Given the recent news story about father-adult daughter incest, I thought I’d ask a few questions about adult-adult incest (speaking specifically of parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, or brother-sister, and setting aside cousins and the like):
(1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)? Because it involves a heightened risk of birth defects (a view I’m skeptical about, given that we don’t criminalize sex by carriers of genes that make serious hereditary disease much more likely than incest does)?
(2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre-Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing incest? Is it that bans on gay sex are irrational but bans on adult incest are rational, and rationality is all that’s required for regulations of adult sex? Is it that bans on gay sex don’t pass strict scrutiny (or some such demanding test) but bans on adult incest do? Is it that Lawrence rested on the fact that bans on gay sex largely foreclose all personally meaningful sexual relationships for those who are purely homosexual in orientation, whereas incest bans only foreclose a few possible sexual partners? UPDATE: For court cases on this, see here (stepfather-stepdaughter) and here (brother-sister).
(3) If adult incest is indeed criminalized, what should the penalties be (assuming lack of further aggravating circumstances, such as force, strong evidence of grooming for future adult incest during childhood, and so on)? Should the penalty be relatively light, on the theory that only consenting adults were involved (much as the penalty for prostitution is relatively light)? Should it be very grave, on the theory that it’s important to send a firm, unambiguous message that such behavior is wrong, or perhaps on the theory that one party is likely to have seriously harmed the other even though the other consented?
(4) Should all this apply to adult brother-sister incest, or are the arguments chiefly limited to what one sees as the likely special emotional control that parents might have over children?
Jason says:
Consensual sex between adults should never be criminal. The notion that a parent has some magical control over a 21-year-old who isn’t otherwise mentally handicapped is pure fantasy. Parents barely have control over their 14-year-olds.
All this is nothing more than projection based on the ich factor.
December 12, 2010, 12:44 pmanony says:
What about homosexual incest, brother-brother, sister-sister, brother-father, sister-mother? There is absolutely no possibility of procreation, can there possibly be any reason to outlaw these relations? Much less to outlaw these marriages?
December 12, 2010, 12:52 pmTurtle Noneck says:
Once incest is legalized, what is the rational basis for not recognizing incestuous marriages?
Once incestuous marriages are recognized, what basis could there be for banning polygamy?
December 12, 2010, 12:58 pmWarren Crocker Herrick says:
Leave “just” out of the question “Is it just because it’s immoral?” The Constitution is based, and indeed our country is founded, on concepts of morality.
December 12, 2010, 12:59 pmDarleen says:
Funny thing, it wasn’t that long ago when those individuals were warning of a “slippery slope” in regards to the logically-flawed arguments offered in support of same-sex marriage (ie no adult sex activity is “wrong” as long as it’s “consensual”) would eventually lead to demands for tolerance of polygamy, polyamory and incestuous relationships, were hooted down as irrational due to unrecognized homophobia.
Ahem.
December 12, 2010, 1:00 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Why? Who says? Who made this the objective moral standard?
This sort of implies that polygamy is worse than incest, i.e. further down the slippery slope. That seems backwards.
December 12, 2010, 1:01 pmOneEyedMan says:
If it is just ick-factor, I would think the laws would include adult adoptive relatives as well, and my understanding from the Woody Allen story is that they do not.
I recall a story of a MD woman who was charged with reckless endangerment for doing cocaine while pregnant. One could imagine similar charges brought against incestuous parents. I agree that fairness would dictate that the state should also pursue parents with high risk of passing severe genetic diseases on that insist on reproducing. We might rather have none of these things happen than all of them.
December 12, 2010, 1:02 pmTurtle Noneck says:
It’s quite likely that one’s attitude to these questions depends largely on whether or not someone is a parent. Views like the one above probably belong to a non-parent who is not aware of the vulnerability of a child and how it could be exploited by a depraved parent.
December 12, 2010, 1:04 pmCurle says:
It is ok to criminalize it because it is ok to allow society to retain their own collective ideas regarding nature and crimes against nature, e.g., incest. Does calling it a crime against nature beg the question; back to the I know it when I see it debate? Maybe, except we are allowing the public, through republican decision making processes, to incorporate their broader philosophical observations into the tangible form of lawmaking. It might be preferable in most cases to separate macro-philosophy from law, but republican forms of government exist, in part, to determine these large questions. If the public chooses to look at the natural world and to find some act hostile to the harmonious operation of that world, they should be entitled to legislate accordingly. Label the act however one wishes, morality, discrimination, progress, good government, depending on whether you find the act endearing or pernicious.
December 12, 2010, 1:04 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
December 12, 2010, 1:04 pmThe Swiss says:
Homosexuals are icky to a lot of people, but under equal-protection like principles, statutes affecting homosexuals sometimes get rational basis “with bite” review. Incest lovers get vanilla rational basis review, which means the Court won’t trawl through the annals of recorded history to find protections for them in ‘substantive due process’. I’d venture that, given the political inclination, protection for the incestuous could be found in history; SDP is that amorphous. “From the story of Lott and his daughters, to modern movies such as Old Boy, why even scientists now agree…”
Stare decisis is only important when it serves the goals of the Court. This undermines predictability and coherence. Perhaps if there is a new constitutional amendment, it should mandate methodological stare decisis. A start would be stare decisis about stare decisis. Either the Casey or Citizen’s United formulations would do fine–the important thing is coherence.
December 12, 2010, 1:10 pmChrisZ says:
So what’s the rule in the father-adult daughter case? Does the father go to jail but the daughter doesn’t? That article seemed to suggest that just the father was being charged. Why’s that? On the other hand, what’s the rule with adult brother-sister? Do they both go to jail? Who’s the victim?
December 12, 2010, 1:12 pmCornellian says:
(1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)?
Yes, it should be illegal and for precisely that reason. It’s all well and good to say the child can consent once he/she is 18, but if you’ve had the child from birth, the child’s consent at the age of 18 will be meaningless.
(2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre–Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing incest?
See #1 above, a circumstance not applicable to relationships between two unrelated adults, whether opposite sex or same sex.
(3) If adult incest is indeed criminalized, what should the penalties be (assuming lack of further aggravating circumstances, such as force, strong evidence of grooming for future adult incest during childhood, and so on)?
I have no idea.
(4) Should all this apply to adult brother-sister incest, or are the arguments chiefly limited to what one sees as the likely special emotional control that parents might have over children?
All the above applies to sibling incest, but for #3, obviously the more culpable party might be more difficult to discern than in the case of adult-child incest.
December 12, 2010, 1:18 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
If you parse the article closely, with terminology like sick and twisted being used throughout without any sort of editorial set aside, I’d say that the NY Daily News already thinks he’s guilty as charged. Additionally, notice that they do set aside any mentions of innocent before proven guilty as quotes by other sources.
December 12, 2010, 1:26 pmMario says:
Morality, yeah. Although I think you find a problematic, unsteady joint in the framework, I think criminal laws in part teach morality.
I’m pretty libertarian as they go. To escalate with another hypo, I don’t think it should be lawful for a couple to purchase a puppy, and then as part of their consensual sexual activity, to sodomize that puppy with a brutal device until the puppy dies, simply because that’s what gets the couple’s rocks off. Yet I cannot think of any reason other than morality for such a prohibition. By the same theory, I think it is reasonable for society to make incest illegal. And I know this is not a tidy justification–indeed it could swallow all kinds of conduct and freedoms.
I agree that this is a problematic, unsteady framework–especially since western society’s characterization of incest has changed over time. You hit that limitation of legal principles to work well consistently.
December 12, 2010, 1:26 pmbearing says:
I am inclined to say that the most compelling rational reason to ban parent-child incest is that it removes what would otherwise be a legal incentive for a parent to groom an underage child for future sexual partnership.
December 12, 2010, 1:28 pmTurtle Noneck says:
There’s a tendency nowadays to regard legality and morality as equivalent ie. if someone didn’t violate the law, then he didn’t do anything that’s really wrong.
So if incest were legalized, it’s easy to imagine how Epstein would continue his academic activities at Columbia, blogging for HuffPo, appearing on panels, continue to condemn Republicans for ”taking hypocrisy in their personal lives to new levels of self-indulgent weirdness.”. All the while shrugging off complaints about his alternative lifestyle choices …
December 12, 2010, 1:29 pmTed Frank says:
In a Wisconsin case where the Lawrence argument was unsuccessfully raised in the Seventh Circuit, both the brother and sister were convicted, and they lost parental rights to their three children.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8316983252570269955
December 12, 2010, 1:36 pmMDT says:
I am kind of curious what the relevant statute says, and why, of two adults both committing incest, only one should be charged.
Re EV’s (4), the real case ought to be adult brother-brother or sister-sister incest, so that the possibility of children of close kin is not in there. Do you outlaw that, or do you not? If you do, on what grounds, and how easily is it for you to disaggregate them from “Eww!”?
December 12, 2010, 1:39 pmJon Rowe says:
I’m interested in the “consent” issue re sex between parent/child where the child is over 18 or even over 21 (as seems to be the case here).
I’d like the social conservatives here to, for a moment, set aside their desire to connect such incest to the slippery slope of homosexuality and think clearly on this issue: Do you think a parent-child relationship, with its complex psychological component, can ever be “consensual” with regards to sex?
I’ve checked a number of threads debating this issue and, it seems to me, it’s not just the social liberals who are answering this question negatively.
If you did answer the question affirmatively, I would ask, “is all you have ‘the Bible prohibits incest just like it prohibits homosexuality?’” You can’t do any better than that? You don’t recognize the potential for abuse of minor children OR, the potential to destabilize an intact family in a way in which homosexuality does not?
December 12, 2010, 1:42 pmrb1971 says:
The government should have no business criminalizing consenting sex between adults, regardless of the perceived morality or lack thereof. (This carries all the assumptions built into part 3 of Eugene’s interesting question – that there was no force or other coercion or “grooming” during childhood). I don’t see a good argument based on birth defects for the reasons the question points out, and in this case I view the personal liberty issues as more important than the idea that there would be societal normalization of these relationships (which I in any event view as extremely unlikely).
If you were going to argue that incest with large age differences should be illegal (i.e., parent child, aunt nephew, etc.), then presumably there might be a different standard or penalties for at least similarly-aged individuals (e.g., cousins [who I know were excluded from the question but I'm from the south]) and importantly where both parties were either unaware of the relationship or, perhaps, there was a long period of no contact.
Epstein would presumably have issues under the coercion exception in any event.
None of this means I find incest other than incredibly icky, but those are my personal views. (Heck, I was just discussing with friends last night that I didn’t understand the market for porn starring twin sisters.)
(As an aside, incestuous marriage restrictions could potentially survive a rational basis test using the birth defect argument, which seems right to me. They might even survive an intermediate level of scrutiny but likely not strict scrutiny – although I’m at a loss to see how incest advocates if there are such a thing could successfully argue for any type of heightened scrutiny.)
December 12, 2010, 1:44 pmJon Rowe says:
“From the story of Lott and his daughters,…”
Not just Lott and his daughters but also if one believes in Young Earth Creation, where did Cain and Abel’s wives come from?
You can just as easily connect biblical morality to a right to incest as you can homosexuality.
December 12, 2010, 1:45 pmEcho says:
One practical reason for banning incest, is that doing so tends to make more young women available in the marriage and reproductive market. Typically though not always, an incest situation involves and older male relative and younger females. But reverse the genders and the rationale remains. Incest is similar to polygamy in this respect.
As for your skepticism about the concern over birth defects and incest, that is an interesting view, but the comparison to sex by carriers of genes of hereditary diseases is one only a law professor could love. The technology to detect such diseases is quite new by comparison to centuries of human experience that informs the criminal law. And there is sufficient information about the effects of incest on birth defects (see here for a horrific example) to give us caution. As noted in wikipedia: “A report by the Dubai-based Centre for Arab Genomic Studies (CAGS) in September 2009 found that Arabs have one of the world’s highest rates of genetic disorders, nearly two-thirds of which are linked to consanguinity. Research from CAGS and others suggests consanguinity is declining in Lebanon and Egypt and among Palestinians, but is increasing in Morocco, Mauritania and Sudan.”
We also know that Pakistani immigrants in Britain account for a staggeringly disproportionate share of British birth defects. So, while it’s one thing to say that a large population like ours with little inbreeding sees that occasional cases of inbreeding don’t carry statistically high risks, this isn’t a reason to withdraw the ban, or to doubt its soundness: there is evidence from highly inbred populations that it dramatically increases risks of birth defect.
December 12, 2010, 1:46 pmShelbyC says:
Wrt rational basis, the potential for funny offspring means that there is a better case than for outlawing homosexual activity, but I still don’t think such behavior should be criminalized.
December 12, 2010, 1:46 pmJon Rowe says:
I don’t see why you even need to raise the same sex issue? As I understand genetics, if any ordinary bro-sis have a child, the chances are only slightly raised of genetic problems with the offspring. Though the slippery slope is applicable. When such incestuous breeding becomes SYSTEMATIC within families, then the chances of genetic defects raise to levels of more serious concern.
But even still, we don’t see much of an ethical issue with two people with dominant genes for horrible cancers deciding to procreate such that we illegalize such unions. We permit two down-syndrome folks to marry and procreate or two “little people.” This is just as serious, from the genetic perspective, as permitting incestuous offspring.
December 12, 2010, 1:50 pmBT says:
Years ago I went out with a woman who, as she put it, underwent “incest counseling” due to the relationship with her father. I did not pry for details. All I do know is she was very pretty, very bright and very screwed up. She had a hard time trusting men–not unreasonable given her background. My guess would be that a fair amount of her problems had to do with her relationship with her father. What I am trying to say is that the potential for psychological and emotional damage is very real and one that goes well beyond an academic or sterile view of incest as has been discussed here.
December 12, 2010, 1:52 pmBryan Willman says:
Why it arose historically? Probably because a pre-industrial society wants everybody paired up in non-incest heterosexual child rearing famalies. Not just “don’t do incest” and/or “don’t be homosexual” but also “YOU WILL BE MARRIED” and “YOU WILL HAVE CHILDREN” as very strong norms. This scheme outperformed other schemes, and hence is the strongest surviving scheme. (Different demands from the world change what society needs from its members, but low birthrates in places like Japan are causing a lot of grief.)
Prohibition on incest as a way to avoid genetic errors may have been an argument, but forcing people to marry into “more distant” groups and thus build up networks of bonds may have been more important. (Remember that marriage has always been as much about politics and the linking of famalies as about the linking of people.)
What does that say about what the law should be today? I don’t know. If find the “dad/daughter” or “uncle/niece” relationship much too bound up to be really concensual argument to be pretty persuasive. (That is, in reality it would always be a kind of abusive relationship and should be prohibited on that ground. That makes it profoundly different from consensual homosexual relationships.)
December 12, 2010, 1:55 pmJon Rowe says:
My take is:
1. First, there is good reason (what I outlined above) to distinguish between, among other things, homosexual sex and incest. Therefore, whatever leniency we may decide to grant to those who practice incest has NOTHING to do with gay rights.
2. As it were, incestuous marriages do not need to be recognized and degree of consanguinity with regards to one’s choice of sexual partners in no way relates to “sexual orientation” anti-discrimination codes.
3. Yet, I don’t support arresting and throwing in jail, ruining the lives of folks like Prof. Epstein who engage in consensual adult incest. He clearly has a problem here. And the criminal aspect of this just compounds the problem. When Prof. Epstein commits suicide you tell me that the criminal element here is more helpful than not.
December 12, 2010, 1:56 pmKilpatrick says:
It is a strange exercise to apply reason to a the issue of sex in a country where almost all morality–that not based on drug use–is based on the idea that sex is dirty and sinful.
But here’s a try:
1. Many children are reared by adults they are not related to, so it’s a fact that incest between them does not carry the stigma of genetic aberrations. Nor would incest between such a child and the “absent” biological parent raise questions of “grooming for incest.”
2. Besides producing idiots and European royalty, incest promotes positive qualities. Take a look at dogs, horses, pidgeons and Austrian musicians.
3. Incest between brother and sister, one of whom is sterile, avoids both objections of idiot offspring and grooming for sex.
4. With regard to the objection of idiot offspring, homosexual sex between close relatives would be preferable.
December 12, 2010, 1:56 pmJPG says:
Darleen, I have big problems with your argument. First, the debate over same sex marriage (SSM) doesn’t evolve at all around the morality behind consensual sex. The issues raised by Eugene in this thread have little to do with marriage, if anything at all, since marriage is not a necessary condition for people to engage into sexual relationships. Second, discussions over consensual incestual relationships were well and alive way before SSM became a hot topic in society at large. Your assertion (opening the door to SSM would pave the way to the legalisation of incest and polygamy) appears to be wrong in that perspective. I see no trend going that way in countries where pro-SSM legislations have been adopted, nor do I sense a strong lobby cheering in favor of incest in the US, let alone polygamy.
December 12, 2010, 1:57 pmprogressoverpeace says:
of course there is the possibility, and it is not insignificant.
Take the sex out of it: Do you think a parent could ever be the employee of his/her child?
Often not, due to the natural power-relationships in te family, but there are many, many parents who work for their children and follow their children’s orders the same way other employees do.
For me, the argument against incest is that we, in OUR culture, have decided that we find it utterly repulsive and we don’t want to live in a society where it is an accepted part of the landscape. That’s good enough.
December 12, 2010, 1:58 pmKatahdin says:
Many serious genetic diseases (Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis) present a roughly 1 in 4 risk in a marriage between carriers. Is the risk between family members that high? Can a law banning playing Russian Roulette with exactly one chamber loaded, but allowing it with two or more chambers loaded, pass the rational basis test? (not an attempt at snark, IANAL and realize ‘rational basis’ is a term of art not always related to the normal meaning)
How about unrelated to sex? Can adult family members void contracts about financial matters because of implied coercion?
