Kiss me sister!

[KrazyHorse]

I think the ick factor is still the number one reason why it is legally forbidden.

That may be, but it leads to a positive result. By the way, I saw some report on a couple (in the US?) who had (unknowingly) married despite both being carriers of a specific debilitating recessive genetic defect. They'd had a couple of kids who either died or had been born with serious problems, but were going to continue having children. Made me quite angry.

[Wezil]

Apparently many US States have crossed that privacy barrier already (albeit for different reasons).


I have no idea who "Cool Nurse" is, but he/she says:

Every couple that wishes to marry must comply with a states requirements. Only a few states require a blood test these days or a blood test and physical examination before marriage to show whether one party is infected with an STD - (most often the test is for Syphilis). In some states, for example, the clerk is forbidden to issue a marriage license until the parties present the results of the blood test.

Here is a summary of each state’s laws regarding premarital procedures, including blood tests and waiting periods before marriage. However, because state laws in this area have been changing rapidly -- many states have recently eliminated blood tests, SO, check with your county clerk’s office if you are planning on getting married or want the most up-to-date status in your state. These are from May 2004.

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws2.htm

The chart attached shows some half dozen states require(d) blood tests in 2004.

[KrazyHorse]

One could argue that a blood test for syphilis is significantly less intrusive than is a full genetic workup. Needless to say, I'm against a mandatory syphilis test as well.

[Wezil]

I think the ick factor is still the number one reason why it is legally forbidden.

That may be, but it leads to a positive result.

Apparently, but it is a bad way to formulate law.

By the way, I saw some report on a couple (in the US?) who had (unknowingly) married despite both being carriers of a specific debilitating recessive genetic defect. They'd had a couple of kids who either died or had been born with serious problems, but were going to continue having children. Made me quite angry.

Yeah, that's just plain wrong. Adopt if you absolutely need to be a parent.

[Wezil]

One could argue that a blood test for syphilis is significantly less intrusive than is a full genetic workup. Needless to say, I'm against a mandatory syphilis test as well.

To be honest, I have a hard time arguing this one either way. I lean toward libertarianism hence my difficulty with the State picking and choosing based upon health reasons in the first place (because it's unfair), yet the same leanings also make me very uncomfortable with allowing blood or DNA tests to check for recessive genes (thereby alleviating the unfairness).

I've never been a fan of the State being involved in the "marriage" business in the first place and this issue provides another example of why.

[Alinestra Covelia]

That's pretty natural to be politically split on this issue. On the one hand, you have the right to choose sexual practices as consenting adults, which SCOTUS has said the Constitution protects. On the other hand, you have the state's interest in the wellbeing of its future citizens, which protects kids against parents who willfully put them in dangerous situations (of which genetic deficiency may arguably qualify).

My personal take on this is that reproduction is now a separate issue from marriage and sex. Plenty of people have kids without ever getting married. Plenty of people get married and never have kids, through choice. Plenty of people stay single, have sex, and never have kids. The laws could be drafted to differentiate between sexual relations vs. actual reproduction.


As stated earlier in this thread, another factor to consider may be the issue of familial rape or coercion, which may also factor into the state's interest in protecting citizens. But that strikes me as an issue that existing rape laws can already address.

[Dis]

you have the state's interest in the wellbeing of its future citizens

if this were the case, they wouldn't let anyone who shopped at walmart to breed.

your first part was spot on. Consenting adults should have the right to choose their partner.

Some of us don't want the feds meddling in our business. They have more important things to do.

[notyoueither]

That's some serious thread necromancy.

Without reading the entire thread again (but wanting to add to Che's comment...)

Non related couples sometimes have much higher chances of producing offspring with birth defects yet they aren't denied the right to marry. The "mutant offspring" argument is a cover for something else.

Bull****.

Lock 'em up.

[Heraclitus]

The key words here are far higher than would normally be expected. Let us assume, for example, that a particular birth defect appear in the population about 1% of the time. Among incestuous couples, it appears 2% of the time. That's a 100% increase, far higher than normally appears in the population. It still isn't all that likely to occur.

Non related couples sometimes have much higher chances of producing offspring with birth defects yet they aren't denied the right to marry. The "mutant offspring" argument is a cover for something else.

Che why do you insist on bringing up that dead argument?

[Heraclitus]

I can add some anecdotal evidence on closely-related marriages. Our Amish neighbors had 2 retarded kids out of 11. As far as I know, this is fairly common, unfortunately.

Yes but that's the result of generations of inbreeding in a larger community.

[Heraclitus]

Requiring testing prior to all marriages affects far more people and seems to me to be a much more odious requirement than simply banning all sibling marriages. First cousin marriages are much less harmful

Just to point out I've said nothing about marriage, we're arguing about the basic right to **** your sister not the right to make her preggers or marry her.

[Heraclitus]

That's pretty natural to be politically split on this issue. On the one hand, you have the right to choose sexual practices as consenting adults, which SCOTUS has said the Constitution protects. On the other hand, you have the state's interest in the wellbeing of its future citizens, which protects kids against parents who willfully put them in dangerous situations (of which genetic deficiency may arguably qualify).

My personal take on this is that reproduction is now a separate issue from marriage and sex. Plenty of people have kids without ever getting married. Plenty of people get married and never have kids, through choice. Plenty of people stay single, have sex, and never have kids. The laws could be drafted to differentiate between sexual relations vs. actual reproduction.


As stated earlier in this thread, another factor to consider may be the issue of familial rape or coercion, which may also factor into the state's interest in protecting citizens. But that strikes me as an issue that existing rape laws can already address.

+1

[notyoueither]

They should cut the balls off any pervert who knowingly ****s his own sister.

[Heraclitus]

They should cut the balls off any pervert who knowingly ****s his own sister.

What about retards, shouldn't we sterilize them too?

[Zevico]

I'd generally agree with this, except for cases where (emotional) abuse is a factor. That is a significant factor in many incest cases, and is probably why jail time is a possibility. In this particular case it seems odd, though the significant age difference may well be relevant. More than likely you don't know all of the circumstances for the case at hand

This is the crux of it right here. Perhaps add 'emotional abuse of the victim' as an element of the crime of incest? But this begs the question--what do we term emotional abuse in these circumstances? Is the fact of incest alone is 'abuse enough'? Lots of uncomfortable questions posed by this issue. The more so because it interlinks with issues of consent: is consent procured in circumstances of emotional abuse still consent?

To my knowledge mere emotional abuse that procures consent does not vitiate consent under current law. Sex procured by fraud is not "rape" in Australia, but a separate and still serious, if less serious crime. E.g., if a person procures sex by saying "we're married" to a person unaware of the fact that they are not, and in fact would not have sex otherwise than if they were, then the person has committed a crime.
But procuring sex by emotional abuse--other than flat out, unambiguous lies-- is a different matter. Its a judgement on the nature of the relationship between the parties that I don't think lawyers or the courts are equipped to make. Perhaps I'm wrong on this: I'm a law student who's studied Australian criminal law, I don't have any court experience on this issue. That said, I don't think the law should recognise incest absent fraud or lack of consent as illegal. The crimes of rape and sexual assualt deal with non-consensual assaults satisfactorily, whether the relationship is incestuous or not. Legalising incest does not mean that "no means yes" for sexually non-consensual relationships between family members. Alternative opinions?