Hypocrisy on adult consent - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KellyC · 10-03-2005, 05:15 PM

http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby082905.php3

Quote:

Hypocrisy on adult consent

By Jeff Jacoby

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | 'I believe severe punishment is required in this case," the judge said at Allen and Pat's sentencing in November 1997. ''I think they have to be separated. It's the only way to prevent them from having intercourse in the future."

Allen and Pat were lovers, but a Wisconsin statute enacted in 1849 made their sexual relationship a felony. The law was sometimes used to nail predators who had molested children, but using it to prosecute consenting adults — Allen was 45; Pat, 30 — was virtually unheard of. That didn't deter Milwaukee County Judge David Hansher. Nor did the fact that the couple didn't understand why their relationship should be a crime. Allen and Pat didn't ''have to be bright," the judge growled, to know that having sex with each other was wrong.

He threw the book at them: eight years for Allen, five for Pat, served in separate maximum-security prisons, 25 miles apart.

If this had happened to a gay couple, the case would have become a cause celebre. Hard time as punishment for a private, consensual, adult relationship? Activists would have been outraged. Editorial pages would have thundered.

But Allen and Patricia Muth are not gay. They were convicted of incest. Although they didn't meet until Patricia was 18 — she had been raised from infancy in foster care — they were brother and sister, children of the same biological parents. They were also strongly attracted to each other, emotionally and physically. And so, disregarding the taboo against incest, they became a couple and had four children.

When Wisconsin officials learned of the Muths' relationship, they moved to strip them of their parental rights. The state's position, upheld in court, was that their ''fundamentally disordered" lifestyle made them unfit for parenthood by definition. Allen and Patricia's children were taken from them. Then they were prosecuted for incest and sent to prison.

I wrote about the Muths' case shortly after their conviction, asking why social liberals were not up in arms over it. Where were the people who always insist that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms? That what goes on between consenting adults is nobody's business but their own? That a family is defined by love, not conventional morality? Patricia and Allen Muth were one ''nontraditional" family it seemed no one cared to defend.

But then came Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 that the Constitution protects the freedom of Americans to engage in ''the most private human conduct, sexual behavior," when it is part of a willing relationship between adults.

''The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in striking down the Texas law under which John Lawrence and Tyron Garner had been convicted of homosexual sodomy. ''The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Armed with Lawrence's sweeping language, Allen Muth appealed his conviction.

The taboo against incest may be ancient, and most Americans may sincerely regard it as immoral or repugnant. But Lawrence was clear: ''The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law." If the Supreme Court meant what it said, Muth argued, his and his sister's convictions for incest were every bit as unconstitutional as the Texas men's convictions for sodomy.

Earlier this summer, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Matthew Franck observed, Manion must have been ''desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court's recent precedents on sexual liberty."

But those consequences cannot be outrun forever. What Manion declined to do, another judge may embrace. (Or perhaps the high court itself will: Muth has until Sept. 20 to file an appeal.) There is simply no principled escape from the logic of Lawrence: If the Constitution forbids the states to criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults, lovers who happen to be siblings can no more be sent to prison than lovers who happen to be men.

Dissenting in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the decision ''effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation." It was a prediction the majority made no effort to refute.

I just found this at another forum I frequent, hope it's not a repost.

I hope I'm not the only one who's pissed at this. Sure, it's incest, but the people involved also happen to be consenting adults. I've always believe that such people should be free to do what ever they want in the privacy of their own home, be it straight, gays, or incest-ers. As long as they don't harm any body, they should be left the hell alone.

Or am I too liberal to the point of insanity?

ObieX · 10-03-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KellyC

http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby082905.php3

I just found this at another forum I frequent, hope it's not a repost.

I hope I'm not the only one who's pissed at this. Sure, it's incest, but the people involved also happen to be consenting adults. I've always believe that such people should be free to do what ever they want in the privacy of their own home, be it straight, gays, or incest-ers. As long as they don't harm any body, they should be left the hell alone.

Or am I too liberal to the point of insanity?

Sounds about right (not the insane part, the being free part). Incest isn't something that should be a jailable offense if it's betwween consenting persons. Sure, people might think it's "icky" but people also think gays/lesbians are "icky" and black and whites who have sex interracially are "icky" or people who just think people different are "icky". That doesn't mean we should throw these people in a cell. If that were the case everyone would be locked up.

politicophile · 10-03-2005, 05:41 PM

Incest is a difficult case because the harm is rather diffuse. If you and your sibling have children together, those children have a significantly increased chance of receiving double recessive genes that you got from your parents. In some cases, this can cause your children to have severe genetic diseases.

