Incest and Polygamy, where are the gays?

[Mr.Vicchio]

A Family Affair The facts of the case are straightforward — if ugly. Allen and Patricia Muth, brother and sister, were “married” (the court does not say how or by whom) and had three children. When the neglect of one of their children brought them to the attention of Wisconsin authorities, the discovery of their incestuous relationship led first to the civil termination of their parental rights, and then to the criminal prosecution of both Allen and Patricia under the state’s law banning incest. Neither attempted to deny their crime, and they were both convicted and sentenced to prison — eight years for him and five for her. First in state courts and then in federal courts, Allen Muth challenged the constitutionality of the state’s prohibition of consensual incest. His argument is straightforward. Why shouldn’t he claim (in Judge Manion’s words) “a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution, for adults to engage in all manner of consensual sexual conduct”? In Lawrence, Justice Kennedy held for the Court that a state may not prohibit consensual homosexual sodomy, and did so on extremely broad grounds, holding that those who engage in such activity are “free as adults to engage in [such] private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.” Recognizing that laws forbidding certain sorts of sexual conduct are grounded in “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” by many people, Justice Kennedy refused to accept the notion that “the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law.” And he concluded with a critical passage that can be altered, just slightly, to cover the case of Allen and Patricia Muth (replacing references to homosexuality with ones to incest)

It's coming, and I want to know, where are the Gay Activist out marching for the rights of consenting adults to do what they want without society telling them they cannot.

Thank the Supreme Court, the ammunistion is handed out, and the cases are lining up.

[Savant]

Don't leave out the perverts who think oral sex should be legalized!

[belverron]

I don't really think there's an inherent problem with incest. It seems weird to me, but I can't say it's government's job to "fix" it. I'll leave that to human biology.
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/too...th7/incest.htm

I didn't read that link yet, by the way, so someone tell me if it doesn't say what I think it does

[Sonart]

Quote by: Belverron I didn't read that link yet, by the way, so someone tell me if it doesn't say what I think it does

Not sure what you think it says.

Human beings, like most species, understand that genetic diversity is a must for a species to survive. Inbreediing prevents genetic diversity. What your link says is that humans have an instinct for "incest avoidance"... specifically, if you grow up with someone from childhood, you instinctively are less inclined to want to have sex with them.

--"In humans, evidence indicates that incest avoidance mechanisms exist. Since
genetic kinship is not a perceivable trait, the mechanism must be designed to
use cues that reliably predicted kinship during human evolution. In the
fusion-fission band structure of hunter-gatherers, co-residence during infancy
and early childhood was such a cue. Modern humans appear to have a mechanism
that decreases sexual attraction as a function of exposure during
(approximately) the first 6 years of life."--

As to polygamy, if the wives are ammenable and the husband can take care of the family, I really don't have a major problem with it, beyond finding it a bit arrogant.

Quote by: Savant Don't leave out the perverts who think oral sex should be legalized!

I assume you're joking. :) Otherwise, that's my wife you're calling a pervert.

.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I say let them perform incest all they want. Who cares? Just before they do the dirty deed let them know that their kids will probably have one of the following:

Mental Illness
Six toes
hunchback
3 eyes
missing an arm

[Chris]

incest is bad but incest on children is worse. They need to crack down on this shit hardcore. I don't have a problem with polygamy but often times polygamists brainwash their children (fundamentalist Mormons -BIG surprise! Religous nutjobs!) and they do beat their many wives and rape their many children and force them to marry other guys in the polygamist community. As discussed in the polygamist thread.

[belverron]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I say let them perform incest all they want. Who cares? Just before they do the dirty deed let them know that their kids will probably have one of the following: Mental Illness Six toes hunchback 3 eyes missing an arm

The deformities thing has been overdone. Inbreeding basically just makes it more likely that a defect present in the family's genes will show up.

With respect to the incest question, there is evidence that humans can detect through scent differences in the major histocompatability complex--the immune system, basically. We seek an immune system very different from their own.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_016_08.html

[lsbskins1]

Why is it that you guys who are against homosexual anything can't get it though you thick skulls that there is a major difference between incestitous relationships and homosexual relationships. The inbreeding/genetic diversity issues being enough in and of themselves to qualify for that "compelling state interest" exception to interfering in the private lives of citizens. There are good and valid reasons to attempt to stop those relationships. Those good and valid reasons do not exist for homosexual relationships. No scientific facts back up the interference in the one while they do in the other. What is so hard to get about that? What?

[Mr.Vicchio]

What's different?

Two consenting adults in love are being denied thier RIGHTS because YOU don't like it.

[SteveA]

Of course young children can't be considered consenting adults and likely children have no real understanding of potential problems with sex anyway (diseases, pregnancy, complications etc.). Nature even provides protection against this (i.e. a woman can't become pregnant until she begins to menstrate and men have a similar issue).