December 12, 2010, 1:59 pmChrisZ says:
Well I guess that clarifies for the Wisconsin law, although it looks like the state may have been using incest as an excuse to take the kids away because they thought they were shitty parents (had abandoned one of their children).
December 12, 2010, 2:00 pmAnton says:
Aren’t there biological-health-genetic issues associated with the offspring of incestuous relationships?
December 12, 2010, 2:03 pmrb1971 says:
Maybe, although the intrusiveness of forcing genetic testing on everyone and the privacy issues with the government looking at medical records make the case in my mind a lot more dubious.
December 12, 2010, 2:04 pmJon Rowe says:
If you think of “race” as consanguinity (which from a biological perspective, it is; those from other “races” are less closely related) the prohibition on miscegenation was to keep folks from marrying others too distantly related.
Miscegenation and incest are connected in the sense that the prohibitions relate to NOT wanting the couples TO procreate. Whereas with homosexuals the prohibition is because the couples CANNOT procreate.
Miscegenation is to incest as pedophilia is to (what is the term for an adult desiring to have sex with someone beyond their fertile years?).
Too closely related/too distantly related to too young a sexual partner/too old a sexual partner.
December 12, 2010, 2:05 pmShelbyC says:
Consensual in the sense that each party wishes to have sex with the other party? Hard to imagine, but possible. Of course, any broader, more formulistic definition of consent is simply an excuse to deprive people of control over their bodies.
December 12, 2010, 2:07 pmA Non-E Mous says:
I think “legislations” is a key point though. That is a real issue with finding a Constitutional right to SSM. If a state decides, as a matter of legislation, to allow SSM, it preserves that state’s ability to forbid other types of marriage which it might disfavor (e.g. incestuous marriage). However, if you find SSM must be allowed on Due Process or Equal Protection grounds, there’s a strong logical link to extend it to incest and polygamy. Jon Rowe says he’s found a way to distinguish it, but I can’t seem to see where he’s said that. The “prevent grooming” theory would work on parent-child, but probably not for any other relationship (even grandparent-grandchild).
December 12, 2010, 2:08 pmJon Rowe says:
As far as I am aware, there is no special rule preventing family members from entering into contracts, probably because a whole legal artifice of transfer and sharing of wealth has developed that needs this to be the case.
However, you should be able to understand the psychological dynamic when we think of why for instance it’s a good idea NOT to “do business” with family members.
I won’t look for it (you can find it on google) but the Christian financial counselor Dave Ramsey in a recent column noted it’s probably better to get a loan at a higher rate of interest from a bank than one at a lower rate of interest from a family member (especially a parent!).
Your banker/creditor isn’t going to be at your Thanksgiving Party scrutinizing your every buy when you owe them money. Likewise if your parent is an attorney, and you get yourself in a shit of trouble, it would be better to have SOMEONE ELSE represent you.
It’s THOSE psychological dynamics that make such kind of incest if not utterly wrong, but a horrible idea (and entirely distinguished from homosexuality).
December 12, 2010, 2:11 pmprogressoverpeace says:
Exactly. It’s the disingenuous nature of the “Equal Protection” argument for SSM that destabilizes the whole system by voiding it of all meaning.
December 12, 2010, 2:13 pmJon Rowe says:
You might be right. Consider though, the concept of undue influence in contract and trust and estate law. It’s a common law negation of the genuineness of consent. What if a “controlling” parent demands sex from their young but adult child?
I don’t even doubt (as I’ve heard some) that a young adult daughter could be the one who initiates and seduces her father. However, there are psychological dynamics involved that make such a relationship “Sui Generis,” that is not at all analogous to other things.
December 12, 2010, 2:15 pmCurle says:
Notions of morality underpin many of our laws not the least of which being our civil rights laws. Are there those on this page who oppose Rand Paul’s speculations regarding public accomodations and personal liberty yet who oppose restrictions on personal liberty imposed in pursuit of sexual morality? If so, is that simply because you believe the one, the exercise of personal liberty in operating a public establishment, is of lesser significance than the exercise of personal liberty in the field of sexual activity? Maybe the personal liberty absolutists on this issue were also absolutists on the other, I don’t know. But, how fundamental is the right to have consensual sex with whomever one wishes as long as they aren’t children? I don’t think we can suppose that restricting sex between certain actors necessitates a conclusion that one or the other actor will not have the opportunity for sex of some kind.
December 12, 2010, 2:17 pmJon Rowe says:
I noted this above but it bears repeating. Yes, parents and children can enter into employment contracts. There is a difference between employer/employee and sex. Though the same generic danger exists. In order to have Dad or Mom as a “boss” (I’m not saying as a 16 yr old first job, when you are at a young age still under your parents legal control, but as a matter of long term adult employment) you better have a really good, really healthy relationship. All sorts of problems between parents and adult children can be compounded by this kind of employment relationship.
And having your son or daughter your boss? How many parents here would prefer this?
But I also realize these things — “family businesses” — are necessary in terms of keeping wealth “in the family” AND setting the children of adults on a trajectory to make a good living. I know of some children who have inherited “family business” who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to (probably) make a good living did they not.
That’s something we don’t talk about much in this society, but inheriting responsibilities from our parents (which may in turn come with great benefits like inheriting a family business that leaves one well off) comes with great potential psychological consequences.
I’m a libertarian and I tend to have a hand off nature with regards to contracts. And as noted, I don’t support govt. arresting and ruining the lives of adults who do this.
I just want to show — and I think I have — this distinguishes from homosexuality because it’s the case that social conservatives want to use this as a hammer against gay rights.
I would ask you to step back and genuinely consider why incest is wrong or a really bad idea and ask whether it has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality?
I say it doesn’t.
December 12, 2010, 2:24 pmJPG says:
Regarding Due Process or Equal Protection grounds as a way to link SSM to polygamy and/or incest, experience abroad still can be looked at for comparison. Canada comes to my mind as one of them, whereas the Supreme Court validated SSM under the Charter of Rights provisions, while identical claims in favor of polygamy have all been rejected on constitutional grounds.
I fail to see the logic in your argument on the “prevent grooming” theory. Unless you assume that the parent-child relationship is the only family tie involving strong authority and dependency boundaries, the capacity of one child to give consent to a sexual relationship could be challenged in most family ties I can think of, including grand-parents and siblings in most cases.
December 12, 2010, 2:25 pmprogressoverpeace says:
What about the half-brother and half-sister from donated sperm who meet and form a relationship and only then find out that it is incestuous? This is becoming more and more of a possibility these days, and not an entirely inconsequential one. The Equal Protection SSM arguments would say that they certainly can’t be denied the expression of their natural, and strong, impulses.
What about brothers and sisters who were adopted by different families and remeet later, forming a relationship …?
December 12, 2010, 2:26 pmMalvolio says:
That case involved the adopted daughter of a girlfriend. Icky, but not incest.
That case was tried before Lawrence was decided and the appellate court ruled Lawrence wasn’t retroactive.
December 12, 2010, 2:26 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that there is something to this. I think that one of the primary goals of good fathering of daughters is to teach them that they are loved by a man for themselves, and not sexually. This appears to be the best way to keep them from selling their sexuality for attention from guys.
But I would suggest that the arguments involving cross-racial marriage are not really the same. There are millions of people in this country with Black ancestors, and so, except for a small number of dangerous genes (I am thinking of sickle cell anemia), the chances are not that high for birth defects. Remember, humans seem most attracted to second and third cousins, and that closeness doesn’t seem to be all that dangerous. Also, you don’t have the problem with the parental/child dynamic that you do with incest.
December 12, 2010, 2:33 pmwhit says:
incest is illegal for the same reason that fellating a dog is illegal (activity that clearly is not “cruel” nor does it harm the dog in any way. the dog ENJOYS it)… because it’s immoral.
anybody who says “you can’t legislate morality” never heard of incest or bestiality laws.
lawrence invented a right that doesn’t exist in the constitution (shocking, i know), and the only LOGICAL consequence is that laws against incest should also be unconstitutional – especially when it comes to same sex adult incest between brothers, for example.
i doubt that will happen since judges aren’t known for intellectual consistency.
December 12, 2010, 2:34 pmJon Rowe says:
Maybe the problem here isn’t with Same Sex relations but with SCOTUS recognizing GENDER as a protected class and including GENDER in the original Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Sexual orientation, like “pregnancy” (another protected class) is a variant of gender discrimination. “Wrong” gender distinguishes from “wrong” degree of consanguinity. As noted above, if one wants to connect sexual orientation to incest, one could just as logically connect miscegenation to incest on the basis of govt’s rightful power to regulate to “proper” degree of consanguinity between sexual partners.
December 12, 2010, 2:34 pmShelbyC says:
Even if it wasn’t retroactive, it should still apply to cases that aren’t final when it was decided, right?
December 12, 2010, 2:35 pmChris Travers says:
But that would only affect parent/child incest, right? Uncle/niece incest, grandparent/grandchild incest, etc. would all be ok after the age of consent, by that logic, right?
December 12, 2010, 2:38 pmJon Rowe says:
To the contrary, I’ve already demonstrated why incest and homosexual relations distinguish.
“Legislating morality” is the same reason given to outlaw interracial relations. If you can distinguish between miscegenation and homosexuality, you can distinguish between homosexuality and those other things.
December 12, 2010, 2:39 pmChris Travers says:
Depends on the state. In some states, incest extends to relatives by marriage.
December 12, 2010, 2:40 pmJon Rowe says:
That’s fair enough. But
1. These are also reasons to distinguish incest from homosexuality; and
December 12, 2010, 2:42 pm2. There are still connections that CAN be made between incest and misceg. (i.e., it’s immoral when the couple is either too distantly or too closely related).
3. Where did you get the “humans seem most attracted to second and third cousins” from?
daftpunkydavid says:
i thought there was a difference in the eyes of the laws of our nation between conduct and status. i don’t believe there is a class of incestuous people out there; there are people who do have incestuous relationships, as a matter of conduct. they can be gay, straight, or every shade on the kinsey scale. on the other hand, gay people are a class/status… so there… my two cents…
December 12, 2010, 2:52 pmbesides, i don’t know why the focus on gays to justify incest; your bible or your torah or your coran talks many, many times about incest, and it’s perfectly fine; if your moral meter no longer wants to support it, then go ahead and repudiate it, without having to bring in “the gays”. thank you.
progressoverpeace says:
Jon, you make very good points, but in this one you are only looking at the genetic side and that is not the totality of the situation. Incest, unlike miscegenation, involves the essential family structure, giving real meaning to the roles “brother”, “sister”, etc. What allowing incest does is utterly destroy those meanings, hence the jokes, “Here’s my father/brother/great uncle Ted …” Miscegenation had no such possible effect.
December 12, 2010, 2:56 pmShelbyC says:
Gotcha, reading further, the case was on habeas, not direct review.
December 12, 2010, 2:57 pmJon Rowe says:
Progressoverpeace: Sure I think you are right; I would just note that the reasons you give entirely distinguish what’s wrong with incest from homosexuality.
December 12, 2010, 2:58 pmdaftpunkydavid says:
may i just add that, as a phd candidate in the biological sciences, to see this thread replete with completely erroneous comments on, for example, sickle cell anemia, or race in general, is really heartbreaking, especially if one is wont to believe, as am i, that the readership of this blog is by people with at least some education. i wonder what most other people think; this is truly sad.
December 12, 2010, 3:00 pmKen Arromdee says:
That’s pretty much it. In our society we’re expected to, and do, have certain relationships with our family members. Sexual relationships interfere with those. Parent/child cases are particularly bad because due to the parent/child relationship, the parent controls the child’s life and can groom the child for a later incestuous relationship. Incest is the ultimate conflict of interest.
I might be willing to make exceptions for the situation where adults don’t know that they are related, and discover that they’re related only after the sexual relationship is established enough that breaking it and punishing it is more disruptive than keeping it and ruining the family ties. I’d also make an exception for the case where the people become related later in life by factors beyond their control (two people whose parents are dating suddenly become stepsiblings as adults when the parents marry–a relationship between them is currently legal and should stay legal).
Needless to say, birth defects (or even blood relationships at all) have nothing to do with this. I’d probably make the penalties a lot more severe for parent/child because the conflict of interest is far greater.
I don’t buy the idea that we should make the penalties lighter for lack of grooming. Grooming, except in extreme cases, is inherently hard to prove, and there are all sorts of subtle influences that don’t reach the level of outright grooming (like a parent showing favoritism to the child because we tend to be really nice to potential sexual partners). It’s the same reason that conflict of interest rules ban the appearance of impropriety rather than just banning impropriety.
December 12, 2010, 3:01 pmJohn David Galt says:
I’m with Jason on this one. Sex between consenting adults is no business of the state or any other third parties. (And this goes for marriage-like arrangements as well; if it “leads to” open, legal polygamy then it’s about time!)
I can see only two rational grounds for opposing any form of incest. One is the possibility of parents misusing their authority to take advantage of those under their care (and if the daughter were still a juvenile he should be prosecuted for that reason). The second is an increased chance of birth defects, but that risk (a) is small and (b) probably doesn’t apply here, since I doubt the two of them intended to have any children or would have allowed them to be born if an accident did happen — especially if amnio disclosed a defect.
It’s bad enough when the law prohibits adults from behaving in ways that put only their own health at risk. It’s worse (and in my view unconstitutional) when the law prohibits adults from behaving in certain ways only because some religions claim it will put at risk their chances of going to heaven. The only people who have business concerning themselves with that possibility are the adult individual, his priest of choice if any, and God if any.
December 12, 2010, 3:02 pmElliot says:
All these attempts to articulate defenses of either side of the sex/marriage issue fall on their face. They all come down to personal preference wrapped up in a zillion words. Decide what you want, then pretend objective criteria support it.
It’s possible we are capable of making the best decisions without having the capability to articulate exactly why. Anyone publish a white paper each time they make a decision for their kids? Anyone so delusional they think they could if they only put their stellar mind to it?
December 12, 2010, 3:09 pmprogressoverpeace says:
Sure, and I place them both in totally separate categories, myself, but the argument that SSM is an Equal Protection issue (or that all sexual acts between consenting adults are just their business) is purely individualistic and would apply with the same force to individuals in incestuous relationships (either to allow them or even grant them marriage priveleges). If the courts press on with accepting the Equal Protection arguments, then they are seriously destabilizing our system. All of this should have been left exactly where it belongs – at the state level.
December 12, 2010, 3:10 pmDarleen says:
But that wasn’t my assertion, JPG. I was speaking directly to the arguments of SSM advocates that it was the right of any adult to marry the person they love was logically flawed because the same basic argument could/can be applied with the same force of credibility on polyamory or incestuous relationships. Who are you to deny a mother and son (both adults) from marrying each other? And such arguments were hooted down as ridiculous hyperbole, “slippery slope”, etc. Yet here we are, where some commenters are seriously arguing that adult, consensual, incestuous relationships should never be the concern of anyone but the people involved.
Of course this doesn’t have anything to do directly with so-called “gay rights” — the vast majority of Americans do not want to criminalize same-sex behavior.
And contrary to the commenter above who engages in the hoary old chestnut that Judeo-Christian religion is based on “sex is dirty”, sexual behavior is just another aspect of all human behavior, subject to being channeled in directions that society as a whole (not at all synonomous with Government) has come to believe is the healthiest and wisest for the continuation of that society.
December 12, 2010, 3:19 pmJon Rowe says:
Not necessarily; if there is such a thing as a “slippery slope” it’s something Courts have the pragmatic choice to step down — or step up if they will — one rung at a time. In this case, it would be the GENDER RIGHTS decisions of the 1970s that gives sexual orientation some kind of heightened equal protection status The court could, if it wished, just stay there and not move beyond what it’s already done. It depends on the composition of the Court.
December 12, 2010, 3:23 pmJon Rowe says:
I don’t know why you tar same sex marriage with this. What about the biblical case in favor of incestuous marriage and polygamy? Were not Cain and Abel in biblically God approved same sex marriages? What of those godly polygamous characters in the Bible?
December 12, 2010, 3:25 pmDarleen says:
Of course you’re interested in a serious reply. Of course you are. That’s the ticket.
December 12, 2010, 3:30 pmprogressoverpeace says:
I found this argument very interesting, but, not being a lawyer, I need to go read some of these decisions to understand your argument better. Making half the voting population a protected class certainly contributed quite a bit of intellectual distortion.
December 12, 2010, 3:31 pmPatrick says:
The people did use their republican right by passing the 14th Amendment. We have to look at these things in light of the Constitution, which is the will of the people.
December 12, 2010, 3:32 pmptt says:
Those arguments existed before gay people came out of the closet.
As for the caricature of the arguments of SSM proponents you provide, gay people never meant any relationship between any two people. It has always been the opponents of gay people who gleefully slide down that slope to questions about incest and pedophilia. And let’s not forget marrying Buicks!
All gay people have wanted is to be able to do what straight people are allowed to do.
December 12, 2010, 3:36 pmChrisTS says:
To quote EV: it depends. After all, in some families an uncle or aunt might play a very important role in the child’s life; in other cases, not so much.
It seems to me that the key is the psychological relationship, which we can pretty much assume in the case or parents and children who – at least – are aware of one another’s existence. That relationship is key primarily because it brings consent into question, but also because of the depth of damage that can be done.
December 12, 2010, 3:46 pmChrisTS says:
Well said. So much of this nonsense turns on the assumption that being ‘gay/lesbian and wanting to marry the person you love’ is just like being whatever and ‘wanting to marry several people’ or ‘wanting to have sex with our kid.’
People are not ‘polygamous’ or ‘incestuous’ in the same sense that people are straight, gay, or bisexual.
