What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Would you like to marry your first cousin? Perhaps a brother or sister (1 Viewer)

St. Louis Bob

Footballguy
A Swiss law proposes decriminalizing consensual sexual relationships between parents and their adult children

Recent international scrutiny of Sweden’s rape laws certainly hasn’t resulted in legislative timidity among its European neighbors: Switzerland is now considering a controversial new bill to decriminalize incest. A Justice Department spokesperson explains, “Incest continues to be a taboo in our society, but it’s not up to criminal law to stop every morally reprehensible aspect of behavior. Rather, the law should be for punishing behavior that’s particularly socially damaging.”

Marriage between second-degree relatives (aunt/uncle, niece/nephew) is already legal in Switzerland, but the new measure would overturn the ban on consensual sexual relationships between siblings, and between parents and their adult children. (Sexual relationships with underage children would, of course, remain illegal.) The text of the bill has yet to be released, but skeeved-out opponents have heard more than enough. Barbara Schmid Federer, a member of The Christian People’s Party of Switzerland, told the Telegraph that the proposal was “completely repugnant” and that she “could not countenance painting out such a law from the statute books.”

As I reported Friday in response to news about a Columbia professor’s arrest on incest charges, some U.S. courts prosecute incestuous adult relationships on the grounds that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding. Other courts view children as forever-and-always minors when it comes to sexual relationships with their parents: Law professor J. Dean Carro, told me, “Regardless of the age of the child, there’s still a theory that a parent is always a parent, a child is always a child and, as a result, there truly can’t be a consensual sexual act.”

Easy AdSense by Unreal

The Switzerland measure rejects that thinking and allows for the possibility that an adult can meaningfully consent to sex with their parent or sibling. The Swiss would hardly be the first to allow for this: According to a 2007 report by the Max Planck Institute (via WRS), China, France, Israel, the Ivory Coast, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey do not have any prohibitions on consensual incest between adults. The report also notes some interesting legal and philosophical tangles in prohibiting consensual incest on the grounds of “genetic dangers”:

[T]he genetic risks associated with incest are not necessarily greater than other existing genetic risks, because treating the conception of handicapped children as “damage” or “harm” negates these children’s right to life, because the risk of conceiving malformed children is not punished under other factual circumstances, and because this risk can be more successfully addressed by means of education and contraception than by means of a general criminal prohibition of sexual intercourse.

You can bet that similar arguments will be made in the debate over the Swiss measure — but they’re gonna have to be exceptionally strong to successfully take down the all-powerful incest taboo.
link :shrug: First thing that popped into my mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a girl I went to high school with moved to Arkansas to do this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
it’s not up to criminal law to stop every morally reprehensible aspect of behavior. Rather, the law should be for punishing behavior that’s particularly socially damaging.”
:goodposting:Though it's still disgusting.But can't it be argued having deformed kids is socially damaging? Then you could also argue drinking/smoking while pregnant should be illegal...ugh, this is an ugly can of worms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is "normal" in lots of foreign countries. My Dad is an immigrant from SE Asia, and his sister is married to their 1st cousin. Their mothers were sisters, and they had the same grandmother.

 
Come on people! Haven't we learned anything from dealing with LHUCKS? You should not mate with immediate family members.

 
This is "normal" in lots of foreign countries. My Dad is an immigrant from SE Asia, and his sister is married to their 1st cousin. Their mothers were sisters, and they had the same grandmother.
I used to know a girl in Canada who had two cusins who married.*PS: They were French Canadians if that makes any difference.
 
This is "normal" in lots of foreign countries. My Dad is an immigrant from SE Asia, and his sister is married to their 1st cousin. Their mothers were sisters, and they had the same grandmother.
And your avatar is Batman kissing Robin. You're not helping yourself here, sir.
 
This is "normal" in lots of foreign countries. My Dad is an immigrant from SE Asia, and his sister is married to their 1st cousin. Their mothers were sisters, and they had the same grandmother.
It makes family get togethers easier.
Now not so much...they're divorced. :unsure:
Ouch. I can only imagine what that must be like. :lmao:
It also means that if you really want to write your ex out of your will you'd damn well better be thorough about it. OTOH, there's a nice secondary market within the family on monogrammed towels.

