How can banning incest in New Jersey not be a manifestation of sexual hypocrisy?

Incest is taboo for good reason physically and psychologically.
Biological abnormalities like hemophilia and other genetic disorders, conditions.
Considering there are 7 freaking billion hominids on the planet these days we are hardly hard up for fresh blood.
Psychologically speaking parents are supposed to love, protect and nurture their children not screw them. End of story.

Consenting adult gay, bisexual or transgender people are not exchanging the same DNA so no hypocrisy in their choices to couple with whoever floats their boat.

Even if she is over 18, she’s not in a position to give her consent as a full-minded adult because he’s had 18 years to groom her.

What in the world could you possibly find more unnatural than incest? Yeah, you can find a lot of weird fetishes on the Internet. But that’s among consenting adults.

@fluthernutter nailed it. A relationship between parent and child (gender is irrelevant) is essentially impossible to get proper consent for, and thus is invalid. Same as consent derived from illicit drugs, lack of age, or coercion is similarly void. ‘Other forms of coupling’, should they be between consenting adults, have so such issues.

And @Coloma, that first explanation doesn’t hold water. We don’t disallow those with much, much higher risks of birthing children with considerably worse genetic abnormalities from having relationships and/or children, should they decide to go through that, or infertile adults. Consent is the issue, not medicine.

Given your religous views, I am surprised that you would condone incest. Not being knowledgeable about the Bible, I did a google search and found this Wikipedia article Curiously, there is no specific biblical commandment against marriage of father and daughter, but many believed that this was so obvious as not to require being mentioned.

If the couples are restricted from breeding, I suppose nothing remains other than the skin crawling creepyness of the idea. But even this obstacle can adjust with changing attitudes over time. Hypocrisy or not, the prohibition of this sort of thing is hardly confined to New Jersey. It is all but forbidden world wide in cultures as diverse as the world can invent. Incest has and always will be with us, but the idea of legally sanctioning the practice is a BIG stretch in even liberal permissiveness.

@Hypocrisy_Central Once again your fascination with incest and older man coupling with younger women.

As others have mentioned, it is a disruption of the parental guardian principles, an abuse of familial power structure. Many incest taboos are not because of the genetic disruption, (people didn’t know about that until the last century or so, outside of the Royal families of Europe) but because of the disruption to the family dynamic.

If a father and daughter have a kid together, chances are this kid will be mentally retarded or physically disabled, or both. Goddamn it man, you know this. It’s not just because it makes people “uncomfortable”.

There’s this very situation that happened in my town where a man and his daughter had two kids, one’s like, paraplegic or something, and the girl is blind, it’s not like I’m making this shit up.

@BhacSsylan My sharings do hold water.
Anyone with half a brain knows that familial inbreeding carries great risk of genetic abnormalities, as well as unhealthy psychological consequences.
Others, unless they actively seek genetic counseling prior to conceiving do not know, in many instances, that they are predisposed to certain genetic abnormalities or conditions that could be passed on to their offspring. Also, many people DO know and forge ahead anyway.

I have a friend who knows someone that has now just given birth to their 3rd child KNOWING the risks of a certain condition that their other 2 kids were born with.
Another friend is one of 3 kids that all have developed MS and she has responsibly chosen to not have children due to the high risk.
Whether incest or blatant disregard for known genetic predisposition to illness is not only
a poor choice it is downright irresponsible.

I don’t understand how consent is an issue. Does someone care to explain further? They’re both over 18, which, by legal standards, is when people are “mature enough to be responsible for their decisions.”

@dxs It’s not “legal” consent, it is emotional consent. A father/daughter relationship has a dynamic to it that precludes appropriate emotional understanding and consent.

@zenvelo I was thinking of incest in a broader sense. I see now that the discussion here pertains to a typical case of incest. In this case, they had been estranged for 12 years, which is the last two thirds, the more sentient part, of her life.
I don’t know the details of their relationship. Are you suggesting that the parent is not fulfilling certain responsibilities he has as a dad?

@Coloma _Biological abnormalities like hemophilia and other genetic disorders, conditions _
I have not found any all-inclusive study that says birth defects will appear in the first generation of inbreeding. All in all, the pool of study is not that larger. Those who are usually studied have been breeding over several generations. In true Fluther style, if you have something concrete, post the link, then you may have more traction.

Consenting adult gay, bisexual or transgender people are not exchanging the same DNA so no hypocrisy in their choices to couple with whoever floats their boat.
Doesn’t matter, not breaching the fact gays, transgender etc. are not swapping DNA which is outside the usual modus operandi of humans throughout centuries. The hypocrisy lies with saying one sex aside from the biological plumbing is OK, but another with the right plumbing but related DNA isn’t, if you want to play that card.