December 12, 2010, 3:50 pmDan the Man says:
If you actually read the opinion of Texas v Lawrence, you will see that the opinion stated it agreed with Stevens views expressed in his Hardwick dissent i.e. “Justice Stevens
December 12, 2010, 3:57 pmDan the Man says:
If you actually read the opinion of Texas v Lawrence, you will see that the opinion stated it agreed with Stevens views expressed in his Hardwick dissent i.e. “Justice Stevens’ analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers”.
In his Bowers dissent, Stevens paraphrased the states point of view as “may the State save the statute by announcing that it will only enforce the law against homosexuals”? Accordingly, for Stevens (and, later, the court in Lawrence), this was a law that was directed at gay people and this discrimination against gays could not be justified. In particular, in Lawrence, the court wrote, “When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.”
So the mere fact that the law in Texas v Lawrence did not mention “gay” or “homosexual” by name could not save it from being a law which discriminates against gay people. In a different context, Scalia also said something similar but about Jews: “A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”
So the question for this incest law is: does the incest law prohibit conduct for a certain group of people while permitting the same conduct by others? On its face, it doesn’t do such a thing so I wouldn’t say Texas v Lawrence applies directly.
December 12, 2010, 3:59 pmLarryA says:
Actually they’re based and founded on the concept of individual rights.
Morality is the process of individually choosing the right path. The fundamental problem with legislating proper behavior is that once laws force everyone into the “right” path individuals no longer have any choice, and therefore cannot practice morality. Without possibility of sin, there can be no virtue.
December 12, 2010, 4:01 pmprogressoverpeace says:
US immigration priorities:
* First preference: Unmarried, adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. (Adult means 21 or older)
* Second Preference (2A): Spouses of green card holders, unmarried children (under 21) of permanent residents
* Second Preference (2B): Unmarried adult sons and daughters of permanent residents
* Third Preference: Married sons and daughters (any age) of U.S. citizens
* Fourth Preference: Brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens
So … Far far away, a mother and her son, call him Ralph, have an incestual relationship and produce a child, Teddy. Ralph later moves to the US and eventually becomes a citizen. He petitions to bring an unmarried, adult Teddy over.
Does Teddy fall into the first preference category as his adult son or the fourth category as his brother?
Obviously a contrived situation, but only the tip of the iceberg, I would say.
December 12, 2010, 4:03 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Why not? What’s the objective basis for the line you choose to draw? Why are lines you draw not bigoted, but lines others draw are bigoted?
December 12, 2010, 4:04 pmDarleen says:
gay people never meant any relationship between any two people
Then their arguments should have been about convincing their neighbors to change the scope of the institution of marriage (via legislation) rather than asserting a “civil right” to it via judicial fiat.
BTW, you can check any marriage statute on the books … none demand proof of sexual orientation. So it is not about gays having different rights than straights.
Again, this discussion about consensual incest isn’t about SSM but about the very real issues when “law” is embraced as the only guiding principle/ethic/morality.
December 12, 2010, 4:04 pmKatahdin says:
Well, have a ‘knowingly’ element of the crime, i.e. you have had the genetic testing done and decide to roll the dice anyway. After all, it’s not illegal to have sex with your sister if you don’t know she is your sister.
I’m not getting all pro-incest here, but I think we should be accurate about motives. As whit says, some laws are about ick, and we should be upfront about that. Putting up a smokescreen of rationality isn’t a good idea (what exactly is the public health reason men can mow the yard topless and (in at least many places) women can’t?).
December 12, 2010, 4:07 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
But that’s impossible, and no court or legislature can change reality.
December 12, 2010, 4:07 pmprogressoverpeace says:
Actually, by the numbers, it’s much more normal for a man to be straight and to seek multiple partners than for a man to be gay. We restrict this natural predilection of most straight men by restricting the individual certified relationships to one at a time. This restricts heterosexuals very much – evidenced by how many men break these restrictions (though we still deny these people certification of their natural, and clearly prevalent, impulses).
December 12, 2010, 4:10 pmDarleen says:
Actually they’re based and founded on the concept of individual rights.
But where do those rights come from? And if we pick these as rights over those as rights, haven’t we made a value decision?
Law is merely a subset of morality. It is a floor, a foundation, that says “sink below this and society will suspend your rights”.
Morality v Law is a false dichotomy.
December 12, 2010, 4:13 pmDoc Rampage says:
Your question makes some wrong assumptions. First, social conservatives do not oppose actions just because the Bible prohibits them. This is a misunderstanding peculiar to people who have rejected the traditional notions of objective morality and who think that all law is merely prescriptive. The view of (most) social conservatives it that morality exists separately from the Bible or any other written or cultural code and that the job of the Bible is not to prescribe what is right and wrong but merely to describe it. In other words, the Bible is taken –by people who believe it– as an authority describing an objective reality that predates the Bible.
If there were no Biblical commandment “thou shalt not covet” then coveting would still be wrong, but then there would be one less bit of evidence to help one answer difficult questions about what is right and what is wrong.
Your other misunderstanding is the assumption that in order to explain why something is immoral, one has to be able to point to some harm that would be done by engaging in it. Although social conservatives sometimes play this game in order to persuade rationally, ultimately this demand seems like extraordinary hubris. We simply do not know enough about ourselves to be able to predict these sorts of effects. Such should be obvious from the many diverse and contradictory opinions of those who consider themselves experts.
The social conservative position is that morality guides us to what is best even if we do not have the intelligence and capacity to be able to predict the outcomes. Our moral sense is there to guide us where our intelligence fails. Our social structures encode many generations of social experimentation, observation of outcomes, and adjustments to improve outcomes. The hubris of the moderns is to think that they are so intelligent and wise that they can just do thought experiments and know what is best for everyone.
December 12, 2010, 4:16 pmJason says:
How condescending can you get? Not just toward me, but toward adult children. I actually offer the opposite point that the critic here isn’t a parent at all, else would know first hand the futility of controlling their older children (unless raised in an emotional abusive way.)
For example, my oldest is 22 and two years ago had a child with her boyfriend, who she since married. This wasn’t an accident, but a planned pregnancy. Did I disapprove? Yes, but SHE WAS AN ADULT. I’m so tired of this idiotic notion that adults really aren’t adults and free will really isn’t free will unless it’s something the critic approves of.
(Thus, everyone engaged in disagreeable activity is a victim.)
December 12, 2010, 4:19 pmMDT says:
daftpunkydavid,
i thought there was a difference in the eyes of the laws of our nation between conduct and status. i don’t believe there is a class of incestuous people out there; there are people who do have incestuous relationships, as a matter of conduct. they can be gay, straight, or every shade on the kinsey scale. on the other hand, gay people are a class/status… so there… my two cents…
But no one is arguing that it is illegal for gay people to have sex with one another, while apparently it is illegal for Prof. Epstein to have sex with the partner of his choice (though not, mysteriously, for the partner of his choice to have sex with Prof. Epstein). If Prof. Epstein and his daughter wanted to marry one another, you’d have a controversy roughly equivalent to the controversy over gay marriage. As it stands, you do not.
December 12, 2010, 4:19 pmAnon21 says:
To be clear, for retroactivity pedants: this was AEDPA, not Teague. I think the first Teague exception would clearly apply, if Congress hadn’t had its say.
December 12, 2010, 4:27 pmMDT says:
ChrisTS,
So much of this nonsense turns on the assumption that being ‘gay/lesbian and wanting to marry the person you love’ is just like being whatever and ‘wanting to marry several people’ or ‘wanting to have sex with our kid.’
The trouble is that it’s been framed so long — understandably, and with great pathos — as “being able to marry the person you love.” Now maybe you’re a white woman and “the person you love” is your black boyfriend; maybe you’re a white woman and “the person you love” is your white girlfriend. And maybe you’re a white woman and “the person you love” is your younger sister; and maybe you’re a white woman and “the person you love” has two wives already, but you’re OK with that.
No one has explained to my satisfaction what divides the first two cases from the second two apart from “Ew, gross!”
December 12, 2010, 4:31 pmdaftpunkydavid says:
mdt,
people are arguing, it seems, that if bans on sodomy (see lawrence) are unconstitutional, than what’s constitutional about bans on incestuous sex between two adults. i am drawing a distinction here because i don’t think the comparison is valid; and based on what i wrote, you can see why i have that view. i did not talk about marriage at all. so i don’t see the point of your criticism.
December 12, 2010, 4:35 pmChrisTS says:
Men may like mutliple sex partners; that is not the same as wanting to marry several people.
December 12, 2010, 4:36 pmWayne Jarvis says:
The biological justifications are BS. In my old neighborhood in DC where women wouldn’t begin to have children until they were in their 40s there was a pronounced number of Downs children. But as a society we wouldn’t dream of outlawing 40-year-old women from becoming mothers. Given that, and given that incest is illegal even for infertile couples, I think we can put to rest the notion that the law is aimed to protect against birth defects.
It’s all about the ick-factor. Yes, it’s about morality, too, but as a society we like to pick and choose when to enforce moral rules and when not to enforce moral rules. Most people consider adultery immoral, but it is no longer a crime in all but a few states. You might even make the case that adultery is more immoral than consensual adult incest, because depending on the arrangement, adultery can have a “victim.” But adultery is much less icky tha consensual adult incest, and that is what it is about.
December 12, 2010, 4:41 pmmikeC says:
the contradiction, imo from the judeo-christian moralist’s perspective, is that we are all descended from one set of parents (Adam and Eve) and are therefore one big incestuous bunch…
December 12, 2010, 4:41 pmprogressoverpeace says:
How do you know? I don’t see any reason to think that a man’s natural drive to have multiple available partners (which is a biologically consistent stance) is any less legitimate than a gay man’s natural drive (I’ll give you that for the argument) to have a male partner (though gay men, as with straight men, likely seek multiple available partners, too).
December 12, 2010, 4:41 pmGaryC says:
With respect to dogs and horses, there is a very strong element of “culling”, that is, eliminating animals that show negative qualities from the breeding stock. For pigeons there is strong natural selection from hawks, cats, and other predators.
December 12, 2010, 4:42 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
Some men like other men. That is not the same as calling those relationships “marriage”.
December 12, 2010, 4:51 pmChrisTS says:
@Michelle:
I understand your point. I assume the ‘person I love’ meme is both a direct expression of personal feeling and a response to the hyper-sexualization of same sex relationships by those who find them distasteful.
I do not think that ‘I love my Mom as a sex partner’ is comparable to “I love this other person of the same sex as a sex partner.’ For me, the distinction is in the potential harmfulness of the relationship to the persons in it (primarily the child). The sexualizing of the parent-child relationship poses real dangers, in my view.
Perhaps ‘I love all 4 of these people’ is closer to ‘I love my same sex partner.’ I admit to still having doubts about the psychological healthiness of such relationships, but I gather some people bring it off. So, I think they should be able to marry.
So, we have a number of distinct issues. I’m not sure how to distinguish among them with perfect clarity. I do think they need to be distinguished and not simply run together in a parade of slippery-slope horribles.
December 12, 2010, 4:53 pmChrisTS says:
No one said that ‘Q’s having sex with P’ means that ‘Q and P are married.’ Whether people are or are not married is a matter of law. Whether people are or are not having sex is a matter of fact.
Actually, I’m not sure what your point was.
December 12, 2010, 4:56 pmbblackmoor says:
Consensual, nonviolent adult activities which harm neither the person nor property of nonconsenting others should be legal.
Not that this matters in the USA. There are far too many people who think they have the right to make other people’s personal decisions.
December 12, 2010, 4:58 pmGaryC says:
I checked Wikipedia to see whether Bill Wyman ever became the step-grandfather of his second wife, Mandy Smith, but it looks like the engagement between his son and his mother-in-law never resulted in a marriage.
December 12, 2010, 4:58 pmGiles Robertson says:
The international competitive debating community has been aware of this issue for some time. After a number of debates about this question, the general consensus is that with a small number of conditions, the prohibition on incest is only justifiable on the grounds that “People find it icky”. The conditions are:
– consensual (for obvious reasons)
– homosexual (to prevent the possibility of inbred offspring)
– non-intergenerational (to prevent the severe distortion of familial power relations where your brother sleeps with your father &c)
But the ultimate conclusion is that, even without third party harms, the question is so devoid of practical impact as to be utterly uninteresting.
December 12, 2010, 4:58 pmChrisTS says:
@Progressoverpeace:
Perhaps some folks who want multiple sex partners will/do also want to marry multiple people. These are not the same desires. I think most of have wanted a person or two with whom we never would have sought marriage.
December 12, 2010, 4:59 pmprogressoverpeace says:
After all those debates they didn’t find the destabilizing effect on the family structure, in general, to be significant? The nuclear family is the core of our culture and allowing incest throws a fragmentation grenade right into the middle of our accepted family structure.
December 12, 2010, 5:03 pmwhit says:
you haven’t demonstrated it at all. tell me what reason apart from morality should result in same sex brothers of adult age being prohibited from having sex?
December 12, 2010, 5:03 pmChrisTS says:
of us
December 12, 2010, 5:03 pmDarleen says:
It’s all about the ick-factor.
I wonder about that phrase which has been used several times now. Is it supposed to mock those people who aren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate the subtle, nuanced and under-appreciated beauty of father/daughter sex?
There are actions/behaviors that should cause a visceral reaction. Just as the body uses pain to warn us of a [possible] physical breach, so should emotional recoil warn us of a [possible] breach of acceptable behavior.
The incest taboo is strong and one of the few unacceptable behaviors, rooted in the protection of children, that can still produce the “ick” factor. We would be a lesser society if we tried to “guilt” that way with some misguided appeal to sophistication via anti-religious bigotry.
December 12, 2010, 5:05 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
I don’t agree that it’s merely a matter of law.
It doesn’t logically follow (or legally follow) that if some number of people “bring off” some sort of relationship, that society must therefore call that relationship “marriage”.
December 12, 2010, 5:05 pmWayne Jarvis says:
I suspect all of us here find incest “icky.” That’s not the question. The question is whether ickiness is a legitimate basis for passing laws and, if broken, stripping citizens of their liberty.
The fact that people undertake such efforts to find some additional basis for anti-incest laws is a pretty strong indicator that most people do not think ickiness justifies throwing someone in prison.
December 12, 2010, 5:11 pmKatahdin says:
Do you think incest would be common if legal? If it would be uncommon even if legal, how is it going to have the wide ranging effect you postulate?
December 12, 2010, 5:13 pmKen Arromdee says:
Homosexual activity causes visceral disgust in many, probably most, people, too.
December 12, 2010, 5:16 pmptt says:
First of all, you started this side issue with :
The original argument gay people made about consensual sexual activity had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. We were fighting, at the time, to get people to stop arresting us.
If you would like to time-travel and offer some helpful suggestions on how to frame the argument for freedom (from prosecution) and freedom (to marry), be my guest.
December 12, 2010, 5:20 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
And?
December 12, 2010, 5:22 pmCornellian says:
Homosexual activity causes visceral disgust in many, probably most, people, too.
So did the idea of a black man with a white woman in 1950. So what?
December 12, 2010, 5:23 pmwhit says:
again, an even more obvious example is human-animal sex. use the example of fellating a dog. in my state, we had to pass a bestiality law because a judge correctly threw out a “cruelty to animals” charge based on this scenario because it was not cruel at all to the animal.
it doesn’t hurt the animal and it’s certainly chosen by the human. what reason OTHER than morality is there to criminalize this behavior?
there isn’t one.
this “we don’t legislate morality” is one of those canards that people say because they think it sounds intelligent.
the problem is – it’s false.
December 12, 2010, 5:24 pmDarleen says:
The original argument gay people made about consensual sexual activity had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Fine. Then it should have been dropped as an argument when radically changing the definition of marriage first started.
December 12, 2010, 5:28 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
So does the idea of a 40 year-old man and a 10 year-old. So what?
Do you have any evidence that inter-racial relations caused anyone “visceral disgust” in 1950, or ever?
December 12, 2010, 5:30 pmprogressoverpeace says:
I don’t know how common it would become, but I don’t think the risk/reward on allowing incest is good. Considering the fact that incest has never disappeared and has been part of some sub-cultures, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the incestuous attitude woudl percolate through society pretty quickly. Most would be vehemently opposed to it, but they would be confronted with it all over the media, in movies, shows with cool incestuous families, …
Those against incest would likely not be able to continue living in any sort of comfort in such a society. This nation would literally break, as I see it playing out. You cannot force something into people’s faces that is so repugnant and expect society to just chug along. There are very serious limits, and it’s not pretty when they are breached.
December 12, 2010, 5:31 pmCornellian says:
it doesn’t hurt the animal and it’s certainly chosen by the human. what reason OTHER than morality is there to criminalize this behavior?
Because the animal isn’t capable of consent, anymore than a child is capable of consent.
December 12, 2010, 5:31 pmByung Kyu Park says:
I don’t know about incest, but in the distant past, law against polygamy would have qualified as “discrimination against Mormons”. See what Utah had to do to join United States.
In the end, this is how I see it: most of laws we have regarding sexuality and family unit (as defined by marriage) are grounded only in history and tradition, with little connection to causal logic. Requiring that existing institutions on these matters be defended on some basis of compelling interest is … at best hypocritical (see: federal court challenges on California’s Prop. 8).
As far as the laws on morality go, why can’t we just resolve them peacefully and democratically, with no need for dictats from judges and some kind of power higher than people themselves?
December 12, 2010, 5:32 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
So is eating a hamburger and eating a child about the same thing then?
December 12, 2010, 5:34 pmptt says:
Almost all dogs seized in bestiality cases are put down. They are either terrified of humans (especially men) or have come to expect a relationship with humans of the type virtually no adoptor would consider.