The problem, as I see it, is that harm is only being done in an incestuous relationship that bears children. It is entirely understandable that the state would have a vested interest in preventing close familial relatives from reproducing together. It is far more difficult to prove that harm is being caused by protected sex between a brother and sister, morally disgusting though it may be. For that matter, what harm is caused by two brothers having sex with each other?

meembo · 10-03-2005, 05:48 PM

I agree that the potential harm is done to non-consenting parties, the children, who have a special kind of vulnerability that ought to always be protected. I don't think that prosecution and incarceration is the key to stop child-bearing incest. Children need their parents, who I assume in this case love their children as most parents do, despite their origin and heredity.

moot1337 · 10-03-2005, 05:50 PM

Sending them to the slammer is absolutely not right... why should they be punished for a choice they make, which only effects them, and doesn't harm anyone else? For pi's sake, they already have children... what do the authorities tell them? "Your parents are in jail because they're 'icky'... you'll understand once you know our societies unspoken values."?

They probably shouldn't have had children due to the genetic defects and heredity, but the fact of the matter is that punishment isn't the answer to a case like this. You don't punish children because their parents had them, and you don't punish people for having children... society may punish people for what they do to other people, not what they do.

snowy · 10-03-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Incest is a difficult case because the harm is rather diffuse. If you and your sibling have children together, those children have a significantly increased chance of receiving double recessive genes that you got from your parents. In some cases, this can cause your children to have severe genetic diseases.

That isn't absolutely true--in some cases, it does increase the chance, but in others, not at all. Genetics is a tricky business. Making sweeping laws like these in this day and age, when genetic testing is prevalent and parents can find out BEFORE birth whether or not their child is likely to suffer from any defect, is outmoded and restrictive. Also, in some cases, a person marrying a complete genetic stranger can have similar problems. Should we restrict complete strangers from marrying? How about mothers who know they will pass on haemophilia to their sons? Carriers for cystic fibrosis? Genetics is a huge can of worms, and telling people they cannot marry because of it smacks of eugenics.

Personally, I have no problem with what consenting adults do. People have a right to live their own lives. I have no right to interfere. Live and let live.

Ustwo · 10-03-2005, 06:16 PM

Sorry but when you find out shes your sister, thats just pretty fucked up, it wasn't like they found out AFTER they had kids or were in a relationship.

I hear banjos in the backround.

Love may overcome all but that doesn't mean its good to fuck your sister, brother, mother, father, grandparents etc.

lurkette · 10-03-2005, 06:17 PM

I have to agree with the "they're consenting adults" crowd. There are no sound reasons for prosecuting them that I can think of...they started the relationship as consenting adults. If they're fit parents and nobody's being hurt, what's the problem (besides "it's icky")?

Hardknock · 10-03-2005, 06:32 PM

I'm with the majority on this.

They are consenting adults. We have no right to interfere with the course of their lives. They are hurting no one and the decisions they make will only affect each other, not this backward ass American society that we currently live in. I don't buy the "double your chances of genetic defects" either. Anyone can have a genetic defect and you have the same chance of bearing children with that other genetic stranger than you would if you had children with your brother/sister.

No matter how "icky and gross" Utswo (and others who think like him) thinks it is, him and people who think like him that want to change the world to their usually single-minded views have no right how to tell others how to live their lives.

Period.

Ustwo · 10-03-2005, 06:37 PM

They made a choice to have children KNOWNING they were brother and sister and without any testing (plus I dont' think most of you know how weak that testing really is).

I'm sorry but thats fucked up. If you want to fuck your sister, good for you, but don't have kids. I don't care if they have sex, live together, etc. Thats all part of the consenting adult thing, but it was just wrong to have children.

Hardknock · 10-03-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

but it was just wrong to have children.

Why? I'm curious as to what your answer would be.

Would you advocate their imprisonment?

KellyC · 10-03-2005, 06:50 PM

Ustwo, fucked upt it may be, they nevertheless, should be left alone. Getting on high horses and imposing our/your wills upon them and throwing them in prison is just as fucked up, if not more.

Siege · 10-03-2005, 08:31 PM

Ok, I am going to have to go with the "they're consenting adults they can do what they like" group. But at the same time, I gotta take Ustwo's side also. Sure, they can do whatever they like. But since they potentially (note: POTENTIALLY) are causing unnecessary risks to their children, I think something has to be done. If they really wanted children, they easily could've gotten a sperm donor.

Gilda · 10-03-2005, 09:25 PM

Hmm. A couple of generations ago, it was generally accepted that first cousins marrying was immoral and that their children had a greatly increased chance of birth defects. We know better now, but many states still prohibit cousin marriage outright, and others permit it only when both are past child-bearing age. It's still a big joke to most, due to the misunderstanding behind the cause of inbred genetic defects. Isolated populations that develop widespread genetic defects do so over a very long period of time; it's generational, not related to any one couple and their offspring.

