Should direct relatives be allowed to marry?

[Shadowferal]

As a legal question in the US, as a constitutional law issue? I don't know how a scrupulously checked legal analysis could uphold prohibitions against this between consenting adults anymore. I mean, they might not uphold it if challenge, but the judges would be making totally extrajudicial public policy arguments and pretending a distinction exists where there is no longer room left for one. But it is obviously hugely taboo, so much so that no ambitious souls have even challenged it in the first place, so it's sort of a non-issue.

Anyone to publicly air out anything remotely resembling "Incest is best" would be villified.
This is why I say to anyone that thinks it's a great idea...put your real name out there. If anyone thinks neo-Nazis were given a media beating recently, you'll be shocked at the level of vitriol given to anyone claiming to publicly bang his/her brother or sister and/or encourage legitimizing it.

[ipaq]

This is not about sex or age of consent please don't derail. I'm asking as a civil matter because it's come up more recently in the news so I wonder as a point of law if two members are of age to marry should their being related matter.

Keep in mind as some argue it as a religious practice everyone from Adam and Eve to Zues and Hera were brother and sister even mother son or father daughter.

So as a civil matter only should it be allowed provided all other laws are followed?

How would white supremacist procreate if you actively stop them from doing it?

[Magical Mudcrab]

Incest is pretty taboo is most normal nations. Surely all those nations must just be horrible evil wicked bigots for not wanting incest, yeah?

No, and I have not stated that nations and people who don't accept incestuous relations are bigots or bad people. I don't think it's correct to ascribe malice to people for not accepting controversial positions, unless the reasons are themselves malicious.

That said, simply not accepting something because you don't want to accept it is rather ignorant. A lot of people have brought up valid reasons to be wary of legalizing incest and direct-relative marriage - genetic defects in children, potentially validating child grooming in some circumstances, etc. - and they're all things worth discussing. I've even stated a few times that I wouldn't accept the legalization of incest wholesale, there are caveats that need to be kept in-place to ensure that it remains a victim-less act (ie: no children). But that's the point of this discussion, to talk about the problems with and reasons for the idea.

[Doctor Amadeus]

How would white supremacist procreate if you actively stop them from doing it?

By sea witch?

- - - Updated - - -

Then why bring mythical figures into this, who didn't even have a concept of marriage? Should we be encouraged to copulate with animals, because Zeus took on the appearance of a swan or a bull to seduce women?

Because the foundations of what was built and now made law were steeped in this kind of tradition, we observe traditions, and some even make it to law, I am just asking considering the protection of civil and religious rights.

[Daedius]

People speaking about birth defects are ill informed... procreating between similar genes just raises the chances of a recessive gene cropping up. If such genes don't exist then nothing bad happens. But such a likelihood is non-existent, it just raises the chance ever so slightly (but it increases with each incest produced generation, producing the likes of Habsburg's Charles II of Spain)... reason why even normal unrelated pairs have a chance still of producing an offspring with a congenital disorder.

If we had two people with absolutely flawless genes, in theory they can indefinitely produce offspring with no issues cropping up ever. But this is not including environmental factors that cause gene mutations.


With all that being said, isn't it contradictory to be against incest yet still allow people with congenital defects to produce kids themselves which have hell of a lot higher chance of producing kids with said defect...?

Such contradictory people will always claim "human rights!" in the absolute hypocritical sense of the word...

I'd honestly be fine with first, and same, generation relationships... but past that should remain illegal. Allowing adults with the younger generation might lead to grooming and what have you, which is incredibly common within families... and as such should remain illegal for the sake of the child.

[Adam Jensen]

There is literally no logical reason to marry your relatives.

The Targaryens beg to differ.

[Stormdash]

Anyone to publicly air out anything remotely resembling "Incest is best" would be villified.
This is why I say to anyone that thinks it's a great idea...put your real name out there. If anyone thinks neo-Nazis were given a media beating recently, you'll be shocked at the level of vitriol given to anyone claiming to publicly bang his/her brother or sister and/or encourage legitimizing it.

10 years ago I'd have been sure. every now and then on facebook and whatnot you see the 'Hub puts out their most popular searched by state, though, and you wonder how taboo it really is anymore to people. But I digress; I don't think it should be legal. I just don't think bans can be upheld under 14th Amendment challenge anymore, not without some definite and somewhat hollow reversals of current jurisprudence.

[Deleted]

Absolutely not.

[Baelic]

If they want to get Married, who am I to tell them no?

Marriage is just a social construct, anyway. You could do the same thing just by simply living together.

[Magical Mudcrab]

People speaking about birth defects are ill informed... procreating between similar genes just raises the chances of a recessive gene cropping up. If such genes don't exist then nothing bad happens. But such a likelihood is non-existent, it just raises the chance ever so slightly (but it increases with each incest produced generation, producing the likes of Habsburg's Charles II of Spain)... reason why even normal unrelated pairs have a chance still of producing an offspring with a congenital disorder.