December 12, 2010, 5:36 pmwhit says:
dogs don’t consent to be pets either.
we can do anything non-sexual to animals that doesn’t cause them undue pain.
we can give them silly haircuts, choose their diet, etc.
heck, in my state, we can take it into the backyard and shoot it in the head if we are bored with it. perfectly legal
we do NOT require consent for other behaviors regarding our treatment of animals, especially not for factory farming.
so again, give me a valid answer. not a bogus one.
December 12, 2010, 5:37 pmEric says:
Speaking of relationships and marriage, does anyone know of any case law with regard to transgenders? If a man has surgery to become a woman who then wants to marry a man would the court consider that same-sex marriage? With 1 in 1000 births being of indeterminate sex, it seems the issue might become more prevalent.
December 12, 2010, 5:39 pmptt says:
And well might have been dropped had the other side not shown such a stubborn insistence on talking about homosexuality as though it were on a moral par with pedophilia, incest, rape, etc., etc., etc.
Maybe you should do that time travelling, but go visit your antecedents, not mine.
December 12, 2010, 5:39 pmwhit says:
that’s BECAUSE bestiality is illegal.
dogs come to expect treatment of ANY sort to continue
by your logic, an owner shouldn’t feed their pet steak and treat it well lest the next owner not give the dog similar treatment.
dogs are… dogs. they desire sex. a woman (or guy) fellating a dog provides a service the dog DESIRES.
there is no reason to outlaw it apart from morality
December 12, 2010, 5:40 pmDarleen says:
most of laws we have regarding sexuality and family unit (as defined by marriage) are grounded only in history and tradition, with little connection to causal logic
Because, of course, modern contemporary society has all the answers; unlike thousands of years of trial and experimentation, success and failure at trying to arrive at an ideal people could aspire to.
I cringe at a society, so bedazzled by a culture of youth, it rejects everything every generation before it achieved or sought to achieve.
“Wisdom” is sooooo overrated!
good.lord.
December 12, 2010, 5:41 pmprogressoverpeace says:
Tell that to every poodle that’s humped your leg. They aren’t consenting … they’re driven!
December 12, 2010, 5:45 pmprogressoverpeace says:
BTW, Katahdin, I didn’t mean you, personally. I was just using the general case.
December 12, 2010, 5:47 pmGraham says:
Legislators: “Oh no, that’s a hard issue. Let’s just ban it.”
December 12, 2010, 5:47 pmJon Rowe says:
I am interested in a serious reply. Although I made an error in the response. I meant “[w]ere not Cain and Abel in biblically God approved incestuous marriages?”
December 12, 2010, 5:48 pmptt says:
Dogs are terrified of being brutally penetrated only because it’s illegal? Do they fear their bridge club will find out they have a record?
You seem to have grasped one consequence of bestiality in cases in which the the dog is not traumatized by pain and fear. You do not seem to understand that a dog who expects to be fellated by makes for a really, really annoying pet (at best) for future owners. Not to mention visitors to the house or even passersby. Most people won’t even put up with some leg humping.
December 12, 2010, 5:52 pmBen says:
It seems like a foregone conclusion that adult incest prohibitions will be struck down unless Lawrence is reversed.
Better questions are:
How long before the 99+ percent of us who don’t practice incest are forced to agree that incestuous relationships are exactly the same as a committed marriage?
How long before the first landlord is sued for not wanting to rent his spare room to a father and daughter claiming they’re married? He’s discriminating against them because of his incestuphobia.
How long before the same father/daughter couple is allowed to adopt another daughter?
When will we see civil rights laws changed (possibly because judges have ruled they must be changed) to specifically protect incest?
What’s next after incest? There’s always going to be something even more unusual that is practiced by an even smaller number of people further out on the fringes. We always have to affirmatively accommodate them, right? That’s the road we’re headed down.
Is there a viable civilization at the end of that road? Does anyone care whether there is?
December 12, 2010, 5:58 pmprogressoverpeace says:
How do you think dogs (or other animals) generally have sex in the wild? Dinner and a movie? “Consent” isn’t a big issue on dog-dog dates.
Liberal response: “It’s the power relation between the owner and the dog that makes it bad.”
BTW, I would gather that your position on fixing pets is that the owners and vets who do such should be somehow sanctioned, perhaps arrested on some charge? I mean, I think Fido would rather be buggered by anything than snipped, any day.
December 12, 2010, 6:00 pmEric says:
As far as marriage, there’s a reason why you get a marriage license from the state and cannot get legally married just by anyone who wants to call himself a preacher. It’s about property and the transfer of same. The state should grant the right to marry, i.e. contract to share/pass property to whomever wants to make that commitment. Churches can reserve to sanctify only those relationships they may consider moral. As noted in the Prop 8 hearings by the pro=prop 8 folks: it’s all about the definition of the word.
The reason why polygamy is different is because multiple partners would wreck havoc on property transfers. Even in church sanctified polygamists relationships, it was the “first” wife who had all the benefits of property transfer. Other wives were essentially disenfranchised.
The 19th Wife by Ann Eliza Young (free for download at http://www.ebershoff.com/pdfs/Wife_No_19_Ann_Eliza_Young.pdf) is instructional.
It should be noted that polygamy was fairly common in pre-Biblical times and is still practiced in some places in the United States (Colorado City, for example.)
December 12, 2010, 6:01 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
…heterosexuality.
Who decides which comparisons are OK, and which are not?
December 12, 2010, 6:03 pmDarleen says:
Shorter ptt: so, ok, sure we used logically flawed arguments that polygamists and others could drive a truck through — but you people made us do it!
[facepalm]
December 12, 2010, 6:04 pmptt says:
That doesn’t sound like something a dog owner would say.
In any case, I was just responding to whit’s assertion that there was no reason other than morality to ban bestiality. I’m just pointing out that at least some dogs suffer real harm because of it.
December 12, 2010, 6:08 pmprogressoverpeace says:
I think you make the mistake of trying to empathize with a dog.
More generally, cross-cultural empathy is bad enough. Breaching the species boundary makes it into more of a mockery than anything. People watch nature programs and cry for the poor seals who are biting chunks out of each other’s flesh, in order to get sex with some females (that seem to have no alternatives open to them). But that’s how seals live. Those bites hurt the human watching them more than the seal, who knows nothing else.
There is a huge problem in the West with runaway empathy and we see it in full relief with the “animal rights” proponents who want to treat animals as if they are people. The idea that a human raping a horse is doing any damage to the horse (which is what I’ve seen in the few cases around) is beyond laughable.
There’s that old joke about the mouse, the elephant and the pit. Just the punchline: Something falls on the elephant’s head, causing a little yelp, to which the mouse says, “That’s right. Take it all!”
December 12, 2010, 6:18 pmptt says:
The argument that homosexual relationships do not harm either of the consenting adults in them was not a “logically flawed” argument for decriminalization.
And if there is a polygamist truck on the roads it’s because folks like yourself can’t see the difference between gay people and polygamists. I can, just by counting.
December 12, 2010, 6:19 pmprogressoverpeace says:
But the only reason that TWO is a distinguished number in relationships is because there are TWO genders. Once you take gender away, the number TWO loses all significance.
December 12, 2010, 6:24 pmCody says:
I’d suggest that there isn’t a strong case for a blanket ban. Let’s consider various arguments:
(1) The weakest argument is the one against birth defects. The increase in risk is low, and we do not ban (or even stigmatize) relationships with much higher risks of birth defects. In addition, this argument applies primarily to actually conceiving incestuous offspring, rather than the relationship itself. At best it’s an argument for prohibiting relationships which could produce such offspring, but even then it doesn’t apply to relationships where one partner is infertile or sterilized, or to homosexual incestuous relationships. If rumour is accurate, the story which sparked this debate involved a man who had undergone a vasectomy. So…no risk of birth defects there.
(2) A stronger argument is the one about power relationships. It too has some flaws, and can be attacked from two main directions: That power relationships are everywhere, and that power relationships are often weak in incestuous relationships. As to the first: Pretty much every possible relationship has power imbalances; often extreme ones. Wealth, gender, social status, societal norms, age, connections, confidence… We ban sexual harassment, but society reckons that a consensual relationship between a…say…rich white male who owns a string of fast food franchises and a poor black female hired to mop the floors is just fine – and yet the power differential there is likely to be as severe as anything you’ll find outside of outright rape. (Or as Whoopi would put it, rape-rape.) And on the other side, many incestuous relationships between adults, such older-sister/younger-brother or mother/son, will have a relatively weak power imbalances. If we actually care about power imbalances making a mockery of our laws requiring consent, then we need to ban incredibly wide swathes of currently accepted behaviour. Hell, if you think power imbalances actually really matter, it’s not clear if sex can be anything OTHER than rape – which leads us to suggest that we probably don’t care about power imbalances, which in turn removes any justification for a blanket ban on incest.
In short, what we really dislike about incest is that it’s icky. We have a strong instinctive revulsion for it. Is that a good reason to criminalize it? Lawrence would seem to indicate “no”, and honestly, I agree. That same revulsion which makes us WANT to ban it will prevent the vast bulk of the potential harm. And while I don’t really have a problem with a ban, I do have a problem with the state breaking up a hypothetical healthy, loving, brother/sister relationship, putting them in prison, and putting their hypothetical healthy, well adjusted children into care. That seems like a lot of harm to cause for no real benefit.
(Also, I find people bringing up polygamy a bit surprising. Nobody is suggesting that it should be a criminal offence to have a threesome, or even a long-term romantic/sexual relationship with more than two people. The only question is whether people in such relationships should be allowed to marry. And on that note, I think people would be surprised at just how common such poly relationships are. Although still largely “underground”, the stigma is pretty much gone, and that’s the death knell for legal discrimination. Once SSM is finally implemented, there’s likely to be a lot of poly people saying “so, why not us?”. I certainly don’t have a good answer.)
December 12, 2010, 6:31 pmChrisTS says:
Jeesh. We’ve moved to sex with dogs?
I’m done.
December 12, 2010, 6:33 pmptt says:
The question, as I pointed out, is whether there is any argument against bestiality besides the belief that it is immoral. I have provided an example of at least occasional real harm. If the definition of “harm” in this silly sidetrack can’t include even being put down, then I’ll have better things to do.
And one last bit about dog consent. I have two female malamutes, one is 120 lbs., the other 85. The 85-lber is a flirt. She eggs on the boys, especially the intact ones. She jumps, she prances, she butts them with her butt. She nibbles at their necks. She leads them on. They respond. And it’s all fun and games, at least until one of them tries to assume the position, then out come her fangs. She is not to be messed with unless she wants to be messed with. Three years counting, she hasn’t wanted to yet.
It’s ALL about consent.
December 12, 2010, 6:33 pmBen says:
Incestuphobia.
December 12, 2010, 6:40 pmwhit says:
i didn’t mention ANY penetration of the dog
i said a woman FELLATING a dog.
if you don’t know what fellatio means, look it up
so, if and when you respond to what I post, get back to me
December 12, 2010, 6:41 pmwhit says:
no, it’s not.
and it is nigh impossible to fellate a dog without them so desiring. it requires an erection and for them to stand and take it so to speak.
again, you are not responding to the scenario posed, which is a real one in WA statre. the courts correctly concluded it was NOT cruel to the animals and was not illegal. we had to pass a bestiality law to address it.
it is undoubtedly not causing the dog pain. dogs DESIRE it. i have yet to see one post that actually addresses the issue as posed.
December 12, 2010, 6:44 pmwhit says:
it’s a real example. in WA state.
and fwiw, i do not think sex with animals should be legal. i just acknowledge that the ONLY reason to criminalize same is MORALITY. thus, the argument about “you can’t legislate morality’ is utter rubbish
December 12, 2010, 6:45 pmprogressoverpeace says:
They might start doing that for polygamous civil unions without SSM. “My two de facto wives need to be on my health insurance …” It’s just a question of someone starting to raise a stink and file lawsuits like a banshee. At that point, our judiciary just folds like France.
December 12, 2010, 6:50 pmMDT says:
Cornellian,
Because the animal isn’t capable of consent, anymore than a child is capable of consent.
Animals cannot consent to being slaughtered, and yet I know what I’m making for dinner, because I just bought it. It would’ve been illegal for me or anyone else to sodomize it, but it was legal for someone to cut its throat and render it into conveniently labeled bits.
December 12, 2010, 6:51 pmwhit says:
please show me how a dog suffers harm from being fellated.
December 12, 2010, 6:51 pmJon Rowe says:
Whit,
I think you need to get off this bestiality thing. Most folks, contrary to your expectations, agree that all laws have some kind of moral basis to them. See E. Volokh’s above post that notes, be that as it may, there are lots of things that are immoral but still legal, and for good reason.
Whether we should outlaw bestiality is a separate question from incest or homosexuality.
December 12, 2010, 7:10 pmbailey says:
If it’s cool for the over 21, what is the problem with growing your own extended family of sexual partners? Why not 10 year olds? Shouldn’t we be cool with that as well? After all, many can’t get pregnant and how do we know it’s really harmful.
December 12, 2010, 7:11 pmwhit says:
whether or not “most people” agree with this, the “you can’t legislate morality” meme is common. I am disputing it, both as a matter of fact, and a matter of how the world should be.
December 12, 2010, 7:19 pmwhit says:
exactly. it amazes me the ridiculous twists of logic some people go to when justifying bestiality laws, EXCEPT for the only reason – morality.
the way veal calves are treated is cruel, whether or not (not) it meets the legal definition of animal cruelty.
it is illegal to fellate the cow (not cruel) but legal to pen it up so it can’t move.
December 12, 2010, 7:24 pmMDT says:
whit,
What you want is more
please show me how a dog suffers more harm from being fellated than a pig does from being slaughtered and eaten.
Throw in that these things are probably in a one-to-million ratio on a day-by-day-basis in the US.
Look, self-evidently the reason bestiality is criminalized is because of what it means about those who practice it; that is, “morality.” It is not here really about the welfare of the animal. There is a pretty clear distinction between fellating dogs (or even sodomizing sheep) and setting cats on fire. People who positively set out to cause pain are sick sadistic f*cks. People who want to get their rocks off and, finding only nonhuman tw*t to hand, take advantage of it are sick f*cks, but not sadists.
December 12, 2010, 7:27 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
“You can’t legislate morality” irritates me too. Murder is immoral. Stealing is immoral. Even not paying your taxes is immoral, because you’re making other people pay your share; especially in America, where the tax code is written by people you help elect. For some, hopefully most, people, refraining from killing and stealing and slapping people is a matter of morals and the fact that those things are illegal is something we’d invoke only if someone did those things to us and we needed to get redress.
December 12, 2010, 7:29 pmwhit says:
exactly. morality. not an issue of hurting the animal
December 12, 2010, 7:32 pmMDT says:
whit,
it is illegal to fellate the cow [calf?] (not cruel) but legal to pen it up so it can’t move.
Never mind veal, or foie gras, or any of the other causes célèbres. We can stick with “it’s legal to cut their throats, disassemble them into little bits, and eat them, but not to take sexual advantage of them.”
It seems to me there is an obvious distinction between using an animal for sexual gratification and using one for food, but that it would be difficult to make that case on secular grounds.
December 12, 2010, 7:41 pmKatahdin says:
I recall, years ago, discussing the topic with a gay male friend. He allowed that the very idea of sex with females was just nasty and yucky to him (not, as he said, that there was anything wrong with me disagreeing about that :-)).
Isn’t that contradictory? It has long been part of some subcultures, and those cultures survive, but it would inevitably tear our society apart?
December 12, 2010, 7:44 pmMDT says:
Laura(southernxyl),
“You can’t legislate morality” irritates me too.
Well, of course it does. I forget when George Will’s “We legislate little else” dates from, but it has to be at least thirty years old.
December 12, 2010, 7:46 pmJon Rowe says:
Well congrats on tackling a strawman.
BTW: Did you know that not all states outlaw bestiality and Texas in fact decriminalized bestiality BEFORE the Lawrence case?
There are more important things in the world to worry about than whether someone fellates his dog.
December 12, 2010, 7:49 pmbacchys says:
It’s not? Much of the argument against viewing incest as getting covered by Lawrence seems to rest on an assumption that the arguer’s prejudice is better than someone else’s.
December 12, 2010, 7:51 pmJon Rowe says:
You are probably right; I have a hard time imagining an adult horse as the passive party. I’m not sure if I want to look this up on Snopes; but I remember hearing growing up about a royalty who liked to have sex with horses and was killed in the act.
Daring to have sex with a horse — if it’s your horse — it seems to me risks punishment enough for the human involved. If it’s my horse then you are trespassing on my property.
December 12, 2010, 7:53 pmMDT says:
Jon Rowe,
There are more important things in the world to worry about than whether someone fellates his dog.
You mean like whether a man fellates his daughter?
December 12, 2010, 7:54 pmprogressoverpeace says:
No contradiction. I was talking about the difference of it occuring in the shadows, still in pretty small percentages I would guess, but there, versus being fully accepted in the public square and the law. When public schools start teaching 6 year olds that there’s nothing wrong with incest (which might sound insane, but this is how these things go) then you will see people just lose it, I think. It’s getting close to that, already, without even being close to promoting incest. Today we have some 8 year olds being entreated to “Heather Has Two Mommies.” It’s not a stretch to see the new book, “Heather’s Sister Is Her Daughter.”
December 12, 2010, 7:57 pmJon Rowe says:
This is getting too icky for me to correct what’s wrong here.
I would say yes, if it involves abuse of the minor child, then it’s certainly something to worry about. If it’s two consenting adults, then I see it as two people with a problem as opposed to the man and his dog, one person with a problem.
In NEITHER circumstance do I think having the cops arrest the persons, publicly humiliate them and their lives ruined do I think it a better solution.
December 12, 2010, 8:05 pmptt says:
I consider myself rather an expert on it, in fact.
I already explained it up there ^. The actual act may cause no harm. What it teaches the dog about relationships with humans more often than not leads to the dog’s death.
