Incest Repellent? If gay sex is private, why isn't incest?

Slate ^ | 4/23/03 | William Saletan

[William McKinley]

Incest as a non-violent sexual practice among consenting adults is constitutional

I do not think you are going to find widespread agreement and acquiescence on this point.

[discostu]

Vascetomy's can be reversed, and once in a while fix themselves (same with tied tubes). The basis isn't the same. The basis for anti-incest laws is that inbreeding is bad for people other than those doing the deed, medical science might have lowered that threat but it is still there and real and none of Seletan's arguements change it. Sodomy is only dangerous to the participants, period.

Of course whether or not "everyone" agrees things should be outlawed is a seperate discussion. I'm of the firm opinion that most of these types of things would be much better handled through the ancient tools of shame and ridicule than highhanded laws. Unless it's presenting a danger to people outside the act, or unwilling participants in the act it's a stupid law and should be removed.

[Concerned]

So, would homosexual incest between adult brothers in their OWN home be legal or illegal?

[William McKinley]

Sodomy is only dangerous to the participants, period.

I disagree with most of the points you just made. Which is a bigger risk, that a person will have a vasectomy reverse itself and have him impregnate his sister in the hypothetical above, or a HIV infected person accidentally infecting someone else by mixing of blood in an accident of some sort? Sodomy increases the risk of HIV transmission, which increases the number of people who have it, and the more people who have it the more likely it is that someone will contract it through accidental means (as opposed to through sexual contact).

[Hodar]

If you say there is a legal basis for outlawing incest (leave aside minors- let's just stick with another example, namely brothers and sisters of mature age), what is that legal basis?

Given the fact that I have heard of a multitude of incestuous rapes (father/daughter) and very few adult-family relationships, I assumed he was equating the predominate with the more rare case.

In the case of adults consenting to sex, as long as they are aware of the factors involved, I see no reason why my tax dollars should be spent incarcerating prostitutes, incest, pologamy, or other adulterous behavior. Frankly, where someone else sticks his 'weenie' is of no concern to me, or to you. Unless you are involved, it simply is none of your business. I think a majority of people have a heck of a time managing their own life, let alone having the skill, sense or time managing someone elses.

[William McKinley]

If you are asking me, the answer is "it depends on the laws where they live, because the constitution is mum on the matter and as such it is a state issue".

[William McKinley]

I understand your point.

I just wanted to show that what ends up happening when the strings are all pulled here, that the person being castigated as the extremist (Santorum) is making a mainstream argument, and the real objections come from those who hold out of mainstream views, such as that prostitution and polygamy and adult-incest should be constitutionally protected activities.

[Concerned]

HODAR RESPONDED TO WILLIAM MCKINLEY: "Right to incest? One equates consentual sex between adults to rape of a minor? Sorry, in the other cases, the partner is willing, and has the choice whether to participate or not. In the case of incest, the MINOR is unable to cooperate, as they are entirely dependant upon their rapist for food, shelter, clothing and necessities of life. And that's not mentioning that inconvenient little law about age of legal consent."

According to the Random House Dictionary, incest is defined as: "sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that marriage is legally forbidden." It says nothing about the age or sex of the two parties. Therefore, see my question on #63.

[RipSawyer]

"Incest as a non-violent sexual practice among consenting adults is constitutional."
"I do not think you are going to find widespread agreement and acquiescence on this point."

If not specifically forbidden in the constitution it is allowed, where is it forbidden? Cite the exact wording please.

[Hodar]

Once a moral standard cannot be applied to people behind closed doors who knows what can happen.

On who's authority? Why are you so concerned about what people do with Mr Winky? Are you afraid that you are going to miss out? Or do you find that behavior offensive, so you are going to impose your belief structure upon them? What a group of adults does, consentually and amongst themselves is of no concern to you, or to me. It's simply none of our business. I think most people have their hands full trying to run their own lives; let alone having the wisdom, skill and intelligence to attempt to run somone else's.

[William McKinley]

There was a time in America (1944 in fact) when hatred of Jews peaked.

If there was general agreement then why not outlaw Jews or at least some of their practices?

Non sequitur.

[babygene]

" And on the basis that it is most prevalent among heterosexuals in Africa"

I don't know what the cause of "aids" in Africa is, and neither do you. However I suggest that that be kept for another thread...

In the United States, AIDS is primararly associated with the homo community. Except for cross contamination, of course.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Argue that it isn't. The 4th and 5th amendments assume we have a right to privacy (though the pro-choicers have used it for abortion, which is inapplicable since the unborn child has rights, as well). Even The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. The government has to show a compelling interest and there isn't one for the act itself.

[RipSawyer]

"Sodomy is only dangerous to the participants, period."

While certainly having no first-hand knowledge of the subject my impression has long been that many so-called homosexuals are in fact bisexual, therefore a disease contacted through sodomy, such as aids, may be passed on to a female partner. Doesn't this make your statement quoted above inoperative?

[Eva]

Marriage crosses state boundaries and involves federal programs, therefore comes under the juridiction of the federal gov't. If New York wants to legalized gay marriages withing the boundaries of New York, that would not be valid for social security or welfare purposes and would not be valid outside the state of New York, they could probably do that, but they probably shouldn't call it a marriage.

[discostu]

Blood mixing is a very low percentage method of getting AIDS, and sodomy isn't the only way to get it. If we're going to outlaw things on the transmission of AIDS sex as a whole is out, and that's hard on population replacement.

[Hodar]

OK, and again. How many times have you heard of 'daddy' and his 13 yr old daughter? Lots? I have. How many times have you heard of Bob and Mary (both adults) doing the same thing? When one hears the word 'incest' one is conditioned to think of the case of child abuse; as it is the predominate case today.

As to adult behavior concerning consentual sex, I see no reason why the law needs to be involved. Where people stick Mr. Winkie is none of yours, or my business. Whether it's done to family members (adult and consentual) prostitution, pologamy or whatnot. It's simply none of our business.

[Defiant]

Here's the NRA's take on it (the National Relative-lovers Association, that is):

1. If incest is outlawed, only outlaws will live in Arkansaw.

2. You can have my sister when you pry her from my cold dead hands.