Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Do you think incest and polygamy will be legalized?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you think incest and polygamy will be legalized? (46 member(s) have cast votes)

Will incest and polygamy be legalized in the future?

  1. Yes (25 votes [54.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.35%

  2. No (9 votes [19.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.57%

  3. Only incest (1 votes [2.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.17%

  4. Only polygamy (11 votes [23.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.91%

Should in your opinion be incest and polygamy legalized?

  1. Yes (21 votes [45.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.65%

  2. No (9 votes [19.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.57%

  3. Only incest (2 votes [4.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.35%

  4. Only polygamy (14 votes [30.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.43%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41
Ryan94

Ryan94

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

 

I can't believe you sick f*cks want incest legalised. (12 out of 21 voters think incest should be legalised as of when i'm writing this). Just because it's 'between two consenting adults' (as it is often repeated here), doesn't make it right. This is between many consenting adults. Want this legalised?http://mobile.news.c...v-1226777979030

Bit daft to compare sex with cannibalism really, but even so, if people consent to that kind of thing, then sure. Why not? It's their body, they should be able to do with it as they please.

 

Not really. If you read the article, you would have seen that he, and like other men on the cannibalistic fetish forum, found some erotic, sexual pleasure when thinking someone was going to eat him.



#42
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

 

I hope polygamy will be legalized and acceptable even in the west. I always dreamed to have multiple wives.

 

The question is, do multiple wives dream of having you?

 

 

Some women like to be in a polygamous family and as it becomes more common some may accept this even more. If you go on facebook and other forums there are women who are looking for another couple male-woman or another woman or two to join the duo.  it happens two times that girls asked to have another girl in the relationship but we never done anything at the end.

to me it would be interesting as a situation even emotionally speaking but I won't know exactly until I am there. As for now I am opened to it.



#43
EVanimations

EVanimations

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • LocationThe Eldritch Beyond

Yeaaaaaah I don't personally advocate incest or polygamy.

 

I also see a lot of potential for abuse in laws that are even a little lax with incest and polygamy; it could lead to a lot of creepy uncles getting their way.

 

Practitioners of incest and polygamy probably represent a tiny fraction of the population, maybe about the same fraction as there are pedophiles and sex offenders. I see absolutely no reason to pander to them, and so it's different from gay rights since LGBT represent a much larger fraction.



#44
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,116 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

If we do master genome editing on the fly, on what grounds do we prohibit incest, hmmm? The argument that incest will lead to all sorts of biological deformities will not longer stand.


  • Italian Ufo and GottSchreit like this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#45
EVanimations

EVanimations

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • LocationThe Eldritch Beyond

^^^ But... but creepy uncles. Let that sink in.

 

Seriously; a lot of these people could get away with doing something horrible because the laws would give them more slack.

Don't we already have enough problems with rape cases?!



#46
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,116 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

^^^ But... but creepy uncles. Let that sink in.

 

Well, if it is a rape, then it is a rape. Let the law enforcement deal with these "uncles" as they see fit.


  • Italian Ufo, Futurist and GottSchreit like this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#47
EVanimations

EVanimations

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • LocationThe Eldritch Beyond

I dunno, I can only see tolerance of incest as getting in the way. We would have to determine what's rape and what's slightly more legal rape. It would only lead to more bullshit obstructing the way of justice.



#48
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,116 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

I dunno, I can only see tolerance of incest as getting in the way. We would have to determine what's rape and what's slightly more legal rape. It would only lead to more bullshit obstructing the way of justice.

 

Yeah, every action we do to give others more rights, it just opens a new can of worms. It always does.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#49
EVanimations

EVanimations

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • LocationThe Eldritch Beyond

I say skip the legalization and let them enact their fantasies in VR, where they can't hurt anyone.



#50
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,116 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

I say skip the legalization and let them enact their fantasies in VR, where they can't hurt anyone.

 

That would be a good initial step at compromise, but I can assure you, one of them will keep pushing the envelope. How we will deal with this stubborn activist, I don't have a crystal ball for it.


  • Futurist likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#51
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

I say skip the legalization and let them enact their fantasies in VR, where they can't hurt anyone.

