Odd question.

[ikkibu]

I have a question.  I'm not sure where to post it, but because it didn't seem to fit the other subforums right I'll post it here.  If this is in the wrong spot feel free to have it moved to the apropriate place.  This subforum seems to be a "Anything goes, within reason" subforum so here it goes.

My question is pretaining to incest laws worldwide.
I understand that children born from this kind of thing have a high probability of having serious birth defects and disorders, but that's not what's got me confused.  Laws generally prohibit not only sex, but also marriage.  I think I even read a law that prohibited the accidental touch of "private places" in some countries and states. As in, walking by a family member (both persons fully clothed) and accidently touching them in the wrong place.  I don't have links, so forgive me for the rude statement, but if you want to verify my claims do so yourself.  I will, though, say that my sources came from government maintained websites.

I can understand making sex between family members illegal, but I can't quite wrap my mind around why marriage and the accidental touch whilst walking by a family member is made illegal.  Maybe as preventative measures, but still.  Just because someone marries someone doesn't mean that their intent is sexual.  Marriage isn't sex, it's the basics of saying "I'll be there for you forever, through thick and thin, you can lean on me".  And, hell, some people are Asexual, and, therefore, don't want sex with anyone.  I know the law doesn't conform to the individual, but instead to the majority, but still.

I'm not saying I condone incest in any way, shape, or form.  I'm just saying that I don't get why people had to put training wheels on our freedom and free will.
Even though I don't condone it, I don't see a problem with the marriage part, and accidents are accidents.  And therefore I don't see why marriage and accidents of such nature are made into felonies by our laws.

I know this probably wouldn't be a often discussed or debated topic, but maybe y'all see something I'm not seeing, and that's why I came here.  Plus I couldn't find a decent forum that covers this topic, so I turned to my own people being that generally we're level-headed and know what we're talking about.

So, someone want to help me wrap my mind around this?

[Hitsumei]

Genetic defects of children is irrelevant to incest statutes, and not particularly supported either. This is what is known as inbreeding depression. Individuals that share dangerous recessive genes have a higher chance of them presenting themselves in their offspring, but related individuals are not the only individuals that carry dangerous recessive genes, or have this problem. Also, there is a form of this known as outbreeding depression, where genetic problems can be caused by excessive outbreeding. This is not illegal. Also sterile, or homosexual individuals are still breaking the law if they engage in sexual activity with close relatives, or even individuals related by affinity (i.e. step siblings, or parents).

The most reasonable justification for why this must be -- in my opinion -- is to avoid sexual exploitation in the home by family members. This is a problem, and one that individuals need protection from, so laws against it must exist in some form. Though I do agree with you that these laws are outdated, and need to be more specialized and specific.

Personally I feel practically any relationship two consenting adults want to enter into is no buisness of the state -- and I think that denying them reproductive rights stinks of eugenics. There are many individuals that have an analogous probability of having offspring with genetic flaws that are not denied reproductive rights, so if they are going to use that as a justification, then it should justify denial of reproductive rights for all individuals that carry such a risk across the board. Even then this should in no way then criminalize sexual activity under all circumstances, or marriage. We have the technology to render females temporarily infertile with quarterly injections that would remove the possibility of their producing defective offspring until, if such a time were to arrive, they entered into a relationship that did not involve the same risks, and of course this should not be relevant to homosexual incest.

So that is my take on the issue.

[PipeBox]

What Hitsumei said.  Also, I really doubt "accidental touching" is a law, much less a felony, anywhere.  Not to be rude, but I can't be arsed to search the whole of the earth's law to say that it isn't, either, and the statement is in your court.  Anyway, the law would be nearly unenforceable due to failure to report occurrences, and even if it were a law, I highly doubt it would be a felony, which would invoke a criminal trial and the threat of jail time in most places.

As to putting training wheels on our freedoms, there's a fine line between plain ol' protection and restriction on freedoms.  How far is the freedom to own a weapon from the lawlessness of owning an automatic weapon?  To carry a knife, but not a switchblade?  Freedom is full of training wheels.  I'm sure some would argue that all laws would be superfluous to a sufficiently developed society, and I'm sure others would argue that laws should only govern non-consensual acts, so that all drug laws and laws in regards to marriage would be repealed.  There are even others that would argue that laws should only be triggered, rather than preemptive (make assault weapons legal, as well as every kind of explosive, poison, and so on, and then only prosecute when they are misused).  Personally, I think the law should strive to be the best balance between the possibility of harm and freedom.  Laws that govern situations where there is no reasonable chance of personal harm (homosexual marriage, incest, censorship) should be repealed.  Automatic weapons?  Eh, it's a balance, some things are just safer left out of the hands of the public.  I wouldn't trust my neighbors with thermite (which, interestingly enough, isn't illegal!).  

[karadan]

...