December 12, 2010, 8:15 pmValentino Rossi says:
You haven’t been around very much if you believe what you wrote to be true.
December 12, 2010, 8:16 pmptt says:
Nonsense. Just ask any patriarchal polygamist.
December 12, 2010, 8:17 pmMDT says:
Jon Rowe,
But what’s icky about it? I mean, consenting adults, yes? That is non-icky by a definition we’ve been operating under for a long time.
Why is Prof. X and Prof X-s 24-year-old daughter as a couple “two people with a problem,” as opposed to “two people with a really good thing going”? And why is “man on dog” even “one person with a problem”?
December 12, 2010, 8:22 pmCornellian says:
Animals cannot consent to being slaughtered, and yet I know what I’m making for dinner, because I just bought it. It would’ve been illegal for me or anyone else to sodomize it, but it was legal for someone to cut its throat and render it into conveniently labeled bits.
Yes, and you can kill an animal you own but not torture it. The treatment of animals is one of those areas where it is difficult to discern much consistency either in law or morality.
December 12, 2010, 8:26 pmThrobert McGee says:
Regarding whit’s hypothetical of a consenting adult fellating a dog, I would argue that it “cruelly” confuses the pooch’s relatively simple brain by encouraging it to direct alpha-male type canine sexual behavior towards a human being. (It’s the dominance directed towards humans that makes fellatio on a dog qualitatively different from encouraging a male dog to copulate with a plastic vagina for the purpose of collecting semen for laboratory analysis or breeding programs — although the dog may enjoy it in either case.)
In other words, human/dog sex upsets the hierarchy of authority that helps prevent well-behaved canines from turning into bad doggies. So if you try to give your dog blowjobs, however much he might seem to like it, you are basically setting him up to be a undisciplined neurotic in need of “Dog Whisperer” intervention.
And Thomas Aquinas, made a similar argument against parent/child incest, in Chapter 125 of Summa Contra Gentiles:
[7] Besides, it is unfitting for one to be conjugally united with persons to whom one should naturally be subject. But it is natural to be subject to one’s parents. Therefore, it would not be fitting to contract matrimony with one’s parents, since in matrimony there is a conjugal union.
In other words, it’s a bad idea to mix sex into social relationships where there’s a stark differential in power and authority.
December 12, 2010, 8:28 pmptt says:
I find it rather remarkable that you can type something like that and tell me to look up what “fellatio” means. I think this entire argument is clearly bull.
God, I hope not. There are 300 million people in the country, after all.
December 12, 2010, 8:30 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Jason’s already objected to being condescended to because of what he wrote. He has kid(s).
It’s always tempting to extrapolate from our own experiences. My daughter at 14, and at 15, 16, 17, and 18, did what I said. She thought I had good sense and believed that I had her best interest at heart. Now that she’s 23, employed, living on her own, paying all her bills, I am very cautious about giving her advice. Her independence and autonomy are very important to me. I’m aware that she weighs heavily what I tell her, so when I do give her advice, it’s always couched with “of course, you are a grown woman and can do as you please; take my advice or leave it.” I know very well that I am not describing the usual parent/child relationship. I hope Jason knows that his experiences are not universal as well.
December 12, 2010, 8:33 pmJon Rowe says:
There are plenty of things consenting adults do that are “icky” but that the law doesn’t care about.
But why don’t you tell me why you think Prof. X & his 24 yr. old daughter don’t have a problem, but a good thing going on?
December 12, 2010, 8:35 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You’re quoting MDT here, actually.
December 12, 2010, 8:37 pmprogressoverpeace says:
Again, the poodle humping my leg seems to have picked up a sexual interest in humans all on his own. And no matter how many times I scream at him and push him away, he continues to make his “awkward advances”. Maybe someone had relented at some point …?
December 12, 2010, 8:46 pmThrobert McGee says:
Just to quibble, Down Syndrome males tend to have very poor sperm health and are generally regarded as “infertile” (though it’s possible for them to become fathers without laboratory intervention, it’s quite unlikely).
But Down Syndrome females can be just as fertile as their normal sisters.
This was all explained to me once by an acquaintance whose DS niece requested voluntary sterilization prior to getting married (the groom was also cognitively impaired, but didn’t have Down Syndrome and the male infertility normally associated with it). So the niece had to appear before a judge to confirm that she had sufficient competence to request the tube-tying operation.
December 12, 2010, 8:50 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You realize that the poodle doesn’t know what it’s doing, any more than my cat knows, when she kneads my neck, that that is nursing behavior that kittens engage in to make the milk come down. Annoys the crap out of me, and you’d think that after 6 years of this she’d realize that she will never get milk out of my neck, but she doesn’t know that’s what she’s doing.
December 12, 2010, 8:53 pmJon Rowe says:
It’s probably more disturbingly common than you think.
December 12, 2010, 8:56 pmprogressoverpeace says:
I’m not so sure. He kept winking at me.
LOL. I knew that family was a little off.
BTW, there’s a weird movie about the whole dog-fellating scenario: Sleeping Dogs Lie
It was written by Bobcat Goldthwait, so it could just be cat propaganda … but seriously, even as a comedy, it just isn’t funny.
December 12, 2010, 8:57 pmEric says:
“it is illegal to fellate the cow (not cruel) but legal to pen it up so it can’t move. ”
Got some gender issues here folks, it would be impossible to fellate a cow; a bull or steer maybe…
December 12, 2010, 10:17 pmChris Travers says:
In other words, if you are single when you get elected President, no marriage for you?
December 12, 2010, 10:51 pmMDT says:
Jon Rowe,
But why don’t you tell me why you think Prof. X & his 24 yr. old daughter don’t have a problem, but a good thing going on?
I have no idea what they have going on, because they are adults and this isn’t my business. Is it yours?
December 12, 2010, 10:53 pmChris Travers says:
I’ve always wondered if those states which impose strict scrutiny regarding religious practice could ban the sorts of sex/sacrifice/feast rites that are typified in the Asvamedha (which involves ritual necrobestiality) or a likely Irish equivalent (where the sacral king has sex with the mare before it is slaughtered and made into soup. He then stands naked in the tub of broth from which he eats.
December 12, 2010, 10:54 pmjohn says:
I submit that it is a typical oversight that no one mentioned (unless I missed it) the reason incest is taboo.
its fatal to the species.
we are biological beings we still have not evolved to pure spirit. sex is about procreation, and we are lucky mother nature made it feel good.
December 12, 2010, 10:58 pmJon Rowe says:
I can agree with that. I don’t think the criminal justice system should have made it ITS business.
December 12, 2010, 11:09 pmTioedong says:
we are not talking about “two consensual adults” when one has authority over another person.
It is sexual abuse, similar to that of a priest/minister to member of his congregation, doctor/psychologist to a client or a family member of one of their patients, a professor/teacher to a student even is they aren’t teaching them at the time.
All of these people are authority figures, so their “request” for sex implies they expect obedience….
And want to bet he might not have had “sex” with her before she was an “adult” but I bet he did things that would be covered by the laws on child molestation/sexual assault.
December 12, 2010, 11:11 pmVercingetorix says:
Yes. At this point – incestuous relationships – we should legislate morality. There are some thresholds we should not cross, I don’t care about your foolish consistencies, incest is morally abhorent and if the community wants to ban it with criminal penalties, it should (and does).
Some BS excuse for a justification which bars the community from condemning incest (incest!) is unjust. Your unfettered right to fill your bed stops at anything one remove from whatever came out of your wife’s womb.
December 12, 2010, 11:13 pmChrisTS says:
I’m with Tioedong.
Dad and Mom are always Dad and Mom – no matter how adult we kids may be.
December 12, 2010, 11:22 pmSelena Kitt says:
Amazon is removing incest FICTION from their site:
http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/amazon-removes-incest-related-erotica-titles-from-store-kindle-archive/
December 12, 2010, 11:24 pmChrisTS says:
Vercingetorix (great handle):
Or, from your spouse’s sperm..
But the point is that we want to be able to articulate why this is repulsive (etc.) We cannot forget that people have thought that inter-racial marriage was repulsive, that it was ‘unnatural’ for women to vote or hold office, that anyone who eats shellfish or pork is unclean, and so on.
Do you really want the force of the law to be brought down on anyone’s head simply because those who influence the legislators find some conduct repulsive?
NOTE: I had to finish this on the Edit screen because the comment function is so messed up.
December 12, 2010, 11:27 pmElliot says:
“People are not ‘polygamous’ or ‘incestuous’ in the same sense that people are straight, gay, or bisexual.”
What sense is that?
December 12, 2010, 11:40 pmM. Report says:
There was a case not long ago where a father was charged
with sexually abusing his six year old daughter after he
was seen fondling her crotch at a basketball game.
In his defense he claimed that the witnesses
‘Saw what they saw, but did not understand what they saw.’
because in his culture, what he did was no different, and
no worse, than tickling the child’s ribs to make her laugh.
In our culture, people _do_ see it as worse. He knew that,
and so did the daughter whom he was raising in our culture.
She was very unhappy about what he did.
I was not there, so I do not know, but I suspect that the
December 13, 2010, 12:03 am24 year old daughter had long dreaded the day when her
father would ‘request’ that she join him in an act which
he had been telling her all through her childhood was not
_really_ wrong, but in fact perfectly natural.
flataffect says:
Lawrence v. Texas pretty much outlawed morality as a ground for banning anything.
So all that needs to happen is for the intellectual elite of the nation’s lawyers to show an emerging awareness that liberty protects any given behavior. Right now there’s the limitation “between consenting adults” and “matters pertaining to sex.” Why draw those distinctions? Apparently because our the necessary awareness hasn’t emerged yet.
Pederasty? Sex with a child? Why are these different from acceptable sexual orientations? Just because we haven’t been given permission from those whose advocacy can cause new awareness to emerge? NAMBLA is knocking on the door right now. Given how easily homosexuality, transsexualism and related phenomena went from a form of mental illness to constitutional rights, how long will it take for the next steps to occur? I mean, they’re only kids, right? Why does their consent matter? Rape? Why should anybody’s consent matter when your sexual orientation is driving you?
Courts regularly worry about slippery slopes, but in these cases they’ve greased the slope and charged onto it wearing skis.
I always thought that law applied established principles to factual situations and that those principles were determined by the Constitution and by the people through their elected representatives. Where did the power to overrule those policies come from? Basically from the Courts’ own unwillingness to restrain themselves in asserting their powers. Isn’t that kind of thing what gave rise to the American revolution?
December 13, 2010, 12:07 amCelebrim says:
I think many have pointed out the flaw in stating that consensual is the be all end all basis of making sexual acts ethical and moral, so I won’t go there.
Instead, I’ll talk about the social basis of considering incest a matter touching on the law and homosexual sex not being considered to be of the same kind. Simply put, homosexual sex is never productive sex and scarcely has any more impact on public life than masterbation, which frankly is all that it is, and so may be viewed as being largely of the same color. The only possible public interest in homosexual sex is the spreading of diseases, which doesn’t render it very different than illicit sex generally. And, since our society seems to have decided that regulating illicit sex is cure worse than the crime, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to be concerned about two men masturbating.
But incest is potentially productive sex, that is to say that it is real sex involving two genders like you know is implied by the term ‘sexual’. Hense, society has some compelling interest in it for the simple reason that society has a comeplling interest in protecting and nuturing children as the logical product of sexual relationships. Society has simply decided that its uninterested in burdening itself with alot of children who have the same person for both a father and a grandfather – to say nothing of discouraging father’s from raising dauthers towards the end of making them sexual partners which would be the all too common outcome of making incest legitimate in the eyes of society and the law.
December 13, 2010, 12:40 amVercingetorix says:
Chris, yes, I do think we should allow laws to be made on the conscience of some legislators. There isn’t any theory of human affairs which will settle every single dispute or moment of friction – I think there cannot (ever ever ever) be a system of logical inference complete enough to do that (Godel’s theory is the point of reference here).
There’s a saw – “some writers detract from the sum total of knowledge.” That’s very true, there are some writers who are so ignorant (and popular!) that they destroy human understanding rather than enlighten. There are some questions that do the same. If your moral understanding or your system of jurisprudence cannot easily retain a law against one of the world’s oldest and most universal taboos, then your system of jurisprudence and moral understanding is flawed.
I’m not saying that there is no physical or mental harm associated with incest; I’m saying it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether adult incest is awesome - it’s like a wheat grass smoothie mixed with a multivitamin and covered with love. Adult incest, it’s so healthy we should all do it! I don’t care. It’s not a matter of cost/benefit, you cannot weigh the propriety of the act with some sort of cosmic scale, by sliding tokens of pleasure and pain from one end of the balance to the other. It damn sure doesn’t matter what Lawrence said – if it says anything contrary to “the community can proscribe behavior, even sexual behavior, even in your own (damn) house (and especially in your own damn house for incest)” then the case was wrongly decided.
As to miscegenation, yes, well, that’s sort of true. Some people in some places at some times considered interracial marriage a taboo as well. But not really of the same magnitude. Othello, for instance, is an enormously popular play with miscegenation at its core. Yet the tragedy doesn’t come from Othello but a cruel Iago, unlike Oedipus’s parricide of Laius and his incestuous union with Jocasta. Incest, it’s a world away from mere rooting around in the grass with spread blossoms of different hues.
Bottom line is that some rules do not need justification. I do not need an elaborate theory of why slavery or murder or rape is wrong. I do not need to establish from first principles through the predicate calculus a proof of why incest should be banned. The very question “by what authority can the community exert power over the sexual relationships of its citizenry” forces the counter “is there any limit to mankind’s sexual appetite?” Does it really hinge on consent? Isn’t parsing consent itself destructive, an invasion of the community into the psyche and volition of the members of the community – she couldn’t have consented, she was drunk; she was a day away from eighteen; he was mentally-handicapped?
Instead of asking the real question – “Guilty, or innocent?” – the question “on what basis is sex between father and daughter illegal?” leads you into a fundamental dialectic which is exasperating. “Why is this so?” Well, why isn’t it? So on.
(btw, thank you for the compliment on my e-secret identity; I’m just an honest reporter by day, honest. :)
December 13, 2010, 1:00 amUriel says:
Hey, I’ve got an idea. How’s about we let individual States decide. But, first, we’d have to have a majority on the Supreme Court that might actually consider Federalism and the U.S. Constitution somewhat relevant to law in this country. Then, Lawrence v. Texas could be overturned as it should be, and we wouldn’t be burdened with the stupidity of folks like “Justice” Breyer who claim that law should not be based on morality. Saner people recognize that ALL law is based on morality. In fact, it IS morality codified and enforced, and nothing more. To reject this is to reject the Rule of Law, and to consign legality to the personal preferences of IMMORAL individuals like Breyer.
December 13, 2010, 1:19 amrobrott says:
Even chimpanzees know better. Jane Goodall “observed incest taboos. Mothers do not allow their sons to copulate with them, sisters do not copulate with their brothers and females do not copulate with older males in their familial group. Though none of these chimpanzees are biologically related, they have grown up in this family group and show no sexual behavior toward one another.” Chimpanzees don’t practice abortion either.
December 13, 2010, 2:11 ampoliticaljules says:
cystic fibrosis 1 in 25
c0rrecton
December 13, 2010, 2:17 amToday's Tom Sawyer says:
Here’s a question I’m sure everyone so far has overlooked…..
Let’s say he’s guilty as charged, it’s a crime, blah blah blah, daughter is victim……wouldn’t the wife be brought up on charges that she was either a)knew or had reason to know of the crime (here incest), b)a neglectful parent by allowing such behavior to occur, or possibility c) that she knew and facilitated their relationship?
It seems that this situation would become very legally awkward very quickly.
December 13, 2010, 2:31 amHugh Jass says:
Along the lines of the original questions of this post, and with respect to the linked story, more questions:
Why is it that only the adult male in this story is in trouble? And why is it that only the adult male in this story is identified by name throughout the story?
Is the adult woman in the story not an equal sexual being? Why does she automatically merit victim status if she is an adult and indeed did consent to the sexual relationship?
December 13, 2010, 2:40 amspacey invader gets by on you says:
It is really as simple as this: people know inside that these things are wrong. Some disagree, some deny, some fight their conscience (whether they realize it or not). These things are wrong and we know it. Everything beyond this is rationalization.
December 13, 2010, 2:43 amVercingetorix says:
a, b, c, yes, yes, and yes. Jail-time? Maybe, but when we’re letting murderers walk with years on the decades they’re sentenced to, I wouldn’t bear it. It really is impressive how little justice we can squeeze from the justice system, isn’t it?
December 13, 2010, 2:50 amed says:
Jon Rowe
Well, my boss works for his son. The father came to this country, and worked as a restaurant manager/owner, along with his wife.
His son went to U.C. Berkely and got an MBA in finance.
As soon as his son graduated from college, my boss sold the restaurant. He told me that was extremely hard work, running a restaurant.
The son then started to buy apartment complexes. The son has no hands on experience with this sort of stuff, but the father does. So the father then started to help the son with the hands on stuff.
Later on, the father hired me to do most of the hands on work with the many properties. He (the father) supervises me and makes many of the decisions such as when to do capital improvements.
The son makes decisions as to when to buy new properties, or when to sell, and when to make major capital improvements.
Both of them are very happy with the arrangement.
December 13, 2010, 3:39 amMurgatroyd says:
All of you have made me very, very glad that I’m an only child with no living relatives closer than cousins. (And the nearest of those are six hundred miles away.)
December 13, 2010, 3:48 amEd Brenegar says:
It seems that the other question concerns the definition and measure of “consensual.”
Can anything be said to be 100% consensual? If not, then what is the boundary of choice that denotes an act consensual, or not?
December 13, 2010, 5:59 amT. Jefferson says:
Wrong. Law and precedent aside, ultimately rules that seek to place boundaries on an individual liberty always need rational justification, and that justification must include a verifiable explanation of how the exercise of that liberty infringes on someone else’s other, more important inalienable right.