That would be a good initial step at compromise, but I can assure you, one of them will keep pushing the envelope. How we will deal with this stubborn activist, I don't have a crystal ball for it.
we can stop activists by holding up "god hates sags (or another profanity for incestuous relations)", "god hates America", and "thank god for dead siblings" signs at family funerals.
  • GottSchreit likes this

#52
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

I see hardly crime being committed in the future. With sensors in the body, recorders and cameras in the eyes... who would ever do something where you will be found out ? I think deterrents in the future will be more the technology than the law in the future.



#53
EVanimations

EVanimations

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • LocationThe Eldritch Beyond

That's looking forward to some sort of Orwellian state where nobody commits crimes because they're afraid of being caught.

 

The best scenario is where nobody commits crimes because they don't have to.

 

That's where FIVR comes in.



#54
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

It will be a mix of the two things. When health, goods, love will be available to all then crime rate will drastically go down. in case crime is committed then for me it important to caught these people and don't let them go. Today too many abuses are committed and left unpunished. 


  • GottSchreit likes this

#55
GottSchreit

GottSchreit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationThe United States of America

 

Never to incest. But normalize polyamory.

 

Relationship policy should be by consent. But incest is the exception because of genetic defects and an evolutionary implanted emotional abhoration of it. Plus we have a duty to the potential offspring to limit potential social and physical deformities.

 

So you're a fan of eugenics then? It's acceptable for the state to throw people in jail for having sex when it may result in pregnancy, and that child may have deformities? Then I'm sure you'd approve of policies that throw anyone with known genetic diseases in jail. Maybe we should throw people in jail longer, the worse their disease is. And why should we stop? What counts as ensuring the population's genetic health? Should we doom babies to suffer, growing up with low intelligence that won't allow them to be competitive in the modern economy? Maybe we should ensure that people with low test scores aren't allowed to reproduce. Reductio ad absurdum. I could keep going, getting all the way back to the original use of eugenics: "sterilizing" poor people and racial minorities.

 

Besides, even then eugenicists knew that blanket bans on having children with close kin made no sense, because some families have more or fewer genetic diseases than the general population. "We have a duty"? Who are we to decide that a child with a heart problem, or a slightly weaker immune system, is unworthy of life or can't contribute value to society, when both their parents want them and are willing to raise them? That's some seriously paternalistic, potentially anti-democratic logic, which can be used to deny human dignity to people with any kind of disability.

 

And "emotional abhoration"? Since when is bigotry a justification for bigotry? Homophobia, a lack of exposure to normal homosexual couples, and peoples personal aversion to having sex with someone they have no attraction toward, contributed (and contributes) to straight people being disgusted by the thought of homosexual sex. It's a known psychological mechanism: personal disgust inspired by someone else's actions, combined with a desire to enforce conformity, result in taboos. By your logic, any place where homophobia is rampant should be justified in outlawing homosexual sex acts and making same-sex marriage illegal. I hope we base our laws and ethics on more solid things than purely what's popular.

 

 

Yes, I am a fu!king Nazi. Don't you ever use slippery slope with me you small minded buffoon. Incest is immoral while polygamy and homosexuality are acceptable. My logic is one that measures consent and consideration for the end result. There will be a line drawn.

 

 

Wasn't saying you were in favor of those things. I'm making a point, that there's no clear logical barrier between discriminating against one group's reproductive rights regardless of their actual genes and behaviors, and another group. Some relatives could have healthy children, some wouldn't. It depends on individual genomes, epigenomes, and lifestyles, all of which can be determined to some degree and used to make responsible decisions (which is what Israel did with the Samaritans). I think we should have free genetic screening and counseling for everyone, since it makes it easier for people to make responsible reproductive decisions. The thing is, people who would never advocate for using state force to control people's consensual sexual and reproductive lives will all of a sudden be okay when it comes to "incest", just because it's the only logical sounding argument most can come up with besides "eww". I'm saying a) it's bad eugenic policy anyway, and b) people should be more careful suddenly becoming pro eugenics just because it serves them on one issue. After all, if we're policing the gene pool and trying to prevent abnormal births, why aren't we banning sex for people who are past middle age? The reason a eugenic argument allows for bad logical consequences, is because it's being applied arbitrarily to a large group of people based on an act that's not necessarily even reproductive. (I also don't think eugenics is a proper role for a democratic state.)

