lilplatinum: omasa: When will it stop!!! Churches ceremonies for people marrying siblings, ppl to animals( dogs, cat,sheep....COWS), people to IPODs!!!

As long as the siblings are adults, sure why not.. Animals and ipods cannot give consent so your examples are just as idiotic as your sentence construction skills.

And yet we hear about a guy marrying an anime character in Japan or an old lady marrying a dolphine!!!Your counter-argument is invalid.

I feel sorry for a sicko like you. It's ok I give you permission to Efff your MOM or DAD in the A.

If she were my daughter I'd...
*What would you do, Daddy?*
If she were my daughter I'd...
*What would you do, Daddy?*
If she were my daughter I'd...
*What would you do, Daddy?*
Smother my daughter in chocolate syrup,
And strap her on again, *Oh baby!*
Smother that girl in chocolate syrup,
And strap her on again!
She's a *Teenage Baby,* and she turns me on,
I'd like to make Her do a *nasty*
On the White House Lawn!
Going to smother that daughter in chocolate syrup,
And boogie till the cows come home!

/RIP FZ

There's a reason Egyptian Pharaohs married their sisters. The inheritence flowed through the women, not the men. (The whole you always know who the mother is thing.) If the man wanted to be Pharaoh, he had to marry the heiress. Several instances of outsiders marrying the women to become pharaoh, Yes, the inbreeding often led to severe physical disabilities. However, remember that most of these pairings involved half siblings, not full. Often the heiress had a different mother than the man who actually inherited.

ttintagel: Even as adults, parents and children are not psychological equals.

This is true. My parents are totally nuts.

omasa: And yet we hear about a guy marrying an anime character in Japan or an old lady marrying a dolphine!!!Your counter-argument is invalid.

I never heard of these until I googled them, maybe you should spend less time in fetish sites.. Anyway neither are legally enforcable, you can have a "ceremony" saying whatever the fark you want.. As wierd as it is it doesn't hurt anyone so who gives a shiat, why don't you mind your own business and learn to write like someone who graduated high school before showing all your faux outrage.

on the case

The ironic thing about the reaction in TFA is that this is precisely the sort of small-government thinking that conservatives push in every single facet of government that involves money. A consensual relationship between adults is (at least in principle) victimless and there's a strong social taboo anyway, so why is it the government's business to interfere with privacy and legislate morality? In this sense, the law itself is very libertarian.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: The revulsion is so well evolved into us that, overwhelmingly, we won't have sex with people with whom we grew up, not just sister, but childhood friends, etc.

Oy, I can relate. I have a childhood friend I consider a "third sister" because she's best friends with both of my sisters and thus spent a great deal of time at my house. I spent a lot of time with her myself, as we were both clarinetists in the same youth orchestra. Objectively I think she's cute, but in the few instances I pondered dating her a gut-level revulsion took over and killed the thought DRT.

lilplatinum: graduated high school before showing all your faux outrage

you are an idiot...a typical grammer nazi living in Germany who thinks that he is the only educated being on earth.

Barakku: Stay Cool Babylon: If it's only applied to ADULTS, who actually cares?

It can still be abuse, parents have a lot of control over their kids socially and emotionally. That said I'm on the fence about it. If I were Swiss I'd be more worried about forcing people to provide real evidence in rape and "surprise sex" allegations.

HMS_Blinkin: DamnYankees: Consensual private activity between adults.

Why should that be illegal?

It shouldn't be so long as there's a provision that NO offspring may result from such unions, IE that any pregnancies would result in mandatory abortions. It would be cruel to allow those children to face the inevitable horrible physical defects and social stigma. Even more importantly, the children of such unions would almost certainly become huge burdens on society, given that mentally, physically, and psychologically they would be farked up (How would YOU feel knowing that your dad was also your grandpa?!?!?).

