"...does a conviction for incest differ from a conviction for rape?"

It does if the incest was between two consenting adults, which she may have been as a 16 year-old, depending in state law (Alabama?). It'd be pretty tough to argue she was 'consenting' though.

technically speaking, the only one that should be illegal is rape... and since a minor can't consent anyway, this activity could be covered by rape.

But, as gross as it may be to us, why should incest be outlawed between 2 adults? Unless you maybe buy into the "well it's gross" argument as substantial reasoning for making a law against something. Or "really really gross".

"...why should incest be outlawed between 2 adults?"

E5, what are you not telling us that we should know....? (and yes, it is, in fact, gross)

On a separate note, does a conviction for incest differ from a conviction for rape?

Different statutes and different things you have to prove - rape requires a showing of force and lack of consent, incest requires the defendant to be related to the victim, and know that he is related to the victim. Sentences are different - rape is punished more harshly, though penalties for incest are very strict. Both charges would put someone on a sex offender registry for life.

E5, I think the reasoning behind it is the rest of us don't want to pick up the tab for a kid who's got severe genetic disorders should there be "issue" from the relationship.

Well, that and the gross part.

Eric,

Who said anything about kids. I was talking about sex. But I do agree that sec *can* lead to kids and abstinence will never lead to kids, so I am starting to see things your way. However I could use some clarification:

- should couples on welfare be prohibited from having kids for the same logic?
- if so, should these same poor people also be prevented form merely having sex, as if may lead to a kid?
If no to either of these, please expand upon why how it differs from your logic re: incest.

- should people with incompatible genetics that make their potential kid very likely to be deformed also be prevented from having sex? (even if their is no family relation)

E5

Does Giuliani's marriage to his first cousin take away from his accomplishments? And is it too late to bring him up on charges?

But, as gross as it may be to us, why should incest be outlawed between 2 adults?

How about that it runs contrary to human dignity and Natural Law?

Although the question illustrates in starker relief the errors of contraception, which divorced sexual intercourse from the conception of children.

which natural law are you referring to?
the Christian one? some biblical based law?

Also... how is allowing consenting adults freedom against human dignity? YOU only have dignity when you can control others' actions so you're not "grossed out", maybe?

E5,

1.) Yes, people on welfare should be forced to use contraception. As in, "You want welfare, you get the 5-year shot or you get snipped." Harsh? Darn skippy--but that's what happens when you let the government pay the freight. I've long maintained welfare should _not_ cover crumbsnatchers.

2.) If you can determine some way that said individuals can be tested without violating their rights to not be searched involuntarily, etc., then by all means, let's have the restrictions be the case. However, given that medical care is still private practice and technically the government can't just go willy nilly through your medical files, your question is apples and oranges. We _know_ people are brother and sister most of the time (although there are funny, true stories involving separated sibling who meet later in life *shudder*) so there's no illegal search necessary for us to say, "Enh, no, you guys cannot bump uglies."

3.) The human dignity argument is a realization that we are something besides animals. That's the logic behind things like the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc., etc.. Yes, they screwed things up with slavery, but still--being a human is supposed to be above merely being a rutting animal.

4.) Ergo, yes, society does get to put some restrictions on who you get to shag. As society changes, these restrictions either lessen or increase. For example, it's been within human lifetime that miscegenation laws were on the books in this country. However, as society evolved and we had reason, these laws changed. Ditto with sodomy. So, yeah, you want to take the benefit of society, you gotta deal with the warts. If the majority of society says, "Ew, humping your sister is WRONG..." then them's the breaks.

As a citizen, you have an obligation to live within the society's rules. That's the logic of why you have to put up with it--because you deal with the fruits of society that ostensibly keep you from being killed and stuff. If you want to do the horizontal mambo with your first cousin, find a society that allows it. Other than that, no, society does have a right to say, "Enh, nope, that makes the majority of us lose our lunch."