 

Actually, let me quote that Slate article:

My guess is that this is how governments will manage unconventional sex practices in the next century. We can't stop people from doing what they want to do. We'll tell them what's generally dangerous. And if they can adequately reduce the medical risks, by wearing a condom or taking a genetic test, we'll look the other way. We'll speak the language of science, or none at all.

 

 

I need to further explain my logic as my response has been mainly emotional. This emotion is an evolutionary response because incest is evil on evolutionary terms. There is a driver in organisms that makes us want to spread our genes away from our relatives, otherwise genetic disaster could happen(recessive genes). Incest is counter to our goal of spreading our genes. It is immoral because it endangers our future generations. If this makes me a eugenicist, then I am a eugenicist in this regard.

 

 

Except not all animals have an aversion, some are indifferent or are even favorable to close relatives (it's not fully understood why yet). Besides, being a psychological mechanism driven by genes, either part can be different in different people. Genetic diversity means some people will be more or less averse, and differences in life circumstances mean that sometimes the mechanisms won't kick in, or they'll kick in when they shouldn't (like with the Kibbutzi children).

 

 

 

I can't believe you sick f*cks want incest legalised. (12 out of 21 voters think incest should be legalised as of when i'm writing this). Just because it's 'between two consenting adults' (as it is often repeated here), doesn't make it right. This is between many consenting adults. Want this legalised? http://mobile.news.c...v-1226777979030

 

Do you really not see the distinction between two siblings meeting for the first time at 30 and falling in love and having vanilla sex, and a man being eaten alive? It's not only a question of consent, but also a question of harm. Who are two relatives, or two family members (remember, step- and adopted family count under some laws) actually hurting by being in a relationship (except for making you feel uncomfortable)? You mind your business, they mind theirs, and life goes on.

 

And trust me, it happens, and it may happen to your kids whether you like it or not. Just like homosexuality, even as a minority act, it's a fact of life. Given how people like you behave, they'd likely hide it from you. Are we really trying to run our society on the dictum, "Out of sight, out of mind"? Seems like a great way to crush good relationships and let bad ones fester.

 

There's still a debate to be had on whether someone should be legally allowed to consent to being cannibalized, but it's related to the ethics of euthanasia, not consanguineous sex and marriage. They are clearly separate issues. Just because the concept of "consent" pops up in both, does not mean they have complete overlap.

 

Anyway, you skipped a lot of the prior arguments. Most of the people in loving, consenting adult relationships with a relative didn't even grow up with that person. They're relatives, but not family. And many other people fall in love with step-siblings or adopted siblings - is that or isn't it "incest"? Some states consider it "incest", but still consider having sex with a relative you never grew up with "incest". Which is it then: family, or relatives? It can't be both and still make any sense. One implies social engineering, and the other implies eugenics.

 

And why isn't it "right"? Give an actual reason besides the fact that it's what you were told, and that you personally wouldn't do it. The consenting couples I've talked to, read about, and seen, are quite normal in every other way. (Though their lives are made hard by being beaten by parents, ostracized by friends, and forced into hiding from the law.) Many of them have perfectly happy, healthy children, and many of the others can't have children or don't want to.

 

 

Yeah, and two siblings, even though they were from the same parents, have never met each other until 30 - sounds really common!! -_-

 

Because having sex with one's sister/brother is as wrong as killing a sadist who enjoys being killed and eaten, and derives sexual pleasure out of it. And tell me why that isn't right, then? Why is killing hundreds of animals for a human's consumption fine, yet killing one human for the same purpose so wrong? 

 

I don't support cannibalism. I'm just showing you how ridiculous your argument is.

 

If you love your sister/brother. Tough. The end. Sorry rednecks.

 

Having sex with your cousin/distant relative isn't incest. Incest is having sex with immediate family members. You'll be demanding people to have the right to have sex with their pet dog or something next.

