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.
The same reason a white person with a white partner would argue against anti-miscegenation laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
The same reason a straight person would argue against homosexuality prohibitions: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
The same reason a cishet person would argue against transphobic laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
You don’t have to be in a miscegenated, homosexual relationship with your trans half-sister to realize that the public and the state has no valid interest for interfering in the free association of capable, consenting persons. Such interference is wrong, and needlessly harmful.
By all means, ensure that any such association is freely entered. Ensure that the individual participants are capable. Ensure that the individual participants are consenting. Once those three criteria are met, the public is free to speak its mind, but it is not free to arrest or otherwise interfere.
Those are people capable of consent, your child simply isn’t capable of that no matter how much you convince yourself they are.
I have been very clear in my arguments that the relationship you describe is not and should not be lawful. I have been very clear that the reason it is not and should not be lawful is due to the power imbalance in the parties you describe. I have been very clear that the biological kinship of the parties you describe is not at all relevant to the illegality of the scenario.
Your comment here does not seem to be based on a desire for genuine discussion, but rather an ad hominem attack. Should you wish to raise a genuine argument, I’ll be happy to discuss. Otherwise, I do not intend any further engagement.
It 100% is relevant, the law exists because people were and technically still are having kids to fuck and pretending they weren’t theirs.
There’s no ad hominem, I said I cannot fathom your position unless you yourself are involved in it or drawn to it. No person in know would advocate for going Giuliani on your family.
Two individuals enter into a relationship. 5 years later, they determine they were half siblings, born to different mothers via artificial insemination from the same donor. The did not know of eachother until they were both adults; they did not know they were biologically related until long after they were in a relationship.
Justify criminalizing the individuals in this relationship. Give me a compelling reason why these two individuals should be imprisoned. When you can provide a compelling rational reason why the state should criminalize these individuals, you will have convinced me. Until you can do that, you’re not actually discussing incest. You’re discussing a power imbalance established not by biological kinship, but by social familial structure.
I have long conceded that the circumstance you are talking about should not be tolerated, but that the circumstance you are talking about does not arise due to incest.
The same circumstance you describe is present in a step-parent/step-child relationship. That same circumstance is just as problematic and for the same reasons as the scenario you describe, but that circumstance does not actually constitute incest. Whatever method you use to ban the improper step-parent relationship is more than sufficient for banning the improper parent relationship.
They aren’t automatically imprisoned in the in us or Canada as per your example. You seem to be getting upset about situations that are already handled to favor the unknowing participant even if that is both of them. No we’re still discussing incest were just not discussing extreme hypotheticals that already have mechanisms to deal with. Going along with the “incest should be legal” guy is a weird route to take if you don’t actually believe it shouldn’t be illegal.
Your new nonsensical example are not blood relatives, which is gross and immoral but it actually cuts against your argument given it isn’t illegal but still gross and immoral.
Quite the contrary, it cuts against your argument. Your argument ensnares inoffensive relationships in an attempt to capture gross and immoral relationships. Your argument ignores functionally identical gross and immoral relationships, because they don’t technically qualify as the kind of relationships you were thinking of.
Just because some relationships are gross and immoral doesn’t mean that we need to criminalize every relationship. We can go ahead and criminalize the “gross and immoral” relationships, without criminalizing the inoffensive relationships. We can draw a more logical, more rational, more effective distinction than “biologically related”.
Your argument isn’t even consistent.
Should incest be illegal at all on any level?
Start there.
There are specific circumstances - which can arise in any sort of relationship, including incestuous - that should be criminalized. Barring such specific circumstances, incest should not be illegal.
I’ve provided numerous examples of inoffensive relationships that qualify as incestuous, including Genetic Sexual Attraction and Accidental Incest. These inoffensive relationships are those lacking any of the “specific circumstances” that would be criminal.
I’ve also provided or addressed a variety of “special circumstances” that should be criminalized - circumstances that may exist with or without an incestuous relationship, and should be criminalized regardless.
It is these “special circumstances” that should be illegal. Not the generalized relationship.