Incest - On principle, can we say it is immoral or illegal when no abuse of a person is taking place?

[Quorra]

In most US states, sexual relations and marriage between directly related individuals is illegal, or at least punishable by law.

And I'm wondering why, and how this can be justified.

I'm not saying incest is a great idea, but I also can't see a reason why incest should be illegal, punishable, or even frowned-upon - on principle at least. Sure, it's distasteful to most. But is that grounds for the law?

We've come to a time now in most western developed societies that we collectively agree that sexual relations between consenting adults are expressions of love, that sexual behaviors are divorced from the issue of procreation, that they are private affairs, and nobody else's business. And we have legally agreed in many cases, especially in the U.S., that marriage is between two consenting adults, period.

We've socially agreed that laws and social guidelines have to be based on principles and ethics that apply in all situations, and have to be justified, not just by what we currently find tasteful or socially acceptable - Because subjective reasons like that were the past basis for outlawing interracial and homosexual relationships previously.

Also, regardless of our past notions of what constitutes a family, we've come to a time now where we socially agree that family is a group of people who choose to be together, and that marriage is an expression of love.

So with all this in mind, can you justify a law that says two consenting and related adults can't do something sexual in the privacy of their own home, and can't get married?

What are the reasons we have historically outlawed or frowned-upon incest?

1. Sexual relations between a parent or adult caregiver and child would most times be the result of abuse.

But I'm not talking about abuse. I'm only talking about two consenting adults. Incest laws are separate from statutory rape and abuse laws which address and punish incest as it is in cases of abuse, and they also address cases of caregivers such as step and foster parents committing abuse.

So, can you argue against two related adults getting married when both are consenting and of age, and it is not abuse?

2. The offspring of related individuals may result in genetic deformities or a child who will grow up being harshly judged by society.

But can you limit that outcome only to the products of incest? Don't other issues in unrelated individuals result in offspring with disease or deformities? Haven't we worried that children of same-sex partners would be subject to social ridicule? Can you tell those unrelated adults that they are not allowed to have children? (No, you can't.)

And what about two related adults who cannot biologically conceive children? Say, two brothers, two sisters, or a related man and woman who have had vasectomy/hysterectomy surgeries? Could you say that they should not be allowed to get married based on the argument that, if they could conceive, their children could be potentially deformed or social outcasts? Let's also consider the fact that there have been innumerable historically documented people who were the offspring of incestuous relations, who grew up to have relatively normal and healthy lives.

3. Incest is fundamentally unethical, wrong, or will degrade society.

Why? Says who? Religion? Do we really base our laws on any one religion's values? Should we? Didn't we at one time culturally and legally suggest by our laws and culture that homosexual or interracial marriages were somehow wrong or would degrade society? And that's not true at all - which I'm glad to see that the law is now acknowledging.

I guess I can't really see a justifiable reason it should not be allowed. Can you?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

There are almost always power problems with incestious relationships, as such I favor keeping them illegal.

[protar]

If there is no abuse or grooming involved then there's not really much moral objection, icky as it is. But that's a pretty difficult criteria to meet even if the people are of the same age (i.e siblings and not parent/offspring which would always be an unhealthy, abusive dynamic). So long lost relatives are pretty much the only case where I can confidently say it is not objectionable.

[Quorra]

There are almost always power problems with incestious relationships, as such I favor keeping them illegal.

I'm not sure what you mean. But if you are suggesting that incestuous relationships should be illegal because they are always based on abuse, then that seems more like a stereotype and not something you can prove.

[eyenon15]

Fine with me, for myself I'm concerned more with single marriage.

I want all the same rights and privileges

as married people have.

I feel I'm being treated second class just because no one is willing to marry me.

[Happy Ent]

This depends on your moral priors. If you are a utilitarian in the mold of John Stuart Mill, then there is nothing wrong with incest, and it should be treated exactly homosexuality (i.e., it should be allowed, and the instinctive disgust that a large part of the population feels at the very idea should be known for what it is: an evolutionary useful adaptation that has played out its role.)

If, on the other hand you have a “moral taste bud” for sanctity, you should disallow it. It breaks some useful societal cohesion mechanisms, so that even a utilitarian argument can be made in favour of forbidding it (together with homosexuality.)

Some good books about moral psychology that I recently read or am currently reading: Moral Tribes (Greene), The Rightuous Mind (Haidt).

[protar]

I'm not sure what you mean. But if you are suggesting that incestuous relationships should be illegal because they are always based on abuse, then that seems more like a stereotype and not something you can prove.

It's pretty much just common sense. It doesn't technically have anything to do with blood relations and more to do with who you are raised by/with. You could be adopted and it would be the same deal. The power dynamics in a parent/offspring relationship (where they have raised you) are just too wildly uneven and that isn't even getting into the grooming side of it. Even sibling relationships have that sort of power dynamic.

[Theda Baratheon]

I'm not sure what you mean. But if you are suggesting that incestuous relationships should be illegal because they are always based on abuse, then that seems more like a stereotype and not something you can prove.