December 13, 2010, 6:11 amT. Jefferson says:
True enough, but morality is often a vague and malleable quantity. Generally speaking, most people feel that anything they find offensive is immoral. Such a position is obviously indefensible from any rational basis. My values in this regard are just as valid as yours, and if you decide that my pursuit of happiness is immoral, then you must accept that I find your attempt to limit said pursuit immoral.
In order to be supportable as a basis of law, a particular moral finding must have a basis in reason as well as in fact. Ultimately, laws prohibiting excercise of some liberty that are based purely on “it’s immoral” cause more problems than they solve. They exist only to support some faction’s ability to impose its will on the whole of society, and that is unstable and insupportable.
To be unassailable, law must rationally and visibly support the best interests of the whole of society, not just the prejudices of one or more power groups.
December 13, 2010, 6:12 amRicardo says:
It’s a clumsy way of expressing a real difference in the perceived role of government. Libertarians and classically-inclined liberals see the proper role of government in the social realm as protecting individual rights — see, for instance, John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” Conservatives widen that role to the promotion of Aristotlean or Judeo-Christian virtue. That’s a real division that can’t be waved away.
December 13, 2010, 6:17 amMartin Knight says:
I really would be interested to see just exactly how supporters of same-sex marriage would be able to tell William Phillips below why he doesn’t have the right to marry the person he loves (Gregory) while Barry can marry Larry or Laura.
The fact is that the very same arguments that are used in favor of same-sex marriage being a “right” can be used to establish incestuous marriages between consenting adults as something they can demand as rights as well.
A 53 year old father and his 29 year old daughter? A 32 year old woman and her 28 year old sister? Why the hell not?
It’s unnatural?
Gay marriage advocates often point out that there are many instances of homosexual coupling observed in the animal kigdom. The fact is that incestuous copulation occurs far more often in the animal kingdom. And besides, is it not the same argument made against gay marriage by bigots with living memory?
It would lead to deformed children?
RE: As gay marriage advocates tell us, marriage has never had anything whatsoever to do with children – it’s about the two people who want to be together. Besides Will and Greg are of the same sex, which leads to some interesting 14th Amendment questions if same sex incest is allowed but not opposite sex incest.
It harms society/marriage as an institution?
As gay marriage advocates plaintively ask, how does Will here marrying his brother Gregory affect your own marriage? Why should you impose your religious views or legislate morality for people who do not share your views or believe in your definition of what constitutes an immoral act?
There are not that many people who want to marry their family members …
RE: Numbers mean nothing. Even if the only interacial couple that wanted to get married in the whole of the United States were Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter (of Loving v. Virginia), it still would have been unconstitutional for the state of Virginia to prevent them from marrying each other. Likewise, even if the only brother-brother couple that wanted to get married were Will and Greg here, it should be unconstitutional for them to be denied a marriage license.
Seriously, though, how can you be a supporter of same-sex marriage and be an opponent of incestuous relationships (up to marriage) between two consenting adults?
December 13, 2010, 6:20 amRicardo says:
Slate has an interesting column on this in its “Explainer” feature. It appears that in many jurisdictions in the U.S., there is an unwritten rule of prosecutorial discretion where either the older partner or the male partner (in sibling cases) gets charged. It is probably connected with the desire to charge the person who is perceived as dominating the relationship and who will be less sympathetic in front of a judge or jury.
December 13, 2010, 7:10 amern says:
While it may be desirable and preferable to have reasons over cultural assertions in cases like incest, this is complicated by the varied quality of arguments over homosexuality. Some rational (and emotional) arguments in favor of legitimizing homosexual sex and in favor of same sex marriage certainly do leave open the door for legitimizing incest, polygamy, etc. Certainly not all do, but some.
If law is, as so many seem to assert, a combination of reason and personal prejudice (ie., morality) then we should not be so insistent on reasons, especially when prejudice is so strongly against a behavior (like incest). To a point, prejudices (like what once, but no longer, existed against homosexuality) are derived by the long-processed experience of societies to conform the people to acceptable goals. As those goals change, expectations change. We find incest reprehensible. That is enough. While we might like to articulate why, it is not always necessary. Our inability to articulate reasons are complicated primarily because we are so close to cultural changes regarding homosexuality, making it impossible for some to articulate differences between them.
So, in short, maybe it’s just the wrong time to try to articulate ourselves rationally on this topic. Given the variety of quality of legal arguments over homosexuality, we may need to accept that it will be impossible to articulate a view consistent on incest that is compatible with the dominant arguments regarding regulation of other adult sexual activity.
December 13, 2010, 7:46 amAli says:
“I am inclined to say that the most compelling rational reason to ban parent-child incest is that it removes what would otherwise be a legal incentive for a parent to groom an underage child for future sexual partnership.”
This, exactly. If parents know they can screw their children legally when the child hits the magical age of 18, some will start raising their children with that intent. Since they have legal authority, access to and control over the developing mind of the child, the child will not be able to escape that grooming.
Also, this is why the parent is being prosecuted here, and the child presumably isn’t. It’s unlikely that, in her tender childhood years, she was deliberately grooming her vulnerable and naive father to desire her. The parent is the one with sexual experience as well as the aforementioned authority and control.
December 13, 2010, 7:58 amHere come the Judge: says:
This comment was deleted on a prior thread, so perhaps this is the appropriate venue.
I would like to see a principled Liberal define the limits to sexual combinations. Perhaps there are none. If so, can we assume that the ACLU will be siding with Professor Epstein, or any of the polygamous families in Utah. Why should laws against prostitution not receive many more legal challenges than crèches in public parks; there seem to be more prostitutes peddling their wares that Christians willing to defy the law. Under the emerging standard why should there be an arbitrary age of consent? Remember those videos in which members of ACORN were willing to work with a couple who wanted to import young girls from Central America to work in a brothel? If the girls consented should Lawrence be used as a precedent to actually set up such a lucrative little business – assuming it paid taxes and collected social security and Medicare payments; giving the government its cut? Regarding bestiality, the possibilities are endless. I don’t buy the “animals can’t consent” BS. Why is that even an issue? Do cows consent to being milked or slaughtered? Just curious if there is a limit and why?
December 13, 2010, 8:06 amKarenT says:
Aside from immediate legal considerations, how is the “academic community” reacting to these charges. Is incest involving a professor and his adult daughter more “understandable” in the academic community than incest between the proverbial hillbilly and his adult daughter? Are other academics taking a “wait-and-see” attitude, or have there been comments by colleagues?
Are special considerations for sexual behaviors outside societal norms limited to artists? Can there be “benevolent incest” based on the perceived enlightenment of the participants, similar to the “benevolent pedophilia” of certain artists?
December 13, 2010, 8:38 amA.W. says:
I seem to recall being demonized on threads at VC for “comparing” gay sex to incest.
So much for that.
The fact is there is one reason for the ban on incest: we don’t approve morally. And, I consider that a wholly valid reason under the constitution, and under my personal policy preferences. But the S.C. has declared that reasoning verboten.
Now, the S.C. will NEVER legalize incest. But they will certainly fail to provide any defensible basis for doing so. Because even as I agree with the policy underlying Lawrence (gay people should not go to jail for “merely” having gay sex), to pretend it was a constitutional principle was indefensible crud. This case and the liberal reaction to it makes that plain.
December 13, 2010, 8:43 amLor says:
I’m just trying to imagine, thirty years from now, a bunch of college age kids watching Chinatown and, when they get to the “She’s-my-sister-and-my-daughter!” scene, they say, “So what? What’s her problem?”
December 13, 2010, 8:44 amMatt says:
This might be a somewhat facile comparison, but aren’t there laws, or at least proposals, that include a lifetime ban on becoming a registered lobbyist after serving in Congress? Sure, there’s lots of ways to get around it, but it seems like a good example of preventing future incentives from altering present behavior.
The same rational basis could be made for banning adult, consensual parent-child incest, as not banning it could have a serious impact on, and call into question the legitimacy of, the parental caretaker role when the child is still young. This seems to sidestep the “adult consensual sex” problem, as there is surely a legitimate state interest in preserving the purity and efficacy of the legal guardian/caretaker role.
And in case anyone’s wondering: Yes, I do believe this should apply to adopted children and other forms of non-genetic guardianship. There’s something very rational about the idea that taking legal responsibility for someone also means making a promise never to have any other sort of relationship with them in the future, so as not to color one’s conduct in the present.
December 13, 2010, 9:04 amJim says:
Yes, parent-child sex should be illegal, always.
Do you really think a Dad is going to raise a daughter responsibly for 18-20 years, and then suddenly look at her one day and say “Hey… she’s kind of hot. I think I’ll ask her out.”
Never going to happen amonsgst the sane. If you legalize this, all you’ll get are the insane with legal license to groom their kids for sex, and I’m sure the physical training will start well before 18.
December 13, 2010, 9:06 amSmooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
Again, where and why are the lines drawn? Are you making some essentialist argument that a person with all his marbles can (or should) not be attracted to the flesh of his own flesh? Upon what do you base that?
Beyond that: What if the parent “raises” a stepchild from a very young age, then divorces the child’s parent, and, when the stepchild is an adult, has a sexual reationship with that child? Do you still want to criminalize that act? Why; and if not how does that differ from your hypothetical?
December 13, 2010, 9:45 amA.W. says:
Smooth
in many states the ban on incest includes step children. And adoptees.
And i don’t have a problem with any of that.
December 13, 2010, 10:17 amCelebrim says:
“Again, where and why are the lines drawn?”
I thought that was stated. The line is drawn on ‘no one that enters into a parental relationship ever has sex with their charges’. As to why, that was stated as well. Other compelling reasons will come to mind if you think about it.
“Are you making some essentialist argument that a person with all his marbles can (or should) not be attracted to the flesh of his own flesh? Upon what do you base that?”
I’m not making any kind of argument that parents can’t be attracted to their own flesh. The biological incest taboo isn’t absolute especially not in a species with as powerful of imagination as humanity. I’m making the argument that they never ought to be so attracted, much less that they act on such impulses. And I base that on among other things common decency, which is sadly probably a concept you don’t admit to recognizing.
December 13, 2010, 10:18 amkevino says:
As Justice Scalia correctly stated in his well-worded dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, once social hygiene laws get over-turned (i.e. Bowers and Owens), then the door is open to all kinds of overturning all kinds of laws. If sexuality between adults becomes a basic right, then there must be a high standard for the State to interfere with that right, and moral hygiene is not sufficient. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity cannot be defended except by the “Liberal Magic Wand”. Massachusetts, citing Lawrence directly, struck down the law against same sex marriage, but the MA courts would never consider applying Lawrence to laws against strip clubs and prostitution — only because liberals don’t care about the law, only the ends. Therefore, Lawrence can be applied to same sex marriage but not prostitution because — in their view — same sex marriage is good and prostitution is bad.
December 13, 2010, 10:19 amSmooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
@celebrim:
And I base that on among other things common decency, which is sadly probably a concept you don’t admit to recognizing.
man, you got me there…
just out of curiosity, do you think the rules of “common decency” are violated by marital infidelity?
If so, then I assume you are for laws criminalizing that, too, right?
Also, you failed to address my hypo of the adult former stepchild and how that differs from an adult bio-child.
December 13, 2010, 10:30 amlhf says:
We legislate morality and criminalize violations all the time. What’s a hate crime, if not that?
The best articulation of the slippery slope argument against granting special rights to homosexuals is this article from the 2003 Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp.
I am astonished and appalled at some of the postings in response to Volokhs question. I didn’t realize I guess how far down the slope we had already slipped.
December 13, 2010, 10:53 amJon Rowe says:
Martin Knight,
What CHURCH is it that married the Phillips Bros.?
December 13, 2010, 10:57 amJon Rowe says:
I did a little googling. As I suspected, the “Phillips” brothers don’t exist. They are Martin Knight’s fabrication.
December 13, 2010, 11:13 amMartin Knight says:
Jon Rowe;
Forgive me … I totally forgot to include the disclaimer i.e. this is a hypothetical.
Other than that, my challenge still stands. Given your support for same-sex marriage, on what basis would you object to the Phillips’ brothers getting a marriage license if they apply for one?
If you’re up for it, as a mental exercise, assume you’re addressing William (or Greg). Why is their choice of life partner “sick” and undeserving of state recognition like two men?
PS: Why is the “CHURCH” significant?
December 13, 2010, 11:22 amdf says:
(1) No; (2) None; (3) & (4) N/A.
I think it’s extremely immoral, and as a practical matter certainly don’t object to it being criminalized (I think legalizing gambling, some recreational drug use, etc. is more important so legalizing incest is about #1,000,000 or lower on my list of laws to change…), but on principle, if competent adults are allowed sexual autonomy (as they should be, even if their choices are in my view and the view of others immoral) that should extend to permitting incest.
I think it logically (and legally) consistent for a government to allow any sexual practices between consenting adults, BUT to limit marriage more narrowly. Thus, notwithstanding my own (against SSM) views, I am generally fine with a state choosing legislatively to recognize SSM, because that’s a political legislative choice. I disagree with court-enforced recognition of SSM on the basis of equal rights, however, because I don’t see marriage as a “right” in that context and because I honestly don’t see how polygamy (or polyandry, or whatever, among genuinely consenting adults) is any less deserving of protection, nor how adult incestuous relationships are any less deserving. Legally speaking, I mean I see no difference; I definitely have much stronger moral objections to e.g polygamous incestuous relationships!
December 13, 2010, 11:31 amJon Rowe says:
The Church isn’t significant; I was just curious.
We don’t need to give the Phillips bros. a marriage license because incest is not homosexuality. I could pose the same question: Given Loving on what basis can you argue against same sex marriage. Answer: race is not gender (that’s the right answer NOT race is not behavior; because Loving involved a behavior — interracial coupling or coupling with someone of the “wrong” race; likewise same-sex marriages are couplings with someone of the “wrong” gender).
And gender is not consanguinity. If anything, one can connect miscegenation to incest under the rubric of regulating the right degree of consanguinity. With incest = too closely related; with misceg. = too distantly related.
And one can also blame incest on the Bible. The story of Sodom & Gomorrah could be interpreted as validating what Lot did with his daughters. AND if one is a young earth creationist, where did Cain and Abel’s wives come from.
If you want to connect homosexuality with incest, we can play that game and connect all sorts of other things with incest as well. A is not B. Once you try to connect A with something that is not A, other folks can connect it with C, D, and E. The slippery slope doesn’t just work against the things you want it to.
December 13, 2010, 11:33 amCelebrim says:
@Smooth: “man, you got me there…”
Indeed.
“just out of curiosity, do you think the rules of “common decency” are violated by marital infidelity?”
Yes.
“If so, then I assume you are for laws criminalizing that, too, right?”
First, I never said that everything that violates common decency need be elevated to the level of a crime. Secondly, I gave specific reasons why incest should be treated criminally that don’t apply to adultry. Third, there is no special need, as the violation of trust between a married partner can be readily dealt with and is readily dealt with in civil court proceedings.
“Also, you failed to address my hypo of the adult former stepchild and how that differs from an adult bio-child.”
I failed to address it because it does not constitute a special case. There is no need to address it differently because it is of the same color as the rest. Granted, it escapes one of the social reasons why we forbid incest – that of avoiding inbreeding – but to my mind avoiding inbreeding on physical/genetic grounds is only one of the smallest reasons why the incest taboo is enforced.
You might make the situation worth adressing by the hypothetical case of a man without children marrying someone who had an adult child, then latter his wife dying with the relationship having created no offspring, and he afterwards entered into a relationship with his step-daughter. Under that scenario, the parental figure never held a parental role over the other party at a time the party was a child and this might color whether we recognize the relationship as actually parental in nature, and because of the careful way the scenario has been constructed most of the objections we would make to incest are rendered mute. However, this rather bizarre scenario can be discarded on the general rule that the rare exception doesn’t form the basis of the rule, and can be more specifically criticized as the basis for a social law on the grounds that such an incestous relationship would even in the rare case it occurred likely to result in some not as easily seen difficulty. However, I’d be more likely to accept this case as non-incestuous if I could find considerable support for that interpretation under the common traditions around marriage in several diverse and long lasting cultures. Otherwise, I’ll be inclined to think that cultures which banned such practices did so for good reasons, if only those which might be described in evolutionary terms as ‘survival of the fittest’.
December 13, 2010, 11:41 amRick Calvert says:
Jason says:
Calling something the most clueless comment ever made on the internet is a pretty strong statement but Jason is certainly in the running with his lulu.
Parents most certainly have influence on their children no matter what age the parent or the child is.
December 13, 2010, 11:48 amMDT says:
Celebrim,
But incest is potentially productive sex, that is to say that it is real sex involving two genders like you know is implied by the term ‘sexual’.
This case involves two genders, but “incest” obviously need not.
December 13, 2010, 12:22 pmJon Rowe says:
It’s complex to say the least. But the complex psychological dynamic that exists between parent & child is one reason why at least this kind of consensual adult incest totally distinguishes itself from homosexuality.
Re Ed’s comment, yes I don’t doubt that there are parent/child employment relationships that work. There certainly is such a thing as the “family business.” But anyone involved in such knows there is an additional complex element involved that has the potential to lead to lots of stress and grief that otherwise isn’t present if one works without family members.
Imagine starting a business on your own and having it fail. Yeah that sucks. But imagine how much worse it would be if you inherited a family business and it failed on your watch.
December 13, 2010, 12:24 pmMDT says:
Jon Rowe,
I did a little googling. As I suspected, the “Phillips” brothers don’t exist. They are Martin Knight’s fabrication.
