Should prostitution and incestuous/polygamous/etc. marriages be legalized?

[Snowy_One]

The problem with making kids illegal for incestious couples is that not every couple is bound by blood. A mother can have a daughter and a father have a son via different parents, then get married, and the kids would become (step)brother and sister. Genetically it's no different than if they were complete strangers. So should they be banned because another incestious couple might?

Also...

The reason why incest is dangerous is because of how easy it becomes to pass on genetic traits; specifically RECESSIVE traits. If a father happens to have a recessive trait (let's say blue eyes) on one of his genes and the mother has a full set of dominate genes the child will not get the blue eyes. The kid MIGHT still have the gene and pass it on to their kid, but it's not a guarantee.

However with incest you run a much higher risk of both parents having said recessive gene. Should said gene be bad there is a much higher chance that the 'good' dominate gene won't appear in the kid. HOWEVER this requires that said bad gene exists in the first place, is NOT on a dominate gene, and that the mother possesses it as well and doesn't give a dominate gene over it.

A child born of an incestious relationship is actually not THAT likely to have problems... assuming it's a one-off. The odds may be higher but I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest to learn that drinking/smoking poses a greater threat by several miles. IF it continues the risk grows exponentially but it would likely be 2-3 generations before SERIOUS problems arose.

As for polygamy... On the most basic level it's A-okay. After all it is just one spouse having multiple partners, so it's got no biological problems and SOME couples will be stronger for having multiple partners. The REAL problem is not 'will it be okay if used properly' but 'how much will people abuse it'. Let's face it, the system is RIPE for abuse. A husband could take a new wife and, if the old wife wasn't happy, destruction could come for all involved or the husband could force it on the wife for his own pleasure. The exact same is true for a wife having multiple husbands even if men might be a little bit more willing to share. It's simply VERY ripe for abuse.

[Florete]

It's difficult to regulate this, though. It would be a law with little efficacy...

Not really. We have the technology. People who plan to get married and/or have kids just need to get themselves checked out. And if it's not discovered until the woman is pregnant and she turns out to have a diseased baby, force her to abort.

Of course, actually doing what I just said above probably sounds absurd to most people, but if that's the case, why are such genes a reason to disallow happy incestuous couples from having children?

[Rapier]

The problem with making kids illegal for incestious couples is that not every couple is bound by blood. A mother can have a daughter and a father have a son via different parents, then get married, and the kids would become (step)brother and sister. Genetically it's no different than if they were complete strangers. So should they be banned because another incestious couple might?

Objection!

They aren't like complete strangers at all. Take a look at this chart.

derp, BBM reading skills

Actually, wait, are these step-brothers relationships prohibited?

Edited July 5, 2015 by Rapier

[Irysa]

Unless you're trying to get at a 0.0001% relation or something, you misread his point. He's saying that neither child has a (significant) relation to the other genetically, because the children are concieved via two different parents, who then separate from their spouses and marry each other. Really, it's as if two strangers get married, then their single parents get married as well, just reverse the order.

The problem with making kids illegal for incestious couples is that not every couple is bound by blood. A mother can have a daughter and a father have a son via different parents, then get married, and the kids would become (step)brother and sister. Genetically it's no different than if they were complete strangers. So should they be banned because another incestious couple might?

I think that given extreme circumstances, such as parents marrying different partners late in life when their children are already grown up, that there would essentially be no problem with this. Not on genetic grounds, but in the sense that there isn't really the same level of personal access to intimate relations by default at this point in life. I think first and foremost, people getting hung up on the inbreeding argument are missing the point that any kind of sexual relationship between close family members must automatically be assumed to be "bad" due to how specifically one builds trust within their own close family, and the access they have to them in private. It must be assumed to be undesirable/bad by default because of this, unlike relationships with strangers.

As such, I have zero objections to the prospect of long lost siblings meeting each other after being separated at birth, never knowing each other, and then falling in love as adults.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Irysa

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but a couple that can not bear children (while still a couple) is different from a couple that has great chances of bearing an inbred deficient child.

It's irrelevant when argued from the same group that states marriage has no grounding in the creation of a family unit. If sex has no bearing in a marriage, then bringing up statistics about the harmfulness of incest is without merit.

The product of incestuous couplings, even direct ones, has a much lower rate of congenital consequences than the public believes, and even following such an argument it lacks grounding given that unrelated individuals with the same potential for creating defective offspring are perfectly legally capable of doing so. The continued argumentation about how incest is necessarily abusive and diseased in nature just reeks of the same rhetoric that so many conservatives used and continue to use about same-sex couples.