A century or two ago, when there were a lot of small, isolated populations, it made sense to have strict restrictions regarding marrying close family, because such behavior, do to isolation and immobility, was much more likely to be repeated over time from generation to generation, and that did pose a threat. There was a compelling reason in such a situation to encourage the mixing of gene pools.

Because we no longer live in such small, isolated, immobile communities, the threat of repeated intermarriage within the same family is greatly reduced, and thus the threat of genetic reinforcement is no longer a compelling state interest.

Yet we remain with a general populace that misunderstands the genetics, and which has a moral objection, on top of the "ick" factor, so it's unlikely we'll see much, if any change on this soon. And I think we underestimate the "ick" factor. There are people out there who do believe things they find disgusting should be illegal, even in the absense of any harm being done to anyone.

So why don't we see more social liberals up in arms about this the way we are about gay rights, using the same arguments? Practicality. The predjudice against siblings having sex, marrying, and having children is much, much stronger and more prevelant among the mainstream than the disapproval of gays having sex with each other. Linking the two with the same type of argument would, in practical terms, be counterproductive.

I can see two possible outcomes to using the same argument for both. People who object to both gays and siblings getting married are going to have that attitude reinforced by such a comparison, and equating them would make the cause of gay rights more difficult. People who favor gay rights, but not sibling marriage are the ones that would be problematic. If we convince them that the two are equivilent, would they be more likely to move in favor of more rights for siblings, or fewer rights for gays? I think the latter to be more likely.

As a moral issue, I find it disturbing. As an ethical issue, I don't think I should have the right to dictate to others how to live their lives, and for that reason, jailing these people is something I disapprove of strongly. As a practical matter, I think we'll see more progress more quickly on sexual freedoms for all consenting adults if we concentrate first on those that are likely to be best recieved by the mainstream.

Think about the children. A few years ago there was a southern California anchorwoman with a genetic disease that caused her to be born with a birth defect of malformed hands, what used to be called lobster claws in freak shows. It's a rare genetic mutation, but once it manifests, it has a 50-50 chance of being passed on to children. She decided to have children anyway, and was severely criticized for this. How dare she inflict this on a child?

I look at her situation, and though I'm not sure I would make the same decision she did, my ultimate conclusion has to be that it isn't my decision to make. I think the same way about siblings marrying, having sex, or having children together.

Gilda

KellyC · 10-03-2005, 09:39 PM

Damn Gilda, every time I read your post, it's always so informative and well thought out. Thanks.

Ustwo · 10-03-2005, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Abstract:

Consanguineous marriage is strongly favored in many large human populations. In the most parts of south Asia, consanguineous marriage account for 20% to over 50% of the general population .

The effect of consanguinity on hereditary deafness has been well studied and documented. Many authors have suggested that approximately one half of sensory neural hearing loss in children can be attributed to hereditary causes.

This research was carried out in Rehabilitation Deputy of welfare organization of Iran in seven provinces. 1352 infants and preschool aged children participate in this research. The prevalence of SNHL due to consanguineous marriage in first cousin and second cousin were studied.

Consanguinity was found among 45.7 percent in first cousin and 17.2 percent in second cousin. Hereditary Factors were thought to be the cause of 863 (62.9 percent) of bilateral SNHL children in this research.

The incidence of hereditary hearing impairment is very high in developing countries compared to developed countries . Prevention is essential to reduce the incidence of genetic hearing loss. Consanguinity should be discouraged and genetic counseling is to be applied at least for those at risk of developing genetic diseases including hearing impairments.

http://www.uswr.ac.ir/IRJ/Lpublished/HearingImp.htm

Quote:

Objective: Consanguineous marriage is a widely practised social custom in Asia and northern Africa. In south India, Dravidian Hindus have contracted consanguineous marriages for over 2,000 years. In the present study, the influence of consanguinity on the prevalence of visual disorders was examined in patients attending a specialist genetic eye clinic. Subjects and Methods: A total of 2,335 patients attending Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India, were screened for genetic eye disorders over a five-year period. The patients were drawn from all parts of India and from neighbouring countries in south Asia. Results and Discussion: Six hundred and seventy-three (28.8%) of the patients tested for ophthalmic genetic disorders reported a family history of consanguinity. The majority (n = 574) of these families were from south India. In the patient group as a whole, the most common form of consanguineous union was between first cousins (n = 367), followed by uncle/niece marriage (n = 177), equivalent to a mean coefficient of inbreeding alpha = 0.0202. Among the consanguineous families, 430 of 673 (63.9%) had retinitis pigmentosa, 167 of these cases were autosomal recessive and 199 were isolated cases. The public in regions such as south India should be made aware of the merits and demerits of consanguineous marriages.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB...name=66334.pdf

Quote:

Offspring of consanguineous matings (including incest) have, on average, about two-and-a-half times the rate of congenital malformations or genetic disorders as is found among non-consanguineous marriages in the same ethnic group.

