Criminalizing Incest as a society, Why?

[Deleted]

Just curious; is it illegal to have gay sex with a sibbling aswell?

[Velaniz]

The Scottish law commission is clear why incest is a crime beyond simply rape; because the victim won't utilize the same defensive faculties she would for an unrelated aggressor. Said aggressor, would not assault someone outside his own family because it's the problems within that unit that give rise to the problem.

This is not complicated stuff. It's all in the report. Again, this point is never contested because it's damning to those who think incest is somehow okay.

So this is the point you claim no one's addressing.

Did you know that an aggressor doesn't have to be the victim's family for the victim to not want to accuse him? It could be a loan shark is heavily in illicit debt too, forcing himself on the victim because he knows that if the victim went to the police, she'd get into great trouble too. In such cases where there is a form of psychological coercion involved, some kind of vile blackmail, it's considered a case of aggravated rape with charges just beyond that in most civilized countries.

You are thinking of ways to portray these sort of coercions as uniquely incestuous, yet you don't realise they are part of a greater, separate branch of offenses. This is the main problem. You are hell-bent on tying everything possible to incest, and you aren't willing in the slightest to concede that doing so intellectually disingenuous. You are failing to see distinctions that as plain as day, though whether on purpose or otherwise, I can't tell.

In the sort of case you cited, the law is already adequately equipped to handling. Incest-specific laws are once again unnecessary.

[Yvaelle]

---------- Post added 2013-06-12 at 08:02 PM ----------
Are you serious? "Modern" social norms are rarely based on more than superstition, there is no intent to be objective, it falls flat on it's face in front of logic.

You're mis-reading me is the problem. I didn't say "Legally enforced 'ick' factors are perfectly acceptable logical grounds" - it's absolutely illogical, that's what I was saying in my first post to which you responded. Modern social norms are based largely on social customs, superstititions and stigmas - the taboo of incest being one of them.

The argument against incest is based on harm to potential children - but if no children are created - then no children can be harmed - and that argument collapses. Therefore, our (society) continued predilection against incest is not based solely on the baby argument, but an 'ick' factor - and it's perfectly normal to make laws based solely on shared disgust: regardless of logic.

You're using Sharia Law as an example of "acceptable" actions taken because of social norms, that alone is reprehensible beyond hope of reason. It's a culture that is literally twisted, perverted, and incapable of societal evolution because it's shackled to insane notions; again based on nothing more than an ancient system of control.

I'm using Sharia law to suggest that all cultures define their laws not based on what it logical - that reason doesn't play a part in it. We collectively decide what good and bad are, we decide what the laws are - and not a single Philosophy of Logic major in the world is employed in the process.

[armax]

I was watching Showtimes' The Borgias, and I was interested in the psychological reasons that would drive two people to be in an incestuous relationship. Now in The Borgias (Spoiler), Cesare and Lucrettia who are brother and sister (two very intelligent/influential historical characters) enter into an incestuous relationship. One might assume this relationship is developed out of a neglectful relationship from their father, Pope Borgias, or from their mother. In the series this incestuous relationship leads to some of the more interesting conflicts in the story. What interested me is wondering 'why in the United States do we criminalize Incest if the two involved are consenting adults?' Here are some examples of minimum jail time for this crime:

5 years imprisonment in Hawaii
10 years imprisonment in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota
14 years imprisonment in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Idaho
15 years imprisonment in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia
20 years imprisonment in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
25 years imprisonment in Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia,[38] Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

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

As you can tell the harsher sentences are in the mid-west and the south where religion has influenced criminal law. However, many other Industrialized countries in Europe and Asia do not impose criminal penalties for Incest. Countries like The Netherlands, France, Belgium, Turkey, Israel, etc... do not criminalize incest. Why as a society do we criminalize incest? If it is for medical reasons, then why not criminalize sexual intercourse between people with down syndrome? Something else to consider, if we are to legalize gay marriage, why not legalize incestuous marriages?

Do u really have to ask why, well let me tell u why, BECAUSE IS WRONG IN EVERY WAY U LOOK AT IT u dumb person lol

[Speaknoevil]

You're mis-reading me is the problem.

You said "normal" and I inferred "acceptable," my mistake.

[Pua]

Sorry Zellviren, if you refuse to acknowledge the difference between incest and rape then nobody can help you.

Sorry, Quetzl, but I've been the one acknowledging the difference all along; that's why incest laws are a necessity.

In the sort of case you cited, the law is already adequately equipped to handling. Incest-specific laws are once again unnecessary.

The circumstances that lead to, and fall out from, incest are why the law views it differently in Scotland. Once again, you're arguing on some theoretical basis that's against the decision trained legal regulators made and the conclusion they came to after being properly educated in the subject. Do you honestly expect your diatribe to wash? As for the criticism that I'm tying everything to incest, this is the point of the debate I take my leave; I've been consistent throughout this discussion that incest is a specific form of abuse, and that's why it needs its own legislation.

Frankly, it's utterly bizarre that I'm now being criticised for doing something that I've not done, leaving you to make the point for me.

Incest is illegal because it's a form of abuse that other laws, at least in Scotland, do not cover. Don't try and turn my argument into something it's never been because you now know I've answered your (and the OP's) question. I'm Scottish. We educate our people here. Part of that means that Internet debate tactics are pierced for what they are the moment they appear.

Have fun continuing to argue that incest is A-Okay in a country where its professional legal representatives intellectually and logically disagree, while ignoring all of the reasons why it's not okay. It won't be with me.

[Seani]

Not really a spoiler, given they are real people who lived six hundred years ago Spoiler guys, Rome falls - Snape kills Julius Caesar!




I don't understand the comparison you are making here. Incest results in a high rate of birth defects, which is regarded as doing harm to the child - and therefore criminal. However, if they were not intending to have children (ie. using birth control) and are just doing it for funsies - in that case it's really no functionally different than any two other people having sex (it's just a stigma).

Gay people having sex, let alone getting married, doesn't make babies develop horrible birth defects and death. So far, despite extensive empirical tests by the gay community, no child has ever been conceived by homosexual sex - but the Christians claim they know of a case of getting pregnant via abstinence, so apparently that's not 100% effective!

Although we consider Incest to be taboo, if you were to have been raised a monarch in Feudal Europe you would have not had the same preconceived notions about incest. I want to make myself clear I am not talking about incestuous rape. I am talking about two consenting adults committing incest. If it is bad because it does harm to the child you find yourself arguing from a slippery slope. I could very well tell two alcoholics that they cannot reproduce because they will have unfavorable offspring. Gay and incestuous Marriage are comparable because most of us have preconceived notions about one or the other. If the argument is 'marriage for everyone' how can you argue against a couple wanting to entering into an incestuous marriage.

[draykorinee]

'yucky' is pretty subjective. Especially in a subject such as sex.

Subjective yes, but lets face it the majority of people find it yucky to touch your brothers penis or sisters vagina, ill go with the majority

[rogoth]

Combine this with your views on pedophilia and man you come up as a pretty twisted individual.

---------- Post added 2013-06-12 at 10:26 AM ----------



Unlike your ideas about underage sex unfortunately.

just gonna point out, from a biological view point, the female human is perfectly ready by the age of 15 to have children, and in fact the ages of 15-18 are the best times to do this, speaking purely from a biological standpoint, it is society and politics that have put a ban on such things, and even then, u still have millions of underage pregnancies partly due to ignorance or inability to use contraceptives, but why is wrong/bad when biologically, there is nothing to support a "no" vote.