@fluthernutter Even if she is over 18, she’s not in a position to give her consent as a full-minded adult because he’s had 18 years to groom her.
Monkey balls, consenting adult is just that, weather she was groomed for 18 year (which is not the case in this story, they she grew up apart from her dad), it doesn’t matter. Consent doesn’t kick in only when it pleases or makes society comfortable.

What in the world could you possibly find more unnatural than incest?
I can think if a few things, but I am sure you can take a wild guess and be fairly close. If I answered it honestly some thin skin would be ruptured.

@BhacSsylan A relationship between parent and child (gender is irrelevant) is essentially impossible to get proper consent for, and thus is invalid.
Unless there was some form of fraud or swindle, force or coercion, the family relationship has no baring in the legality of the consent.

@LostInParadise Given your religous views, I am surprised that you would condone incest.
I don’t condone it. The hypocrisy is not imbedded in my thinking because there is only one form of legal and prober coupling and it is not off my whim or comfort zone.

Curiously, there is no specific biblical commandment against marriage of father and daughter, but many believed that this was so obvious as not to require being mentioned.
Ummm….yes there is:
Leviticus 18:6–12
‘None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18:12–14
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative. ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative. ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.

Leviticus 18:15–16
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.

That is just a sampling, I won’t bore you and the others with all of them.

@stanleybmanly If the couples are restricted from breeding, I suppose nothing remains other than the skin crawling creepyness of the idea.
That there is the run, as you so pointedly put it.

@zenvelo Once again your fascination with incest and older man coupling with younger women.
Did I report the story or create it? It was in a feed or search result for something else. I guess next time I will tell them to make the ages closer together as to make it more pleasing for you. I have no control of the content, it is what it is, I did not make it that way.

@Symbeline If a father and daughter have a kid together, chances are this kid will be mentally retarded or physically disabled, or both. Goddamn it man, you know this. It’s not just because it makes people “uncomfortable”.
If that is the horse you are going to back, show me something all-inclusive to backing that up, or giving it at least more traction then the slippery slope it is one now,

@dxs I don’t understand how consent is an issue. Does someone care to explain further? They’re both over 18, which, by legal standards, is when people are “mature enough to be responsible for their decisions.”
It makes people uncomfortable because the Bible said it even though they do not want to admit the Bible influenced their non-religious thinking.

Yeah, right. People in online debates always tell others to back up their shit, while not doing it themselves. Tell you what; why don’t you provide proof that incest doesn’t have consequences.

Now, now, @Hypocrisy_Central. If you’re going to quote bible verses that condemn incest, you need to balance them out with the ones that condone it. Here’s one, and heck, she’s not even over 18:

1 Corinthians 7:36
“But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”

@Coloma “I have a friend who knows someone that has now just given birth to their 3rd child KNOWING the risks of a certain condition that their other 2 kids were born with.”

And, as I stated, they are not barred from having children. As it pertains to legality, that is not a valid reason.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Unless there was some form of fraud or swindle, force or coercion, the family relationship has no baring in the legality of the consent.”

You asked about hypocrisy, and I answered based on a philosophical framework, because of the simple fact that civil law has lots of hypocrisy in it, it’s an imperfect system. Consent should be properly considered in this context, but sure, civil law is absolutely terrible when it comes to sexual consent. There’s a reason why rape is one of the most under-reported crimes. In general, I can find a ton of laws that are hypocritical of each other and would never attempt to argue otherwise. You seem to think that if one isn’t religious, they believe civil laws are perfect, and this is a ludicrous stance.

Also, I’ll change my response to @Coloma above since I dashed it off and was thus off. Philosophically, people have a right to lots of things that may be irresponsible. People skydive, for instance. May not be the smartest but they have the right to do it. Denying someone the right of reproduction, because of a chance of abnormalities, is abhorrent. Should we start sterilizing people because they’re poor, since it’s heavily linked to lower life circumstances, too?

I find myself totally baffled by the “logic” expressed in many questions here lately. According to the OP, it would be a biological disaster if a woman had kids with her son but not if she had kids with her father. Correct me if I’m wrong but otherwise WTF?

@janbb, I think the idea was that if a woman and her father had a child, then the mother of the child had a child with said child, the inbreeding would be magnified.

@Hypocrisy_Central , There is nothing in the Bible that says, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter.” It may very well be that it is implied by the general case, but it is interesting that it is not specifically mentioned.

