Should incest be banned?

[InformedIgnorance]

unless there are tax benefits or something lol - the purpose of marriage is the legal semi-permanent relationship of two or more individuals and the recognition of related legal rights and obligations, including co-ownership of assets, guardianship of dependents and individual rights such as power of attorney - none of those have purpose if there is only one party involved, all of those have purpose if there is more than one individual involved (regardless of the gender of those individuals OR OF WHETHER THEY ARE RELATED BY BLOOD).

if there are other reasons to get married (such as the aforementioned tax benefits) then perhaps a single individual might choose to get married to themselves but is it likely that such benefits would be granted simply be virtue of being married? that seems basis for a claim of discrimination based on marital status.

 

[nnmartin]

You are here for your own interests, purposes and amusements.

That is as polite as I can be.

Asking me to be less polite,
would be immoral.

so you are worried about making some kind of personal attack - it that it?

that's rather disappointing as I thought you maybe had some kind of psychological revelation you wished to impart.

if you are just saying that I am some kind of troll then whatever, I've been called that a few times already and it's no different a label than being told you are considered to be frequently in error.

 

[nnmartin]

What would be the point of single marriage? Also I don't see single people who want to marry themselves.

the same question could be put to same sex marriage.

perhaps I love myself and want the same legal benefits that married couples enjoy - why not, seems fair to me.

 

[9Westy9]

the same question could be put to same sex marriage.

perhaps I love myself and want to the same legal benefits that married couples enjoy - why not, seems fair to me.

the point of marriage - to show that 2 people are committed to one another long term

and same sex people do want to marry each other.

 

[nnmartin]

who are you to define that it must be two people?

why not 3 or just 1?

 

[9Westy9]

who are you to define that it must be two people?

why not 3 or just 1?

It could change. It has been changing for a while

 

[nnmartin]

so do you think that 1 person should be allowed to marry themselves or at least have exactly the same rights as a couple?

 

[9Westy9]

so do you think that 1 person should be allowed to marry themselves or at least have exactly the same rights as a couple?

I don't see the point in someone marrying themselves. When people want to marry themselves we'll talk

 

[Tiberius]

surely the reason for law is to stop harm?

And you have failed utterly to show what harm is caused by incest.

this point is no good because society does not benefit from having psychologically harmed people wandering around.

It is more sensible to try and avoid this outcome by banning certain activites, such as incest.


perhaps I may just get back into this thread

And you can start by explaining what psychological harm is caused by having sex with a close blood relative.

 

[nnmartin]

I don't see the point in someone marrying themselves. When people want to marry themselves we'll talk

I want to marry myself so let's talk!

now, should I have the same adoption rights and tax benefits as a married couple?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I want to marry myself so let's talk!

now, should I have the same adoption rights and tax benefits as a married couple?

I would be willing to say yes, assuming you are fit to be a single parent.

 

[9Westy9]

I want to marry myself so let's talk!

now, should I have the same adoption rights and tax benefits as a married couple?

If you're raising a child then sure

 

[McBell]

I want to marry myself so let's talk!

now, should I have the same adoption rights and tax benefits as a married couple?

nope.
Cause you are not a married couple.

can you marry your dog?
Nope, cause dogs cannot enter into a legal contract.

You keep ignoring the fact that marriage is a legal contract.

 

[nnmartin]

you are the one who wants to change the definition of said legal contract though.

in which case, why can't we just change it to a 1 person deal or even an incestuous couple (by the way, this is the incest thread..)

 

[InformedIgnorance]

so do you think that 1 person should be allowed to marry themselves or at least have exactly the same rights as a couple?

Just because someone is married does not mean that they should be treated any differently or have new and additional rights in and of themselves (for example they should be treated no differently for taxation, or trying to obtain an apartment or whatnot)


The CENTRAL POINT of secular marriage is not about the precise number of people, their gender or whether or not they are related - it is about the state recognizing the specific rights and responsibilities each party is granting to the others in the union; rights such as ownership of assets, guardianship of children, the right to make medical decisions and to enter into contracts on the other's behalf.... THAT is the purpose of secular marriage. NONE of that applies in the event of a single person wanting to get 'married' to themselves as they are sharing those rights and responsibilities with themselves, resulting in no net change in their legal rights and responsibilities.

As for religious marriage? Personally I don't give a *#*&%#W#*@%*#@% but hey, let them choose to recognize the secular marriage or not by themselves (separation of church and state) but they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to attempt to dictate what secular marriage should be.