That they didn’t exist was my own strong suspicion. (Not that the tale is impossible, but the writing style is 200-proof Internet Folklore.) Still, how did you determine that Martin Knight was the fabricant? That really is the sort of thing Googling generally can’t tell you. (Unless there is something on Snopes, which there is not.)
December 13, 2010, 12:31 pmChris Travers says:
As an interesting data point, Alwyn and Brinley Rees argued that incest was a common theme in Celtic myths regarding the birth of heroes, and I can think of a number of Germanic heroes off the top of my head who fit that pattern too (Sinfjotli from the Volsung Saga was begot by his parents who were brother/sister specifically as a plot to gain revenge against their fathers’ murderer, for example, and King Hrolf Kraki was the child of his a father/daughter pairing (though the couple did not know that at the time).
One might rationally conclude that the cultural experience that gave birth to these legends is that incest is a good thing.
December 13, 2010, 12:38 pmMDT says:
Ricardo,
Slate has an interesting column on this in its “Explainer” feature. It appears that in many jurisdictions in the U.S., there is an unwritten rule of prosecutorial discretion where either the older partner or the male partner (in sibling cases) gets charged. It is probably connected with the desire to charge the person who is perceived as dominating the relationship and who will be less sympathetic in front of a judge or jury.
Thanks. That sounds plausible. I mean, appalling, but plausible.
Where there are two adults whose conduct violates the same law at the same moment, and showing that one is guilty necessarily involves showing that the other is also guilty, charging only one (and picking the one on the grounds that the older or the male [!] “is perceived as dominating the relationship”) seems to me, well, nuts.
December 13, 2010, 12:48 pmSuzy says:
It’s strange to me that “eww, gross!” is consistently dismissed as a reasonable explanation for incest prohibitions. We say “eww” precisely because we grasp how profoundly harmful and damaging such a relationship can be, and our desire to prevent it comes from wanting to prevent that damage. If two fully-aware, fully-consenting adults engage in such a relationship without harm, it’s true that their freedoms will be restricted by such laws, but we think that’s less important than preventing the terrible harm that would be caused in most such cases. I’m worried, but not THAT worried about genetic problems in the children of brother/sister, like the Wisconsin couple mentioned above. Rather, I’m worried about the wholesale destruction of their sanity and happiness, growing up to the realization that their parents are siblings. This is nothing like “Heather has Two Mommies”, and if people can’t see that, honestly, there’s little hope in wasting words to convince them.
December 13, 2010, 12:55 pmJaimeInTexas says:
The proscription against incest does not appear until the Mosaic law. That does not mean that there was no prohibition prior to The Law but that, Biblically speaking, there was no written prohibition.
I do not think that prior to the Nohadic Covenant there was a prohibition against murder or stealing. The Nohadic Covenant established capital punishment; Cain was marked by God so that Cain would not be killed.
So, the question is: is the Law of Moses a requirement on the non-Jew ?
And, is the question one of ethics/principles or just mores/morality? Morality can change.
The issue with homosexuality has to do with God creating a male-female relationship, a relationship that homosexuality challenges. Marriage is exclusively a male/female pairing.
That does not mean that homosexuals should be thrown/stoned to death, especially since we are not Jews.
Clarification: I keep using Judaism because as a Christian [what we call] the Old Testament is foundational to understand the New Testament. The Church’s foundation is the Law and the Prophets, with Christ as the Chief Stone of the Corner.
December 13, 2010, 12:59 pmKen Arromdee says:
It’s consistently dismissed because there are far too many things which lead to “eww, gross!” which we don’t think should be banned, including gay sex and heart surgery.
December 13, 2010, 1:38 pmPeter says:
@an earlier comment from whit:
“incest is illegal for the same reason that fellating a dog is illegal”
You are aware that it is legal to fellate your dog in most of the world and nearly half the US. It may not be socially acceptable but definitely legal.
December 13, 2010, 3:40 pmptt says:
If you pick a long sentence from the “letter”, one with no internal punctuation, and Google it with quotation marks, you get a list of webpages where the entire sentence appears (followed by sites with fragments). This technique is especially useful if you happen to pick a sentence in which the author has misspelled a word, as happened when I checked.
“I have degrees in Biochemistry and Pharmocology and I am currently a medical researcher in a prestigious pharmaceutical company”
Mr. Knight misspelled “pharmacology”. All the hits are from redstate.com and a place that picked it up from redstate.com.
Yes, failing to note that the letter is a fraud seems to be a problem you have.
December 13, 2010, 3:47 pmepeeist says:
On a somewhat-related note, on principle it seems problemative that, when an adult drunk male and an adult drunk female have sex, it’s only the male who ever gets charged for non-consensual sex (in jurisdictions where the lack of sobriety is deemed to vitiate consent). Shouldn’t both, or neither, be charged? I mean, the woman could be “taking advantage” of the drunk man without real consent…
December 13, 2010, 4:10 pmNiska says:
I have never posted a comment here before (long-time reader, first-time poster), but after diligently reading through all the replies felt compelled to add one point. A key reason for prohibiting incestuous relationships – and one that makes them absolutely unlike any other class of potentially “consensual” sexual bonding – is that they imply a different kind of inseverability.
Put bluntly, even if/when you and Dad “break up,” he’s still your Dad. To me, this is a good enough reason to avoid incest, and has nothing to do with “ick.”
In any other formulation of a sexual relationship (hetero, homo, poly, mono, whatevs), if it doesn’t work out you still ostensibly have the potential to leave without having to completely unhinged yourself from your core identity. I realize that I’m making a general statement, and that break-ups and divorce are much more fiercely proscribed in some cultures. But the point remains, if you tie yourself sexually/romantically within your pre-existing family unit, you really can’t get out without losing everything. There’s no compelling benefit to society, and much potential harm. Unlike the other kinds of consensual relationships, bans on adult incest are rational because incest inherently destabilizes familial relationships.
Even a “perfect” incestuous relationship would create additional stresses on the extended family group. Every relationship experiences stresses, whether of the “good” kind (buying a house, having a baby) or the bad kind (losing a job, dealing with illness). People fight. People say mean things to each other. Under normal circumstances, you deal with stress in one relationship/social group by turning to support from your extended family and friends. The more incestuous (literally) these groupings become, the more “monocultural” and the less potentially health your grouping becomes in times of peak stress. Being tight-knit can be a good thing, sure. But how do you bitch to your sister or mom about your husband or boyfriend if he’s also your brother or dad? Again, I think this is far less about “ick” (and not at all about orientation, numbers, or gender). It’s about social cohesion and the structure of the family unit.
December 13, 2010, 4:12 pm1040 says:
Why did interracial marriage not lead to rampant incest?
December 13, 2010, 4:27 pmbacchys says:
For the same reason it didn’t lead to rampant homosexual sex.
December 13, 2010, 5:03 pmA.W. says:
1040
You do know there is something in the constitution specifically designed to ban racial discrimination, right?
December 13, 2010, 5:09 pmA.W. says:
1040
You do know there is something in the constitution specifically designed to ban racial discrimination, right?
December 13, 2010, 5:10 pmJust a Thought says:
I’m not sure I understand how or why the issues of the legality or morality of incest differ from any other socially-disapproved sexual activity between consenting adults, such as (at one time) homosexuality or oral sex or extra-marital sex.
December 13, 2010, 5:33 pm1040 says:
a. How do you know it didn’t, and b. What is the reason?
That was not the question I asked. Unless your implication is that you believe interracial marriage does lead to rampant incest, but we have no choice because of the dratted constitution.
December 13, 2010, 5:33 pm1040 says:
Hey, “Just a thought” who calls people he disagrees with “cunts” and “dumbfucks” is back!
December 13, 2010, 5:36 pmJust a Thought says:
Niska, couldn’t your same reasoning be (mis-)used to assert a societal interest in banning any “non-traditional” sexual relationship, including homosexuality, “racial miscegenation,” etc?
December 13, 2010, 5:42 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
There’s no connection at all between race and sex.
December 13, 2010, 5:54 pm1040 says:
There’s no connection at all between gender and sex.
And thus did Commentus Anonymus come to support gay marriage and a new day was born.
December 13, 2010, 6:00 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
This is idiotic, even for you.
December 13, 2010, 6:03 pm1040 says:
It’s perfectly aligned with your previous comment.
December 13, 2010, 6:06 pmMDT says:
epeeist,
On a somewhat-related note, on principle it seems problemative that, when an adult drunk male and an adult drunk female have sex, it’s only the male who ever gets charged for non-consensual sex (in jurisdictions where the lack of sobriety is deemed to vitiate consent). Shouldn’t both, or neither, be charged? I mean, the woman could be “taking advantage” of the drunk man without real consent…
I suspect you’re, um, fencing with me, but yes. I have never understood how two people equally squiffy could have (what seemed at the time) consensual sex and one charge the other with rape the next day.
The underlying idea, I think, is that sex is not something two people do together but something men do to women. We are to make an assumption as to who’s in control of any sexual situation. No prizes for guessing the default.
December 13, 2010, 6:18 pmCommentus Anonymus says:
More idiocy.
December 13, 2010, 6:23 pmxo says:
Interestingly, in New York, incest includes having relations with your spouse’s relatives. Thoughts?
December 13, 2010, 6:27 pmMDT says:
ptt,
If you pick a long sentence from the “letter”, one with no internal punctuation, and Google it with quotation marks, you get a list of webpages where the entire sentence appears (followed by sites with fragments). This technique is especially useful if you happen to pick a sentence in which the author has misspelled a word, as happened when I checked.
Yep. I did that, and got a handful of hits, mostly from RedState. So it is not one of those pieces of merde that have been floating around the Internet for months and might be innocently picked up by anyone. And Martin Knight’s name certainly does seem to be near at hand in all appearances.
Sorry, Jon Rowe, I do believe you got this one right. Apologies.
December 13, 2010, 6:35 pmMartin Knight says:
ptt:
I’d actually appreciate it if you could point out where I failed to note that this was a hypothetical other than here where I made a mistake.
Simply because I’m on the other side of you on this issue doesn’t automatically make me dishonest.
December 13, 2010, 6:42 pmMartin Knight says:
That’s kind of a circular argument, isn’t it? It’s no different from “it’s icky.” I could turn it around and say … “We don’t need to give Kevin and Kenneth a marriage license because homosexuality is not heterosexuality” and that would be just as valid an argument.
I mean; to be exact, what makes an incestuous couple, both of them consenting adults, inherently undeserving of being issued a marriage license as opposed to any other two individuals (of opposite or same sex)?
And by the way; I think viewing anti-miscegenation laws as some sort of control at the opposite end of laws against incest (to prevent marriages of people too distantly related) is somewhat weak. First of all, they were not conceived of that way by the people who enacted them.
Besides, simply looking at some African Americans, one could easily tell they had some Caucasian ancestry, which would of course render the “too distantly related” logic frankly illogical in actual fact.
PS: Anti-miscegenation laws in the USA were artifacts of specifically anti-black animus – whites married Native Americans, Chinese, mestizos, Arabs, etc. and they were not denied state recognition. That’s why I consider Loving V Virginia as not applicable to same-sex marriage.
December 13, 2010, 7:21 pmptt says:
You originally posted your hypothetical in May. You repeated it in August with no disclaimer. You repeated it here, word for word without the disclaimer. Call me suspicious, but that leads me to believe that the disclaimer was not original to the piece. Am I being a bit harsh with that assumption? Perhaps.
You’re pro-incest? Ewwwww. :-)
What makes you and a huge number of others on “your side” dishonest, is the ease with which you associate incest and homosexuality, utterly ignoring the fact that incest is an almost exclusively heterosexual aberration and that the arguments for same-sex relationships that you are mocking are the very arguments for heterosexual marriage in this society. There is nothing more illustrative about your example of brother-brother marriage than any similar imaginary letter about brother-sister marriage, except, of course, that the brother-sister version could also go on and on about how deeply they wanted to produce children, etc., thus embracing not only the liberty of marriage you oppose but the fecundity you claim as its sole, god-instituted purpose.
December 13, 2010, 7:22 pmptt says:
You should look into California law before making that assertion.
December 13, 2010, 7:27 pmMDT says:
Martin Knight,
Ermn. Hypotheticals really, really do need to be identified as such if they are posted on a blog full of lawyers. And hypotheticals do not generally come with a host of biographical details; you stick to the things that make your hypothetical case in some way parallel to the case you’re arguing about. Also, you try not to write, capitalize, and punctuate like a Nigerian spammer.
No one in the history of the planet has honestly written anything like “[I am] a medical researcher in a prestigious pharmaceutical company.” I can see “prestigious pharmaceutical company” (barely) used as a pejorative in an alternative-mag article. I cannot see it in any place where there’s editorial control. And I really can’t see it written by someone working as a medical researcher in a pharmaceutical company. No one, but no one, works at a pharmaceutical company for prestige. Money, sure; and if you’d said “powerful” rather than “prestigious” it would have been more plausible.
Slightly more. If you really want to use fake letters as hypotheticals, you will need to better that one. But I’m not especially keen on showing you how.
December 13, 2010, 7:29 pmGreg says:
I skipped the bestiality part of the discussion, so I may have missed this, but I haven’t seen mention of the well-known fact that sex causes babies. A child who is born knowing that its father is also its grandfather, or its aunt is also its half-sister will not likely have a “normal” upbringing. The “morality” laws (as opposed to church teachings) were largely an attempt by society to protect children, by maintaining the nuclear family (prohibition of adultery, making divorce difficult, keeping prostitutes away from husbands etc).
December 13, 2010, 7:37 pmMaybe what is needed is to decide whether society should still protect one group (in this case, children) at the expense of others’ rights. If so, we’ll have to live with the restriction of those rights. If not, the kids (including those in unequal sexual relationships) will just have to fend for themselves.
Niska says:
No. Non-traditional sexual relationships are not inherently destabilizing to the family structure, regardless of what “slippery slopers” want to argue. Incest is different in kind, not in degree, from other examples being offered here. By definition, incest destabilizes family roles. It blurs definitions, not only for the consenting partners, but for the extra-partner members of the familial group. This is simply not true for other “non-traditional” arrangements to the same degree.
Example: in an incestuous uncle-niece marriage, where does the “mother-in-law” place? In a same-sex marriage or polygamous union, the definition of “mother-in-law” does not change.
This is what I mean by destabilization, and it’s a real argument for disallowing incest. “Two mommies” is the comparison that people like to make, but these are not actually comparable because 1) homo sex does not *have* to involve a “family” at all, whereas incest by definition always does and 2) “two mommies” involves a complication of numbers – same as polygamy- but the basic definition of familial roles remains fairly stable. Incest complicates roles not only for the nuclear unit but also for extended family and the culture beyond.
December 13, 2010, 7:54 pmMeiczyslaw says:
Quick observation about “ick factor”: the reason why you rationally discuss these things is that “ick” is a message from the opaque part of your brain. That opaque part of your brain can be really smart — it can crunch huge amounts of data, and act like a supercomputer that communicates only through good and bad feelings.
Unfortunately, it can also act like a two-year-old if you’ve never really encountered a particular situation before.
In this case, I think it’s the supercomputer, and the folks who talk about familial relationships are on the mark. We’re not talking about a sexual relationship in a vacuum.
Thus, the argument becomes one about how we prioritize and protect these relationships. The American tradition thus far is that we view family bonds as eternal, and therefore worth protecting over sexual ones.
December 13, 2010, 8:44 pmJust a Thought says:
But that’s exactly what I’m asking Niska. Isn’t the reason we oppose incest simply the “ick” factor, and isn’t the “ick” factor in turn simply our lack of having seen the situation before?
After all, both homosexuality and mixed-race marriages used to be subject to the “ick” factor.
December 13, 2010, 8:54 pmMDT says:
Niska,
Everything you say just above is perfectly true. But the question isn’t (at present) whether it should be legal for very close adult kin to marry; it’s whether it should be illegal for very close adult kin to have sexual relations.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard “whatever two consenting adults do in private isn’t the state’s business” so many times that I can’t honestly say even that I’m sick of it. It’s just there; you acknowledge it the way you acknowledge the weather.
Here are two adults; they appear both to have consented; the crime one of them is charged with is the same sort of crime the “two consenting adults” formula was designed around. And yet no one seems to be relying on the “two consenting adults” formula. It’s almost as though it wasn’t a principle in the first place. ;-)
This is the sort of thing that really does need sorting out. If some of “whatever two consenting adults do in private” turns out to be stuff we actually do want to keep/make illegal, we need to retire the “two consenting adults” business. Or else confess freely that that’s the sort of stuff you feed the rubes, but hasn’t any purchase on the people who make decisions.
December 13, 2010, 9:04 pmShelbyC says:
Just don’t ask Debrah, you’ll be confused as heck.
December 13, 2010, 10:23 pmShelbyC says:
Oops, just read your comment about fellating a cow. Too late :-)
December 13, 2010, 10:55 pm1040 says:
This is simply not true. Anti miscegenation laws in general (and the Virginia law in question too) banned marriage between whites and colored people of all stripes, with colored usually being defined by the one-drop rule. The state did go after other white-colored marriages. One example that I am aware of is a marriage between an Indian man and an American citizen woman (who was one of the founding members of the NAACP, actually) – the American woman’s citizenship was removed as a result. Similarly, products of white-colored marriages were sold into slavery in the old days even when there were no blacks involved.
So, why again did the legalization of interracial marriage not lead to rampant incest?
December 13, 2010, 11:18 pmbacchys says:
The quote feature isn’t working well, so I’m unable to quote 1040′s question to me that way.
We know interracial marriage didn’t lead to an explosion of homosexual sex because those who regard homosexuality as an innate trait have largely won the debate. The causes of homosexuality and the penchant to engage in homosexual sex have nothing to do with the marital status of other people. That miscegenation laws were no longer recognized as valid therefore had no impact on the likelihood or frequency of homosexual acts.
