politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't think that you deserve downvotes for this because I don't think you're necessarily incorrect. I do absolutely feel cognitive dissonance here. I have a visceral, what I think is instinctual, revulsion at the concept of incest. But, if there is love, consensuality, and no one is being harmed (including possible offspring), I cannot in good conscience say that they do not have a right to be together, regardless of how I feel. It takes overriding that feeling to state as such, which isn't comfortable and is, by definition, cognitive dissonance.
I do not, however, think that the comparison to homophobia or other discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is a good comparison. The majority of relationships that LGBTQ+ people engage in are consensual and do not cause harm to anyone. The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia. Offspring of close relatives are at high risk for significant biological and social harm (in cases of abuse add psychological harm).
I think the guy you're referring to isn't trying to compare incest to gay rights or anything. He's merely pointing out that the argument against incest among consentual couples is a slippery slope argument similar to the slippery slope arguments used by the far right to deny the LGBT community their rights: "If we let them do _________, then the next thing they're gonna want is ___________". It's a bad argument to make no matter the subject or which side of an issue you're on. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to support incest without having to resort to slippery slope arguments.
There's also the fact that if one were to seriously try to legalize incest among consenting adults, the immediate response from the right would be "See? We told you that if we started letting gays marry, they'd want to marry their cousins next! What's next, their pets?". And you and I both know that they would immediately start using this argument to further isolate and marginalize the LGBT community, even if they try to distance themselves from the idea.
Go back some time and see what happened when NAMBLA tried to shoehorn themselves into the LGBT rights movement. The LGBT community immediately denounced the group and distanced themselves from them as quickly and as forcefully as they could, and the far right still shit all over them for it, saying "See? They're starting already!". The same thing would happen here -- the LGBT community would distance themselves from the idea right from the get-go, but that wouldn't stop bigots from blaming them anyway even though they have nothing to do with it.
Incest is, by definition, sexual relations between people too closely related. The question here is whether or not first cousins should count as incest.
But next time you debate with someone opposed to homosexuality, ask yourself if they think their revulsion to it is a visceral, instinctual response.
Well, I'm really not comparing the two, I'm comparing the arguments. But that being said, where are you coming up with the claim that the majority of first cousin sexual attraction is pedophilia or sexual abuse?
I suppose I should better clarify terms here:
It would make sense for the legal definiton of incest to encompass situations where harm is likely, whether it be social, psychological, physical, or biological, due to relation. So, it would make sense for first cousins to fall into a "possible" category.
While you have a good point on perspective, I would say that evidence points towards homophobic behavior being conditoned and inbreeding-phobic behavior being instinctual. Homosexual behavior is seen with statistically-significant frequency throughout the animal kingdom. Familial recognition and its use in mate selection (and rejection) and other behaviors is seen even more widely, occuring in even insects, plants, and microbes.
I should likely have been more specific in scoping that. I was referring to the superset of cases of incest there, rather than the subset of cousins. I would have to look at data in that subset in order to make a factual statement.
I think something got lost in the shuffle here. The top level comment of this chain was (which is also what the article is about):
So in my mind it was always about whether or not first cousins fall into the realm of incest and/or inbreeding. We both agree that there is probably a instinctual component to the rejection of incest. I think that, just like with the rejection of homosexuality, the aversion to first cousins because they're incestual is also conditioned, which is why it shouldn't be outlawed. Although I could be convinced otherwise.