Quote:

Case 1

A 10-year-old female child, born full term of a first degree consanguineous marriage presented with painless stiffness and contractures at large joints involving the knee, ankle and elbow since the age of 6 months. The flexion deformity of joints had progressed rapidly making the child almost crippled and bedridden by the age of 5 years. Multiple translucent, asymptomatic, flat papules, 2-5 mm in size present on the nape of the neck and alae nasi, had appeared since 2 years of age. She also developed asymptomatic, progressively enlarging subcutaneous nodules and tumor masses [Figure - 1] varying in size from 2 x 2 cm2 to 10 x 10 cm2 on the scalp, face, back and extensor aspect of the limbs. Nodules were prominent on the pinna causing its deformity.

Quote:

The relative risks and odds ratios show that consanguinity
significantly elevates prereproductive mortality.
However, consanguinity has always been relatively rare in
the Utah population. Thus, it accounts for only a small
proportion of early deaths, as revealed by the population
attributable risk estimates. This analysis underscores the
importance of considering the total public health burden
of consanguinity in human populations.

Christ, I NEVER thought I'd have to be defending the concept that brothers should not have children with their sisters. I had a VERY hard time finding anything where it was a analysis of brother-sister unions, and do you want to know why? Because since before written history began we knew this caused a LOT of problems. Most of the problems only look at first and second cousins at that seems to be the minium 'safe' difference where there is only a smallish increased chance of recessive defects. Only one of the above quotes was looking at a first degree consanguineous mating, the rest all apply to cousins.

You know, its nice to be all accepting of every deviation in human sexuality, but in this case its time to shake your heads and say 'thats not right'.

Jail time, etcetera, I don’t really have much of an opinion on, but the act of having children with your sibling is wrong, yes a moral judgement, wrong.

Elphaba · 10-03-2005, 10:09 PM

It is my belief that our constitutional privacy rights are so threatened at this moment that it is difficult for me to champion a further right of privacy among siblings, cousins and the right for them to marry and have children. My personal belief is that this article is intended to inflame those that can't even accept recognizing same-sex relationships in a civil marriage.

KellyC, do you get the same impression, or am I being caught up in my preconceptions?

smooth · 10-04-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Christ, I NEVER thought I'd have to be defending the concept that brothers should not have children with their sisters. I had a VERY hard time finding anything where it was a analysis of brother-sister unions, and do you want to know why? Because since before written history began we knew this caused a LOT of problems.

Thank you for those informative studies. I wasn't aware of the empirical evidence supporting your contention. I will say, however, that historic societies didn't hinge their taboos regarding incest on genetic anomolies. That should be obvious, since the understanding of genetics is fairly recent in the positivist timeline. I do agree, however, that incest taboos have been very critical to the social ordering within and between families. I could go into this more in depth but in the end of day I agree with what you're saying: there are scientific along with sociological reasons to restrict sexual relationships between family members' siblings and/or their parents. Whether they are outweighed by our notions of individual rights is an altogether different question, I think...

Ustwo · 10-04-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I will say, however, that historic societies didn't hinge their taboos regarding incest on genetic anomolies. That should be obvious, since the understanding of genetics is fairly recent in the positivist timeline. I do agree, however, that incest taboos have been very critical to the social ordering within and between families. I could go into this more in depth but in the end of day I agree with what you're saying: there are scientific along with sociological reasons to restrict sexual relationships between family members' siblings and/or their parents. Whether they are outweighed by our notions of individual rights is an altogether different question, I think...

They might not have known genetics, but they did understand basic heredity at a phenotypic level. Humans have been genetically engineering animals and plants since the first agricultural societies with selective breeding. It doesn't take understanding of genetics to see that mating siblings in animals caused more problems than other matings. Likewise if you had a brother-sister human mating the increase in still births, some of which would look quite monstrous, and other defects would be easy to note. This is why you would have the taboo in the first place. We understood the genetic consequences, even back then.

Charlatan · 10-04-2005, 06:37 AM

Ustwo, if this couple had volunarily sterilized themselves prior to engaging in this relationship, would you still have a problem? In other words, does your issue only stem from the potential harm to children of this union or is there something else?

Ustwo · 10-04-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Ustwo, if this couple had volunarily sterilized themselves prior to engaging in this relationship, would you still have a problem? In other words, does your issue only stem from the potential harm to children of this union or is there something else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

They made a choice to have children KNOWNING they were brother and sister and without any testing (plus I dont' think most of you know how weak that testing really is).

I'm sorry but thats fucked up. If you want to fuck your sister, good for you, but don't have kids. I don't care if they have sex, live together, etc. Thats all part of the consenting adult thing, but it was just wrong to have children.

Already answered.

meembo · 10-04-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Ustwo, if this couple had volunarily sterilized themselves prior to engaging in this relationship, would you still have a problem? In other words, does your issue only stem from the potential harm to children of this union or is there something else?