 

 

My argument's ridiculous because I fail to see the equivalence between killing a human being and having sex with one? Really? You skipped my entire point about harm (social or physical) distinguishing the two. I'm also not necessarily opposed philosophically to the idea, but I'm saying - once again - that consensual sex between two loving adults is not equivalent to eating someone alive, even if both are consensual. The first has more in common with everyone else's sex lives, while the second requires taking a human life (in a rather brutal fashion). That's why the ethics of the second are related to euthanasia.

 

And yes, it actually is "common", in that full-on intercourse and long-term relationships are by far more common amongst reunited relatives than among family (though the latter happens too). Besides, how is a cousin "distant"? In several states having sex with a cousin is also illegal, and can get you thrown in jail for decades. It's also arbitrarily determined by culture. In ancient Greece, Athens allowed marriages between half-siblings if they were related by their father, while Sparta allowed marriages between half-siblings if they were related by their mother. Mishnaic law (the law of the Torah) allows for marriages between uncles and nieces. Under Islamic law, cross-cousins (cousins who share grandparents, making them as genetically close as half-siblings) are allowed to marry, but you can't marry the daughter or your wetnurse. Some cultures forbade anyone to have sex with someone of the same surname (and thus from the same clan), which would allow marriages with matrilineal relatives, like aunts. Some cultures have abandoned all taboo.

 

So you feel aversion and wouldn't do it yourself. Fine. You wouldn't have sex with a gender you're not attracted to either. That's no problem. But why should your feelings of ickiness ruin people's lives, throw them in jail, destroy the lives of their children, and shame people? Why do you or anyone else have that right, when they're not doing anything bad to anyone, including each other?

 

And now you're slippery sloping me with bestiality? If the animal was sentient enough to be granted legal rights equivalent to a human, then that would be an easy "yes". However, the argument for bestiality seems more related to arguments for and against meat eating to me. They're related to the legal and ethical status of non-humans, particularly ones that aren't nearly as intelligent as us. I'd like to point out that if you feel that way, why not ban gay marriage? People on the right have been complaining about how making marriage about love and consent opens up the law to claims for other types or relationships. They do have a point, but I just don't have a problem with that, as long as all involved are mentally, ethically, and legally capable of giving consent.

 

By the way, "rednecks"? First of all, the Epstein case is of a professor and his daughter in New York. He teaches Political Science at Columbia University. Second, the deep Southern states actually have by far the harshest laws against "incest", with a maximum punishment of life in prison in most, and 25 years maximum in the rest. Texas has a maximum of 25 years, and also prohibits sex between 1st cousins. Texans would aparently argue with your supposition that 1st cousins don't count as "incestuous".


  • Italian Ufo and SkyHize like this

#56
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,664 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

^^^ But... but creepy uncles. Let that sink in.

By that rationale, why not raise the age of consent from 16 (which it is in some/many U.S. states) to 18 or even higher than that? After all, I would think that some people would find the idea of a 16-year-old girl having consensual sex with a 50-year-old man to be incredibly creepy, but it is still legal in some/many U.S. states.


  • GottSchreit likes this

#57
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,664 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Also, in regards to incest, hasn't incest between consenting adults been legal in France from 1791 all the way up to the present day? Did it ever cause any serious, major, unsolvable problems there?


  • GottSchreit likes this

#58
GottSchreit

GottSchreit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationThe United States of America

 Man, maybe I should stop multiquoting. It's making these kind of cumbersom.

 

 

I dunno, I can only see tolerance of incest as getting in the way. We would have to determine what's rape and what's slightly more legal rape. It would only lead to more bullshit obstructing the way of justice.

 

Yeah, every action we do to give others more rights, it just opens a new can of worms. It always does.

 

 

Yeah, but "a can of worms" isn't always bad. It just means that the arguments have logical ends that should be acknowledged, but people refuse to. That's exactly what regressives have been moaning about as far as gay marriage. Once people acknowledge that a line is arbitrary, many will want to move it until it stops being arbitrary. It's called ethical and philosophical consistency, and I don't have a problem with it, especially when completely harmless people benefit from it.