Anyway, but when the subject is confined to consenting adults, I admit not even seeing a real issue with incest.

Consider that it wasn't too long ago, in evolutionary terms especially, that people were confined to live and die within maybe 20 miles of where they were born. Under such a scenario the gene pools were very restricted in content and whether or not someone was a second cousin or first likely didn't have a large impact on the probability of having an previously unexpressed gene express itself. As a matter of fact genetic diversity can actually be beneficial in that you don't want everyone having very similar genetic traits or the possibility of a single disease finding noone resistant to it could occur with very bad consequences. Also, such isolated villiages tended to adapt to their environment and were more able to live under such conditions that an "average" person.

Anyway, it was only recently that people from diverse areas of the world truly had the ability to mix genetically and though it might seem that this provides a genetic advantage, ultimately it doesn't deter the long term rate of expressed genetic defects. Why?

The rate at which defects occur has nothing to do with who marries who, it's a product of our environment, if you have some unexpressed genetic defect, whether or not you marry your sister/brother or someone from the other side of the world doesn't affect the probability that you'll pass on this latent defect. It only affects the probability that both parents will have the same defect and have it expressed in their children. Most mutations don't survive long because few are ever beneficial and they aren't passed on to the next generation but ultimately the only ways, that at I personally know of, to remove genetic defects are to either have such not passed on to the next generation via. natural means or use unnatural means like genetic alteration to fix them (yes, kind of spooky).

So, though in the short term, we can lower the rate of expressed genetic defects occuring, these defects and mutations still are unoccuring and being passed on to our child but not being expressed because of the relatively recent abilities people have had to migrate but ultimately these are just being passed on as latent problems that will accumulate, actually increasing the overall number of latent defects individuals until we hit a historically similar rate of defects (which depend on environmental factors, which can change somewhat).

I hope noone takes this comparison wrong but after I posted something like this on another site, someone informed me that animals are sometimes inbred to remove these types of genetic defects so it's a real phenomenon with verification in other areas too.

The undeniable fact is that, as they say, you are who you are - and that includes genetic defects and all. We could attempt to change these by genetic manipulation but until that time, in the long run, there ain't no way getting around the fact that some children will be born with birth defects and not be able to naturally have children and it's merely a tradeoff in time, whether you marry someone genetically close to you or further away, as to when the defects show up. If you marry someone genetically distant, you're likely to just pass on the defects as unexpressed to a potentially large number of descendants. That's just life - at least so far, unless we resort to genetic manipulation (but that seems potentially worse in that you could see a large reduction in genetic diversity. And diversity, despite some claims, is actually a good thing. We don't want everyone to be the same or we'll find problems that noone has a solution to - and I mean that in more than just genetic terms ... *hint hint*).

[belverron]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio What's different? Two consenting adults in love are being denied thier RIGHTS because YOU don't like it.

The argument for is the same. The arguments against differ.

[RickSp]

Pretty typical post, Mr. V. If you are going to raise incest and polygamy and try to connect them to homosexuality, why not throw in necrophelia and bestiality while you are at it, like Santorum is fond of doing?

Most folks are attracted to the opposite sex. Some, a small minority, are attracted to the same sex. It is in the wiring. Why do you feel compelled to continously post this nonsense? We already know that you consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Hey Rick, I am NOt equating Homosexuality with those two.

You are.

I am saying the same arguement to make gay marriage legal can be used in these instances.

Why do you continue to pretend that the goals you shoot for and the methods used cannot be used for other relationships you find wrong?

Hmm?

It's okay to push for Gay Marriage because "you" support it, but Polygamy and Incest you dislike, we cannot use your SAME arguements for them.

Take the standard "Gays have rights too" put in Polgymist or Incest and guess what? You guys win in the courts, they will take your coat tails and you CAN'T DO SHIT about it.

[SteveA]

I personally think the courts and jury system have been likely the #1 factor in stopping tyranny in the U.S.

The requirement that we have of the unanimous agreement of 12 jurors to convict someone wasn't purely a mistake, it was done to protect minority views. Of course jury selection has tossed a lot of that out the window though.

I'd agree that there are activist judges but less from defending minority views against the latest Gallup poll survey being imposed on everyone (wait until a Gallup poll question asks whether people should walk on the left or right hand of a street LOL! Probably 51% will feel the right hand side of a street is better and be screaming about judges tossing out their inherited right to majority rule, where all others should suck it up, bend over and take it).

I agree activist judges exist but they are usually the ones that overstep their ability to merely deny government use of force and instead make up laws that use police to enforce. If a judge does more than merely overrule a law and the police action used to enforce it, but instead rules on something that requires new police enforcement, then he's effectively written a new law - which is a power reserved by the legislative branch and an overstepping of their judicial power.

