NationStates Jolt Archive

There is currently a proposal on the table gaining support that asks the U.N. to make a resolution banning incest:
________________________________________________________________
Ban Incest
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Malastine

Description: Incest which shall be defined as:
Sexual relations between any member of a persons immediate family and their close relatives. This is including but not limited to relations between ones mother, father, aunt, uncle, grandmother, grandfather, son, daughter, brother, sister, or any of ones first cousin.

THEREFORE: Incest as defined will be outlawed in all member states.

REASONING: Incest has been shown to create mental problems in those who participate in its actions, as well as raise the potential for birth defects in the offspring of such a relationship.
________________________________________________________________

I know the knee-jerk reaction is to say, "Incest EWWWWW!" and automatically endorse this proposal. However, it is flawed for several reasons, which I have highlighted in the proposal above and will discuss below.

1. "Including but not limited to"--big problem right there. That leaves the resolution open-ended so that second, third, fourth etc. cousin unions, as well as other more distant combinations of blood relations, may also be prohibited. Also, use of the term "close" does not distinguish between blood relatives and relations by marriage. If my daughter divorces her husband, does that mean I cannot have relations with him because he was my son-in-law?

2. Saying first cousin sexual relations should be defined as incest is terribly wrong from a cultural perspective. Even today, many African nations have cultural marriage "laws" that say it is MANDATORY to marry your first cousin, and there are even a few states in the US where it may be frowned upon, but still legal (I can't think of any country that allows/condones marriage or sexual relations among any of the closer relationships listed--although many ancient countries like Egypt did this constantly, particularly royalty). Many nations in NS may also allow first cousins to marry. By marrying, under this law incest would be committed. Incest is defined culturally--and the U.N. has no right to make law on cultural issues. Biological is another issue which will be discussed below.

3. Both arguments given as the reasoning behind this proposal are flawed for first cousin unions (and any proposal that has a sentence that begins with "It has been shown that..." but does not offer ANY PROOF AT ALL of the statement that follows should be held in suspicion:

A. As explained in #2, many countries find it perfectly normal to marry first cousins; to BREAK this cultural rule would impair their mental health. While it may be true that FORCED incest between nuclear family members (father/daughter, etc.) would most likely cause psychological damage, this proposal as written would make all incestuous unions, including those concerning marriage between first cousins, illegal.

B. Once again, the biological argument is only valid between immediate family members; there is no data that first cousin unions produce a significant amount of children with birth defects. Incest between immediate family does have a chance of producing offspring with birth defects by reinforcing recessive genes, so I can see the biological argument here. Take this from someone with a PhD in biological anthropology, which included several classes in biology and genetics.

From a purely biological standpoint I have no problem with prohibiting incest between mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister, etc. However, there are many ways around this, such as making birth control mandatory for such sexual unions--in which case this becomes a purely cultural argument. Just because something "grosses you out" is not an excuse for insisting on a worldwide prohibition of it.

The floor is now open to discussion.

Oops, I almost forgot to mention this--and it is so important that it deserves its own post:

This proposal claims to be arguing for mental and biological health, but it is listed as a MORAL DECENCY PROPOSAL. 'Nuff said.

Well, immediate family incest is something I'd be okay with outlawing. And the "not limited to" means that countries are allowed still to make their own decisions regardng first cousin-boinking, but are not required to take action. So me and Clete are fine with that part.

But yeah, calling it a moral issue and then giving health reasons...that's just wrong.

Oops, I almost forgot to mention this--and it is so important that it deserves its own post:

This proposal claims to be arguing for mental and biological health, but it is listed as a MORAL DECENCY PROPOSAL. 'Nuff said.

Also, it's been given a "Strong" effect, which is far too much for a fairly mild issue that won't affect too many people. Banning smoking or alcohol would be Strong... this is mild at best.

I think this can be salvaged with a bit of rewording. Incest = BLEAH

(I am only quoting you, as I am quoting the proposal. Please do not think that I mean you the writer of the propsoal originally)
(This is a HIGHLY edited version of the original proposal - please make sure you read the whole thread, so that I am not leading you astray as to it's original content)


_________________________________________________
Ban Incest
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Malastine

REASONING: Incest has been shown to create mental problems in those who participate in its actions, as well as raise the potential for birth defects in the offspring of such a relationship.
________________________________________________________________



Is this all incest, or rape? Because I am sure if I took enough time to research this I would find evidence to support that forcing two people who love each other to be apart because of some social taboo or some ill-concieved proposal could have equally damaging mental problems.

And - by the way - we have a thing called birth control, and abortion, in my nation. So birth defects are not a problem.

I can't support this proposal, since it's foundation is a standard of morals that my nation, while supporting, does not feel should be enforced by law.

I too, would vote against such a thing. Even though incest *is* icky and problematic.

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's like that "tolerance" crap on a national level.

Well, immediate family incest is something I'd be okay with outlawing. And the "not limited to" means that countries are allowed still to make their own decisions regardng first cousin-boinking, but are not required to take action. So me and Clete are fine with that part.

But yeah, calling it a moral issue and then giving health reasons...that's just wrong.

I think you are wrong in your understanding of this. The "not limited to" clause means that all of these combinations are banned, and the UN can chose to punish anyone who breaks it. And it also means that they can pick any other combination (step-brother/step-sister, brother/sister in law etc) and punish those as well.

