The Instigator
Gustav_Adolf_II
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
OnlyGodCanJudgeMe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Incest should not be illegal (meaning it should be legalized)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Gustav_Adolf_II
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,189 times Debate No: 56514
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Gustav_Adolf_II

Pro

1st round acceptance
2nd round arguments
3rd round rebuttals
4th round rebuttals/concluding statement(s)

First of all, I am not arguing for the legalization of all incest. Incestuous relationships where one or both of the individuals is under aged and/or not consenting should remain illegal, but not because they're incestuous the kind of incest I am arguing for the legalization of is sexual relations between two of age, consenting individuals.

Now I will define things:

Incest- sexual relations between two people of the same bloodline who are at the very least as genetically related as first cousins, which means they share 12.5% of their DNA. This would include siblings, half-siblings, first cousins, parent/child, grandparents and grandchildren as well as aunts/uncles with nieces/nephews. But would not include adopted or step siblings, step parents or in-laws which have no genetic relation. Or anything beyond the 12.5% genetic similarity line like second cousins or great aunts/uncles.

Illegal- anything against the law

Sexual relations- sexual behavior between two individuals

Consent-permission for something to happen or agreement to do something

Of age- At or above the age of 18, which is generally considered the age of consent for sexual relations

No trolls please.
OnlyGodCanJudgeMe

Con

It should not be legal, because of the fact that there is a huge risk of children being affected. Plus, the long term would mean everyone in the world would be genetically related. This means that everyone would potentially look, think, and act the same way.
Debate Round No. 1
Gustav_Adolf_II

Pro

First round was only supposed to be acceptance, but whatever. Here is my argument:

In most scenarios, the government would need to violate the U.S. constitution in order to enforce incest laws. It was proved in Lawrence v. Texas(http://en.wikipedia.org...) by the Supreme Court that the bedroom is a private place that the state has no authority to barge into if both individuals are of age and consenting. And if it does it goes against the 14th amendment of the constitution, specifically the due process clause(http://en.wikipedia.org...), which is a guarantee of a fair legal process when the government seeks to burden a person's interests in life, liberty, or property. This would include the liberty to commit of age, consensual incest (excerpt from the due process clause wikipedea article: ""liberty" in the due process clauses broadly: "Although the Court has not assumed to define 'liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."[12][13]"). This proves why incest laws are unconstitutional, therefore incest should be legalized.

There is also the case for accidental incest, should someone be thrown into jail for having "sexual relations" with someone he/she didn't know he/she was closely related too? A significant number of incestuous relationships are accidental, it is surprisingly common for siblings to be raised apart from each other, only to meet later in life, fall in love, and even have children sometimes(example:http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Doesn't it seem unfair to punish someone who accidentally engages in incest?

Also, the genetics argument (AKA the "they'll have deformed and retarded babies!" argument), the same genetic risk applies to people at or over the age of 40 trying to procreate, should those people also be prohibited from having children? And what about people with downs syndrome? Children of a couple where one of the parents has downs have a 25% chance of having downs themselves, that percentage doubles if both of the parents have downs. Should Jewish people be prohibited from having children too? This same argument could apply because 30 serious genetic diseases including ulcerative colitis are in higher concentrations in the Jewish gene pool. But I've already covered that all these people have the right to reproduce and have sex because of the due process clause in the 14th amendment, and it should also apply to incestuous relationships. What about same-sex incestuous couples? The genetics argument could not apply because same-sex couples are not capable of reproducing(not on their own at least).

Certainly there are quite a few brothers and sisters that have experimented with each other as they were coming to realize what sex and romance was("playing doctor" would be an excellent example). Should they be thrown in juvenile detention for "sexual relations"(which I remind you doesn't always mean intercourse) between two consenting individuals of pretty much the same age? I think it would just create a lot more future criminals as juvenile detention is nicknamed "criminal school" because it turns a child into a hardened criminal. It doesn't seem like a reasonable or effective thing to do, just let kids learn about the other gender's bodies in a much safer, controlled environment than say, Internet porn, which would be the next most common way young kids(or at least young boys) learn about the body of the opposite gender.

When it comes down to it, most people want incest to be illegal because of the arbitrary "ick factor". We evolved this way for a reason, if everyone reproduced with their brothers and sisters we all would be genetically screwed up. But it is no reason to keep two people who love each other and are of age and consenting from having sex or starting a family, it shouldn't matter whether or not they are closely related or not.