But anyway, the fact that a judge or jury merely happen to go against a majority opinion is not activism but truly the entire INTENT of the judicial system, to counter the typical democratic force of legislature. I agree that there are poor/bad judges that overstep their intended function but it has little to do with denying majority rule but usually the opposite of denying individual private rights in favor of creating or allowing new forms of government intrusion that violate these.

[SteveA]

There are solutions the other two branches of government already have that go unused in denying the abilty of an activist judge to create new laws:

1) The executive branch can effectively veto such a decision by using its power to not use police power, which leaves the issue remaining as something that can be addressed privately.

2) The legislative branch can just remove laws regarding the subject so that the courts have nothing to rule on. This against removes government from addressing the issue.

Our system was designed to fail in the "safe" mode of government non-intervention. The three branches of government are treated independently and each have the ability to effectively veto any specific action of the other two branches.

The push by Congress to be able to override court decisions, or line item vetoes by the President (where the President can effectively pick and choose amongst many options and effectively pass something was never voted on by Congress) etc. all serve to undermine this fail safe operation.

I'd encourage each of the branches to utilize the powers they already have to stop abuse by other branches ... the worse thing that will happen is that we'd have government "shut down" for a little while again, until they can resolve the issues. Such things have happened before and honestly most people, except public employees really notice whether government is "shut down" or not .

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Hey Rick, I am NOt equating Homosexuality with those two. You are.

Your denials are just as ridiculous as your arguments. I might respect you more if you had the integrity to take ownership of your own views. Regretably your denials are as predicatable as your posts. You are indeed equating polygamy and incest with homosexuality, tangentially at least. If you can't see that, well, that is your problem, not mine.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: RickSp Your denials are just as ridiculous as your arguments. I might respect you more if you had the integrity to take ownership of your own views. Regretably your denials are as predicatable as your posts. You are indeed equating polygamy and incest with homosexuality, tangentially at least. If you can't see that, well, that is your problem, not mine.

Funny man. Woudl you care to show where I have done this?

Oh wait.. you can't.

You can tlak smack and pretend you have some moral ground to stand on.. but alas, you don't.

The arguements used to push Gay Marriage, through the courts are the same ones that will make incest and polygamy legal in the USA. There is no equating anything aside the wieght of the arguements.

Did you BOTHER to read the article on the first post? Somehow... I doubt it from your weak attemps to be smug.

[Flip Jackson]

I think I agree with Vicchio and belverron. The arguments that are used to make these things legal are all the same. The differences come from the reasons of people that don't think they should be legal.

We see polygamy as a way of demeaning women and creating situations for abuse, incset as a way of increasing likelihood for defects, and I don't want to get into homosexuality arguments here. The arguments against each thing is different. I don't say I agree with them, but just thought I would point that out.

Chris, you are probably right about polygamy in many cases, but I don't think they should be connected to Mormons. Mormons are excommunicated if they practice polygamy. And I don't recall who said it, but someone said polygamy was arrogant. I think there are many reasons for polygamy, and placing them all under arrogance or the want of a lot of women is too general.

[G. Adams]

I have no objection to either incest or polygamy.

Cases of incest are small anyway, unless we are also counting in underage parent/child incest, but the crime there, of abusing a child, is already covered by the law. I would suggest legalising incest but making the above exceptional case a higher penaltied crime.

As for polygamy, who cares how many spouses someone has? Your assuming it's only men who would want multiple wives, women might want more than one husband too. In theory, okay in my head, this would be a better situation for both parties. Men get to have multiple relationships without losing their partner/s. For women, their men will have to compete for their attention, so you won't have the great boyfriend/lousy husband situation. Men often feel that once their married, it's all settled, time to slob out. And also, when people grow apart, as most do, you won't feel trapped into a relationship with someone you no longer like (although you may still love them). And you won't have the problem of starting to hating your partner because you see them 24 hrs a day.

[Dirty Name]

The way the incest movement will counter the homosexual rights argument against incest is to take sex and procreation out of the equation - as the Lawrence case has already done. And this is precisely the technique the incest crowd will use to legalize the movement.

Allow me to explain:

Gay marriage advocates argue that the knock against incest is that it has a negative impact on children spawned from such a relationship. But what about homosexual incest between, say, two adult brothers? Since there is ZERO chance that any child will be conceived, the "deformed kids" objection raised by gay rights advocates falls away.

What about a "non-sexual" relationship between a brother and sister who only want to lay claim to the same domestic partnership benefits that gays are screaming for? What argument will gays have against such a partnership?

The answer is that gays CANNOT argue against such domestic partnerships if they are basing their own gay marriage fight on the issue of "equality." Oh, they may try to claim that "sexual love" should be a requirement for marriage, but since the idiot Justice Kennedy has already made bedroom relations a private matter, I don't think that dog's gonna hunt.