Injecting my two cents -- if the couple was unable to procreate, it's freaky, but also then none of my business. Legalizing morality of victimless acts solely between two consenting adults is absurd. To me the issue is protection of vulnerable children from serious, predictable hardships.

Charlatan · 10-04-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Already answered.

Sorry missed that... and I agree.

10-04-2005, 08:32 AM

It's one thing to act immorally, and another to be sent to prison for it. If we are saying that it is immoral because of the risk of children being born with birth defects, then shouldn't we also ban people with inheritable conditions from procreating as well?

Should we lock up all the dwarves, people with Down's syndrome, congenitally deaf or blind people or anyone with a high chance of passing on some condition if they ever enter into a procreational sexual relationship?

I think not. That doesn't mean I'm going to encourage anyone to get friendly with their immediate family - but likewise, locking people away can't be the right answer either.

tspikes51 · 10-04-2005, 08:59 AM

I love that the case presented is 150 years old.

stevo · 10-04-2005, 09:36 AM

Sending them to prison is pretty harsh. They should have just been shipped off to West Virginia.

Kalnaur · 10-04-2005, 11:00 AM

Eh, let them have their fun. At the worst, they'll keep inbreeding until theyt wipe themselves out. At best, they'll accidentally trip upon a way to evolve.

KellyC · 10-04-2005, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

My personal belief is that this article is intended to inflame those that can't even accept recognizing same-sex relationships in a civil marriage.

KellyC, do you get the same impression, or am I being caught up in my preconceptions?

I can see how you come to that conclusion, but I would not say that it is the main focus of the article. I do speculate that the people whom the author disagree with can be or are the same people who would oppose same-sex marriage.

Gabbyness · 10-05-2005, 02:31 PM

Read Under the Banner of Heaven and then tell me incest is "ok" if people are "consenting." Sure, some of the people in said book weren't always consenting adults, but the still-born "blobs of protoplasm" are reprehensible and vile regardless.

Max security prison is pretty rough, probably too rough, but they should be held liable for their actions.

As for the poster who said the law under question is 150 years old, well, to me that just shows without an intricate knowledge of the human genome we still knew incest was dangerous.

Psycho Dad · 10-05-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

Also, in some cases, a person marrying a complete genetic stranger can have similar problems.

That is what I thought when I read the story. Had these two people or anyone else never known they were siblings this wouldn't even be an issue. I would have thought that the days of "you ought not be havin' relations with yer cousin cuz the chillun could be imbeciles" was on the way out.

Xazy · 10-06-2005, 09:55 AM

I can get into this in a religious sense, which makes it totally not allowed. Or I can talk about how the Pharaohs in Egypt married their sister etc.. But basically what you do behind your doors, as long as it is consensual, I do not care. Does not mean I will accept it, or think it is ok, but that is your issue, between you and G-d.

Supple Cow · 10-06-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

I love that the case presented is 150 years old.

Actually, the case was in the last decade. The statute cited in the decision came into existence over 150 years ago.

When I read the story itself, I thought, "GOOD GOD. None of that should have been allowed to happen. What is this guy talking about--hypocrisy? I think not." I don't cotton too much to the idea of incest. But then I read all the responses and realized that there is belief I value highly which dictates that I mind my own business. This is clearly not my business, nor is it the government's. While I find it highly inadvisable to fornicate and especially reproduce with one's own sibling, I can't bring myself to say that it wasn't within their rights.

So, while almost everything inside me screams that they ought to be taught a lesson in order to discourage any other misguided individuals from following in their path, I have to say that the case just didn't belong in the court system. I wish I could defend them more emphatically for the sake of rational thought, but this is probably as enthusiastic as I'm going to get about it. In any case, I doubt I could have come to a conclusion like this in any environment outside of this forum. Thanks for helping me keep it real, TFP.

raeanna74 · 10-06-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Hmm. A couple of generations ago, it was generally accepted that first cousins marrying was immoral and that their children had a greatly increased chance of birth defects. We know better now, but many states still prohibit cousin marriage outright, and others permit it only when both are past child-bearing age. Gilda

I know of one man who's parents were 1st cousins, they had a latent gene for hemophelia in their family. Their son has practically NO clotting ability at all. It APPEARS to me that it does increase the risk.

BUT at the same time we have so many people every day who marry and have children even though they have genetic defects that are likely to be passed on to their children. Or even diseases that they children end up being born with. If we were to ban familial marriage or sexual relationship on this point alone then we'd have to ban ALL marriages and sexual relationships that could potentially produce genetic problems. That would not be tolerable.