 

The real "bullshit" obstructing justice is our culture's attitudes towards female sexual empowerment, rape, and coercion, as well as a disregard for victims and the powerless. In many of the consensual cases, it's quite obvious that it's consensual. That's why they prosecute both parties. It's the same problem as with people who grow up and marry their former teacher, secretaries who marry their boss, or any other situations where there is a prior history of some kind of power difference. It's the same problem as discerning coercion and consent in sexual relationships in general. Date rape, blackmail, and other things make sex and relationships in general complicated, and we already have existing laws and frameworks for dealing with them. Rape by an authority figure is rape by an authority figure, but "incest" laws won't protect anyone from their local priest. It's called life. It's called not punishing one person for the sins of another, especially when there's nothing to be gained by it for anyone.

 

 

^^^ But... but creepy uncles. Let that sink in.

 

Well, if it is a rape, then it is a rape. Let the law enforcement deal with these "uncles" as they see fit.

 

 

Exactly. I'd like to say, the current laws and taboos don't stop familial rape, and don't stop "creepy uncles". "Incest" laws also lump in standard uncles, uncles your own age, and uncles who you've never met before until you're 25. It's not clear why they should all be considered the same. There are also no laws stopping strangers on the street from being creepy. They're all bad behavior and should be socially stigmatized for the same reason. One kind of creepiness and disregard for consent and personal boundaries should not be priveleged above another.

 

Yeaaaaaah I don't personally advocate incest or polygamy.

 

I also see a lot of potential for abuse in laws that are even a little lax with incest and polygamy; it could lead to a lot of creepy uncles getting their way.

 

Practitioners of incest and polygamy probably represent a tiny fraction of the population, maybe about the same fraction as there are pedophiles and sex offenders. I see absolutely no reason to pander to them, and so it's different from gay rights since LGBT represent a much larger fraction.

 

Yes, but there's an uneven application of rape laws (and even "incest" laws) now. At best, it wouldn't be that much worse than it already is, and the ability to go public with things would make it easier to shine a light on abusers. Don't people remember that arguments about child abuse were rampant in the early days of the gay rights movement, and are still used by some regressives to tarnish homosexuals? Why should a couple of men with a house in the suburbs be thrown in with rapists and molesters? Similarly, why should two siblings with a house in the suburbs be thrown in with rapists and molesters? If removing laws and stigmas that don't even explicitly apply to rapists and molesters is that much of a problem, that it would lead to people not caring about victims of rape and abuse, then we have more serious problems in our society than whether or not we legalize consanguineous sex. Such a society clearly has no respect for human dignity, consent, or personal autonomy. I'd say we should address those issues, and stop wasting time worrying about whether that couple down the street who look really similar are siblings.

 

And they are a minority, but so are homosexuals. The best estimates put homosexuals at, at most, 5% of the population. Trans* people are even fewer. Bisexuals are the most common of all, but also frequently blend in better with heterosexual society. Bisexuals are also thrown under the bus by homosexual activists, so even by their own standards some LGBT+ activists are not fighting for true equality.

 

Non-monogamous people are a larger portion of the percentage of marriages and long-term relationships than same-sex relationships, and there's a lot of overlap between the poly* community and the queer community.
 

Psychologist Geri D. Weitzman has a new paper out, "Therapy with Clients Who Are Bisexual and Polyamorous" (Journal of Bisexuality, Vol. 6, Issue 1-2), where she summarizes some of the little that's known:
 

Page (2004) found that 33% of her bisexual sample of 217 participants were involved in a polyamorous relationship, and 54% considered this type of relationship ideal. West (1996) reported that 20% of her lesbian respondents were polyamorous, while Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) found that 28% of the lesbian couples in their sample were. Blumstein and Schwartz found that 65% of the gay male couples in their study were polyamorous, and that 15-28% of their heterosexual couples had "an understanding that allows nonmonogamy under some circumstances" (p.312).

 

 

As for consanguineous relationships, that's hard to tell. Getting statistics on more than just sex acts is hard (the fact that there was ever a survey at all on just sex acts is itself amazing). I've done rough estimates, but it's all speculation. Regardless, why should the rights of a group be proportional to its size? It isn't an issue of rights for one group. Same-sex marriage is a universal right. Whether one chooses to exercise one's right is a personal thing. It's the same for other types of relationships. They deserve freedom, respect, and dignity, because they are human beings who treat their fellow humans justly, contribute positively to society, and have moral value as sentient persons. The structure of the law is more about hashing out the wrinckles that inevitably come from trying to constrain nuanced ethics into the rigidity of written and enforced law. That still doesn't mean that the law should be allowed to ignore their dignity or moral worth. Their life choices are their own.