E5 -

Human development and human dignity (as is natural law) are much more than "mutually consenting adults" and doing ones best to ensure that "no one gets hurt." For humans, sexual relationships with such close releatives (fathers and mothers w/ children, brother and sisters, uncles and aunts w/ their nieces and or nephews, etc.) interferes with forming individual personalities. They create enmeshed human beings who can't be separate persons because their personhood isn't respected. Adults engaging in incest develop relationships that are turned in on the immediate family rather than outward to society. Incest makes people much, much less; the physical deformities that can occur are as nothing when compared to the developmental and emotional ones which effect the entire family and society as a whole.

For God sakes, do some basic research in personality and identity development.

Sexual reproduction outside of one's bloodline also reduces the likelihood of passing on a chronic disease.

James:
1) but it's not illegal.. it just precludes one from receiving welfare... why not be consistent?

2) what about cases where the govt does know... ie: people who receive (or have received) some sort of federal assistance or have used a specific defect as an insanity defense?

3) "human dignity" is vague. I'm not rejecting it... I'm just asking for a more concrete definition than: "ya know.. it's cause we're not animals and are civilized." As I define "human dignity" as respecting consenting adults' free choices that don't infringe on the life liberty or property of any non-consenting adults or minors. I'm guessing yours is more than this. I'm open to hearing it.

Druscilla... again.. .it's an issue of definitions. A lot of people (myself included) define natural law specifically in a way you reject: namely ONLY refraining from infringement. I have no problem (yet) with you offering a differing definition, but calling mine "silly" is a far cry from offering an alternative definition.

What a confusing stumble through life it must be, not believing in anything.

E5 makes me wish I had paid more attention in philosophy class.

As I define "human dignity" as respecting consenting adults' free choices that don't infringe on the life liberty or property of any non-consenting adults or minors.

How is consent indicative of dignity? People consent to all sorts of things that are contrary to dignity on a regular basis - perhaps out of coercion, or due to extenuating circumstances such as addiction to a substance or financial hardship. If consent is the only standard, it sets up a world in which the powerful can exploit the vulnerable with impunity.

If I were to shoot you dead and subsequently tell the police that you consented to it, should I be prosecuted for homicide? You're not alive to testify to the contrary.

Further, as Seraphic Single points out to me, incest "makes family members into sexual competitors, which of course breaks up the family." The basic unit of society collapses onto itself in rivalry, suspicion, and breach of trust. The damage left behind is insurmountable, consent or no.

E5, your sister is a 'hottie', ain't she?

A real 'smoker', if ya' know what i mean: *say no more* *say no more*
You just want her to be a closely-held secret, eh?

No dirty Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg sauce spoiling the party, huh?

Unna-stood, unna-stood.

so you only defend things that you choose to do, snoop?

well I ain't a jew so who cares whats done wiht them... that sorta thing?

"People consent to all sorts of things that are contrary to dignity on a regular basis - perhaps out of coercion..."

wow. That clears it up for me. Thanks.

wow. That clears it up for me. Thanks.

For example, let's say you own a gas station and are working alone at the register. I walk in and hold you up and ask for the money in the till. In order to escape the immediate physical threat, you consent to hand the money over to me. Crime, or no?

You consented, albeit under less than ideal circumstances for you.

that's not consent. It's theft. i don't have the patience to being you up to speed on how complying with a thief is not the same as consenting to give him money, but many others here are capable of clearing it up for you and are more than welcome to do so.

If not, i'll log back in tomorrow when I'm sober and try to clarify.

E5,

As a practical matter, how would the law ensure incestuous relationships don't produce children? Unintended pregnancy happens all the time.

Personally, I don't care what other people do. But invariably they'll expect me to help pay for the special glasses their three-eyed kid requires.

I think it's time to invoke Lewis Black's views on Noahide Law.

You Can't Marry A Snapping Turtle

Eric,

I'm very reluctant to more bad laws as a "fix" to prior bad laws.

And i think the only solution would be to direct all our energy towards the real problem: a system that FORCES me and you to pay for "them". whether we want to or not.

After all, if you accept such a socialized system, but then just also accept laws hoping to mitigate the damages from the system, why not also accept health laws... after all why should others be allowed to eat themselves to death when, on their deathbed, their medical costs might be paid for by us?

That Lewis Black clip was funny.