 
I'm just wondering, and I don't mean this in a bad or ugly way so please don't throw anything, but why exactly is it that people of the same gender have a "right" to be married but cousins and siblings don't?

Not talking about the right or wrong of it, I just mean the right of society to say that they cannot be married if they want to?

 
15 Celebrities Who Married A CousinToday, only six states allow marriage between first cousins, but bans on marrying one’s cousin only just started popping up in the last century. And in some countries it’s still allowed! Here are 15 celebrities who married a cousin.
http://madamenoire.com/488938/celebrities-who-married-a-cousin/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=widget&utm_campaign=madamenoire.desktop.US.Tier3
Albert Einstein

Einstein held a lot of knowledge, but no knowledge of the dangers of procreating with a close relative. Einstein married Elsa Lowenthal (she had her last name from a previous marriage) who was Einstein’s first cousin on his mother’s side and second cousin on his father’s side.

Going to need a diagram for this one.

 
Last edited:
15 Celebrities Who Married A CousinToday, only six states allow marriage between first cousins, but bans on marrying one’s cousin only just started popping up in the last century. And in some countries it’s still allowed! Here are 15 celebrities who married a cousin.
http://madamenoire.com/488938/celebrities-who-married-a-cousin/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=widget&utm_campaign=madamenoire.desktop.US.Tier3
The Darwins had ten children: two died in infancy, and Annie's death at the age of ten had a devastating effect on her parents. Charles was a devoted father and uncommonly attentive to his children.[11] Whenever they fell ill, he feared that they might have inherited weaknesses from inbreeding due to the close family ties he shared with his wife and cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He examined this topic in his writings, contrasting it with the advantages of crossing amongst many organisms.[162] Despite his fears, most of the surviving children and many of their descendants went on to have distinguished careers (see Darwin-Wedgwood family).[163]

Of his surviving children, George, Francis and Horace became Fellows of the Royal Society,[164] distinguished as astronomer,[165]botanist and civil engineer, respectively. Another son, Leonard, went on to be a soldier, politician, economist, eugenicist and mentor of the statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher.[166]
 
I'm just wondering, and I don't mean this in a bad or ugly way so please don't throw anything, but why exactly is it that people of the same gender have a "right" to be married but cousins and siblings don't?

Not talking about the right or wrong of it, I just mean the right of society to say that they cannot be married if they want to?
Cousins should be legal, but it's too easy for sexual abuse to occur between brothers and sisters.

 
15 Celebrities Who Married A CousinToday, only six states allow marriage between first cousins, but bans on marrying one’s cousin only just started popping up in the last century. And in some countries it’s still allowed! Here are 15 celebrities who married a cousin.
http://madamenoire.com/488938/celebrities-who-married-a-cousin/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=widget&utm_campaign=madamenoire.desktop.US.Tier3
The Darwins had ten children: two died in infancy, and Annie's death at the age of ten had a devastating effect on her parents. Charles was a devoted father and uncommonly attentive to his children.[11] Whenever they fell ill, he feared that they might have inherited weaknesses from inbreeding due to the close family ties he shared with his wife and cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He examined this topic in his writings, contrasting it with the advantages of crossing amongst many organisms.[162] Despite his fears, most of the surviving children and many of their descendants went on to have distinguished careers (see Darwin-Wedgwood family).[163]

Of his surviving children, George, Francis and Horace became Fellows of the Royal Society,[164] distinguished as astronomer,[165]botanist and civil engineer, respectively. Another son, Leonard, went on to be a soldier, politician, economist, eugenicist and mentor of the statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher.[166]
Most of the "stars" in that list were not modern celebs but famous scientists and artists and politicians.

I saw that about Darwin, because you'd think if anyone had the knowledge about this kind of thing it would have been him... but given the times his children ended up fine, actually they were largely exemplary, brilliant apparently.

