Particracy Forum

Law: The legality of incest
Category: Civil rights

Options:
1. The government has no policy concerning incest. (Default)
2. Incest is completely allowed.
3. Incest with first degree relatives is illegal.
4. Incest with first and second degree relatives is illegal .
5. Incest with first to third degree relatives is illegal.
6. All forms of incest are illegal.
7. This matter is left for the local governments to decide upon.

Effects:
1. Decrease in government responsibilities.
2. Increase in civil rights.
3. Slight decrease in civil rights.
3. Slight decrease in civil rights.
4. Slight decrease in civil rights.
5. Slight decrease in civil rights.
6. Decrease in civil rights.
7. Increase in devolution.

A nice addition to the civil rights section. Agreed.

(edit; Just a quick note here, always specify which one is the default option, even if it is obvious, in which case it is variable 1)

What is meant by "All forms of incest are illegal"? To which degree goes "all forms"?

Presumably anyone related by blood to the person.

GreekIdiot wrote:Presumably anyone related by blood to the person.

Conceivably, anyone is related to anyone by blood if you just go back in history far enough.

That's an overstretch. Especially for a game.

Still, you have to define some degree of relationship which can be considered to be the last one where you can say you're related by blood.

Most of you will just think this sick, unrealistic (which it's not) or at best frivolous, but state encouragement of incest (the state promotes consanguineous relationships) should also be an option. However, the effects of such an option is tricky (slight decrease in civil rights/no effect/ slight increase in centralisation).

Amazeroth wrote:Still, you have to define some degree of relationship which can be considered to be the last one where you can say you're related by blood.

I really can't define that. Who is considered a relative depends on culture. And as GreekIdiot said this is a game and overstretching is just tedious. Not an exact quote, but I'm sure you all have brains enough to identify my augmentation.

leroy wrote:Most of you will just think this sick, unrealistic (which it's not) or at best frivolous, but state encouragement of incest (the state promotes consanguineous relationships) should also be an option. However, the effects of such an option is tricky (slight decrease in civil rights/no effect/ slight increase in centralisation).

The only occurrence of this that I can think of was the ancient Egyptian royal practice of marrying one's siblings. Since that is very remote, can you give another example to justify this?

Xanathos wrote:

leroy wrote:Most of you will just think this sick, unrealistic (which it's not) or at best frivolous, but state encouragement of incest (the state promotes consanguineous relationships) should also be an option. However, the effects of such an option is tricky (slight decrease in civil rights/no effect/ slight increase in centralisation).

The only occurrence of this that I can think of was the ancient Egyptian royal practice of marrying one's siblings. Since that is very remote, can you give another example to justify this?

I don't know of any nation to actually implement it, but there is an argument that consanguineous relationships are better genetically. Read Choice of a Mate by Anthony Ludovici.