[Anacybele]

Not really. We have the technology. People who plan to get married and/or have kids just need to get themselves checked out. And if it's not discovered until the woman is pregnant and she turns out to have a diseased baby, force her to abort.

Of course, actually doing what I just said above probably sounds absurd to most people, but if that's the case, why are such genes a reason to disallow happy incestuous couples from having children?

Not every couple will actually get themselves checked out though. There are stupid people in this world, you know.

And are you fucking serious? Okay, if the baby had, say, Taysach's or something, I can understand an abortion being desired since that disease literally destroys a baby's brain and makes it suffer to no end until it dies. But illnesses that are way less serious? Some mothers will still love and care for children with health issues, you know. If they want to keep their "diseased babies" they should be allowed to, not forced to abort them.

And this is coming from someone that supports abortion (in some cases).

[Chiki]

zerosabers is right in this case. That would only apply in dating and the like, because polygamy is just like normal marriage in the sense that all parties have to agree to the union. If said women/men are not willing to put up with their lover having multiple spouses, the union will never take place.

It's possible, but if the women hate each other and both love the man (or switch the genders around) that much, I can almost guarantee that that relationship would not end well. Tensions will boil up, and their mutual hatred will likely result in a divorce from one of the women.

Also, @ Chiki, remember the "exception that proves the rule" article that you linked to in one of our debates? Saying that there are cases that contradict the statement of your opponent is not a legitimate counter-argument.

Wtf at the bolded part. Yes it is... if someone makes a universal statement and you come up with a counterexample to it, it means they're wrong. Basic reasoning.

If it takes too long for a doctor to report to the police and such, they might have to deal with abortion, and abortion in itself has a moral problem that must be solved, eg. Is it right to take another life even if it is merely on its development state? Not to mention it is ilegal.

Making children illegal doesn't mean abort them. It's just something to discourage couples from making children at all.

If they have a child, then the parents should be punished for doing something so irresponsible. We punish people for drunk driving (big risk), so we'd do the same here.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Chiki

[Upside-DownFish]

In all honesty, people just need to get over their irrational fear of taboos. Lots of things in the past were considered taboo, like

• gay marriage
• transexuals
• consorting with people of different ethnic groups
• practicing science (witch trials)

But now, these things are, for the most part, publicly accepted. But the instant someone brings up a topic like polygamous relationships, incest, and pedophilia, people start spouting "it's taboo" and stating fixable problems with said topics, and then brush it under the rug and try to ignore it. It's just sad to see that some people refuse to accept change :/

Edited July 5, 2015 by Upside-DownFish

[Nanami Touko]

polygamy and incest are their own kettle of fish which will probably not be taboo at some point

but pedophilia?

i'm hopeful that never becomes a norm, because there's a lot more problems with that than the small things that get brought up for incest, or the smaller things for polyamory.

[Topazd]

I need to stop doing this

Edited July 5, 2015 by Topazd

[Upside-DownFish]

polygamy and incest are their own kettle of fish which will probably not be taboo at some point

but pedophilia?

i'm hopeful that never becomes a norm, because there's a lot more problems with that than the small things that get brought up for incest, or the smaller things for polyamory.

Pedophilia is an adult being sexually attracted to a child, nothing more, nothing less. I don't see the problems with this.

People confuse pedophiles and child predators a lot, which is a big part of the problem.

It still doesn't make for a particularly cogent argument to claim that since many former taboos are now publicly accepted, so should everything that's considered a taboo today.

That's... not what I said? I meant that people are acting the same as the way people acted in the past, which is not something to be especially proud of.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Upside-DownFish

[Blaze The Great]

Wtf at the bolded part. Yes it is... if someone makes a universal statement and you come up with a counterexample to it, it means they're wrong. Basic reasoning.

Except for the fact that you didn't actually provide a counterexampls. You just said that there was one. Big difference there.

In all honesty, people just need to get over their irrational fear of taboos. Lots of things in the past were considered taboo, like

• gay marriage
• transexuals
• consorting with people of different ethnic groups
• practicing science (witch trials)

But now, these things are, for the most part, publicly accepted. But the instant someone brings up a topic like polygamous relationships, incest, and pedophilia, people start spouting "it's taboo" and stating fixable problems with said topics, and then brush it under the rug and try to ignore it. It's just sad to see that some people refuse to accept change :/

Well then, how about we legalize murder, prostitution, and drugs? Sounds like a great idea, right?