I hope that the length of my argument didn't intimidate you, it sometimes does to other people and they don't respond. I would also appreciate it if you followed they general perimeters for the debate stated in my first post, meaning you post your argument this round and then in the third round you rebuttal my argument, and I will do the same and so on.

I look forward to your argument, and thank you for accepting this debate.
OnlyGodCanJudgeMe

Con

First of all, I want to thank my opponent for giving good detail and reason for why they argue their point.

There are many people that do, for many reasons, have accidental incestuous relationships, and in my opinion, no, they should not be arrested if they didn't know better. It wouldn't be their fault and they should not be punished. But if that were the case, everyone who gets arrested for incestuous relations would claim that "They didn't know".

You stated that "But it is no reason to keep two people who love each other and are of age and consenting from having sex or starting a family, it shouldn't matter whether or not they are closely related or not." I, personally, love my brother more than I love anyone, but that doesn't give me a reason to think I'm IN love with him. If it is okay to have a family with someone you are closely related to, then many people may get confused on which kind of love they feel for a person they are closely related to.

If everyone in the world has kids with their own family members, there would be a short amount of different families, and there would be no new families being started.

I thank my opponent for giving me something interesting to argue.
Debate Round No. 2
Gustav_Adolf_II

Pro

Thank you for responding relatively quickly to the debate, it saves everyone a great deal of waiting. Now to the rebuttal:

You have conceded to one of my points- that if the incest is accidental, they shouldn't be held responsible. But you then go on to say "... everyone who gets arrested for incestuous relations would claim that "They didn't know".", just because someone claims to not know something doesn't mean they don't know. If I was knowingly in an incestuous relationship and knew that me and my partner would be excused if it was accidental incest, of course I would say I didn't know it was incest! But the prosecutor and the police would work to find evidence to the contrary, like the fact that I was raised with/by my partner. And in a court of law, evidence is always more convincing than testimony. All I am saying is that claiming it was accidental incest and proving it are two completely different things, and even if everyone who committed incest claimed it was accidental, they would still have to prove it in criminal court.

Your next point was as follows: "I, personally, love my brother more than I love anyone, but that doesn't give me a reason to think I'm IN love with him. If it is okay to have a family with someone you are closely related to, then many people may get confused on which kind of love they feel for a person they are closely related to.", I don't just think that people will still be able to tell the difference between familial love and romantic love after incest laws are nullified, I know so, and it's all because of this little thing called the westermarck effect(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Here is the definition: "The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction.", as you can see, this prevents a sexual attraction to your brother(or anyone else you are raised with/by for that matter), regardless of whether or not there are incest laws. Therefore, your point is not a valid argument against the legalization of incest.

I agree with your next point: "If everyone in the world has kids with their own family members, there would be a short amount of different families, and there would be no new families being started.", but I don't see the harmful effects of there being a shortage of families. I think the point you were trying to make was the one I mentioned in my last post: "... if everyone reproduced with their brothers and sisters we all would be genetically screwed up.", but as I stated earlier, the westermarck effect would stop this from happening often enough to cause serious harmful effects throughout the human gene pool.

Once again, thank you for responding to the debate quickly, and I hope to see an interesting rebuttal.
OnlyGodCanJudgeMe

Con

OnlyGodCanJudgeMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Gustav_Adolf_II

Pro

Without any new information I cannot rebuttal, please post your rebuttal in this round and if you like we could continue this on another debate. Until then, thank you for accepting this debate and farwell.
OnlyGodCanJudgeMe

Con

OnlyGodCanJudgeMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by aLaPasta 2 years ago
aLaPasta
@Preston haemophilia carriers aren't common enough for this to become a widespread issue; not mentioning that with today's medical advances it's hardly a problem anyway.

An interesting debate. I've always sort of wondered why incest was still illegal between two consenting adults, since as far as I can see, as long as they're both of age and okay with it then there's not really a whole lot of harm done. The human gene pool is so diverse now anyway that there's only a limited number of genetic problems that could arise. There's also the fact that incestuous couples are probably even more likely to abstain from child-bearing, though I don't really have any statistics to back that up....

Still though. Can't wait to see how this debate turns out!
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
1 word:
hemophilia
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
Youve been watching too much game of thrones there friend.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Gustav_Adolf_IIOnlyGodCanJudgeMeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF