Ah Gattaca...

It's an interesting debate, because, removing religious/moral views, it's really about where a society draws the line in terms of the species wellfare vs desired freedoms.

My view is simple enough - allowing direct incest probably stands to raise the probability of long term genetic disorders too high, hence why it should be avoided.  Telling people not to have children is always iffy, even though sometimes technically it would make more sense.

As the ability to test for disorders and genetic traits increases this is sure to become more and more of a hot topic - I mean in general, not specific to incest!

I don't actually know but would presume that current laws stem more from religious roots, which themselves, in a common sense fashion, probably stem from smaller settlements and tribes seeking to curb incest to enrich the gene pool - not that it would have been understood in quite those terms historically.

I was really only speaking of the logic of one particular clan, if said clan decided it was "superior" and had to inbreed to preserve its superiority, if they were certain no negative recessive genes were present. A pure hypothetical that's unlikely to occur in any modern society

Hmmm, I wonder how much actual consent there's gonna be between a 40-year old dad and 16 year old son/daughter, 24 year old and 16 year old siblings.

Not that I think it's gonna suddenly become rampant, but I think it's gonna make it easier for abusers to keep their abusing hidden, and even when it does come before the courts they'll protest that it was consensual. At least making parent-child and sibling sex statutorily illegal ensures the consent argument can never be used as a defence in abuse cases.

Anyway decriminalsation isn't the same as legalisation. I haven't watched the vidoe, but there's a pretty important distinction. Legalisation means that the state views it as a perfectly acceptable behaviour, well maybe not perfectly. decriminialisation only means the state won't prosecute or throw you in prison, but it's not regarded as acceptable behaviour. Like if protitution is decriminalised it means no one's gonna get a criminal record for engaging in prostitution, but you can't legally open a brothel. Whereas legalisation of prostitution means brothels are legitimate businesses and you can open one in your local neighbourhood.

Decriminalising incest would mean you can't legalise or contractualise the incestuous relationship, i.e. no marriage (or marriage equivalent). But problems will arise in those contexts if the 2 people effectively set themselves up in a pseudo-marital arrangement and then subsequently split up. If matrimonial property laws don't apply because the relationships have no recognised legal status then someone's gonna lose out big time (usually the younger/female partner in the relationship).

That's the problem with regarding sex as simply a recreational activity. In a lot of contexts it is (prostitution), but when it's brought into an existing established relationship, esp a familial one, it's much more than just a recreational activity and unless there is appropriate laws to protect the vulnerable party then there can be a lot of problems as a result.

Better to keep it criminal, and simply make enforcement a discretionary decision, pretty much limited to cases of abuse.

Well... that's just messed up.  No offense.

I mean say my girlfriend and I were married, when we both graduated college only one of us was going to be able to go to graduate school for it to work, so she went to graduate school and I've just picked up various jobs I can find to get us through the bills.

If we were to get divorced after she graduated and bought a bunch of stuff, I can't prove I financially helped pay for stuff, but she'd of never gone through college without me.  Furthermore I gave up a definite high paying careerpath to let her go to college so it'd work for her finanically since she cares more about what she does then I do.  (Had connections through a proffessor that would of probably ensured me a very high paying job.)

To not consider the effect the marriage has one the partner is crazy.

I mean, what about people who COULD of gotten education or another job, but stay home because they want to be good parents?  It just seems like an insentive against good parenting.

That tends to be how most religious based laws are made... at first anyway.  I mean, hypothetically speaking, it doesn't take a genius to see why Jewish dietary laws might of been made, mixed fibers may have had to do with trade disputes etc.

As you can guess, I'm of the belief that personal freedoms should reign supreme.  Hence why I am less bullish on social welfare.  People should be able to make any stupid decision they want, but the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for it.

Some sort of economic incentive against incest and other genetic breeding issues I can see... but I can't see outright laws banning it.

That's the grossest thing I've ever read

I take it you haven't read too much?

I was reading more about this, and appearently everything obtaind together withing the marriage is split 50-50 (though you can prove that you financially contributed more, and are entitled to more that 50%).

If you were satying home taking care fo the kids/being a housewife or househusband, that is taken into account also But not the whole "I gave up going to college for..." nonsesnse, after all this is a court of law, not a soap opera set. If you did the part that I bolded, then you sir are an idiot. Also, the fact that you don't have an education is not important. If you can get a job, then you don't get allimony, and the only reason valid for not getting a job is a dissability (I think this is very fair).

You don't think that's gross saying he wishes he had a really hot sister under the context of a thread about legalizing incest?

In general, fantasies are innocent, no matter what they contain - just as long as they stay fantasies. Also, most likely he wasn't serious.

But to answer your question, no. Obviously there's nothing 'evil' or anything like that in thinking about such a thing, and thus the only reason I might think it gross is the moral constraints created by the society, based on nothing. There's no reason for such a taboo to exist. For example, for a long time, I found gay people hard to understand - I just couldn't, it wasn't the standard set by our society. But even though there are 'opponents' to homosexuality, you will most likely see the analogy here: contraints created by the society for no real moral reason. At least I find some analogy here.

If two people want to have fun, even love, why stop them as long as they're both willing? Morally I find no reason to stop that.