If some guy wants to marry his widowed mother, six sisters and his brother, all of whom also want to marry him, then so be it - the various religions would probably not recognize such a marriage, but that does not mean that they do not have the right to enter into a legal arrangement recognized by the state, a secular marriage with all the rights of any other marriage.

 

[Tiberius]

Ah, Martin, I see you are trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant talk instead of answering my very simple question...

 

[Neo-Logic]

Incest CAN be banned on both legal and moral grounds.

Constitutionally speaking, the right of privacy to sexual acts between individuals is limited and can be regulated to preserve larger interests of society, usually along the lines of public health, safety and morality of some kind. And in the case of incest, there are numerous grounds on which it can be banned and there's certainly a public interest at play here, UNLIKE and DIFFERENT from gay marriage, which is what the opponents of gay marriage say will lead to if passed. We've proven that progress doesn't have to mean stupidity. Women were able to vote and that didn't lead to people marrying their dogs. And gays being able to marry won't lead to incest because when society has a VALID interest, it can protect those interests and can make distinctions like adults.

In most cases, 'incest' is prohibited from society on the basis of protecting children from parents, not necessarily between adult siblings, per se, although they are also under the umbrella. There is a 'health' issue because birth defects can happen over time in conception between persons related to a particular degree, but this is a lesser issue. The larger issue at play is the 'morality' portion. We, as a society, don't see incest as being moral just as we don't see bestiality moral, and have therefore banned it.

This is a less objective and more subjective whims of democracy at work here, but one that's well within the purview of our democratic process. If, overtime, for some reason, incest becomes a hugely popular thing, then laws may change to reflect the new subjective morality of society at that time.

Should it be banned? Given that there's a legal basis and my personal opinion is that it's creepy as hell--YES!

 

[nnmartin]

Ah, Martin, I see you are trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant talk instead of answering my very simple question...

do you mean the question that I have already anwsered many times over already?

perhaps if you keep on asking you will find what you are looking for.

what was the question again by the way?

 

[Tiberius]

Incest CAN be banned on both legal and moral grounds.

Constitutionally speaking, the right of privacy to sexual acts between individuals is limited and can be regulated to preserve larger interests of society,

How does a brother and sister having consensual sex harm the larger interests of society?

usually along the lines of public health,

How does a brother and sister having consensual sex damage public health?

safety

How does a brother and sister having consensual sex harm safety?

and morality of some kind.

What kind?

And in the case of incest, there are numerous grounds on which it can be banned and there's certainly a public interest at play here, UNLIKE and DIFFERENT from gay marriage, which is what the opponents of gay marriage say will lead to if passed.

Where's the public interest involved with siblings having consensual sex? Sex is PRIVATE. Where's the public interest involved in ANY consensual sex?

In most cases, 'incest' is prohibited from society on the basis of protecting children from parents, not necessarily between adult siblings, per se, although they are also under the umbrella. There is a 'health' issue because birth defects can happen over time in conception between persons related to a particular degree, but this is a lesser issue. The larger issue at play is the 'morality' portion. We, as a society, don't see incest as being moral just as we don't see bestiality moral, and have therefore banned it.

Like I said, if it's cponsensual then the protection idea doesn't enter into it.

Birth defects can be prevented with birth control.

And then you play the morality card, despite the fact that some people don't see it as immoral at all.

This is a less objective

I don't see where you''ve said anything objective that is a legitimate argument against incest.

If, overtime, for some reason, incest becomes a hugely popular thing, then laws may change to reflect the new subjective morality of society at that time.

So morality is dictated by general consensus? If most people thought murder was okay, would it become moral too?

Should it be banned? Given that there's a legal basis and my personal opinion is that it's creepy as hell--YES!

Claiming that there's a legal basis is rather circular, isn't it? And your personal opinion? Well, at least you have the decency to admit that it is subjective!

 

[Tiberius]

do you mean the question that I have already anwsered many times over already?

perhaps if you keep on asking you will find what you are looking for.

what was the question again by the way?

Firstly, how can you know for sure that you have answered the question many times if you do not know what the question was?

And I am talking about this, from post 362:

Billy and Sally are brother and sister in their early twenties. They are very close. They have sex after both agreeing to it. They both enjoy it and they both feel comfortable with what they have done. They use contraception so that Sally will not get pregnant.

In this particular instance, have either of them suffered abuse? If so, please be specific. Have either of them acted immorally? (Remember that morality is subjective!) Can you point to any specific harm that has been done to ANYONE?​

You never explained specifically how they were harmed.