@Coloma ‘s point about the extreme chance of birth defects from incest should be sufficient grounds for barring it. You have all these rare harmful recessive genes, which everyone has a few of, that are now likely to combine.

@BhacSsylan I never advocated banning anyones reproductive rights, however….it is grossly irresponsible to KNOWINGLY bear children when you KNOW you are a carrier of genetic abnormalities and the odds are very high for reproducing seriously compromised offspring.
The comparison to skydiving is an apples and oranges comparison. If someone wants to risk their own life fine, but to risk bringing a seriously defective child into the world is selfish at best, totally immoral at worst. Now that we have genetic screening those that have a family history of serious congenital and genetic defects are morally obligated to undergo screening and make the appropriate choices as to whether or not they are going to risk reproduction.

@LostInParadise Yes, exactly.

I find it hard to imagine many situations in which the child wasn’t abused at some point, and in most of those cases, by said parent.

As for the genetic fallacies that often accompany incest, if basic genetics isn’t your forte, I just went to pubmed and got 208 hits for “inbreeding genetic disability.” No, medical issues aren’t guaranteed, but they are more common. I thought that was a well-known fact?

@Symbeline Tell you what; why don’t you provide proof that incest doesn’t have consequences.
If there were enough proof to find, I would present it, but there is not a sizable pool of couples practicing incest that has children to a single generation to glean any numbers from, so the very lack of evidence is the proof.

Any relationship when not done right, has consequences, but since ”done right” is not accepted by many, I am not going to attempt to debate that point.

@dappled_leaves Put the cookies on the lower shelf and explains how that has anything to with the Bible condoning incest? I don’t see any reference anywhere in the passage. Second, it is irrelevant to secular hypocrisy on sexuality.

@BhacSsylan You seem to think that if one isn’t religious, they believe civil laws are perfect, and this is a ludicrous stance.
If one comes across a law that is flawed ion it’s reasoning, application, etc. and many like-minded people agree then by the process of law, they should seek to change it. If you acquiesce to accepting it, then the onus is on those who did nothing, and it would appear they put great faith in it. It is more ludicrous to blindly follow a law that is imperfect.

@janbb According to the OP, it would be a biological disaster if a woman had kids with her son but not if she had kids with her father. Correct me if I’m wrong but otherwise WTF?
Let me correct you. What I implied was if she had a child by way of her father but her children had children outside the DNA stream (aka she would not have children through her son, the third generation down—) the chances of these wild abnormalities believed when found in noted cases which had many generations of inbreeding will not be there. Those believed abnormalities are just a convenient pawn to those whose _”ick factor” can’t stomach the thought of a father boinking his own blood daughter as any other woman unrelated to him.

@LostInParadise There is nothing in the Bible that says, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter.” It may very well be that it is implied by the general case, but it is interesting that it is not specifically mentioned.
Even off earthly logic, anyone not walking on their knuckles can see
Leviticus 18:7
The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.
Goes both ways, kinda of what was implied in another thread that even if there is no knife, or gun, there can still be rape even if you are married to the person you don’t want to have sex with. Some things are easy to deduct logically.

@PriceisRightx26 I find it hard to imagine many situations in which the child wasn’t abused at some point, and in most of those cases, by said parent.
Elucidate, what makes you believe that, because you believe the noted or reported cases encompass all situations in which it could ever happened? It could be grossly under reported as rape is allegedly, so unknown could be a number of cases where it would happen where there was only love and no hint of abuse. I am just wondering out of curiosity how you came to your reasoning if not solely reliant on known cases reported?

@Hypocrisy_Central Do you really think that everyone in the world knows the Bible? Even if they did, how can you say for sure that it influenced their thinking?

@dxs Do you really think that everyone in the world knows the Bible?
I am presuming (maybe inaccurately) that most do not know the Bible, or take time to care. That is why I am attacking the question as simply sex chosen by adults that can mutually enter into it. How who can and can’t enter into it is not applied equally unless points can be shown why one is better or natural than the others, and if that determination comes from men, or otherwise.

@Hypocrisy_Central “How who can and can’t enter into it is not applied equally unless points can be shown why one is better or natural than the others, and if that determination comes from men, or otherwise.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Maybe I just need to go to bed.

^ I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
Putting the cookies on the lower shelf, to those who do not believe or know the Bible, to try to use it to determine which for of sex is OK, heinous, wicked, acceptable, etc. is irrelevant.

This whole thread is making my head hurt. I’m abandoning it, goodbye.

Good bye, see you next time. :-)

They banned incest in New Jersey? OMG, what are those people supposed to do now?

^ we go to California.