind closed doors, much less marriage.

[thesyntaxera]

ANd as you started from a mental health field that would seem to be a highly biased starting point.

Or one based on first hand knowledge of the consequences. Bias hardly has anything to do with it. Find me one incestuous couple that doesn't fit that description and we can talk.

I agree that changing from a parental relationship to a sexual relationship is likely to be bad for most people. But why is it that if they are adopted, or a step child it becomes all nice and legal?

Because they aren't actually committing incest. There is no kin relationship other than one found on paper. Sure the dynamics are weird, but not as weird as me doing my biological mother, for instance, and I would imagine that the legal status of it probably hinges more on the genetic and psychological factors than anything else.


I am not claiming that it is not correlated with problems in I just don't find the arguements against it being illegal to be a good way of preventing what people are actualy concerned about.

Well, it's not something you can prevent. The laws are there to deal with it when it does happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

[thesyntaxera]

Sexual child abuse has nothing to do with what adults choose to do behind closed doors, much less marriage.

This isn't an issue that only applies to consenting adults. If two adult family members want to do it, they are going to despite the legal implications, which probably wouldn't be anything. The legal implications only really seem to be invoked when there are children involved, either through molestation, or as offspring.

[Dogdoctor]

I would say this about incest. The relationship that close relatives have allows predatory relationships if we allow them to have sex. Your typical relative knows much about you (much more than other people) and how to deal with you. In addition the type of relationship of a relative can be one of subservience or dominance depending on how you are related which would allow for predatory behavior. Allowing sex between relatives allows for much self serving manipulation that wouldn't be present in relationships with people who weren't related.

[tiger]

This is the only logical difficulty I see when I'm arguing gay rights with people. I've said in the past that there is no logical argument against gay marriage, and that's pretty much true, but looking deeper into the justification for gay marriage (people have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm others or harm the functioning of society...and homosexuality does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality, pedophilia and incest are harmful to the animal, the child or the offspring).

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?

Maybe we can just run them over in the crosswalks and call it justified!

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, that and Match Point.

Wow, that was harsh. I happened to really like that movie.

Oh well, different tastes, different strokes.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Maybe we can just run them over in the crosswalks and call it justified!

Nominated!:D

[ponderingturtle]

Or one based on first hand knowledge of the consequences.

That is the very definition of bias though.

Bias hardly has anything to do with it. Find me one incestuous couple that doesn't fit that description and we can talk.

Well there are all the cousin couples that are commonly regarded as incest.



Because they aren't actually committing incest. There is no kin relationship other than one found on paper. Sure the dynamics are weird, but not as weird as me doing my biological mother, for instance, and I would imagine that the legal status of it probably hinges more on the genetic and psychological factors than anything else.

So you get messed up becuase you are messing around with someone based on their genes, not based on past personal relationship?

So screwing your sister is fine if she is adopted, even though you where raised as siblings for all your lives? This is much better than messing around with a half sister you never met until you where both in your 20's?

You seem to be lacking in consistency in your arguement

[ponderingturtle]

This isn't an issue that only applies to consenting adults. If two adult family members want to do it, they are going to despite the legal implications, which probably wouldn't be anything. The legal implications only really seem to be invoked when there are children involved, either through molestation, or as offspring.

But people are only arguing for it to be decriminalized for consenting adults.

[ponderingturtle]

I would say this about incest. The relationship that close relatives have allows predatory relationships if we allow them to have sex. Your typical relative knows much about you (much more than other people) and how to deal with you. In addition the type of relationship of a relative can be one of subservience or dominance depending on how you are related which would allow for predatory behavior. Allowing sex between relatives allows for much self serving manipulation that wouldn't be present in relationships with people who weren't related.

So a step father is OK then, even if they raised you?

Current incest laws poorly target that concerns generaly used to justify them.