This is a wide ranging proposal that will give the UN power to crack down on any relationship that it finds un-acceptable, even by stating the most tenuous connection between the two people (fifth cousins by marriage, once removed on their mother's side). And given the theory that all people are related in some way this could give the UN an insane amount of power to regulate everyone's lives.

Yeah, that's another problem. The thing's worded so vaguely that I could be right, or you could be right, depending on who's reading it.

Also, what if a bro and sis are going through the experimental thing? You know, two kids who are curious about each other's bodies? I'm not saying it's a good idea for them to go all the way, but it happens in more families than anyone wants to admit.

Naw, I'd support a proposal for countries to educate their people on the dangers of immeidiate family having kids. But not this one.

Besides, I don't generally do proposals that try to take the moral high road by banning consensual stuff.

Yeah, that's another problem. The thing's worded so vaguely that I could be right, or you could be right, depending on who's reading it.

Also, what if a bro and sis are going through the experimental thing? You know, two kids who are curious about each other's bodies? I'm not saying it's a good idea for them to go all the way, but it happens in more families than anyone wants to admit.

Naw, I'd support a proposal for countries to educate their people on the dangers of immeidiate family having kids. But not this one.

Besides, I don't generally do proposals that try to take the moral high road by banning consensual stuff.

My neither.

But I would (and this is a great leap for me) would accept a ban on direct family members having children together, because there are actually significant health risks that come with inbreeding.

As this proposal did not reach quorum it died, but I appreciate everyone who came forward to discuss it. And on the chance someone else proposes the same thing...
But I would (and this is a great leap for me) would accept a ban on direct family members having children together, because there are actually significant health risks that come with inbreeding.
TilEnca, you are completely right from a genetic standpoint. Close relations tend to carry the same genes--for example, if a brother and sister both carried the recessive gene for sickle-cell anemia they would have a 1 in 4 chance of having a baby with full blown sickle cell anemia. But this is easily prevented if they use birth control.

This proposal (and all future proposals to the same effect) would be moot if nations advocated safe sex, which would cover all of the detrimental effects of sexual congress, such as STDs, AIDS, and the possible birth defects resulting from a nuclear family union.

I'd support a proposal for countries to educate their people on the dangers of immeidiate family having kids. But not this one.
Britney and Cletus right on! Proposing this without education puts us back in the stone age.

And WORD to those who pointed out that the vagueness of the incest definition allows many other familial relations either far removed from blood ties or not blood-related at all to be banned.

In either case, this is a proposal that is only relevant to individual nations. If brother and sister in country A have sex, how on Earth is that affecting country B? This is an issue at the nation level, if at all.

Not to mention that all of the science in the world would not disguise that this particular proposal was declared to be founded on the issue of moral decency. ANY UN issue founded on such should be carefully considered.

But there are exceptions to this. There is a proposal in the queue to repeal the ban on female genital mutilation, on the grounds that male circumcision is not included. Many nations in the real world consider FGM to be moral, because without it the female is not considered to be marriage material. However, what the repealer is not taking into consideration is that for females it is called mutilation for a reason. In males, they remove the foreskin. In females, the cut off all of the pleasure goodies so that the female will not seek to stray. This is a cultural, moral issue that deserves UN treatment, and I am glad to see a resolution in effect that prohibits this.

How's about forming into clans like the American Indiands have? They (or some batches of 'em) can only marry outside the clan. Good for th' gene pool, an' good for trade an' commerce since everybody has to travel to date seriously.

Whilst _Myopia_n society is generally disapproving of incest, I cannot tolerate an attempt to ban sexual activity between consenting adults. I would be more amenable to the suggestion that the use of contraceptives be mandated, because of the effects on offspring, but I refuse to ban something that harms noone and is done with full consent.

In fact, wouldn't the proposal to ban incest be illegal until the following resolution was repealed?

Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2538

Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003

Myopia, yes this proposal goes against UN legislation.

Whilst _Myopia_n society is generally disapproving of incest, I cannot tolerate an attempt to ban sexual activity between consenting adults. I would be more amenable to the suggestion that the use of contraceptives be mandated, because of the effects on offspring, but I refuse to ban something that harms noone and is done with full consent.
Exactly. Why would you attempt to legislate this worldwide? If you don't like it, ban it in your own nation. If you are worried about the biological repercussions, make birth control mandatory in your own nation. How this affects the world is beyond me. I really wish that people would understand that the UN is not there to regulate every bowel movement.

Myopia, yes this proposal goes against UN legislation.

I think if this starts to gain more support (currently it has only 24 approvals), we should submit a request to the mods that it be deleted on these grounds. I wouldn't bother unless it gains more support, since I'm sure they have enough to do as it is.

The republic of Newarkbeth believes it is the right of every nation to decide upon this matter and it is something that the nations will have to respond to themsevles. Thus the vote of the republic of newarkbeth would be nay.

It is not the place of the UN to dictate how people act in the bedroom.

It is not the place of the UN to dictate how people act in the bedroom.

And yet gay marriage and prostitution are both covered by various resolutions already in force.

I have no problem with the UN making things more liberal in the bedroom, but I do if they are trying to restrict people's activities. Which possibly makes me a hypocrite,but eh - what can I do?