This is going to be a fun one.
So here are the facts:
I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:
Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.
The next day I discovered I’d been banned from that community for “pro-incest comments” and several others I don’t think I’ve ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.
You can see those here:
Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.
My comments had none of those things. I’d even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.
Now, I’m not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.
I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.
That’s called a bad faith argument. I stated in my comments that people need to be capable of and enthusiastically consenting.
I’m opposed to overreaching laws based on ideas about sexual purity.
For instance, under Canadian law, two people who don’t know they’re blood relatives who begin a sexual relationship can be guilty of incest if they later learn that they’re related and continue that relationship. And that seems insane to me.
I knew a guy in the Navy who had been porking his cousin for months and didn’t find out she was his cousin till he brought her home to meet the folks.
He was from Alabama.
They literally could not consent for the same reasons consent in statutory rape. The power Imbalance is too too far skewed.
So you draw any limits to incest. Same legal age siblings. Mother son, father daughter, grandparent grandchild? Or where when and how do you draw your line.
Two adults, raised by different families, enter into a relationship. 10 years later, they find they are biological half-siblings from the same sperm donor. Does this constitute incest? What interest does the state have in criminalizing the continuation of this stable, long-term relationship?
You ask for a line, but you described the proper line:
The line is not drawn on the biological relationship between the parties. The line is drawn on the formalized social structures in place at the commencement of the physical relationship.
Prohibit a relationship between parent and child, while recognizing that, being separated for the entire childhood, the social structure of “parent” and “child” never actually existed. While there is a biological kinship in such a relationship, there is no power imbalance to criminalize.
It should include a fairly short statute of limitations. Prohibit a student/teacher relationship for example, but don’t come back 20 years into the relationship to jail the (former) teacher.
So no lines, you believe n it should be legal to fuck your child?
I think the ban isn’t far enough you should probably be instance banned for trying to normalize gross and quite honestly criminal behavior.
That is the same language used by anti-miscegenists, homophobes, TERFs…
No, I specifically described a line, the exact line that you drew. I quoted it and everything.
All of your examples sans terfs which I think you just randomly threw in are consenting adults without an intrinsic power dynamic.
No my line is it is illegal for good reason.
Yeah you said it’s gross. Everyone knows if people think something is gross, it should be illegal.
That’s the base of your argument. You think it’s gross and are grasping at straws to justify banning it. You don’t actually have supporting arguments.
Way to not read the things that disagree with you. Congrats.
Cool let’s talk about a specific incest law you want repealed and we’ll discuss it and figure out why you want it repealed.
They are today.
In the past, the power dynamic between the participants was the same as that present in bestiality. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent. Minorities were considered inhuman. Your argument is only valid after the parties were actually considered equal and competent, but that supposition also defeats your argument here.
Correct, we’re talking about today after all. You seem to be implying it’s a form of bigotry rather than a cross continent commonality for good reason. Ie. They noticed kids kept coming out messed up when people are increasingly related.
Bro your word salad of examples and pundit wording makes no sense. The power dynamic hasn’t and doesn’t change and that ignores the fact that interfamily births are riddled with birth defects. Why you feel the need to bring up homosexuality alongside beastiality is baffling to me but at least to me sounds really really gross.
I’m not implying. It is, indeed, a form of bigotry. Without a compelling state/public interest to justify it, criminalization is, indeed, a form of bigotry.
That could, in theory, justify prohibiting procreation, but not the relationship itself. Two siblings are perfectly capable of raising an adopted child without that child “coming out messed up”. Justify your argument in a non-biologically-procreative relationship. You can assume same-biological-sex individuals, or sterility.
Because incest isn’t inherently bad and we already have crimes for all the reasons it could be bad.
Removed by mod
Are you really arguing that laws are synonymous with morality?
The word moral is not said in that comment at all nor is it implied in any way. Just answer the question in front of you with the words that actually exist therein.
You mean where you started calling me a molester, misgendered me, and said I defend fucking kids? No thanks. You seem too riled up for the kind of conversation.
Uh huh, so just time delay drive by bullshit then? Neat. See you tomorrow when you defend Nazis or whatever. Same bat time same bat place?
It isn’t a day on lemmy if someone doesn’t call you a nazi for bullshit reasons.