And yet its not illegal to have a baby after 35, or for to people who carry CF/sickle cell/hemophilia/huntingtons/dwarfism to have a baby and it isn't even illegal to drink/smoke/do drugs (illegal or prescription) while you are pregnant. It also isn't illegal for a pregnant woman to sit in a hot tub. Yet we allow it. Imagine that. Considering incest is highly les likely than any of the above situations, and that genetic counseling exists when it didn't in a time of "zeus" (seriously farkers?) or King Charles of spain, its pretty farking stupid to ban incest because of the genetic outcome. Its also pretty stupid to ban it because its "icky" which is what people said about marriage between different classes, marriage between different races, and marriage between gays. With those two things cast out, and a mandate on CONSENSUAL adult relationships only I see no reason why it should be banned in any way.

/Most consensual incestuous relationships arise from two people who have not grown up together- ie siblings separated at birth, parent/child separated at birth etc.

HEADLINE OF THE YEAR CONTENDER!
OH PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!

Fank: vegasj: Fank: Autocorrect huh? What about farking, can I say farking?

you must be new...

Yeah, or I just never used fark before. Retard.

omasa: you are an idiot...a typical grammer nazi living in Germany who thinks that he is the only educated being on earth.

And constantly being proven correct.

hitchking:
The claim is that it isn't truly consensual due to the unique nature of an adult parent/child relationship.

Well, for the vast majority of parent/child relationships, that's obviously completely bogus. It's just a pseudo-legal-scientific way to rationalize our intuitive disgust at the idea.

That being said, incestual relationships are so rare, that I wonder if that argument might actually hold water in the exceedingly small fraction of a percentage of parent-child relationships that become incestuous.

We normally have an inbuilt automatic rejection of those we saw as small kids but as with all sexual programming sometimes it goes astray.

If the prohibition fails and the relationship is truly consenting then I see no justification for the state to prohibit it. I do feel it's reasonable for the state to be careful to ensure it's truly consensual, though.

Dinjiin: I remember a story some time back about a brother and sister separated at birth. They met each other as older adults, fell in love and moved to Pennsylvania. They got engaged, but then learned about their relationship. Since they were beyond child-bearing age, they wanted to get an exception.

That's a difficult one to judge on, simply because they do not look at each other as siblings. Their age also takes away the possibility of flipper babies.

Just saying...

It's not difficult for me--I can see absolutely no compelling state interest in preventing it. Absent such a compelling state interest I see no justification for forcing apart two people that love each other.

I Said: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

But ewwwwwwwww isn't enough justification for a law. Note that in cases like the PA couple mentioned by Dinjiin the normal ewwww reaction does *NOT* activate for the people involved as that's actually based on the early years, not on genetics.

Rreal: Unpopular view time here.

I believe that there shouldn't be a law against consenting adults engaging in an incestual relationship, however i do believe such relationships are due a higher level of scrutiny to ensure that it -is- in fact, a consensual relationship, due to the potential abuse of power situation, that and the whole chance of popping out crotchfruit with 2 heads and 7 toes.

Unpopular, not unique. I believe the state should do the minimum intrusion needed to protect people from harm.

What I would like to see is something like a psych exam of the couple required to make sure it's consensual. I have no problem with criminializing childbearing in such a relationship if they are actual immediate blood relatives.

The Hills Have Eyes III - new working title: The Swiss Alps Have Eyes

All they are saying is they want to decriminalize consentual sex between adults that are related. Kids are still protected. And, they are not saying it's ok; they are just saying the courts won't have to deal with it. In truth, what can the courts do with people who want to screw their adult parents or kids? These nasty creatures will do it anyway unless you lock them up and I don't believe that is a reasonable solution.

Wodheila: Are they really sure that the "law" is what prevents people that are inclined to do this from proceeding? I'd think that people that would do this would hardly let a law be the deciding factor in their decision.

The article wasn't about preventing anything, rather about abolishing prohibition of an activity that shouldn't be within the government's jurisdiction.

Still, I woulda gone with legalizing weed or something.