As much as the idea is not something I am used to. I cannot see anything warrenting imprisonment for this couple. Besides, I see the law as protecting siblings from being intimidated into sexual intercourse by another sibling. In this case they were both grown, had not grown up together so intimidation was not a part of the picture, and they both CHOSE to be together. I could not condemn either of them for that. This is an overreaction by a group of people biased by standards set decades ago that are outdated and most likely religiously based opinions.

Ustwo · 10-06-2005, 08:25 PM

I'm sorry but there comes a point where you need to say....thats not right.

We all draw the line somewhere, I draw it at brothers and sisters having children.

trickyy · 10-07-2005, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raeanna74

I know of one man who's parents were 1st cousins, they had a latent gene for hemophelia in their family. Their son has practically NO clotting ability at all. It APPEARS to me that it does increase the risk.

yeah, i think there's more to it as well. i know of 2 families with 2nd cousin parents. each have 3 kids. at least half of these 6 kids have some type of abnormal problems with their bodies.

smooth · 10-07-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

yeah, i think there's more to it as well. i know of 2 families with 2nd cousin parents. each have 3 kids. at least half of these 6 kids have some type of abnormal problems with their bodies.

hey, it cuts boths ways--doesn't Halx have an "abnormality" with his body

in all seriousness, though, if half their children are experiencing developmental problems, I'd look to malnourishment or abuse before genetic disorder.

Suave · 10-07-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Incest is a difficult case because the harm is rather diffuse. If you and your sibling have children together, those children have a significantly increased chance of receiving double recessive genes that you got from your parents. In some cases, this can cause your children to have severe genetic diseases.

The problem, as I see it, is that harm is only being done in an incestuous relationship that bears children. It is entirely understandable that the state would have a vested interest in preventing close familial relatives from reproducing together. It is far more difficult to prove that harm is being caused by protected sex between a brother and sister, morally disgusting though it may be. For that matter, what harm is caused by two brothers having sex with each other?

The problem with legislating against incest due to the increased possibility of genetic disease (and it is only a possibility) is that it carries further-reaching consequences. What then, if we gain the technology to map each person's genetic qualities? Should we legislate against unrelated persons who both carry possible combinations for genetic disorders? Unless one is greatly in favour of large, sweeping sexually oppressive laws, the case of recessive genes is a thin one at best.

Or, perhaps we should start making laws against ugly people procreating. People will get disorders and diseases, and people will die or live difficult lives. It is unavoidable, and at a certain point trying to make laws to prevent it becomes ludicrous. I believe this is one of those points.

Ustwo · 10-07-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

hey, it cuts boths ways--doesn't Halx have an "abnormality" with his body

in all seriousness, though, if half their children are experiencing developmental problems, I'd look to malnourishment or abuse before genetic disorder.

Smooth, standard mendelian genetics. If you have two parents who are Aa Aa for a gene, 1/4 of their children will be the recessive. If that recessive is a genetic disease, 1/4 of your children, on average, will now have it. This is well withing normal limits. Now most genetic conditions are not truly mendelian and may have varying degrees of it based on a whole grouping of genes. Its quite possible for ½ the children to be effected.

Its pretty classic for inbreeding.

Ustwo · 10-07-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

The problem with legislating against incest due to the increased possibility of genetic disease (and it is only a possibility) is that it carries further-reaching consequences. What then, if we gain the technology to map each person's genetic qualities? Should we legislate against unrelated persons who both carry possible combinations for genetic disorders? Unless one is greatly in favour of large, sweeping sexually oppressive laws, the case of recessive genes is a thin one at best.

Or, perhaps we should start making laws against ugly people procreating. People will get disorders and diseases, and people will die or live difficult lives. It is unavoidable, and at a certain point trying to make laws to prevent it becomes ludicrous. I believe this is one of those points.

Yes preventing brothers and sisters from having children is just a baby step away from total and complete eugenics.

Come on people

smooth · 10-07-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Smooth, standard mendelian genetics. If you have two parents who are Aa Aa for a gene, 1/4 of their children will be the recessive. If that recessive is a genetic disease, 1/4 of your children, on average, will now have it.

Its pretty classic for inbreeding.

I certainly hope we can distinguish between a professional opinion and lay opinion in regard to genetic information. Your dentristry agains my law doesn't put either one of us in a very good position to render professional opinions about the transference of genetic abnormalities from parents to children.