 
I'm just wondering, and I don't mean this in a bad or ugly way so please don't throw anything, but why exactly is it that people of the same gender have a "right" to be married but cousins and siblings don't?

Not talking about the right or wrong of it, I just mean the right of society to say that they cannot be married if they want to?
Cousins should be legal, but it's too easy for sexual abuse to occur between brothers and sisters.
The siblings thing seems way too fraught with health problems with inbreeding, I don't think it's a close call.

In LA even though it's "illegal" every 3, 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 years or so the Legislature gets together an quietly passes and amnesty for cousins.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like it would be really difficult to resist banging your daughter if she was really hot. Maybe some dads with daughters can weigh in on that.

 
Incest is banned for the same reason homosexual marriage is banned: it's icky. :yucky: That is not solid legal reasoning.

If you are going to argue that incest should be banned because of the potential for health problems in children, then you should be in favor of performing genetic testing on every couple to determine potential health problems before they are allowed to procreate. And what if one of the siblings/cousins can't have children? Do they get a green light? Brother's got a vasectomy? :thumbup: Grandma's gone through menopause? :thumbup:

 
chauncey said:
Evidently adult incest is already legal in NJ. Here is the romantic story of a father and daughter who fell in love and are planning to get married:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/what-its-like-to-date-your-dad.html
Disgusting, this is what happens when people accept one perversion, it leads into even more sicker ones.
Leads to? This kind of thing has been happening since the dawn of man.
Thank goodness. We wouldn't be here otherwise.

 
Incest is banned for the same reason homosexual marriage is banned: it's icky. :yucky: That is not solid legal reasoning.

If you are going to argue that incest should be banned because of the potential for health problems in children, then you should be in favor of performing genetic testing on every couple to determine potential health problems before they are allowed to procreate. And what if one of the siblings/cousins can't have children? Do they get a green light? Brother's got a vasectomy? :thumbup: Grandma's gone through menopause? :thumbup:
Yes it is

 
There is no real scientific evidence to suggest marriage of cousins is banned for any reason other than it's icky. Obviously certain families carry certain genes that when mixed together are bad for babies. But this isn't the norm it's the exception and most of the bloodlines that have these abnormalities are well aware. As long as they are consenting adults I don't see the problem with it and prosecuting it seems like a waste of time and money.

The parent child thing is very tricky though. I mean basically you are setting a child up for a lifetime of grooming and it's hard to say a real decision was made there by said child upon reaching the age of consent. I agree with the theory that the child is always the child in that relationship. But should we prosecute it if there was no overt sexual act before the minor turned 18 or whatever the age is?

 
There is no real scientific evidence to suggest marriage of cousins is banned for any reason other than it's icky. Obviously certain families carry certain genes that when mixed together are bad for babies. But this isn't the norm it's the exception and most of the bloodlines that have these abnormalities are well aware. As long as they are consenting adults I don't see the problem with it and prosecuting it seems like a waste of time and money.

The parent child thing is very tricky though. I mean basically you are setting a child up for a lifetime of grooming and it's hard to say a real decision was made there by said child upon reaching the age of consent. I agree with the theory that the child is always the child in that relationship. But should we prosecute it if there was no overt sexual act before the minor turned 18 or whatever the age is?
:lmao: http://youtu.be/kDnCoiYKmtw?t=37s

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no real scientific evidence to suggest marriage of cousins is banned for any reason other than it's icky. Obviously certain families carry certain genes that when mixed together are bad for babies. But this isn't the norm it's the exception and most of the bloodlines that have these abnormalities are well aware. As long as they are consenting adults I don't see the problem with it and prosecuting it seems like a waste of time and money.

The parent child thing is very tricky though. I mean basically you are setting a child up for a lifetime of grooming and it's hard to say a real decision was made there by said child upon reaching the age of consent. I agree with the theory that the child is always the child in that relationship. But should we prosecute it if there was no overt sexual act before the minor turned 18 or whatever the age is?
Like the Habsburgs?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top