A lot of cases do seem to be based around abuse though and unless it's too long lost relatives you just can't really prove there is no abuse in incestuous relationships where the two people grew up together or with a parent and a child. even if the child says there was no abuse...they could have been groomed from a young age.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Qurroa,

No, I'm saying parent/child relationships Re problematic because a child will never be equal to a parent in such a relationship. Similarly, sibilings always have birth order power dynamics that create issues. As such I do not favor legalizing incest.

[Quorra]

I do understand that in many incestuous relationships, there is likelihood of a vulnerable individual. And likewise in marriages between a citizen of one country and someone desiring acquired citizenship in that country.

So, with proposed concern for the potential exploitation of that vulnerable person, maybe there is justification for extra vigilance when it comes to approving of incestuous marriages. I'm not sure if it could be seen as discriminatory to suggest that the law should require extra screening process of those individuals who want to get married, but have direct relations like siblings or parent/child.

[deleted01]

If there is no abuse or grooming involved then there's not really much moral objection, icky as it is. But that's a pretty difficult criteria to meet even if the people are of the same age (i.e siblings and not parent/offspring which would always be an unhealthy, abusive dynamic). So long lost relatives are pretty much the only case where I can confidently say it is not objectionable.

Have to agree. It's a tricky subject, but by and large I'm not wholly opposed to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in a sexual/romantic relationship, whether they're related or not. I believe that the resulting offspring is something to be concerned about, but it's probably not reason enough for incest to be completely illegal.

Where grooming and abuse are involved, there's no question - in no way should that be made legal. Also if there's a significant age gap or where one party holds power over the other, but that also goes for couples who are not related.

[protar]

Have to agree. It's a tricky subject, but by and large I'm not wholly opposed to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in a sexual/romantic relationship, whether they're related or not. I believe that the resulting offspring is something to be concerned about, but it's probably not reason enough for incest to be completely illegal.

Where grooming and abuse are involved, there's no question - in no way should that be made legal. Also if there's a significant age gap or where one party holds power over the other, but that also goes for couples who are not related.

I don't buy the genetic objection because that goes down a pretty dark eugenicist path pretty quickly. Where you're banning people with genetic disorders from having kids. And incest doesn't actually cause genetic disorders to spring up out of nowhere, it just concentrates preexisting genetic defects. So really one generation of incest, in a healthy gene pool is not an issue.

[deleted01]

I don't buy the genetic objection because that goes down a pretty dark eugenicist path pretty quickly. Where you're banning people with genetic disorders from having kids. And incest doesn't actually cause genetic disorders to spring up out of nowhere, it just concentrates preexisting genetic defects. So really one generation of incest, in a healthy gene pool is not an issue.

I bow to your wisdom, as I don't know enough on the subject. Interesting stuff. So why, in the face of the stuff popping up in this thread, is incest illegal? (Don't necessarily expect an answer here. Just pondering. :) )

[Quorra]

Qurroa,

No, I'm saying parent/child relationships Re problematic because a child will never be equal to a parent in such a relationship. Similarly, sibilings always have birth order power dynamics that create issues. As such I do not favor legalizing incest.

I still don't see that as a reason to outlaw the sexual behaviors, or even marriage. You can't outlaw these between people of age difference - as long as both are of age. You can't outlaw these between people of other unequal footing. In fact, one might argue that almost all relationships are subject to power dynamics. Furthermore, is the basis for legitimate marriage, or legal sexual behavior, the notion of equality between the two or the right of two consenting adults?

[Liffguard]

It's one of those situations where in theory I see no problem with anything that happens between informed, fully-consenting adults but where in practice the actual determining of full consent is complicated.

[Gramsci]

Moral relativism at its finest, considering incest has gone in and out of fashion over the span of human existence. It is an interesting discussion to be had given the challenges mounted against what non-traditional relationships.

I can only speak for myself in saying that I am not fundamentally opposed to incest as an expression of real romantic feelings. While I find it a bit repugnant and unnerving (icky is a good word, as well) for such a relationship to exist, I hold true to the belief that if there is a genuine love that exists between let's say a brother and a sister, they should be allowed to express that. As Ser Scot has already stated though, the problem with incestuous relationships is that because they are born out of preexisting familial relationships it could be a matter of abuse or exploitation.

[Quorra]

It's pretty much just common sense. It doesn't technically have anything to do with blood relations and more to do with who you are raised by/with. You could be adopted and it would be the same deal. The power dynamics in a parent/offspring relationship (where they have raised you) are just too wildly uneven and that isn't even getting into the grooming side of it. Even sibling relationships have that sort of power dynamic.

So, I guess if two related people didn't grow up together, then that wouldn't be an issue.

[Theda Baratheon]

It's one of those situations where in theory I see no problem with anything that happens between informed, fully-consenting adults but where in practice the actual determining of full consent is complicated.

Yep. My main problem is it's really near impossible to determine whether actual, genuine consent is being given.

So, I guess if two related people didn't grow up together, then that wouldn't be an issue.

yeah. like...I don't have a problem with Oedipus and Jocasta's relationship lol; in fact they're very loving and affectionate towards each other but i guess the gods didn't agree :P

[protar]

So, I guess if two related people didn't grow up together, then that wouldn't be an issue.

Pretty much. It's not about the blood relations it's about power dynamics. That's where it gets morally wrong.

[Quorra]

It breaks some useful societal cohesion mechanisms

Such as?