Should incest be legal?

[Chinamerica]

In response to a thread questioning the legality of polygamous marriages, I ask you: should incestuous relationships be legal? It seems a lot of libertarian-minded folk think that any consenting adult should do what they want in the privacy of their homes. Do you think that two adult family members should be able to have a sexual relationship/get married/have kids?

I think the idea of incest being legal is absolutely ridiculous. Generations of inbreeding limits the gene pool and highly increases the risk of disease. It should never be legalised. What do you guys think?

[Aalnordhavn]

Yeah, that's kind of disgusting...

[Gravlen]

What about homosexual incest?

What about non-incestuous relationships between people with genetic disorders? Should, say, a couple where they both have Down syndrome be banned from having children?

Why are you talking about generations of incest? Is it likely that, if incest is legalized, families will stop seeking mates outside of their immediate bloodline for generations to come?

[Reggae Magmia]

Yeah, that's kind of disgusting...

Anyways, I agree with you OP.

[Zottistan]

But in seriousness, what harm could it do?

[Chinamerica]

What about homosexual incest?

What about non-incestuous relationships between people with genetic disorders? Should, say, a couple where they both have Down syndrome be banned from having children?

Why are you talking about generations of incest? Is it likely that, if incest is legalized, families will stop seeking mates outside of their immediate bloodline for generations to come?

Answer the question.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Family members can be nasty enough to each other as things stand, imagine how bad the fallout of a sexual relationship breaking up within a family would be.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What about homosexual incest?

What about non-incestuous relationships between people with genetic disorders? Should, say, a couple where they both have Down syndrome be banned from having children?

Why are you talking about generations of incest? Is it likely that, if incest is legalized, families will stop seeking mates outside of their immediate bloodline for generations to come?

Are you familiar with European royalty, by any chance?

[Gravlen]

What about homosexual incest?

What about non-incestuous relationships between people with genetic disorders? Should, say, a couple where they both have Down syndrome be banned from having children?

Why are you talking about generations of incest? Is it likely that, if incest is legalized, families will stop seeking mates outside of their immediate bloodline for generations to come?

Answer the question.

Why won't you answer mine?

[Trotskylvania]

I think the idea of incest being legal is absolutely ridiculous. Generations of inbreeding limits the gene pool and highly increases the risk of disease. It should never be legalised. What do you guys think?

Then it's a good thing that incest being legal or not has no effect on its incidence.

Seriously, this is a basic biological imperative. It doesn't need to be legislated against. People are already naturally averse to fucking their siblings. Hell, anyone who they grew up in close proximity to. It's called the Westermarck effect.

Those people who do end up falling in love with their biological siblings are usually in tragic situations. Criminalizing it isn't going to make things any better. It's just callous and heartless. You can make the case for criminalizing sexual relationships between parents and children (whether biologically related or not) because it's inherently an unequal relationship and abusive, but you can't make that sort of blanket claim for sibling relationships, or cousin relationships.

[L Ron Cupboard]

What about homosexual incest?

Didn't William Burroughs have sex with his own son?

[Gravlen]

What about homosexual incest?

What about non-incestuous relationships between people with genetic disorders? Should, say, a couple where they both have Down syndrome be banned from having children?

Why are you talking about generations of incest? Is it likely that, if incest is legalized, families will stop seeking mates outside of their immediate bloodline for generations to come?

Are you familiar with European royalty, by any chance?

Yes.

They marry outside of their immediate bloodlines today, don't they?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Are you familiar with European royalty, by any chance?

Yes.

They marry outside of their immediate bloodlines today, don't they?

Go a little further back. It wasn't uncommon back then to marry within the bloodlines to insure "purity" of the throne.

[Khadgar]

Yes.

They marry outside of their immediate bloodlines today, don't they?

Go a little further back. It wasn't uncommon back then to marry within the bloodlines to insure "purity" of the throne.

Ah the Habsburgs. When your family tree resembles the gordian knot.

[Christian Democrats]

No, incest, even consensual incest, should be prohibited by law. The government should discourage intrafamilial sexual relationships. Such relationships tend to compound genetic defects that exist within groups of people who are closely related.

[Gravlen]

Yes.

They marry outside of their immediate bloodlines today, don't they?

Go a little further back. It wasn't uncommon back then to marry within the bloodlines to insure "purity" of the throne.

Indeed. In the past.

Does that mean it should be illegal today? Is the need for "pure" bloodlines an argument that's being bandied about?

[Great Nepal]

Yea, no.
What ever two consenting organisms do is their business.
This whole nonsense about genetic disease is nonsense firstly because we don't ban marriage between two people with faulty DNA that increase chances of disease (or else human race would go extinct quite fast) and secondly because it is over hyped.

In the end, it comes down to "I find it icky".

[The Emerald Dawn]

Go a little further back. It wasn't uncommon back then to marry within the bloodlines to insure "purity" of the throne.

Indeed. In the past.

Does that mean it should be illegal today? Is the need for "pure" bloodlines an argument that's being bandied about?

No, but it is the only good example we have of what can happen.

[Chinamerica]

Answer the question.

Why won't you answer mine?

No.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Maybe.

[Gravlen]

Indeed. In the past.

Does that mean it should be illegal today? Is the need for "pure" bloodlines an argument that's being bandied about?

No, but it is the only good example we have of what can happen.

The OP seems to be worried about some kind of "floodgate" effect. I don't see that happening.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, but it is the only good example we have of what can happen.

The OP seems to be worried about some kind of "floodgate" effect. I don't see that happening.

Without data, I can make no suppositions. People used to think that intermarriage would cause "Hell on Earth^TM", and we had no real data to disprove the notion. I tend towards rational evidence based arguments for or against things, and in this case the best evidence we have is European Royalty.

[Gravlen]

Why won't you answer mine?

No.

Really?

Your only argument against incestuous relationships is that it's "ridiculous" and inbreeding, and you have nothing to say concerning homosexual relationships (i.e. where there's no danger of inbreeding) and no comment concerning relationships between non-related people with genetic disorders?

Is your argument really that weak?

[Zottistan]

The OP seems to be worried about some kind of "floodgate" effect. I don't see that happening.

Without data, I can make no suppositions. People used to think that intermarriage would cause "Hell on Earth^TM", and we had no real data to disprove the notion. I tend towards rational evidence based arguments for or against things, and in this case the best evidence we have is European Royalty.

Except that that evidence isn't relevant to modern society.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Without data, I can make no suppositions. People used to think that intermarriage would cause "Hell on Earth^TM", and we had no real data to disprove the notion. I tend towards rational evidence based arguments for or against things, and in this case the best evidence we have is European Royalty.

Except that that evidence isn't relevant to modern society.

Were they not human? Were the Royals truly deities?