Regardless of social taboos, you can't deny you would watch a porn of two smokin hot chick twins gettin it on if that were to become legalized here in the states

/just sayin

Approves

lilplatinum: omasa: you are an idiot...a typical grammer nazi living in Germany who thinks that he is the only educated being on earth.

And constantly being proven correct.

I feel sorry for your family.

thatguymn: Regardless of social taboos, you can't deny you would watch a porn of two smokin hot chick twins gettin it on if that were to become legalized here in the states

/just sayin

Not even close to being safe for work. (new window)

Wow, just think of a Mom-on-Dad and teenage-sister-on-teenage-brother sex party.

Nothing wrong with that, right?

HMS_Blinkin: It shouldn't be so long as there's a provision that NO offspring may result from such unions...

If you get more than one link away the chances of birth defects are very close to normal. By more than one link away, I mean not parent/child, and not brother/sister. Cousins and such, while still rightfully the butt of many a joke, do not see a worrisome increase in birth defect rate.

FTA: 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."

While I agree with most of his statement 100% in this case incest can be socially damaging since it's a known fact that any offspring between close relatives have increased chances mental and physical health problems which could lead to a strain on society having an influx of retarded people over time. While I know that statement could cause a shaitstorm from the retarded community but there is a difference here because if they are related they are knowingly taking that risk.

Now if the law only excluded step-relative, making it legal to bang my hot step-sister or step-mom, then that's just fine with me.

socoloco: Considering a law allowing consensual incest but charging people for "Sex by Surprise?"

The Swiss are retards.

Switzerland and Sweden aren't the same place. Congratulations on being the third or fourth idiot to make that mistake, though.

Sqube: Switzerland and Sweden aren't the same place. Congratulations on being the third or fourth idiot to make that mistake, though.

I was trying to figure out if these people are just embarissingly ignorant or if this is a meme like Australia/Austria.

dennysgod: While I know that statement could cause a shaitstorm from the retarded community but there is a difference here because if they are related they are knowingly taking that risk.

My wife and I have asthma. We had a child knowing that she was likely to have the same birth defect we both shared. Turns out our daughter also has asthma and will apparently be a drain on the community with her increased need for respiratory related care.

Oh yeah, and STFU.

dennysgod: FTA: 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."

While I agree with most of his statement 100% in this case incest can be socially damaging since it's a known fact that any offspring between close relatives have increased chances mental and physical health problems which could lead to a strain on society having an influx of retarded people over time. While I know that statement could cause a shaitstorm from the retarded community but there is a difference here because if they are related they are knowingly taking that risk.

Now if the law only excluded step-relative, making it legal to bang my hot step-sister or step-mom, then that's just fine with me.

So basically what you are saying is you have no actual grasp on the topic at hand and have read nothing about it, nor do you have any background in laws on reproduction or biology related to incestuous relationships. Ok. Thanks for letting us know.

bimalc: So a couple of comments:

1) There is actually an emerging body of scientific data that 'one off' consanguinous matings are not as damaging as we imagine. The realy problems happen from repeated consanguinity within a single family tree. It turns out that the genome is pretty robust to isolated consanguinity.

2) We actually do have epidemiological data on consanguinity across the world at levels slightly less related than brother-sister. In large parts of north africa, the middle east and south asia, first cousin and uncle-niece marriages are relatively common.

Of course, Saudi Arabia now has a huge problem with some pretty horrific mendellian recessive diseases, but them's the breaks ....

The problem with close family genetics is the higher possibility that recessive genes will combine and become dominant. What most don't consider is that this applies to good genes as well as bad genes.

So, you could end up with a damaged baby or end up with an exceptional baby. Or somewhere in between. It's still a crap shoot, but the stakes are bigger because the likelyhood of incidence is higher.

Take a look at show dogs. Close breeding creates exceptional dogs, but also end up with an unusually high incidence of health problems.

Not a crap shoot I'd want to take, though.

lilplatinum: Sqube: Switzerland and Sweden aren't the same place. Congratulations on being the third or fourth idiot to make that mistake, though.