 

 

Hey, I'm 15. I can choose my decisions. I am proof that I can consent with having sex with a 45 year old because I enjoy it and it seems more fun. It's not sexual abuse if I enjoy it and consent with it. I am proof that 14 and 15 year olds can consent.

 

See, this is the problem. With incest. A person falls in love with their sister or brother with the falsehood of being "in love" and "consent". I mean, if you want to have sex with your sister than go ahead. I don't care if it's behind closed doors. But the idea of everybody watching you while you and your sister shout it out in public is just despicable. There is a difference between gays and incestuous relationships need I remind you. In a gay relationship you have a variety of people you choose to marry and have sexual relationships. But with incest, you have sex with one person, it's not like you can move on right? There is no factual evidence that incestuous relationships are sexually orientated. Only pure bullshit of "Human rights, morality, they can love who they want". The truth is, the thing they are doing is not healthy and massively harmful to their mental state. Which, funny enough sounds a lot like pedophiles and consenting children doesn't it?

 

A big part of this is about legal distinctions, and what kind of distinctions the law can and should be allowed to make. Legally, a 15 year old can't consent in any jurisdiction in the US, and in many jurisdictions overseas. Adults can consent, however. Laws against bigamy and "incest" aren't about legal, ethical, or moral consent, but about punishing people who fail to conform.

 

Relationships between adults and minors are also not a permanent social class of relationships. Worst case scenario, they wait a couple years. If an adult can't restrain themselves enough for even that long, and loses interest once the person was over, then it has no relation to love, commitment, or anything else like that. By banning consanguineous relationships, though, we're permanently barring two people not only from getting married, but from being physically intimate. Forever. Forever. That's true legal oppression. Being forced to wait a couple years barely qualifies by comparison with throwing you in jail for having sex with your life-long love, when both are much older, and are socially and economically self-sufficient. The same goes for polyamory.

 

Minors are people, but they have a separate legal status, and are psychologically - and usually socially - immature. Minors are a special kind of dependent, because their dependency is legally mandated. It's the way the state ensures guardianship for minors, which I don't think anyone would have a problem with if they care about child welfare. If a minor's family can't or shouldn't care for them, then the state takes over guardianship. Their dependency is universal and manditory, unless proven otherwise to a court (i.e. emancipation). Given that minors not only (frequently) lack the social or psychological ability to deal with such potentially exploitative relationship dynamics, but also lack the legal and economic power to extricate themselves from an exploitative situation, age of consent laws make perfect sense. Like I said in my comment (which you ignored), the law exists to provide a tool, which they would not otherwise have, to remove themselves from an abusive situation, and to punish those who abuse their social and legal authority. For adults, other laws already exist to help them extricate themselves.

 

We're not Bedouins, living in a harsh physical and social environment. As a society, the developed world is rich and safe by comparison. Most people don't leave home long-term for the first time until they're 18. It's hard to argue that someone has the neurological and social equipment to deal with severe power imbalances when they're a middle class 15 year old in the developed world. Still, I'm not trying to force some fixed idea of child sexual psychology onto every minor. Different people are different, and teenagers are people too. Even though they're a minority, not all minors felt traumatized by their sexual encounters with older people when they were young. Some were, but not in ways that are as debilitating. I don't like how society tells victims how they're supposed to react, and that victims must be tormented forever or there's something wrong with them. However, in such a situation there wouldn't be a risk of the minor reporting it. It would be hard to prosecute without the minor party ever assisting. Unlike with consanguineous relationships, the legal threat would disappear once the minor came of age.

