Marriage and Incest

[scribblet]

Michael Coren was talking about an incest case on his show the other night when he asked the panel whether it should be legal or not. He says people might be able to challenge the law (re: SSM redefinition of marriage)

The new and revised definition means that any two people can qualify for marriage. So that really could cover polygamy and incest ... Wonder when we'll get the first challenge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6379785.stm

Incestuous German pair fight case

[Renegade]

Between consenting adults, I can't see that it should be the government's business who anyone sleeps with or gets married to.

Besides "moral" grounds, what is the objection to poligamy or insest?

[Remiel]

There is a biological argument against incest. Children of such relationships are far more likely to have health problems, partially due the compounding of genetic traits I believe. You can see the same thing in domesticated animals. A mutt is FAR more likely to be a healthy dog than a purebred. It's been found that the children of cousins are just as healthy as most people, but anything closer than that is bad.

[Canadian Blue]

I watched the newsreport, and apparently two children had "defects". Either way I think it can be harmful to society if children are having defects physical and mental due to incest. As for the state intervening, when it comes to procreating you shouldn't do it with your sister, and you should expect their to be problems with the kids.

If it's proven that incest doesn't harm the children in such a relationship, I'll change my mind. But either way I'm not sure why someone would want to have sex with their sister, even if she is attractive.

[Renegade]

There is a biological argument against incest. Children of such relationships are far more likely to have health problems, partially due the compounding of genetic traits I believe. You can see the same thing in domesticated animals. A mutt is FAR more likely to be a healthy dog than a purebred. It's been found that the children of cousins are just as healthy as most people, but anything closer than that is bad.

Let't take it as a fact that there is a significant genetic risk to kids from incest. The state if it wants to ban genitic risks, needs to do it consistently and not discrimminatorily. There may be a more significant risk of two carriers of a recessive genitic deficiency passing it on to their kids. The state should then ban that too, under the same guise as incest. In fact it should then ban any intercourse which may has the risk of passing on genetic deficiencies to kids and not single out incest.

Also, what happens if there is no or very small risk of kids? Birth control and abortion has made that possible. Should it then be allowed?

Face it the only reason incest is banned, is the the same reason homesexual marriage was banned. It is based upon ancient taboos which really don't have a place in the modern world.

[Renegade]

when it comes to procreating you shouldn't do it with your sister,

That is a moral determination. Why shouldn't morals be left to individuals to decide?

and you should expect their to be problems with the kids.

What if you don't intend to have kids? No procreation is risk free, even those between non-related parties. What is the determination point at which we decide that the risk is "acceptable" or "unacceptable", and should it be the state that makes that determination or individuals?

But either way I'm not sure why someone would want to have sex with their sister, even if she is attractive.

I don't know what their motivations are either any more than I understand why one man wants to have sex with another man, but I'm pretty sure their motivations are none of my business.

[Canadian Blue]

What if you don't intend to have kids? No procreation is risk free, even those between non-related parties. What is the determination point at which we decide that the risk is "acceptable" or "unacceptable", and should it be the state that makes that determination or individuals?

At the point were it has been shown that children will have birth defects. Society should not allow a behavior which could result in genetic defects with children. This isn't based on morals, but based upon what the experts have said with regards to incest.

[Riverwind]

Between consenting adults, I can't see that it should be the government's business who anyone sleeps with or gets married to.

The overwhelming majority of polygamy and incest relationship are situations where an imbalance of power exists. This means that one party is not really free to reject the relationship so they cannot be said to consent to it.

I realize that it might be theoretically possible to produce cases of polygamy and incest where there is no imbalance of power, however, it is in the best interest of society to restrict the behavior entirely instead wading into to each relationship to determine whether true consent exists.

This does restrict the liberty of the 'hypothetical consenting adults', however, I feel it is justified.

[BubberMiley]

The new and revised definition means that any two people can qualify for marriage. So that really could cover polygamy and incest

I have no problem with polygamy, but I disagree with you about incest. I think that's just gross.

[Renegade]

At the point were it has been shown that children will have birth defects. Society should not allow a behavior which could result in genetic defects with children. This isn't based on morals, but based upon what the experts have said with regards to incest.