I was trying to figure out if these people are just embarissingly ignorant or if this is a meme like Australia/Austria.

I'm trying to figure out if you two just fell for the most obvious troll on the internet, or if this is a double-troll to lure people into commenting about how stupid you are.

Sqube: socoloco: Considering a law allowing consensual incest but charging people for "Sex by Surprise?"

The Swiss are retards.

Switzerland and Sweden aren't the same place. Congratulations on being the third or fourth idiot to make that mistake, though.

The article is about Switzerland AND Sweden. So it's ok to talk about both. Besides, it's a well known fact that the Swedish legal system is björken.

thatguymn: Regardless of social taboos, you can't deny you would watch a porn of two smokin hot chick twins gettin it on if that were to become legalized here in the states

Of course; I'm not related to either girl so my hard-on is guilt-free. Incest fantasies are quite common, largely because they're incomplete in some way -- either they're imagined from a third-person perspective (as is the case with erotica) or involve an imaginary/proxy relative thus the innate revulsion isn't there (in the case of fantasies or role-play).*

An awful lot of fetishes find second life in the fantasy world that people really wouldn't get aroused by if faced with a similar situation in reality. Seeing smoking-hot twin girls make out? Giggity. OTOH, I AM a twin and the thought of even kissing my twin makes me seriously want to hurl.

*Not that I'm into that sort of thing, but you don't download as much pr0n as I do without learning a few things by exposure.

Nobody mentioned the columbia professor and anti Palin blogger yet? I guess David Epstein and his daughter would be looking to move there...

coco ebert: hitchking: That being said, incestual relationships are so rare, that I wonder if that argument might actually hold water in the exceedingly small fraction of a percentage of parent-child relationships that become incestuous.

Because it is a taboo, we have no idea how rare it is.

Kay Parker is unavailable for comment at this time...

the_geek: My wife and I have asthma. We had a child knowing that she was likely to have the same birth defect we both shared. Turns out our daughter also has asthma and will apparently be a drain on the community with her increased need for respiratory related care.

Is this supposed to be a point? Why the fark did you have a kid, then?? My wife and I have seriously discussed having children and among the foremost of our concerns is that we'd pass on known defects within our families. The decision to have kids in spite of known risks is intensely selfish.

ace in your face: Barakku: Stay Cool Babylon: If it's only applied to ADULTS, who actually cares?

It can still be abuse, parents have a lot of control over their kids socially and emotionally. That said I'm on the fence about it. If I were Swiss I'd be more worried about forcing people to provide real evidence in rape and "surprise sex" allegations.

HMS_Blinkin: DamnYankees: Consensual private activity between adults.

Why should that be illegal?

It shouldn't be so long as there's a provision that NO offspring may result from such unions, IE that any pregnancies would result in mandatory abortions. It would be cruel to allow those children to face the inevitable horrible physical defects and social stigma. Even more importantly, the children of such unions would almost certainly become huge burdens on society, given that mentally, physically, and psychologically they would be farked up (How would YOU feel knowing that your dad was also your grandpa?!?!?).

And yet its not illegal to have a baby after 35, or for to people who carry CF/sickle cell/hemophilia/huntingtons/dwarfism to have a baby and it isn't even illegal to drink/smoke/do drugs (illegal or prescription) while you are pregnant.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do illegal drugs regardless of pregnancy-status.

ciderczar: I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do illegal drugs regardless of pregnancy-status.

Usually just to buy them, possess them, be under their influence in public.

Doing thems fine.

dognose4: Nobody mentioned the columbia professor and anti Palin blogger yet? I guess David Epstein and his daughter would be looking to move there...

Congratulations on successfully failing to read the comments.

dartben: You're not legislating morality, you're protecting the species. The Government's interest is the welfare of the potential offspring, not two siblings diddling each other in the bedroom.

As far as I read that's not Switzerland's stance, and that's different from banning incest itself, anyway. If that's your argument, the Arizona law you stated makes more sense in this context.