[Naughx]

Inbreeding is equal to less genetic variations within a population group... So I would be against that...

(Just a fun fact: Fungi has over 28,000 sexes to avoid inbreeding, since it's evolutionary advantageous)

I don't mind polygamy much... As long as there is explicit consent between everybody involved.

[Topazd]

That's... not what I said? I meant that people are acting the same as the way people acted in the past, which is not something to be especially proud of.

Yeah, I quickly eyeballed the post, misinterpreted it and made an impulsive response. So my bad.

[Naughx]

Pedophilia is an adult being sexually attracted to a child, nothing more, nothing less. I don't see the problems with this.

Pedophilia isn't victimless, it's why it's wrong... Your reasoning is disturbing...

[Topazd]

Pedophilia isn't victimless, it's why it's wrong... Your reasoning is disturbing...

I'd assume that by pedophilia, he means only the disorder itself. That's not necessarily the same as advocating or accepting child abuse or any other practices pertaining to pedophilia.

[Naughx]

I'd assume that by pedophilia, he means only the disorder itself. That's not necessarily the same as advocating or accepting child abuse or any other practices pertaining to pedophilia.

My "definition" of a pedophile is someone who seek to have sexual relationships with children... It's all about the intent.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Naughx

[Snowy_One]

I do believe the taboo regarding pedophilia is a bit ridiculous for multiple reasons, but I most certainly believe that it's far too easy to be harmful and wrong. Guess I should explain...

Firstly, in todays world the very notion of the term seems to be outright shunned in America to the point where even TALKING about it can result in major problems and outrage no matter the verdict or circumstances. This can cause some HUGE problems because it makes actually catching child predators harder (difficult to infiltrate their Deep/Dark Net hangouts) as well as making actually understanding what it is, what causes it, and how to rehabilitate people with it VERY difficult because possessing it is illegal in the states even for the people using it to catch criminals. Even with that aside something as simple as finding out that a girl was actually 16/17 despite being told she was 18 can end up ruining your social standing if not outright getting you tossed into jail. For all their desire to reach into space it seems Americans still believe a magical fairy comes down and turns a teen into an adult on their 18th birthday. And yes, I am American.

Secondly, it's important to define terms. IMO there are three different 'kinds' of pedophilia in terms of age. A) 12/13-17 (puberty), B) 8-13 (reaching puberty), C) >8 (child). Type C is what most people think of when talking about pedophilia and for good reason. However type A can touch on the 'accidentally pedo' stuff as well.

So... What does this mean? Firstly; ANYONE attempting to go after a child in C is probably a horrible person intent on preying. B can fit that as well though they're at least waiting till they're about to start physical maturity. A is... hazy because it's very easy for a girl to appear physically mature while still being 15. Not to mention that legality tends to fluctuate between 16-18 depending on state/nation.

However, I would say that anyone who could be married and still have said marriage be considered pedophilia should probably also be considered 'incompetent' under the law and, legally, not able to give consent regardless of actual feelings.

[Upside-DownFish]

murder

What a terrible example. None of the things I stated result in death

prostitution

I don't actually see the problem in legalizing this

drugs

er, there's a lot more than one kind of drug.

Advil and Tums are drugs, are beneficial for your health, and are perfectly legal.

Marijuana is a drug, but doesn't have lead to many health problems. It's also illegal

Meth, coke, and tobacco are drugs, illegal, and lead to many health problems. You gotta be a bit more specific.

My "definition" of a pedophile is someone who seek to have sexual relationships with children... It's all about the intent.

Well that's not the correct definition. A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Someone who seeks to have sex with children is a child predator, and is completely different from a pedophile.

[Florete]

My "definition" of a pedophile is someone who seek to have sexual relationships with children... It's all about the intent.

No one cares what "your definition" of a pedophile is, only what the dictionary's definition is. A pedophile is someone with pedophilia, a disorder in which an adult has a sexual attraction to children. It does not require action, and alone does not cause harm to anyone. Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are child molesters.

I don't actually see the problem in legalizing this

From what I've heard, legalizing prostitution would actually probably be a good thing and could help keep prostitutes safe if the institutions were built correctly. It may also help to lessen human trafficking. Again, though, I'm not the most knowledgeable in this area, so don't quote me on that.