 

The fact that we draw a legal line for the age of consent is mostly just an unfortunate side effect of the limitations of law itself. There are ways to mitigate it - I, for one, advocate Romeo laws - but it can't be completely avoided. The issue is that, for related couples, the legal frameworks in place (as well as the taboos) don't actually justify themselves based on any psychological, social, or even legally necessary properties of the people involved. It comes entirely from a desire to use the legal system to bludgeon those who violate our taboos. Even Westermarck thought that the taboo originated from a desire to punish people for making us feel uncomfortable. All the stuff y'all are coming up with now is post hoc. At the end of the day, y'all think it's gross, just like most of our ancestors, and y'all are defending a legal regime that arose originally from a desire to punish sexual non-conformists - regardless of whatever supposedly legitimate claims such laws might have. Age of consent laws are clearly protecting a group that, for the vast majority of them, needs legal protection. "Incest" laws don't protect anyone that isn't already protect by other sex crime laws. (I'm still open to - and personal advocate - stricter age of consent laws for relationships between dependents and guardians - not genetic parents, but guardians - for similar reasons to why we have age of consent laws at all. That makes more sense than blanket "incest" laws. It protects actual victims.)

 

"Incest" laws aren't about protect the "victim". They popped up independently of rape laws, and several countries retain laws for rape and statutory rape without having "incest" laws. "Incest" laws are about punishing both parties. If the younger party (if there is one) refuses to say they were victimized, usually the court will punish them too. The more adamantly they insist it's consensual, the more they'll be punished. "Incest" laws are about allowing third parties to punish "deviants" on behalf of the "community". If people want the punishment for rape by a guardian to be harsher than general rape or statutory rape, then they should just pass a law for that specifically, and leave consenting adults relationships alone. It's not just that "incest" laws make no sense. Even by the standards of helping victims of abuse, and of preventing disabled children - the usual attempts at arguments besides "eww" - they're way too broad and blunt to actually achieve either of those goals. Even by the arguments y'all are giving, they're bad laws which don't achieve what y'all want.

 

There is no factual evidence that incestuous relationships are sexually orientated. Only pure bullshit of "Human rights, morality, they can love who they want". The truth is, the thing they are doing is not healthy and massively harmful to their mental state. Which, funny enough sounds a lot like pedophiles and consenting children doesn't it?

 

Considering "incest" aversion is certainly genetic to some degree, it would make sense that some people lack the genes for that aversion. It's not a "sexual orientation", per se, but it's not like they're doing it against their own biology. Biology, population genetics, and humans, are diverse, and that diversity in and of itself is not a reason to punish people. I wasn't arguing it was a "sexual orientation". Regardless, I'd like to point out that if hardwired, exclusive attraction for a specific class of person is the only justification for allowing it legally, then bisexuals should only be allowed to have sex and marry someone of the opposite sex. After all, their "sexual orientation" doesn't exclude the possibility of someone of the opposite gender. As many claim for people in relationships with family, can't they find "someone better"? Someone more... socially acceptable? The whole idea of "sexual orientation" was created to make a discernible minority out of homosexuals to make arguing for legal rights easier. That does not mean it's the strongest, or the best argument. The truth is, people shouldn't care what the genitals of someone else's partner look like, or whether they are or aren't having children. It's an unhealthy obsession for a society to have, it violates human rights, and it corrupts the goals of a democratic legal system. I just think the same applies for polyamorists and people in consanguineous relationships.

 

What's your basis for saying "the thing they are doing is not healthy and massively harmful to their mental state"? First, so what? I have yet to see you or anyone else argue for laws against codependent relationships. The law also doesn't allow third parties to prosecute abusers of someone else, unless it's a child. Only the abused adult can initiate prosecution of their partner. Why do we hold people in relationships that aren't emotionally or physically abusive to higher, arbitrary standards than drunks who beat their wives? Second, on what basis do you claim any of that? Your opinion? The self-selected cases of people who came forward because they were in abusive, coercive, or manipulative relationships with an older relative? That would just be sample bias. There's little to no understanding of people in consensual relationships, because people like you are backing up laws that make it illegal for them to out themselves, and perpetuate taboos that would threaten the careers of academics who would pursue such research. Of course, that's probably in your interest. The harder it is to understand these people, the less evidence their is in their favor, and the more you can harangue them publicly while they shut their mouths.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I don't understand why y'all feel so comfortable trashing these people, and arguing for legally abusing them. Is it because y'all don't know them personally? Well, I do, and they're perfectly nice, reasonable people. Actually, some of them are nicer than the "normal" people I've met. They love one another. They take care of their kids. They pay taxes. Emotionally, I don't understand how people can hate that so much. Trust me, just because you don't think you know such a couple, doesn't mean you don't. The closet for both is large, and the closet for consanguineous couples is massive. It doesn't mean they like living in fear and secrecy, and they shouldn't have to. However, it's easy enough for them to get away with it that they don't risk rocking the boat.

