Skip to comments.'Legalize Incest' Suggestion Shocks Lawmakers
Posted on 05/21/2004 4:18:01 PM PDT by missyme
Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - A respected academic in New Zealand has recommended that incest between consenting adults be legalized, playing down any concerns about the genetic abnormalities resulting from inbreeding.
Professor Peter Munz, professor emeritus of history at Wellington's Victoria University, stunned lawmakers who are considering amendments to criminal law by proposing that it was no longer necessary to outlaw sex between close relations.
He argued that, historically, incest was illegal because it was considered a waste of an asset to have women marry close to home. Women played an important role when one tribe wanted to create an alliance with another, he said.
"It was indeed a crime to waste good, nubile women on local people who were allies already, instead of using them to bring in new allies, new friends, new trade opportunities..." Munz said in a written submission
In modern society, however, women were no longer required for marriage alliances, he argued. The incest prohibition had "lingered on needlessly" but was clearly no longer required.
Munz, a scholar whose books have been published internationally, also asserted that the likelihood that any children resulting from incestuous intercourse would suffer genetic defects was not a sufficiently good reason for making incest illegal.
Any such damage would be sporadic, and in any case, "be eliminated after several generations."
Sexual attraction between members of a family who had grown up together was minimal, he said.
"Today, if siblings - against all odds - should fall in love with each other, they should be welcome to it."
After reading Munz' written submission, members of the parliament's Law and Order Committee had the opportunity to question the professor.
But according to committee vice-chairman, Marc Alexander, lawmakers were so shocked they chose not to discuss the matter further with him.
"We were absolutely stunned when the read the submission, and couldn't believe that anybody could possibly entertain the idea of decriminalizing incest," Alexander said Friday. "It was just unbelievable."
"None of us was willing to give him five minutes. We just didn't want to dignify his comments at all."
Alexander said he did not believe Munz' interest was merely "a single person's quest for some sort of bizarre truth. I presume that he has loyal followers who basically want to push this."
Although Munz only argued for legalizing incest between consenting adults, Alexander said his personal view was that the proposal was merely a "forerunner" of pedophilia. "I can see a potential link between the two."
"Once you loosen the bonds of incest, where do you go from there?"
Also critical of Munz' suggestions was New Zealand's Maxim Institute, a conservative think tank.
"In a culture that has exalted consent as the ultimate sexual ethic, why would we be surprised?" a representative asked.
"What will be next: the claim that consensual incest is a human right and to oppose it is 'familial' discrimination?"
In a phone interview Friday, Munz said he was surprised that lawmakers had not bothered to discuss the submission with him.
"I was struck by the lack of knowledge or interest. It's really a sobering thought to think that our laws are in the hands of people who are so ... disinterested and ignorant."
The single question he had been asked before the committee put aside his submission was: "Have you discussed this with women?" - which he took to be a tetchy response to his suggestion that women had been "used" historically to secure alliances with other tribes.
Asked to elaborate on his point regarding inbreeding, Munz said that according to genetics theory, "if you practice incest consistently over a period, receptive genes are likely to come up, which of course would be very bad."
"But it has also been found that if you continue to practice incest systematically, the recessive genes will automatically be weeded out, and only the dominant ones will come up."
In such a case, he said, "that would probably be an improvement in the genetic quality of mankind."
Munz conceded that this was a purely theoretical argument: No-one was going to practice incest for generations to prove the point.
Incest is banned around the world, although countries vary in their interpretation, with some allowing sexual relations between first cousins, for example.
In Australia in 1996, a discussion paper drawn up by a law reform committee proposed lifting the ban on incest between consenting adults.
Following a public outcry, the idea was dropped, although the committee members attributed the row to misunderstandings that its proposal would have legalized sexual relations between parents and minor children.
Professor Sheila Jeffreys of the University of Melbourne in Australia said Friday that once incest between adults is decriminalized, the issue of whether one person is being pressured or coerced becomes hazy.
"The problem is being able to recognize the duress. If you decriminalize it, it may be hard to recognize the duress, which is almost certainly from the older, and usually male, partner."
In Britain early last century, authorities would arrest both partners suspected to be in an incestuous relationship, Jeffreys said.
"There was no recognition of a power relationship going on, and of course there is almost inevitably a power relationship [involved]."
This week's incident in Wellington comes at a time conservative opponents of same-sex "marriage" are arguing that legalizing it will lead to the end of other sexual taboos, such as incest and bestiality.
Last year, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) was at the center of a storm after being accused of linking homosexual sexual relations with other sexual activities that are generally frowned upon.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [homosexual] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," he was quoted as telling an Associated Press reporter.
Santorum was commenting on a legal challenge to Texas' sodomy law, then underway.
After he was criticized by homosexual activists and some politicians, the senator said his remarks did not constitute a statement on "individual lifestyles," but had related to "the right of privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws."
Polygamy, polyamory, incest, marriage of convenience? No way?
Right to privacy. Right to do what you want with your own body. Why not?
Up next on today's Oprah: Bestiality, and what breeds are the best to mate with...
Right to murder your baby on the way out? Why not indeed.
Anybody remember the "Flowers in the Attic" series?
You laugh now. But the truth is that legally after Lawrence vs. Texas Pandora's box is now open.
Oh, PERFECT. That didn't take long, did it?
"Wa'll shucks...hepn's alla tyme up he'ya."
"My muthr wuz tellin' me just 'tuther day hows her and Unc'le Enius had a "special" party ..just them two, after ev'ry body went on home on her 12th birthday."
"I allay's a wundered how a'come brother Elmer looks alot like Unc'le Enius."
"Sissie-Mae's 12th a'comin next week and boy have I got a present for her!"