That said, you shouldn't have it both ways. If incest should be illegal on these grounds, then all sorts of behavior need to be banned. You shouldn't play favorites with eugenics. More than any particular ideology I like ideological consistency, though ironically I doubt the country I live in could be any more hypocritical.

dragonchild: The decision to have kids in spite of known risks is intensely selfish.

Is it more selfish than denying the possibility for someone to live because they might have some kind of defect? "Child, I decided not to have you because you had a 1 in 500 chance of condition X rather than a 1 in 10,000 chance like most kids." There's your selfish statement.

/playing devil's advocate here
//that's a personal decision everyone should make for themselves

dartben: dragonchild: The ironic thing about the reaction in TFA is that this is precisely the sort of small-government thinking that conservatives push in every single facet of government that involves money. A consensual relationship between adults is (at least in principle) victimless and there's a strong social taboo anyway, so why is it the government's business to interfere with privacy and legislate morality? In this sense, the law itself is very libertarian.

You're not legislating morality, you're protecting the species. The Government's interest is the welfare of the potential offspring, not two siblings diddling each other in the bedroom.

Fun factoid: Arizona allows incestual marriages so long as it is impossible for the couple to bear offspring. Generally this means the woman must be well beyond menopause, though it's also allowable where the man has been castrated and/or is otherwise proven to be sterile.

Which explains our mandates on women over 35 right? Or our hot tub mandates? Or our breeding system designed by the government to weed out genetic inferiorities? Oh no, we will just pick on the least common which is incest, because its Icky. I am pretty sure you have a shait ass senator in that state holding up DADT as long as he can too. Go Arizona.

ciderczar: ace in your face: Barakku: Stay Cool Babylon: If it's only applied to ADULTS, who actually cares?

It can still be abuse, parents have a lot of control over their kids socially and emotionally. That said I'm on the fence about it. If I were Swiss I'd be more worried about forcing people to provide real evidence in rape and "surprise sex" allegations.

HMS_Blinkin: DamnYankees: Consensual private activity between adults.

Why should that be illegal?

It shouldn't be so long as there's a provision that NO offspring may result from such unions, IE that any pregnancies would result in mandatory abortions. It would be cruel to allow those children to face the inevitable horrible physical defects and social stigma. Even more importantly, the children of such unions would almost certainly become huge burdens on society, given that mentally, physically, and psychologically they would be farked up (How would YOU feel knowing that your dad was also your grandpa?!?!?).

And yet its not illegal to have a baby after 35, or for to people who carry CF/sickle cell/hemophilia/huntingtons/dwarfism to have a baby and it isn't even illegal to drink/smoke/do drugs (illegal or prescription) while you are pregnant.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do illegal drugs regardless of pregnancy-status.

I meant as a sub law. You can be arrested for illegal drug use, but there is no further charge for doing illegal drugs while pregnant, which is what I was referring to. If you have a baby that is born addicted to crack they can't charge you with anything essentially.

dragonchild: the_geek: My wife and I have asthma. We had a child knowing that she was likely to have the same birth defect we both shared. Turns out our daughter also has asthma and will apparently be a drain on the community with her increased need for respiratory related care.

Is this supposed to be a point? Why the fark did you have a kid, then?? My wife and I have seriously discussed having children and among the foremost of our concerns is that we'd pass on known defects within our families. The decision to have kids in spite of known risks is intensely selfish.

Its asthma, not farking hemophilia, and even that isn't regulated. My kid will probably inherit migraines and bad vision. Oh noes! The humanity! I am such a bad person!

/She will also probably be a ginger. Can't wait to find out within the month!

If Sweden legalizes incest, then will Ikea sell "Mømfüker" beds?

Dear Penthouse Switzerland:

I never thought I'd be writing one of these stories, and I never believed that any of them were true, but last weekend my Dad was out of town, and my Mom came home from a wine party at her friends...

Really, what else has Switzerland produced in the last five hundred years?

DamnYankees: Consensual private activity between adults.

Why should that be illegal?

*facepalm *