Tay-Sachs Disease: If both parents are genetic carriers, there is a 25% chance of the child having the disease. How is it we don't ban these carriers from having sex?

[Renegade]

The overwhelming majority of polygamy and incest relationship are situations where an imbalance of power exists. This means that one party is not really free to reject the relationship so they cannot be said to consent to it.

I'm not convinced that this is true, but I will accept it as an assumption for now.

Imbalances of power exists in many relationships, yet society doesn't outlaw them outright. Even a traditional man-woman marriage was an imbalance of power. Arranged marriages common in many cultures is an imbalance of power. If you point is that we must be sure that consent exists, then I agree. The laws can be created to ensure that each party is truly consentual rather than banning the practice outright.

I realize that it might be theoretically possible to produce cases of polygamy and incest where there is no imbalance of power, however, it is in the best interest of society to restrict the behavior entirely instead wading into to each relationship to determine whether true consent exists.

It is simply your opinion that restricting "undesirable" behaviour is in the best interest of society. In my opinion the maximizing individual liberties is in the best interest of society.

This does restrict the liberty of the 'hypothetical consenting adults', however, I feel it is justified.

I disagree. It is a discrimminatory practice and is unjustified. It is simply an artificat of traditional taboos.

[jbg]

Between consenting adults, I can't see that it should be the government's business who anyone sleeps with or gets married to.

Besides "moral" grounds, what is the objection to poligamy or insest?

Well, "Love Billy Goat" of Rabble (link) (link to post) agrees:

Same sex marriage is a hot issue both in the US and Canada. The proposals are typical watered down Republican/CPC fodder. Bush's toadies like it that way.

The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry, regardless of gender, species and age, as long as one is a human over the age of 14. Only the tired, reactionary tories and George Bush want to seem to be fighting gay marriage and would settle for two-male or two-female marriages.

The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc. Don't be stampeded by Bush/Harper, Bush/Martin, they're all the same.

[madmax]

So that really could cover polygamy and incest ... Wonder when we'll get the first challenge.

I am not certain that it does or doesn't. Are there Polygamy and Incest laws? Are the two people gay twin brothers?

While all this is speculative, I don't think that Riff Raff and Magenta will be able to test this law, as they are from another planet. Which is about as much as I care to comment about this topic.

I don't know of any incestous couples living together. (Fortuneately)

[geoffrey]

The disgust of 30 million outweights the joys of a sick few.

[Renegade]

The disgust of 30 million outweights the joys of a sick few.

Apparently not. At one time 30 million (give or take a few million) were disgusted at the behaviour of homosexuals. Do you think that homosexuals should have had to wait until the majority stop being disgusted?

[Renegade]

Well, "Love Billy Goat" of Rabble (link) (link to post) agrees:

Same sex marriage is a hot issue both in the US and Canada. The proposals are typical watered down Republican/CPC fodder. Bush's toadies like it that way.

The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry, regardless of gender, species and age, as long as one is a human over the age of 14. Only the tired, reactionary tories and George Bush want to seem to be fighting gay marriage and would settle for two-male or two-female marriages.

The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc. Don't be stampeded by Bush/Harper, Bush/Martin, they're all the same.

You would have to be able to prove that the goat, sheep, etc had the capacity to consent, had consented, and understood what they were consenting to.

[geoffrey]

The disgust of 30 million outweights the joys of a sick few.

Apparently not. At one time 30 million (give or take a few million) were disgusted at the behaviour of homosexuals. Do you think that homosexuals should have had to wait until the majority stop being disgusted?

Yes. And they did. It's not neccessarily the matter of the majority either, but if everyone in society is so outraged, it's doing more harm to extend freedoms to a few handful for them to only really get a small marginal benefit really.. in fact, they may be hurting themselves.

[BubberMiley]

Yes. And they did. It's not neccessarily the matter of the majority either, but if everyone in society is so outraged, it's doing more harm to extend freedoms to a few handful for them to only really get a small marginal benefit really.. in fact, they may be hurting themselves.

Sounds to me you're falling for a strawman hypothetical involving such a small segment of the population, it's irrelevant anyway.

[Renegade]

Yes. And they did.