And there are plenty of advocates to legalize certain illegal drugs such as marijuana, so that idea is definitely not considered universally bad.

[Dwalin2010]

It's just sad to see that some people refuse to accept change :/

I don't really want to be involved in this discussion, I am too much hostile to incest because in my opinion proclaiming it as "normal" and educating new generations under this concept would kill such sublime things as platonic love between relatives, and there is no way nor necessity to change my opinion. I prefer just reading the other people's comments, but I still would like to say 1 thing about this quote:

"Change" isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if it's just for the sake of "changing" and "shaking up" the allegedly "stale" and "monotonous" world. "Change" and "progress" aren't necessarily synonyms.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Esau of Isaac]

I believe the point Naughx may be trying to make is that "pedophile" is a term that is used very widely, as opposed to the more stringent definition using lesser-known terminology (ephebophilia and hebephilia respectively). While pedophilia exclusively concerns the attraction towards prepubescent individuals, the term is generally applied to describe anyone that's attracted to a person that isn't of legal age.

[Florete]

I don't really want to be involved in this discussion, I am too much hostile to incest because in my opinion proclaiming it as "normal" and educating new generations under this concept would kill such sublime things as platonic love between relatives, and there is no way nor necessity to change my opinion. I prefer just reading the other people's comments, but I still would like to say 1 thing about this quote:

"Change" isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if it's just for the sake of "changing" and "shaking up" the allegedly "stale" and "monotonous" world. "Change" and "progress" aren't necessarily synonyms.

Incest will never be normal. I don't think anyone believes it should be normal. Acceptance is what people are looking for. Being accepted is not being normal. Homosexuality is becoming widely-accepted, but is not normal and will likely never be normal.

I do agree with what you said about change, but I don't believe Upside-DownFish meant that change was good for the sake of it, just that people should not be against change for the sake of it.

[Blaze The Great]

What a terrible example. None of the things I stated result in death

I don't actually see the problem in legalizing this

er, there's a lot more than one kind of drug.

Advil and Tums are drugs, are beneficial for your health, and are perfectly legal.

Marijuana is a drug, but doesn't have lead to many health problems. It's also illegal

Meth, coke, and tobacco are drugs, illegal, and lead to many health problems. You gotta be a bit more specific.

The first example was a harsh one, but it wasn't unreasonable. As for the drugs, I suppose I could have been more specific, but I did say in my post something about "legalizing" which should have put the emphasis on illegal ones. I'll take the fault on this one.

Now, whether or not these things SHOULD be legalized is a whole different topic, and one I don't want to touch. My point is that you didn't have much reasoning beyond "some formerly taboo things are legal now, so maybe taboo things now should be legal too".

From what I've heard, legalizing prostitution would actually probably be a good thing and could help keep prostitutes safe if the institutions were built correctly. It may also help to lessen human trafficking. Again, though, I'm not the most knowledgeable in this area, so don't quote me on that.And there are plenty of advocates to legalize certain illegal drugs such as marijuana, so that idea is definitely not considered universally bad.

Wouldn't it just be better for the government to give them welfare so that they could get a less...risky job? Maybe I just don't totally understand this, but that sounds like a much more solid solution to me. That's an interesting thought about it potentially lessening human trafficking though.

As for Marijuana and stuff, I'll listen as long as someone doesn't bring up something like "crime has gone down in Colorado since marijuana was legalized." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

[Snowy_One]

Wouldn't it just be better for the government to give them welfare so that they could get a less...risky job? Maybe I just don't totally understand this, but that sounds like a much more solid solution to me. That's an interesting thought about it potentially lessening human trafficking though.

As for Marijuana and stuff, I'll listen as long as someone doesn't bring up something like "crime has gone down in Colorado since marijuana was legalized." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

​As I understand it it's less a matter of 'do I have the money' and more an issue of how they're treated and handled in general. The thought line being that legal prostitutes can be open with their line of work meaning they can work in better areas and more openly reducing the chance of having to deal with violent scum.

As for marijuana... As someone who suffers from epilepsy I very much favor it being legal for medicinal use if nothing else. I do buy that it is probably not as bad as cigarettes and MIGHT not be as bad as booze, but just because it isn't as bad as some other things doesn't mean it should be legal... And I'm fairly certain that 95% of the people who want it legal don't actually care about how good/bad it is or other things are or the potential benefits/harms and only care about not having to hide their stash from the cops/be ostracized because of their weed.

I don't know where that actually leaves me on those issues though.