 

It seems like what y'all want is to shove them into the closet and tell them to shut up, so y'all don't have to be confronted with personal discomfort. Why should your personal discomfort have any relavance to law in a liberal country which enshrines protections for the rights of minorities against the tyrrany of the majority? How does shaming people and telling them to shut up encourage abuse victims to come forward? And more importantly, how can you demand such a contract when it isn't in good faith? These couples do hide in the closet. The problem is that when other people find out accidentally, they hunt them down and throw them in jail, even if they hid it well.

 

They need to fight these laws, because there is never any guarantee that the law won't be used to abuse them, regardless of how they behave. The majority always loves telling minorities to shut up and go away when they complain. Meanwhile, minorities complain because, regardless of their silence and isolation, the majority still abuses some from time to time to make an example of them. There's no other way for them to protect themselves, other than to fight the legal and social regime. Of course, most feel like the cost of fighting is too high, which is why it takes decades of momentum to get more to come out of the closet. That doesn't mean they stay in the closet because they acquiesce to this "agreement". They're just afraid. They're afraid of y'all. They're adults with otherwise normal lives, who've done nothing to anyone that could ever be construed as harmful or destructive. Yet y'all have the power to uterly destroy them. Is that just? Are y'all really comfortable being potential threats to perfectly nice people, some of whom you may know? I don't want to be a threat. I don't think anyone should have the right to be - not towards good people like them.


  • Futurist likes this

#59
GottSchreit

GottSchreit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationThe United States of America

Also, in regards to incest, hasn't incest between consenting adults been legal in France from 1791 all the way up to the present day? Did it ever cause any serious, major, unsolvable problems there?

 

It's legal in France, Spain, Portugal, Japan, India, Belgium, Holland, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, and Turkey. (I bet some of those surprise people. "What, Turkey?") I have yet to read stories about the sky falling in any of those countries. As far as I know, French people have 10 fingers, two eyes, and score higher than the US on many areas academically. (India's problem is more just sexism, disregard for pubescent sex and marriage, and lax and badly enforced laws on rape.) Brazil already has gay marriage, and may one day be the first to allow polygamy. It's also legal in the states of Rhode Island and New Jersey, and legal in Ohio except for parent/adult child relationships. It was legal in Western Europe and South America before "sodomy" was, and most official US "incest" laws were enacted in the mid- to late-1800s. Not exactly the ancient legal traditions some seem to assume. Also not as threatening.


  • Futurist likes this

#60
EVanimations

EVanimations

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • LocationThe Eldritch Beyond

Futurist, I'll admit that I don't know or care much about the issue at hand, so I'm not going to spend too much effort defending a position I'm unfamiliar with.

 

That said, my opinion is that... well, incest is icky. I very much dislike the idea of having sex with someone directly related to me; it ain't right.

Cousins once removed are where the situation gets better, but anyone more closely related just seems like it shouldn't be. Aside from the potentials for abuse I don't see a reason to keep it illegal because it seems kind of arbitrary, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it in the first place.

 

As for negative effects of incest on society, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall learning about a time when there were royals in power who could only marry another of royal blood; often involving wedding a cousin or sibling or something. It's said that with each generation the rulers would become more deranged and unstable, and the kingdom would fail over time.

 

As for polygamy, I don't like the idea of watching some other guy have sex with my woman, and I respect the fact that my woman doesn't like the idea of watching some other girl have sex with me. Again, no reason to keep it illegal, but why would you want that in the first place if you truly respect each other? It feels kind of unfair to a woman who loves a man but has to share him with 5 others. Same the other way around.


  • GottSchreit likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users