I remember your example from my undergrad bio 100 years, but I also remember that a) diseases (or any phenotype characteristic) aren't likely to be caused by one single gene, b) Punnett squares are heuristic devices for understanding how genes cross from parents to offspring--unless you've got the genetic structure mapped, they aren't going to give accurate statistical represenations of a given genepool, and c) the human genome is a lot more complex than that of a pea.

useful for teaching students about different colors of roses
understanding visible genetic abnormalities in human beings? not so useful

10-03-2005, 05:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Incest is a difficult case because the harm is rather diffuse. If you and your sibling have children together, those children have a significantly increased chance of receiving double recessive genes that you got from your parents. In some cases, this can cause your children to have severe genetic diseases. The problem, as I see it, is that harm is only being done in an incestuous relationship that bears children. It is entirely understandable that the state would have a vested interest in preventing close familial relatives from reproducing together. It is far more difficult to prove that harm is being caused by protected sex between a brother and sister, morally disgusting though it may be. For that matter, what harm is caused by two brothers having sex with each other? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

10-03-2005, 05:48 PM	#4 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I agree that the potential harm is done to non-consenting parties, the children, who have a special kind of vulnerability that ought to always be protected. I don't think that prosecution and incarceration is the key to stop child-bearing incest. Children need their parents, who I assume in this case love their children as most parents do, despite their origin and heredity. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

10-03-2005, 05:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
moot1337 Insane Location: Learning to Fly...	Sending them to the slammer is absolutely not right... why should they be punished for a choice they make, which only effects them, and doesn't harm anyone else? For pi's sake, they already have children... what do the authorities tell them? "Your parents are in jail because they're 'icky'... you'll understand once you know our societies unspoken values."? They probably shouldn't have had children due to the genetic defects and heredity, but the fact of the matter is that punishment isn't the answer to a case like this. You don't punish children because their parents had them, and you don't punish people for having children... society may punish people for what they do to other people, not what they do. __________________ And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. Oh, certainly, sir.

10-03-2005, 06:16 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Sorry but when you find out shes your sister, thats just pretty fucked up, it wasn't like they found out AFTER they had kids or were in a relationship. I hear banjos in the backround. Love may overcome all but that doesn't mean its good to fuck your sister, brother, mother, father, grandparents etc. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-03-2005, 06:17 PM	#8 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I have to agree with the "they're consenting adults" crowd. There are no sound reasons for prosecuting them that I can think of...they started the relationship as consenting adults. If they're fit parents and nobody's being hurt, what's the problem (besides "it's icky")? __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

10-03-2005, 06:32 PM	#9 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	I'm with the majority on this. They are consenting adults. We have no right to interfere with the course of their lives. They are hurting no one and the decisions they make will only affect each other, not this backward ass American society that we currently live in. I don't buy the "double your chances of genetic defects" either. Anyone can have a genetic defect and you have the same chance of bearing children with that other genetic stranger than you would if you had children with your brother/sister. No matter how "icky and gross" Utswo (and others who think like him) thinks it is, him and people who think like him that want to change the world to their usually single-minded views have no right how to tell others how to live their lives. Period.

10-03-2005, 06:37 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	They made a choice to have children KNOWNING they were brother and sister and without any testing (plus I dont' think most of you know how weak that testing really is). I'm sorry but thats fucked up. If you want to fuck your sister, good for you, but don't have kids. I don't care if they have sex, live together, etc. Thats all part of the consenting adult thing, but it was just wrong to have children. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-03-2005, 06:50 PM	#12 (permalink)
KellyC Comment or else!! Location: Home sweet home	Ustwo, fucked upt it may be, they nevertheless, should be left alone. Getting on high horses and imposing our/your wills upon them and throwing them in prison is just as fucked up, if not more. __________________ Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe? Me: Shit happens.

10-03-2005, 08:31 PM	#13 (permalink)
Siege is a tiger Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada	Ok, I am going to have to go with the "they're consenting adults they can do what they like" group. But at the same time, I gotta take Ustwo's side also. Sure, they can do whatever they like. But since they potentially (note: POTENTIALLY) are causing unnecessary risks to their children, I think something has to be done. If they really wanted children, they easily could've gotten a sperm donor. __________________ "Your name's Geek? Do you know the origin of the term? A geek is someone who bites the heads off chickens at a circus. I would never let you suck my dick with a name like Geek" --Kevin Smith This part just makes my posts easier to find

