(August 10, 2016 at 11:12 am)Divinity Wrote: If it's between two consenting adults, I think it should be legal.  Yeah, 'ew' is not a valid reason to make something illegal.  Roseanne Barr having sex is 'eww', but we don't ban her from having sex, nor should we.  It'd have to be a case-by-case basis to determine if a parent exerted their influence from a position of power to form a relationship with their son or daughter.

I think most parents would be appalled by the idea of having sex with their children.  So I don't think legalizing it would make it any more prevalent.   As long as there's no harm being done, then nobody should face jail time.  Maybe some psychiatric counseling, but not jail time.

I think the main questions are who is it hurting and how?
If its a genetic thing then you could equally stop some disabled people from reproducing or even some healthy people with genetic disorders that they are likely to pass on.
Also
Would our feelings be different if it was a father and a 19 year old daughter?
Or a father and a 19 year old son?
I honestly don't know how to address this so will just leave my input at that.

(August 10, 2016 at 11:12 am)Divinity Wrote: If it's between two consenting adults, I think it should be legal.  Yeah, 'ew' is not a valid reason to make something illegal.  Roseanne Barr having sex is 'eww', but we don't ban her from having sex, nor should we....

Speak for yourself

(August 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

(August 10, 2016 at 11:12 am)Divinity Wrote: If it's between two consenting adults, I think it should be legal.  Yeah, 'ew' is not a valid reason to make something illegal.  Roseanne Barr having sex is 'eww', but we don't ban her from having sex, nor should we....

Speak for yourself

Yeah, I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a dull tablespoon ...

(August 9, 2016 at 6:07 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 6:06 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: That's fucked up on so many levels, but putting them in prison won't help the situation either as they will just continue the relationship when they are released. I don't know what the solution is.

Tell me what the problem is.

Children of sexual relations between close relatives suffer from genetic defects and illnesses to a greater extent than normal children. There was this obscure family of Spanish nobles called the Hapsburgs who are a perfect illustration of what happens when each generation marries its first cousin. Google them some time.

(August 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 6:07 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Tell me what the problem is.

Children of sexual relations between close relatives suffer from genetic defects and illnesses to a greater extent than normal children. There was this obscure family of Spanish nobles called the Hapsburgs who are a perfect illustration of what happens when each generation marries its first cousin. Google them some time.

There are plenty of non-related couples who have high risks of certain birth defects as well, just by the nature of their genes and how they match up.  We don't make laws against them having kids.

(August 9, 2016 at 11:44 pm)Nymphadora Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 6:10 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: My view regarding incest is, I don't care about it as long as its between adults and they don't have kids.

'Cause yuk and ew is not an argument. It's a reaction. And we don't run society on those.

You are welcome to your opinion and I am welcome to mine. I guess some of us just posses more common sense than others in that regard. There is a reason why we humans are not attracted to our own kin. Are these two consenting adults? Sure. Doesn't make it right though. She's still of child bearing age. Suppose she accidentally gets pregnant? Then what? You are aware that people don't always use protection, right?

But that's not even the point. This woman gave birth to this kid. He came out of her. In who's actual fucking right mind thinks the two of them having sex with each other is normal by any means? It's not. You may not like my opinion, and you may not agree with it, but I'm okay with that. It's not about me or you. It's about the fact that in this country, incest is against the law and they broke the law. And yes, what they did with each other IS gross.

What kind of rationale is this? You don't like it so they shouldn't be allowed to do it? So what if they use protection or not? It's none of your business

(August 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 9, 2016 at 6:07 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Tell me what the problem is.

Children of sexual relations between close relatives suffer from genetic defects and illnesses to a greater extent than normal children. There was this obscure family of Spanish nobles called the Hapsburgs who are a perfect illustration of what happens when each generation marries its first cousin. Google them some time.

This is not a valid concern. The risk of defects from one incestuous relationship is insignificant.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

(August 10, 2016 at 3:05 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: Children of sexual relations between close relatives suffer from genetic defects and illnesses to a greater extent than normal children. There was this obscure family of Spanish nobles called the Hapsburgs who are a perfect illustration of what happens when each generation marries its first cousin. Google them some time.

There are plenty of non-related couples who have high risks of certain birth defects as well, just by the nature of their genes and how they match up.  We don't make laws against them having kids.

The risk of genetic defects multiplies massively when both partners have similar genetic profiles. Guess when that happens? Yes, when both sexual partners are closely related, even more so when the relation is in the first degree (parent and child or brother and sister). The fact of the matter is that incest does make it far more likely that children of such a union will have genetic defects that will either make their lives harder or kill them than would normally be the case for children of unrelated persons (unrelated to a reasonable degree, you're not going to get two people who don't share a common ancestor somewhere).

(August 10, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 10, 2016 at 3:05 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: There are plenty of non-related couples who have high risks of certain birth defects as well, just by the nature of their genes and how they match up.  We don't make laws against them having kids.

The risk of genetic defects multiplies massively when both partners have similar genetic profiles. Guess when that happens? Yes, when both sexual partners are closely related, even more so when the relation is in the first degree (parent and child or brother and sister). The fact of the matter is that incest does make it far more likely that children of such a union will have genetic defects that will either make their lives harder or kill them than would normally be the case for children of unrelated persons (unrelated to a reasonable degree, you're not going to get two people who don't share a common ancestor somewhere).

Who arbitrates what degree is 'acceptable' for risks of genetic defects?  We don't make laws against two people breeding just because they're at risk of defects.  We don't even make laws prohibiting two people who have the same genetic defect, and might be certain to have a child with the same defect, from having children.

You can find it irresponsible, distasteful, or immoral, but there's no reason it should be illegal.

Hypothetical situation - a brother and sister are in an incestuous relationship. They get pregnant - the fetus is tested and found to almost certainly have a defect. The couple abort the fetus, then try again a year later. Should any of that be illegal?

Consider the same above situation, but instead of a brother and sister, it's two unrelated people whose genetic profiles line up in such a way that they are at extremely high risk of genetic defects as well, and they take the same course of actions as the brother and sister above. Should any of that be illegal?