Incest laws: just a matter of the "ick" factor?

[cantata]

maybe, maybe not. what are the chances that a child born to related parents will have issues?

Not greater than the chances that a child born to two unrelated parents who both have cystic fibrosis will have issues - and yet we don't prevent people with cystic fibrosis from making babies together.

 

[kellyc]

well we aren't fascists, yet.

 

[OllieFranz]

But we do insist on blood tests and other medical screenings andthe government will not sanction marriages when one or both partners fail the screening for certain medical conditions. But they will not even suggest counseling (whether genetic counseling, or the more common "psychological" counseling) for people at real risk for passing on genetic defects.

Consanguinity is only a risk factor in that it concentrates any genetic risk factors that already exist; it does not create new ones. Genetic screening would be a much better way to reduce genetic defects than forbidding consanguineous marriages.

Consanguinity has only been a concern in incest cases fairly recently. The incest laws in Leviticus are much more concerned with issues of family politics and the family-exploding possibility of adultery within the family. A brother's wife, or an uncle's is not related by blood, but relations are forbidden (at least while the brother or uncle is alive -- once he dies, Levirate marriage laws not only allow you to marry his widow, in some cases it commands that you do so.)

 

[cantata]

Who's "we", OllieFranz?

 

[OllieFranz]

Good point. I wasn't in on the decision and I'm not sure how much I agree with it....

Perhaps I should have said "the governmental agencies in charge of marriage in many modern countries and states" rather than "we.

 

[cantata]

Good point. I wasn't in on the decision and I'm not sure how much I agree with it....

Perhaps I should have said "the governmental agencies in charge of marriage in many modern countries and states" rather than "we.

Well, I was more just wondering which countries you were thinking about.

I've really never heard of any such laws in the UK, but it might well just be a gap in my knowledge.

 

[BlackSabb]

(Note: for an example I picked the Massachusetts law below pretty much at random as illustrative of many incest laws in the country (I did look at a few))



Massachusetts incest law:

Incest
M.G.L. C 272 S 17. Incestuous marriage or intercourse

Persons within degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or have sexual intercourse with each other, or who engage in sexual activities with each other, including but not limited to, oral or anal intercourse, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], or other penetration of a part of a person's body, or insertion of an object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body, or the manual manipulation of the genitalia of another person's body, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.
source
​

As for who is included within the "degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited," we have Mass. law C 207 S1, which says

"No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister or mother’s sister.
source
​

Section 2 of chapter 207 addresses women, and mirrors that of sec. 1.

So, this means absolutely NO such acts may be preformed by the above people under ANY condition. There are no listed exceptions.
But why? Just what is so wrong about any of these interactions when committed by consensual adults where there is no chance of pregnancy?
To me it appears to be nothing more than an ick-factor law. We made laws against incest because we don't like the idea of people interacting in such ways, not because they result in any harm to anyone or anything. What if we didn't like people of another color, say blacks, and made laws against them? Would that be any less unreasonable? Oh wait, we did!

Most people don't like to climb mountains so should we make mountain climbing against the law? Most people don't like eating tripe (a type of edible offal from the stomachs of various domestic animals) so should we make eating tripe against the law?

Isn't incest, as I've qualified it, just as undeserving of condemnation?

This is without doubt the sickest question on Christianforums. You deserve nothing but contempt for having the sheer gall to post such a disturbing question. You need specialised help. Go out and get some, instead of trying to convince others of your sick perversions.

 

[Wednesday]

This is without doubt the sickest question on Christianforums. You deserve nothing but contempt for having the sheer gall to post such a disturbing question. You need specialised help. Go out and get some, instead of trying to convince others of your sick perversions.

Chill out, honey.

You need to calm down and think things through. You do understand that not everyone conforms to your world view. To you it might be sick, for me it's just a matter of context.

There are questions that have to be asked simply because your ilk, will just chalk it up to *WRONG!* and will never look at it again. Condemnation is not a solution to an issue. The issue will still be there. And there lies the problem, if issues are not looked at and old stadards and views are not challenged we would not be getting anywhere. But that is what you people would like, isn' it?

I believe your responce comes from an *ick* factor. Which is frankly stupid.

You don't like it? Who really cares?


Contempt? Well, that is all you people really have for anyone who doesn't think like you. Talking to the likes of you is hopeless.

Oh and just a question. Have you really read his post? Like really read it, not just the headline?

 

[wanderingone]

Good point. I wasn't in on the decision and I'm not sure how much I agree with it....

Perhaps I should have said "the governmental agencies in charge of marriage in many modern countries and states" rather than "we.

How many American states still require blood tests before marriage?

 

[wanderingone]

Answered my own questions about blood tests

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml

Example of the type of certificate used in states that still do this:

http://www.townofstratford.com/filestorage/1302/402/641/premarital_certificate.pdf

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is without doubt the sickest question on Christianforums. You deserve nothing but contempt for having the sheer gall to post such a disturbing question. You need specialised help. Go out and get some, instead of trying to convince others of your sick perversions.

You must have missed some of my questions then....

Really though, tell us why you think it is so wrong. We are all listening.

 

[stan1980]

This is without doubt the sickest question on Christianforums. You deserve nothing but contempt for having the sheer gall to post such a disturbing question. You need specialised help. Go out and get some, instead of trying to convince others of your sick perversions.

Wow, bit over the top. If only you knew what me, my twin sister and my pet Alsation get up to behind closed doors.




I haven't really got a twin sister, or an Alsation

 

[wanderingone]

This is without doubt the sickest question on Christianforums. You deserve nothing but contempt for having the sheer gall to post such a disturbing question. You need specialised help. Go out and get some, instead of trying to convince others of your sick perversions.

It is just not the sickest question on CF... it's a question, why wouldn't you be able to discuss the issue of laws following individual/group beliefs? How does one determine the value of various laws if they aren't discussed?

 

[jcook922]

Wow, bit over the top. If only you knew what me, my twin sister and my pet Alsation get up to behind closed doors.




I haven't really got a twin sister, or an Alsation

Sounds like a good time for the whole family!

 

[wanderingone]

Sounds like a good time for the whole family!

Well, no.. not sure if the alsation can really be involved in that good time... (is an alsation a dog?) really... how do those humans know that dog wants to be involved in that.. um.. menage a trois? As for Stan and his sister.. well I hope he keeps the stories to himself!

 

[stan1980]

Well, no.. not sure if the alsation can really be involved in that good time... (is an alsation a dog?) really... how do those humans know that dog wants to be involved in that.. um.. menage a trois? As for Stan and his sister.. well I hope he keeps the stories to himself!

Yes, an Alsation is a dog. If the dog initiates, erm, whatever, can we assume the dog is keen?

 

[wanderingone]

Yes, an Alsation is a dog. If the dog initiates, erm, whatever, can we assume the dog is keen?

I don't think so.. I mean some dogs hump everything they bump into -- is it really an invite to drop your knickers?

 

[stan1980]

I don't think so.. I mean some dogs hump everything they bump into -- is it really an invite to drop your knickers?

But it wouldn't do it if it didn't want to, surely?

 

[wanderingone]

But it wouldn't do it if it didn't want to, surely?

I dunno, it can't talk, and since it can't talk it can't consent. Your twin sister on the other hand can....

 

[lawtonfogle]

I dunno, it can't talk, and since it can't talk it can't consent. Your twin sister on the other hand can....

Not true, mute people can consent though bodily language. It is really the lack of saying no with actions which indicate a want to say yes which is the basis of most consent. Either that, or there is a lot more rape going on than what is reported.