No, they didn't wait for the majority to stop being "disgusted". They sued in court and won the right via court decision, despite the views of the majority. If you remember as recently as the late 90s parliment, representing the majority of voters, voted to reaffirm the santity of hetrosexual marriage to the exclusion of hetrosexual marriage.

It's not neccessarily the matter of the majority either, but if everyone in society is so outraged, it's doing more harm to extend freedoms to a few handful for them to only really get a small marginal benefit really.. in fact, they may be hurting themselves.

Why does anyone's outrage even matter? As long as the behaviour in question doesn't affect the freedoms of others they have no business being outraged.

It is only your personal assessment that the benefits are "small" and "marginal". Those affected may view the benefits as significant. Staying out of jail IMV is a Significant benefit.

You can't escape the fact tht it is discrimminatory regardless of if the discrimmination affects only a few or affects many.

[jbg]

Well, "Love Billy Goat" of Rabble (link) (link to post) agrees:

Same sex marriage is a hot issue both in the US and Canada. The proposals are typical watered down Republican/CPC fodder. Bush's toadies like it that way.

The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry, regardless of gender, species and age, as long as one is a human over the age of 14. Only the tired, reactionary tories and George Bush want to seem to be fighting gay marriage and would settle for two-male or two-female marriages.

The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc. Don't be stampeded by Bush/Harper, Bush/Martin, they're all the same.

You would have to be able to prove that the goat, sheep, etc had the capicity to concent, had consented and understood what they were consenting to.

I'm not sure what "capicity" or "concent" means. As far as the animals go though, I'm quite sure they understand what penetration by a sexual organ feels like and with their ample hooves or teetch could quite effectively stop it from happening.

[BubberMiley]

I'm not sure what "capicity" or "concent" means. As far as the animals go though, I'm quite sure they understand what penetration by a sexual organ feels like and with their ample hooves or teetch could quite effectively stop it from happening.

Do you ever reread your posts and wonder why the hell you discuss such stupid shit?

[blueblood]

Why does anyone's outrage even matter? As long as the behaviour in question doesn't affect the freedoms of others they have no business being outraged.

It is only your personal assessment that the benefits are "small" and "marginal". Those affected may view the benefits as significant. Staying out of jail IMV is a Significant benefit.

You can't escape the fact tht it is discrimminatory regardless of if the discrimmination affects only a few or affects many.

Why have laws in the first place then? By that logic car thieves are going to feel discriminated against because thier right to steal cars is being infringed upon.

This catering to minorities has got to stop. We now live in a society where anyone has the potential to succeed. Why should the majority be punished all the time? We have rights to an orderly society too. There's having rights and abusing them, I think the line is starting to be crossed.

Of course laws are discriminatory, they are discriminatory to those that don't follow them. Our society decided that incest was wrong and against the law. IOW if you are incest you don't fit into our society which means you either go to jail or leave (putting it bluntly). The minorities who feel oppressed should be grateful that they are even allowed to be in Canada and even allowed to complain, this is granted due to the benevolence of the majority. If someone doesn't fit in to society, maybe it's time that that person left to where he is tolerated.

[Posit]

Society has NO rights. Period. Individuals have rights outlined in the Charter but so far as they do not abrogate other rights identified in the Charter. So the majority have no rights either. Nor can you impose your will on the minority. So get over it.

No where have your rights ever been impinged.

[blueblood]

Society has NO rights. Period. Individuals have rights outlined in the Charter but so far as they do not abrogate other rights identified in the Charter. So the majority have no rights either. Nor can you impose your will on the minority. So get over it.

No where have your rights ever been impinged.

Society is made up of individuals, all those individuals have rights. The rest of that post is a slap to the face of the primary principle of democracy --> Majority rules. Sorry this isn't an elitist country either. A minority of Canadians are criminals, our will is imposed over them, if the majority decides something else is criminal, than those "minorities" are SOL. You get over it.

[WestViking]

Society has NO rights. Period. Individuals have rights outlined in the Charter but so far as they do not abrogate other rights identified in the Charter. So the majority have no rights either. Nor can you impose your will on the minority. So get over it.

No where have your rights ever been impinged.

On the contrary - read the Charter, Sections 1 and 33:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect

shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

Five year limitation

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).