|
My first reaction was that because the cases you mention remove the concern about in-breeding, that it should be OK, and that I'd like to the law change to take account of such circumstances.
My second reaction was 'Hang on, there may be concerns beyond those of in-breeding.' I tried to do a spot analysis of family structure. The door would open to relations with children and parents, age of consent permitting. The marriage vows of faithfulness would apply, however there would be the times when one spouse was dead or divorced.
Then the question "Who, non-biologically-related, should be considered to be OK to be physically intimate with whom?" attends my first 'yes' reaction.
There is already a non-incest-related area in which there are guidelines concerning intimacy: the mental health profession. If you're a Plumber or a Lawyer, sex/romance with your client is OK. If you're a mental health worker, you are struck off the register. The code of conduct takes into account the nature of the 'duty of care' applying in the relationship. My understanding of 'family' includes notions of upbringing and mentoring.
OK, Raging Moderate, I'll clarify my response to your post in the following way: yes, but I wouldn't want it to be done on an ad hoc basis. I'd want to see a working-party set up to examine the issue with a view change the law with a bias toward 'yes' for [above age of consent] siblings and equal-level relatives - cousins, and to replace the old law with a legally binding code of conduct.
I'd also like to consider pressures it may put on those Siblings who, though legally adult, are living with their parents and therefore subject to to the "You're Living Under Our Roof" rule. I thought around that area for a while, with only limited satisfaction.
Best wishes
__________________
ZENDA
|