If we had two people with absolutely flawless genes, in theory they can indefinitely produce offspring with no issues cropping up ever. But this is not including environmental factors that cause gene mutations.


With all that being said, isn't it contradictory to be against incest yet still allow people with congenital defects to produce kids themselves which have hell of a lot higher chance of producing kids with said defect...?

Such contradictory people will always claim "human rights!" in the absolute hypocritical sense of the word...

I'd honestly be fine with first generation relationships... but past that should remain illegal.

I am not a biologist in any sense of the word, so most things relating to genetics are rather foreign to me; however, I rather think is has to do with risk minimization rather than a form of favouritism. I understand, at least as much as I can with a surface-level understanding, what you're referring to when discussing how to two unrelated people - without a mutation - may have children with a mutation if they're both carriers of the recessive gene, and how the chance could potentially be higher than an incestuous pair. However, the likelihood of two individuals carrying the gene when they aren't related is more remote than it would be if they were siblings, and that's why I think the caveat is necessary. It would be expensive and unrealistic to test all pairings of people to ensure they will not have children with defects, but you can minimize the risk of defects by disallowing people from having children out of an incestuous relationship.

[Daedius]

/snip

And yet people with congenital disorders are allowed to procreate, unrelated... with the ever prevalent excuse of "Human rights!", whom have a significantly higher chance of producing children with the same disorder compared to incest ?

Example, Dwarfism... more so with others of the same trait... they produce a family of the same trait. We're going from "a small chance" from incest to a high likelihood of with people sharing the same traits. Why is this acceptable? We're concerned of kids being born with defects yet wilfully allow this to happen by law.

It's hypocrisy.

[Celista]

I think it's gross and honestly don't care if it's because I've simply internalized societal standards regarding taboos. Your kids will most likely be effed up, you shouldn't be sleeping together let alone marrying.

[Puupi]

Incest seems to be trending - judging this by the type of video clips I see on the front page of certain sites.

[Celista]

Incest seems to be trending - judging this by the type of video clips I see on the front page of certain sites.

Yeah people are watching way too much Pornhub. This is a good social experiment though. People who watch this stuff start to want it irl. Reinforces why drawn sexually explicit images of children are illegal in certain countries, despite being "victimless".

[Skorpionss]

I think everyone should be able to marry whoever they want as long as both parties are of proper age and consenting... If offsprings are involved suggest abortion(not enforce) and if they decide to keep it and comes out with defects don't provide social aid, this way the parents have a choice of either aborting or keeping the baby and dealing with the defects without draining resources from the state.

Yes I know it's a scumbag move but I'd rather have this than restrictions on relationships/marriage.
Besides they might not even be in a sexual relationship and just get married for social advantage (easier to get loans for a house, easier to adopt, etc.)

[hrugner]

The main concern is grooming children for sex. If marriage within the family is accepted, then I assume all forms of incest get a pass as well. This leads to a very real increase in the risk of people having and raising children purely as sex toys. In places where the age of consent is bottomless with marriage and parental consent, things get rather awful.

If incestuous sex is still unlawful, then it's less of a problem. The institute of marriage is practically meaningless now anyway.

[Donald Hellscream]

Stranger things have happened, such as the marriage between an Orangutan and an Eastern European model.

Aww come on man thats cruel to all Orangutans out there

On topic I do find incest disgusting but I also believe that if people really want to they should be allowed to marry given that both is at the age where marrying is legal. They should be barred from reproducing though.

[Mistame]

The Targaryens beg to differ.

She is one hot aunt (save for a bit too much on the lower half)

[Shadowferal]

10 years ago I'd have been sure. every now and then on facebook and whatnot you see the 'Hub puts out their most popular searched by state, though, and you wonder how taboo it really is anymore to people. But I digress; I don't think it should be legal. I just don't think bans can be upheld under 14th Amendment challenge anymore, not without some definite and somewhat hollow reversals of current jurisprudence.

Let a person challenge it, and I'm near certain that we'll all see the challenge get thrown out as "frivolous."
As for the person doing the oh-so-public challenge? I'm pretty sure that said person is done. His neighbors won't have anything to do with him/her, and heaven help if the person has children. (and the children would be stigmatized by others). And such a person will probably not have a job after all is said and done.

Anyone imagining that they can challenge the law...isn't thinking what s/he will be putting his/her family through.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Not relevant in legislating Law.

Why not, exactly? Go on, tell me why something -- anything -- isn't relevant when legislating a law.

But you can try "incest is best."
As long as you're willing to put your real name out there...

You really are a thick human being, aren't you? "Something's taboo but probably shouldn't be? Well fine, just go tell everyone, that'll change it!!! HERP A DERP, I R BEST ARGUAR!!!"