10-03-2005, 09:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	Hmm. A couple of generations ago, it was generally accepted that first cousins marrying was immoral and that their children had a greatly increased chance of birth defects. We know better now, but many states still prohibit cousin marriage outright, and others permit it only when both are past child-bearing age. It's still a big joke to most, due to the misunderstanding behind the cause of inbred genetic defects. Isolated populations that develop widespread genetic defects do so over a very long period of time; it's generational, not related to any one couple and their offspring. A century or two ago, when there were a lot of small, isolated populations, it made sense to have strict restrictions regarding marrying close family, because such behavior, do to isolation and immobility, was much more likely to be repeated over time from generation to generation, and that did pose a threat. There was a compelling reason in such a situation to encourage the mixing of gene pools. Because we no longer live in such small, isolated, immobile communities, the threat of repeated intermarriage within the same family is greatly reduced, and thus the threat of genetic reinforcement is no longer a compelling state interest. Yet we remain with a general populace that misunderstands the genetics, and which has a moral objection, on top of the "ick" factor, so it's unlikely we'll see much, if any change on this soon. And I think we underestimate the "ick" factor. There are people out there who do believe things they find disgusting should be illegal, even in the absense of any harm being done to anyone. So why don't we see more social liberals up in arms about this the way we are about gay rights, using the same arguments? Practicality. The predjudice against siblings having sex, marrying, and having children is much, much stronger and more prevelant among the mainstream than the disapproval of gays having sex with each other. Linking the two with the same type of argument would, in practical terms, be counterproductive. I can see two possible outcomes to using the same argument for both. People who object to both gays and siblings getting married are going to have that attitude reinforced by such a comparison, and equating them would make the cause of gay rights more difficult. People who favor gay rights, but not sibling marriage are the ones that would be problematic. If we convince them that the two are equivilent, would they be more likely to move in favor of more rights for siblings, or fewer rights for gays? I think the latter to be more likely. As a moral issue, I find it disturbing. As an ethical issue, I don't think I should have the right to dictate to others how to live their lives, and for that reason, jailing these people is something I disapprove of strongly. As a practical matter, I think we'll see more progress more quickly on sexual freedoms for all consenting adults if we concentrate first on those that are likely to be best recieved by the mainstream. Think about the children. A few years ago there was a southern California anchorwoman with a genetic disease that caused her to be born with a birth defect of malformed hands, what used to be called lobster claws in freak shows. It's a rare genetic mutation, but once it manifests, it has a 50-50 chance of being passed on to children. She decided to have children anyway, and was severely criticized for this. How dare she inflict this on a child? I look at her situation, and though I'm not sure I would make the same decision she did, my ultimate conclusion has to be that it isn't my decision to make. I think the same way about siblings marrying, having sex, or having children together. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

10-03-2005, 09:39 PM	#15 (permalink)
KellyC Comment or else!! Location: Home sweet home	Damn Gilda, every time I read your post, it's always so informative and well thought out. Thanks. __________________ Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe? Me: Shit happens.

10-03-2005, 10:09 PM	#17 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	It is my belief that our constitutional privacy rights are so threatened at this moment that it is difficult for me to champion a further right of privacy among siblings, cousins and the right for them to marry and have children. My personal belief is that this article is intended to inflame those that can't even accept recognizing same-sex relationships in a civil marriage. KellyC, do you get the same impression, or am I being caught up in my preconceptions?

10-04-2005, 06:37 AM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ustwo, if this couple had volunarily sterilized themselves prior to engaging in this relationship, would you still have a problem? In other words, does your issue only stem from the potential harm to children of this union or is there something else? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-04-2005, 08:32 AM	#24 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	It's one thing to act immorally, and another to be sent to prison for it. If we are saying that it is immoral because of the risk of children being born with birth defects, then shouldn't we also ban people with inheritable conditions from procreating as well? Should we lock up all the dwarves, people with Down's syndrome, congenitally deaf or blind people or anyone with a high chance of passing on some condition if they ever enter into a procreational sexual relationship? I think not. That doesn't mean I'm going to encourage anyone to get friendly with their immediate family - but likewise, locking people away can't be the right answer either. Last edited by zen_tom; 10-04-2005 at 08:34 AM..

10-04-2005, 08:59 AM	#25 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	I love that the case presented is 150 years old. __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox

10-04-2005, 09:36 AM	#26 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Sending them to prison is pretty harsh. They should have just been shipped off to West Virginia. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

10-04-2005, 11:00 AM	#27 (permalink)
Kalnaur Psycho Location: Portland, Oregon	Eh, let them have their fun. At the worst, they'll keep inbreeding until theyt wipe themselves out. At best, they'll accidentally trip upon a way to evolve. __________________ PC: Can you help me out here HK? HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags. PC: And the other 2 percent? HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

10-05-2005, 02:31 PM	#29 (permalink)
Gabbyness Chicken scratch. Location: Japan!!!	Read Under the Banner of Heaven and then tell me incest is "ok" if people are "consenting." Sure, some of the people in said book weren't always consenting adults, but the still-born "blobs of protoplasm" are reprehensible and vile regardless. Max security prison is pretty rough, probably too rough, but they should be held liable for their actions. As for the poster who said the law under question is 150 years old, well, to me that just shows without an intricate knowledge of the human genome we still knew incest was dangerous.

10-06-2005, 09:55 AM	#31 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I can get into this in a religious sense, which makes it totally not allowed. Or I can talk about how the Pharaohs in Egypt married their sister etc.. But basically what you do behind your doors, as long as it is consensual, I do not care. Does not mean I will accept it, or think it is ok, but that is your issue, between you and G-d.

10-06-2005, 08:25 PM	#34 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'm sorry but there comes a point where you need to say....thats not right. We all draw the line somewhere, I draw it at brothers and sisters having children. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 10-07-2005 at 04:13 AM..