response 60 of 191:

Jul 2 05:23 UTC 2003

A logical compromise would be to make incest legal so long as both 
parties are 18 or over and not mentally incompetent.  However, it should 
be illegal (and aggressively enforced) to give birth to a child which 
results from incest.  

This would serve to allow the state to guarantee the care of children 
unfortunate enough to be born under such circumstances, and would also 
serve to discourage practicioners of incest from reproducing thusly.

response 62 of 191:

Jul 2 07:10 UTC 2003

1)  Non-consensual sex, whether incest or not, is already illegal and 
should remain so.

2)  Making incestual parents responsible for the offspring of their 
stupidity as a punishment for such stupidity is even more stupid than 
than the offense itself.  That only victimizes the offspring, who is the 
only one in the scenario not at fault.

response 64 of 191:

Jul 2 15:05 UTC 2003

Re #62: what do you propose to do about the parents of the offspring of
incestual cohabitation? (I did not say that making them responsible was
*punishment*: in fact, I said what is needed is *not* punishment. I also not
say that those parents should have custody of such offspring, only
responsibility for them.)

response 66 of 191:

Jul 2 17:54 UTC 2003

Are you suggesting that the odds of birth defects from incestual 
pregnancies and from pregnancies of women over 40 are comparable?

Are you suggesting that stupidity is a birth defect?

My suggestion reduces state control over people's sexual activities and 
enforces responsibility for the consequences, which I think is a far 
superior method of social conditioning.  And, I do believe that the state 
has a legitimate interest in picking up where social conditioning through 
THIS PARTICULAR taboo has previously assured the general diversity of the 
gene pool.  I can accept this particular restriction where I would not 
accept others because of the comparatively extreme anti-survival effect 
on the gene pool of this particular kind of breeding practice.  I 
consider it a reasonable species self preservation mechanism.

response 68 of 191:

Jul 2 18:11 UTC 2003

I think the relevant definitions are sibling and parent-child.

response 70 of 191:

Jul 2 19:29 UTC 2003

To which I would be tempted to respond that such a claim would not be 
worthy of response unless accompanied by evidence of reputable origin de-
linking intellectual performance from environmental factors.

response 72 of 191:

Jul 2 23:54 UTC 2003

You can fully expect the Lawrence v Texas decision to be a major issue 
in next year's election.  With conservative fears that laws against gay 
marriage are now in jeopardy, Bush and his political advisors are said 
to be salivating over the idea of introducing a new proposed Amendment 
to the Constitution, which would spell out a ban on gay marriages

They'd probably word the proposal something like:

"The government of the United States of America hereby recognizes that 
marriage in this country can only be entered into by two persons who 
are heterosexual, and who are not close blood relatives" 

They'd include the incest part to blunt criticism that it is just an 
anti-gay Amendment, and to make it politically more potent.  Bush would 
come out strongly in favor of such, and try to turn the entire election 
into a referendum on the institution of "marriage"  If his opponents 
say they are against this Amendment proposal, then his spin doctors 
will say "Bush is FOR the institution of marriage, and his opponents 
are against it, that his oppenents are "for" gay marriages and 
incestual marriages. 

Even though this might not have any chance of actually getting the 
required votes to become an Amendment to the Constitution, Bush's folks 
will surely think that simply having the proposal out there serves its 
purpose.  To portray Bush as the protector of the institutions of 
family and marriage.

Get out the Maalox, there's going to a lot to make you feel ill during 
this next year's election cycle... 

response 74 of 191:

Jul 3 01:02 UTC 2003

There already exists in federal law the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA,
1996).  Up until then, marriage laws had been left up to the States,
although a number of federal law referred to the married status, for
certain rights and privileges. The origin and wording of the DoMA are
presented at http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Federal_.htm It still leaves the
definition of marriage up to the States but rather concerns recognition of
States for the marriage laws of other States if the marriages are between
persons of the same sex.

An amendment would probably use part of the language of the DoMA. 

response 76 of 191:

Jul 3 02:01 UTC 2003

So you expect marriages between close relatives to be banned because they
might produce children, and marriages between people of the same sex to be
banned because they can't produce children?  How about banning marriages
between other people who can't product children (infertility, menopause,
having been sterilized)?  Banning marriage with anyone having a known genetic
defect in their family?  

response 78 of 191:

Jul 3 02:09 UTC 2003

what about legalizing incestual marriage IF the husband could provide
documentation that he's had a vasectomy and/or the wife could provide
documentation that she's had her tubes tied.  And both sign sworn statements
saying they'll never attempt to have said procedures reversed and will never
have kids?  Then what would the objection be?  So long as they are not having
kids, they are still consenting adults, so whose business should it be whether
they are in a relationship?  you don't have to approve of a lifestyle to
accept other people's rights to live it if they choose so long as issues of
mutual consent are satisfied (i.e. no beastial relationships, or adult-minor
relationships or other types where one party isn't capable of legally
consenting)

response 80 of 191:

Jul 3 03:40 UTC 2003

If such an amendment were adopted, I think it would be an enormous spur to
creative family arrangements through other legal means and maybe even a
bigger flight from "marriage" because of the greater availability of
alternatives that may have significant financial or other advantages.