"consenting adults" taken one step further or just too far?

[tropicsgoddess]

I'm all for consenting adults to marry. Incestuous relationships and/or marriages are not only disgusting but the fact that there's high possibilities of diluting the gene pool. No fucking way.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm all for consenting adults to marry. Incestuous relationships and/or marriages are not only disgusting but the fact that there's high possibilities of diluting the gene pool. No fucking way.

Yeah, 'cause people who have nasty hereditary conditions aren't doing that every single day.

^-.-^

[the_std]

I'm all for consenting adults to marry. Incestuous relationships and/or marriages are not only disgusting but the fact that there's high possibilities of diluting the gene pool. No fucking way.

I'm sorry, but did you read the rest of the thread? For one, incestuous relationships would concentrate the gene pool, as a diluted gene pool is the healthiest outcome (more water, aka more genes randomness, means less chance of birth defects). But it was also mentioned that it takes several generations of incestuous relationships for the chance of birth defects to significantly increase, therefore first-stage incest has very little chance of causing extra problems.

PLUS it was already brought up that we don't stop people who are both carriers for terrible diseases from reproducing, even when the likelihood of passing it on is far higher than incestuous relationships causing problems. So maybe read the rest of the thread before you post things that have already been disproved.

[KabeRinnaul]

*Considers thread topic.*
*Looks at his Location tag.*
*Again considers thread topic.*

...I should probably just walk away from this one.

[Nyoibo]

*Considers thread topic.*
*Looks at his Location tag.*
*Again considers thread topic.*

...I should probably just walk away from this one.

Hehehe, you may owe me a new keyboard.

[Lace Neil Singer]

How far do you want to take it, tho? What about consenting adults who want to include animals in their sex life? Not always nonconsential from the animal's side; look at Mr Hands. (but only if you're not at work, far away from children and have a strong stomach.) Part of living in a civilised society is having rules; some might seem unfair, but it's what you have when you live in a civilised society. It's fine being open minded, but not so open minded that your brains fall out.

Bernd Brandes was a consenting adult who chose to be murdered and eaten. The man who did this, Armin Meiwes, was charged with murder. Should he not have been, given that he and his "victim" were consenting adults who were both jointly responsible for the events that took place?

(Note: This is a discussion point; I thought that this needed exploring, seeing as almost everyone agrees with the OP. But rather than post a hysterical rebuttal, I thought it a good idea to post something that can actually be discussed. ^^)

[Andara Bledin]

Animals, like children, do not pass the "ability to consent" muster.

As for the killing, killing for the majority of reasons is illegal, so the sexual nature of the act is completely irrelevant. Cannibalism is also usually against the law.

The discussion is purely about whether it's really necessary to legislate sexual activity between consenting adults. Since the objections against incest amount to "ew, yuck" and "oh noes, inbreeding," I'm not sure this even qualifies as an issue, much less something that needs legislation.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

What I was saying was "how far would you go?" so I think it is relevant. In case you forgot, homosexuality used to be against the law, as was marrying your husband's brother if your husband died. Both are legal now. Perhaps in the future, incest and bestility might be as well.

And this guy asked to be killed. He consented to his killing in a sexual way. So is it murder if a victim consents?

For the record, I don't really agree with people with certain heredity illnesses having kids either. It just seems terrible to me to inflict an innocent child with a painful and debilitating disease that might well end up in them dying a few years later. If the parents were unaware, that's one thing; but being aware is another. And that applies to incest, too. Like it or not, society as a rule sees incest as being a taboo, along with necrophilia. So a child born of an incestious union is going to get slapped with a stigma regardless of whether it's considered legal or not.

Go back in time, stand in the street and kiss someone of the same sex; you'd get arrested. Now; go to certain places and do likewise. You might not be arrested, but people might still be thinking you're sick. It takes time for certain things to be accepted; regarding homosexuality we're no longer locking people up for daring to fall in love with their own sex, but it's still not fully accepted. Ask anyone who's unable to marry their same sex partner cuz of laws against it.

So, even if incest was no longer considered illegal, you'll be waiting a long time before society accepts it.

[SkullKing]

For me it wasn´t murder, it was assisted suicide.

If that should be illegal or not is whole other question

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is that in the case of the "kill me and eat me" guy, it wasn't a matter of sexual relations that was the problem, so bringing that up in a thread questioning what we allow as sexual relations isn't quite relevant.

As for homosexuality, quite a few nations are still locking people up for daring to fall in love with people of the same gender (why do people say "sex" when "gender" is the appropriate term?). I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that as many nations still legislate homosexuality as allow first cousins to marry, and vice versa.

I actually know someone who married her first cousin. They have a kid. Said kid is hale and healthy and is currently in Marine boot camp.

If we don't like it because of squick factor, then we just have to get over ourselves.

If we don't like it because of genetics questions, then we have to start legislating other people who are at a much higher risk than even a brother and sister or mother and child for polluting the gene pool.

Other issues are covered by other laws; this thread is dealing, specifically, with two consenting adults and whether a close blood relation should have any legal bearing on the legality of them engaging in sexual activity with one another.

My opinion, when weighed against everything else, is that there is no sound basis to legislate against it. The squick factor devolves to a human rights question, and the progeny issue is so far down on the list of things that we should be worrying about genetically as to be laughable.

^-.-^

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I would say that what two mentally capable and consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom is none of the government's damned business.

Totally agree without reservation. It doesn't matter if I find it "disgusting" or if it "squicks me out" or whatever. That is neither here nor there.

[Rageaholic]

They are consenting adults.

In other words.

[Mytical]

The general questions you should ask yourself are..
1) Are the individuals involved capable of giving informed consent. Animals, young children, etc fail this test..so no further questions need be asked. Any act that does not have all involved informed consent should not be legal..imo.
2) Does it break a law that exists independently of the sexual act. Regardless if you agree with the law or not, it is best to fight to get the law changed then break the law. Even in the case of yes..sad to say..homosexuality. If you break the law, even a law that should never exist, you should be prepared to pay the price.
3) If all the above is passed, what right does the government to decide that it should not be done?

[HYHYBT]

why do people say "sex" when "gender" is the appropriate term?

Because 1) they are the same near enough all the time that it's really only worth mentioning the difference when it becomes relevant, and 2) despite what you're about to claim, the differences between the two are not set in stone in the first place.

Oh, and 3) if you're talking of who someone is attracted to, it's possible to mean either one regardless of what you're using to separate them.

[Nyoibo]

(why do people say "sex" when "gender" is the appropriate term?).

Actually it's the other way around, Sex refers to physiological characteristics, Gender refers to socially constructed roles.