December 14, 2010, 12:06 amVercingetorix says:
Not at all. Consensual murder, for instance, in such instances as euthanasia can be proscribed. Euthanasia could be rationally the best plausible choice of very bad choices, but, hey, that’s just too bad: suicide is wrong, I’m not going to do Pythagoras one better and write proofs, tracts and treatises on why this is so.
There is an admirable trait here that you are showing where you seem to love knowledge, the good philosophe, but I’m reminded of Leczek Kolakowski’s observation, “A modern philosopher who has never once suspected himself of being a charlatan must be such a shallow mind that his work is probably not worth reading.”
You have to recognize that you will never get to an unassailable proposition of moral or legal probity, and therefore at some point, you might as well face the rump truth: your “rational” approach, which merely concerns itself with what “feels good”, sexually, and exercises the greatest desire to expand this sexual liberty as wide as possible, is no more “rational” than a systematic approach based on revulsion.
At root, both dyspepsia and orgasm are body reflexes, are they not?
Pleasure and pain are not synonymous with Good and Evil nor Right or Wrong. Many very good things hurt like hell – child birth being the obvious one, exercise and work of any kind coming in behind. Try like hell, but you’re going to end up a confused mess by pinning your desires on expanding hedonism over obvious impropriety.
December 14, 2010, 12:27 amDavid Chesler says:
Yup, like milking a bull.
Query: legal status of having sex with the animal, or perhaps just its liver, after you’ve killed it?
See also lambskin condoms.
December 14, 2010, 1:43 am1040 says:
Also, masturbating killer whales with cow’s vaginas is icky, so it should be illegal. Free Willy!
December 14, 2010, 4:54 amT. Jefferson says:
… that amounts to “it’s wrong because I feel it is wrong, and a lot of the lemmings agree with me.”
Sorry guy. Your feeling it and saying it doesn’t make it so. Neither does the fact that others profess to agree with you. Just because a lot of people decide that it’s easier to comply with a rule rather than change it, or find another society to live in, doesn’t mean that the rule is inherently justified.
I’m not playing games here as you seem to think. I am a student of and adherent to the Constitution of the United States, especially the Preamble. My early educational experience taught me that my rights end where yours begin, and vice versa! What this means is, that I can pursue happiness in any way I want, as long as I’m not infringing on someone else’s rights. Under these standards, however, I am not required to appease them or refrain from the excercise of that right because they might be offended.
Power and right are not equivalent. Force and the rule of law may give one the power to prohibit or require a specific action of another, but it doesn’t grant the right to do so. The U.S. Constitution clearly codifies this, by enumerating some of the rights of the citizenry, and all of the powers of the government.
Bottom line: “You can’t do that because I said so” isn’t good enough. Failing to aspire to something better is pure, self-serving laziness – and the people of this country have been guilty of that for a long time.
December 14, 2010, 10:51 amPeter says:
Good timing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html
December 14, 2010, 2:27 pmMad Max says:
Romans did it. Greeks did it. Egyptians did it. All antique cultures did it. In the Middle Ages the Borgias and the Stauffers did it.
At all times, brothers married sisters, fathers slept with daughters, Mothers slept with sons. So why should we stop this tradition?
December 15, 2010, 1:47 pmMario says:
I think we also criminalize incest because the relationship suggests a lack of consent. A lack of consent can be hard to prove. The existence of a familial relationship is a proxy for a lack of consent.
December 16, 2010, 10:12 pmMartin Knight says:
@ptt
I apologize for not replying before now …
Err … nope. Originally posted this “letter” on Redstate November 23, 2006. Disclaimer was there. All the other times I posted it were again at Redstate and I put it in blockquotes so as not to give anyone the impression that this was genuine. But that’s really not the point of my posting it here and you know it.
“aberration” i.e. it’s “icky.” Interesting. You see, I’m not disagreeing with you that incest is icky, but I’m pointing it out to you that lots of people, apparently the majority of people polled on the issue, find homosexuality – or at least, same-sex marriage – “icky” as well.
Second, you say homosexuality and incest are two distinct behaviors, yet here you are “associating” heterosexuality and incest. But then that’s not the salient issue. Whether William wanted to marry his adult consenting brother Gregory or his adult consenting sister Gretchen in my hypothetical letter above doesn’t really alter the fact that people like this certainly exist. One day, one such couple is going to want a marriage license.
Third, what makes you and a huge number of others on “your side” dishonest, is the ease with which you always draw an equivalence between race and sexuality and how it affects marriage. Simply put, there is no slippery slope from interracial marriage to incest. I point, as empirical evidence, to the fact that interracial marriage has existed for thousands of years and all around the world, even in the United States (notwithstanding California law) prior to Loving vs Virginia.
Nope – the arguments for heterosexual marriage focuses around children and tying a man down to provide for his own and their mother. This is not just American or Christian but universal. Children, not who you want to have sex with, are the raison d’etre of marriage, the reason it is perhaps the sole universal social institution of mankind. Children are not an issue in same-sex marriage.
This is another thing that makes you and a huge number of others on “your side” dishonest; the arguments for same-sex marriage and relationships have always been exclusively focused on the consent and the capacity for consent of the two individuals, i.e. “two consenting adults”. “How does Mark and Matt getting a marriage license personally affect you or your marriage?” we’re plaintively asked.
To be perfectly honest, the reason I first posted my hypothetical letter from “William” was that I got tired of seeing letters like this, arguing for gay marriage being posted on SoCon sites in some sort of bid to “confront” social conservatives with the “human face” of the issue of same-sex marriage. There was almost always the inclusion of things to tug at SoCon heartstrings i.e. military service, a long recounting of both people’s occupations to emphasize that they’re taxpaying contributors to society, etc. …
Well, I ask, how does William and Gregory (or Gretchen) getting married affect you or your marriage? In other words, I’m pointing out that the very same arguments used to argue for same-sex marriage (which really are not the same arguments used for heterosexual marriage) can be used with practically no alteration to argue for incestuous marriage.
PS:
I’m confused at this – where did I mention anything about god? Are you on auto-pilot? Does everyone who opposes gay marriage have to be a bible-thumper?
December 19, 2010, 7:02 pmMartin Knight says:
@MDT
Wow, MDT.
Really?
And are you trying to tell me that there is not one single person working in the pharmaceutical industry who thinks his (or her) company has done good for humanity and is worthy of some prestige? Not one?
You just really really really despise the pharmocologists, don’t you?
Like I have explained to ptt above, the reason I first posted my hypothetical letter from “William” was that I got tired of seeing letters like this, arguing for gay marriage being posted on SoCon sites in some sort of bid to “confront” social conservatives with the “human face” of the issue of same-sex marriage. There was almost always the inclusion of things (i.e. biographical details) to tug at SoCon heartstrings i.e. military service, a long recounting of both people’s occupations to emphasize that they’re taxpaying contributors to society, etc. …
I’m just following a template. :-)
Expantiate on this, please – are Nigerian spammers the only people who are allowed to capitalize and punctuate correctly?
December 19, 2010, 7:08 pmThe Wiccan Man says:
I say that all things pertaining to the adult human should abide by only one rule of thumb: “An’ harm ye none, do as thou will.” If you measure all things against that, you will find that so much of this life is wasted in the meandering debates over what is “right” and what is “wrong” when dealing with the fictional “slippery slope” that allegedly allows one group to gain favoritism over other groups that later allegedly gain favoritism. Only man can decide what is wrong or right. And the basis of this country may have been bound in morality, but that so-called morality was that the Protestants had decided that the Bible should not be interpreted only by the crown of England. Or was I the only one awake in fifth grade Social Studies class?
December 19, 2010, 10:13 pmThe Wiccan Man says:
As a PhD candidate, I would hope that you realize that at least one of the readers of this thread is somewhat educated in the fact that race (a sociological construct meant to subjugate people of altering skin tones) has no basis in biology (such as the fruit fly genome experiment where two fruit flies had more varying genetic material than two humans of varying skin colors; the humans have more genetic similarities, so by that route, there should be no more human procreation as we are already “too closely related” as some would have it. And I’m just a Film major.
December 19, 2010, 11:02 pmThe Wiccan Man says:
If the ‘ick’ factor was used to imprison people, then what of the people that have some form of facial deformity? I had a science teacher that had a goiter. At the time I found that icky. Should she have gone to prison for that ick factor? And if we do start throwing people into prison over the ick factor, when does that stop? Are we then going to become the United States of Ick-prisonment? The ick factor has become a form of sociological eugenics.
December 19, 2010, 11:32 pmThe Wiccan Man says:
You try putting a tree trunk the size of a Washington state redwood in the trunk of a 1970 Volkswagen trunk and see if that doesn’t “hurt” the car. This is the exact reason why John Holmes never did midget porn.
December 19, 2010, 11:54 pmThe Wiccan Man says:
Granted incest and gay life appear in the “Phillips Bros.” hypo case, but more times than not, people tend to try and trump what comes first in that kind of scenario. Both come in neck-and-neck. Just because one is recently recognized as socially acceptable and one is burdened with the ick factor, that ends up denying both parts of the whole. Just because a man wishes to marry his mare does not mean that we see a heterosexual couple and a interspecies couple in the same breath. In basic algebra we combine like factors. Homosexuality and incestuous relations are not like factors. You’re comparing apples and wrenches. I’d say apples and oranges, but those are both fruit. There are times when I’m proud to be an American, but then you have those American double standards that do occur:
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WARNING
1) you are the father of twins (one male, one female)who are both 16 years old. The son comes home and states that he just nailed his first lay, some prime tail from the homecoming queen (the hottest chick in the school). What is your response?
1a) Your daughter comes home about half an hour later saying the same thing about the captain of the captain of the football team and homecoming king. What is your response? Is it the same as part 1 above? If not, why?
2) You enter your friend’s kitchen to get something to drink and discover two women dyking it out on the kitchen floor. What is your reaction?
2a) You enter your friend’s kitchen to get something to drink and discover two guys performing mutually effective sexual acts upon each other. What is your reaction? Is it the same as part 2 above? If not, why?
Situation number 2 and 2a are the same thing. They feature two people performing homosexual acts on persons of the same gender. Do I really need to break the word homo- (meaning “same”) -sexual (pertaining to gender) into its main components in order for everyone to see that even Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston doing each other is just as gay as any two guys? Get over the hypocrisy and look in the mirror if you see something you don’t like in the media.
December 20, 2010, 1:33 amThe Wiccan Man says:
I hate to break the news to you JaimeInTexas, but Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, making his bloodline a Jewish one. Not to mention that he was supposedly the son of the Jewish deity, Yahweh. Which Church do you mean when speaking of the Law and the Prophets? The precept of Christianity is the turning away from the laws of Moses (as pointed out by the conversion of one of the Apostles from Judaism to Christianity and the fact that Jesus proclaimed only one prayer be needed “Our Father.”)
December 20, 2010, 1:40 amThe Wiccan Man says:
Actually, gender is the biological tag that a person is born with, sex is the sociological tag that a person grows into.
December 20, 2010, 1:49 amThe Wiccan Man says:
You point out that interracial marriages existed in America prior to the Loving ruling. That may be, but those marriages of interracial nature in America prior to the Loving ruling were ILLEGAL. Hmmmmmmm…. Could there be the pattern emerging here? Faulty factual statements made by people who conveniently misplace the disclaimer notice in lieu of “blocking the text” in a forum where anyone can and has blocked text for no apparent reason … I may not be a lawyer, but I am a writer by trade. You need to go back to school and relearn those tricks of the creative writer.
December 20, 2010, 2:13 amMartin Knight says:
Not in every part of America.
I’m guessing it’s the heap of smug you see looking back at you in the mirror. :-D
December 20, 2010, 12:32 pmThe Wiccan Man says:
And which parts of America were interracial marriages legal? And in what times were they legal? We all know that Thomas Jefferson had his way, but was what he did legal? Oh, I’m sorry, that interracial relationship smacks of the incest argument. I guess that makes it invalid then. And by the way, I don’t own any mirrors.
December 21, 2010, 9:29 amJoe says:
I believe that consentual sexual relationships between adults should all be decriminalized, including incest and polygamy (and polyandry). I think that answers question #1 and thereby renders questions #2 and #3 moot. Question #4 deserves a comment: There’s nothing about the special emotional control that a parent might have over a child that couldn’t be said of a sibling over another sibling per se.
I base my comments on numerous conversations I’ve had with those who are enjoying successful long-term relationships with close family members or are enjoying long-term polyamorous relationships. A few of those relationships have produced children and none of those children have suffered any birth defects.
December 26, 2010, 1:15 pmJoe says:
I hope you realize the flaw in your argument: Some states allowed persons of different faces to marry while others did not. So, it’s entirely true that there were legal interracial marriages in some states while it was still illegal in others. Loving v Virginia simply invalidated the miscegenation laws in those states that didn’t allow interracial marriages invalid. Do you see that the earlier post that you pontificated about is entirely correct, now? It’s true that you aren’t a lawyer, but you aren’t much of a writer either if you don’t think about all the possibilities before you write about things.
December 26, 2010, 1:40 pmThe Wiccan Man says:
That may be, but wasn’t this thread originally based on “Incest as the next personal rights movement?” The whole fact that, as i am not a student of history in the finer points, nor am I a lawyer, I do see that the ‘slippery slide’ idea that people use is factually invalid. The removal of the Gay As Mental Illness from the DSM didn’t cause every human being to turn gay. In fact, that removal did more to polarize our society in an anti-gay fashion than any other removal of items from any medical or religious or secular catalog (used in reference to anything non-medical and non-religious to differentiate the trio of terms as I use them). It wasn’t the lack of legality (or the appearance of the same) of the interracial marriages that I was initially pointing toward in my previous posts. What I had initially outlined was the use of the hypothetical situation (complete with the so-called legitimate letter from the two gay male siblings). I may not be a very good technical writer in your eyes, but I am a published writer of fiction. That in and of itself allows me to comment on that use of the fictional hypothetical situation that was voiced earlier. Ans as Hypos go, are you one of the people that react to my hypos in the traditional anti-open-minded way? There is no slippery slope. If and/or when each individual group of “counter-culture” persons gain the ability to not be visited with violence for their beliefs and/or conduct, then we can further debate the need for any other rights. As I have said before “An’ harm ye none, do as ye will.” That is the Wiccan Rede. That is the rule that I follow. That is what separates me from those that want to destroy others for their beliefs and/or actions. Think about those things that I bring up and get back to me. Maybe then we can open up a meeting of the minds that may bring about a more peaceful world.
December 26, 2010, 4:44 pmJoe says:
To The Wiccan Man: I must say, I don’t follow your conversation very easily or understand the points you are making very clearly. Generally speaking, I’m extremely open-minded except when dealing with close-minded folk. From what I’ve read of your posts, I don’t consider you to be part of that group.
I’m sure many/most of those who have enjoyed incestuous relationships think their rights struggle ought now to be the next frontier of the struggle for human rights, but so do those who enjoy polygamy, polyandry and polyamory. Those who enjoy bestiality would like to see laws prohibiting sex with animals repealed, too. Those who have indulged in all three sexual practices are correct to point out that none of them deserves to be elevated over the others. The struggle to be left alone with other consenting adults to behave as one wishes isn’t a “slope” at all – it’s more or less an even playing field. Those who happen to believe that one man, one woman, missionary position sex only when necessary for procreation should not be able to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) stands as a landmark case along the road to sexual rights, and the repeal of DADT is another, although that struggle won’t be complete until all the DoM Acts, at the federal and state levels are declared invalid by court action or reversed by legislative action. I’m just afraid that the struggle will stop (or stall) there. It shouldn’t. Laws preventing polyamorous liaisons, incestuous relationships and bestiality will need to be unraveled, too. Unfortunately for us, there aren’t visible and vocal leaders ready to raise a very public ruckus to fight the same kind of fights that were made to overturn the laws against interracial marriages, laws against the private sex acts of opposite sex couples and laws against the private sex acts of same sex couples. These were all changed because the majority of the people feel that we should be left alone to determine our own preferences in these matters. I fear that the majority will never feel we should be left alone to have polyamorous marriages or to marry close relatives or to enjoy animals sexually. I think those of us who do favor repealing laws against such practices will have to make do without any further assistance from the law.
Sorry for the long ramble. Just my random thoughts.
December 27, 2010, 1:36 amThe Wiccan Man says:
Thaty was my point exactly, the unraveling of all the red tape dealing with consenting individuals. Technically, the only time any “consent” can be achieved with the four-legged folk is when they are in estrus (heat). And even then it is a gray area in and of itself. The reason I say live by the Wiccan Rede is that A) I am a witch (not with the flashy Hollywood powers that most people mistake as being a witch [read: 'Charmed']) and B) as long as we do things that are unable to cause harm to others (man, woman, child, other), then we are on the right path. The other thing that I ponder is if marriage is a more religious aspect of two peoples’ union (in the eyes of God), then why must they need a CIVIC certification? Federal law (I say federal as being every state in the union of the United States of America) demands that two people need a marriage license in order to become wedded. Where is the separation of church and state in all that? Just things to think upon when you are able to sit and ponder the unponderables of life. See you in the funny pages. Hopefully we can chat more often and really come to an understanding on the vastness of life and what the forces of our world have given.
December 28, 2010, 6:03 pmIncest and the Degradation of Our Vocabulary « Public Discourse says:
[...] briefly describing the facts of the Epstein case, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh asked, “Should it be illegal, and if so, exactly why?” The comments from his readers were not, in the [...]
January 4, 2011, 8:29 pmI Told Me So: Self-Deception and the Christian Life… some random reflections « 20 Times Around the Block says:
[...] on a 3-year sexual relationship with her that began at the time she turned the legal drinking age. Lawyers, journalists, and other political scientsts are all wondering how such a relationship between [...]
January 6, 2011, 5:52 pm