Does this MORON (the "Professer" mentioned in the article) even have a branch in his own family tree? There are VERY good reasons for preventing insest. Both genetic and Biblical.
Oh NO, after Massachusettes we have anything goes when it comes to sexual relationships, I have heard Man with animals, sodomizing horses, marrying more than 1 person and now marry your family members, I am sure pedophiles will want in on the action next....
You are correct, my friend. It seems to me that the MA state constitution does not SPECIFICALLY prohibit incest. That is how those MA supreme court judges foisted gay marriage on that state. I can see incest as the next taboo to fall in MA.
And they said this wasn't possible.
Following the same doctrine, why is marriage limited to two individuals?
Group marriage? Polygamy? Polygyny?
Oedipus: [walking around blind, collecting donations] Give to Oedipus! Give to Oedipus! [Becomes aware of Josephus and greets him]
Oedipus: Hey, Josephus!
Josephus: Hey, m*****f*****!
So, can we marry our brothers and our sisters at the same time.........as long as we are all consenting adults?
Good biblical reasons. It's not as clean cut on genetic grounds.
What incest will do is to bring out recessive genes. These genes can be either bad or good, depending upon the particular allele.
No doubt Princeton University will soon be hiring this guy to work alongside Professor Singer, their high-paid advocate of bestiality and infanticide.
Not "or", but try instead "bad and good". I realize that with the technology avalible in the next few years we may be able to "weed out" some of the bad recessives, it still strikes me as a good idea to do our best to prevent incest/inbreeding in humans.
Remember the last bunch that went for "selective trait breeding"??? They walked really close to the inbreeding line in their attempt to create the "Master Race".
On the other end of the spectrum is the unrestricted and random inbreeding that has/does occured in isolated populations or in populations with little moral/sexual restraint.
That rarely brings out anything but bad.
Certainly, the inimitable Justice Kennedy's "transcendent liberty" opinion is blanket coverage for whatever one may dream up.
The radical leftist agenda also include lowering the age of sexual consent. It's started and the agenda they led us to believe "it's all for the children" was really all for them. Sick perverts.
Rome slides away before our very, objecting eyes.
Gay activists and other leftists, stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults!
You may, however, think of a couple of items which counter your argument:
1. Abraham and Sarah [founders of the Jewish race] were half brother and sister.
2. There were, apparently, a large number of brother-sister and father-daughter incestuous activities among the Egyptian pharoahs with little discernable adverse reaction.
Please don't take these points as an argument in favor of incest. I find the whole idea repulsive. But the potential genetic results of incest are usually extremely exagerated to a point of being, scientifically, ridiculous. [Just read some of the earlier replies in this post.]
Now that gay marriage is legal in the U.S., who are we to tell anybody else that what they do in private is immoral?
Recessive like, say, 5 fingers per hand? Are you...sure?
My diabolical plan is moving forward; right on schedule. First, it was gay marriage. Now it's incest. Next will be polygamy. After that, "group relationships" and "interspecies love". Finally, one day, I'll be able to proudly announce: "That's not an illegal assault weapon. That's my 23rd wife!"
If it feels good, do it. (/sarcasm)
And the younger, the better...
Actually, biology doesn't support your argument; worse yet, the argument is flawed because it proceeds from the notion that evolution is a progressive path to an idealized perfection.
Easy for you to say, you weren't the 8 year old daughter with the Egyptian pervert hounding you every night.
Hmmmmmmm. I wonder when it was that they first started letting women sit with the men in church. ;-)
Unless I've been sadly mistaken (and misled) for the last few years...
Breeding sister to brother, whether its people or cattle or little fuzzy gerbils, is not a good idea over many generations.
My point was that incest (when practiced over multiple generations) can lead to some major problems in isolated populations.
The cheeta is a very good example of this in nature. Very narrow gene lines and slowly declining population.
King Tut's daddy was [please excuse my spelling on this] Akhenaten - he's the guy that pushed monotheism in Egypt. He was hated by the priestly caste, and most references to him have been destroyed. There are some scholars who believe that the grossly distorted statues of him may have been due to a then-current artisitic fashion [Ancient Egyptian cubism?] rather than a gentic flaw[s].
True, although in a roundabout way. Watch for movements to lower the age of consent. Pedophilia legalization will be a frog-boiling procedure--the heat will be turned up slowly by incrementally lowering the age of consent. You'll see arguments to lower the age to sixteen because "they do it anyway" and "if they're old enough to be given the responsibility to drive then they're old enough for sex". After that you'll see a move to lower the age to the beginning of puberty because "it's natural". They'll counter religious conservatives by arguing that "if God didn't want us to have sex at an early age then he wouldn't have equipped us so". Don't underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize deviant behavior.
Here we go. Another centimeter down the slide of moral and cultural collapse...
Isn't there something in our DNA that prevents us from wanting to mate with siblings?
Inquiring minds would like to know .....What about "extended families"...children brought into a marriage from both partners, now become "brothers and sisters"..How will they fare in all of this when a mutual attraction presents itself???
Go ask Woody Allen. Hot for the step daughter.
Bees, ants, and house flies are closer to the point.
I guess Hollywood will soon do a remake of "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" as "Seven Brothers for Seven Brothers"
Or, perhaps, "Seven Sisters for Their Seven Brothers".
...or maybe "The Brady Bunch Gone Wild".
The British Royal Family, prior to Princess Diana, makes a good case for the BAD traits coming out. She certainly improved the gene pool of that family.
Any improvement that Princess Di made to the Royal Family certainly wasn't in the brain capacity category. Perhaps in beauty, although I'm old enough to remember that when the current queen was still a princess - before she got married- she was rather attractive.
The arabs have been inbreeding for millenia. Any questions?