"When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free,” once said by former President Barack Obama. The social constructs and norms of sexuality and marriages has transformed and developed over time. Interracial and homosexual marriage has overcome many boundaries including the original bans of such a union in the United States. Adult individuals wishing to partake in incestuous unions, however, remain discriminated against and neglected by the law without much verification. Incest remains a taboo, uncomfortable topic and many individuals have ingrained judgements without much valid reasoning for them. Outlawing incestuous relationships between two consenting adults discriminates against this minority group due to the invalid justification for the outlaw as well as the society's constant exclusion of and society’s neglection in recognizing the sexuality of incest in the constant transformation of social norms of sexuality and marriages. 

Despite how taboo of a topic incest is today, incestuous relations were prevalent in certain historical time periods and various cultures. Ancient Egyptians are well known for maintaining family blood lines on their throne by any means necessary, including incest. In fact, their royal dynasties became dependent on it. DNA analysis on the mummies of, King Tut, an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, his father, and his mother, concluded that King Tut was born out of incest between a brother and sister (“New Evidence That”). The DNA match was so close between his parents that only siblings could share so much DNA. Ager, author of “Familiarity breeds: incest and the Ptolemaic dynasty,” examines the Ptolemaic Dynasty, an Egyptian family that ruled from 305 to 30 BC. She argues that there is not much evidence for the widely popular idea of incest producing higher chances of defects in offspring than any other factor. “Shortly after Kleopatra bore her new brother-spouse their first child, Ptolemy VII either raped or seduced his bride’s daughter and fathered a son on her” (Ager, 6). The rulers of this family interbred between siblings for generations and there is a lack of evidence of significant increased rates of death or defects in the family that is not uncommon to the time period, meaning that incest was not a factor increasing offspring birth defects or deaths. This exemplifies that it was not uncommon in certain cultures and historic periods to interbreed and also, that the family, which had inbred throughout generations, did not have a large amount of miscarriages or impairments. Brent Shaw’s research; however, aims to explain that incest was not very common in the culture of 300 B.C. to 300 A.D. in Graeco-Roman Egypt and was a scarce and sacred practice considered only appropriate for the nobles. Therefore, becoming involved in incestuous relationships was a common practice among the noble rulers, one in which the lower class people were not allowed to participate in. This further proves Sheila Ager’s claim that it is a cultural and historic practice that was deemed appropriate by society for various reasons and that there is not much proof to validate the claim of incest producing defective offspring. 

Kuper, author of Incest and Influence: The Private Life of Bourgeois England, claims that before the first ban on incest in 1861 in Kansas, close-circle familial marriages in Europe and America were extremely common. Not only were such marriages normal but they were also supported by the families, especially of the middle-class, for a variety of reasons, including the belief that such unions would preserve family integrity. He uses evidence from research on European historic family and marriage dynamics before the mid-19th century, when the ban was put in place, as well as after the ban. “Marriages to each other’s sisters bound business partners together. Cousins might well be encouraged to marry if they stood to inherit shares in a family concern” (Kuper, 17). In 1858, however, these close-circle familial marriages became disgraceful to society when the American Medical Society published an article claiming that such marriages produce defective offspring. Similar articles were published in European countries and “in Scotland the popular opinion condemned ‘blood-alliances’ as ‘productive of evil’” (Kuper, 93). Despite these studies having questionable credibility and unreliable information, “these studies got wide publicity. Citing unreliable but terrifying statistics, politicians and journalists began to demand a ban on cousin marriage…” (Kuper, pg. 248). He also states that the law banning incest in 1861 was rash and irrational because the information concerned defective offspring was not thoroughly investigated nor researched. Not only did this ban pass, but other laws raising the age of marriage and restricting interracial marriage between blacks and whites and then later between whites and Indians, and marriage with a handicapped individual all passed (Kuper, pg. 248).  All of the bans have become legally dissolved in modern times, late 20st century and early 21st century, except for incest. Incestuous relationships remain the only ban, other than legal marital age, that remains out of these restrictions in 2017. Despite research concluding to the fact that the ban on incestuous relations not only lacks proper evidence of incest increasing the chance of defective offspring more than any other factor or becoming problematic for society, incest continues to be an uncomfortable, taboo topic in modern times. 

"The Crime of Incest," written by Graham Hughes, displays a viewpoint that opposes incest, which the author claims disrupts family functionality. Because this paper was written in 1964, the argument represents a more outdated belief that any sexuality besides heterosexuality is immoral and inappropriate. During the 1960s, segregation remained prevalent and even interracial marriages were tolerated but not accepted by the majority. Homosexual marriage or relations were not only untolerated, but also despised and deemed immoral. Although Hughes does not deny that many incestuous relationships are consensual, he claims that the consequences of such relationships cannot be exaggerated. He provides the evidence of the incarceration rates of individuals involved in incest as well as an assessment of how incest can make family circles dysfunctional. Despite Hughes using incarceration rates to support his point that incest is wrong, it actually proves that because there was a trend of high incarceration rates during this unwelcoming period, that it is not a minor problem that can be fixed. In fact, it furthers the idea that incest is a sexuality in which many individuals would find they belong to and despite their hostile society, find themselves unable to refrain from participating in such relations. The other claim of Hughes suggests that incest not only involves the two people involved in the relationship but also the familial circle and its functionality. The dysfunctionality, however, might stem from the fact that incest is illegal and a taboo topic, and that might be the reason for a lot of tension in the family. Because society considers incest disgraceful, immoral, and inappropriate, its normal that families would internalize that disgrace and this would cause issues. Blame and tension would be at the root of the family and, thus, causing the dysfunctionality Hughes claims to be prevalent in the familial circles of those involved in incestuous relations. Also, the same argument was made about homosexual marriage; however, gay marriage was made legal in the United States but incest remains illegal. Individuals that wish to partake in incestuous relations remain discriminated against while other unions that were once considered disgraceful, such as homosexual and interracial marriages, are legal and becoming considered normal. Therefore, by making incest legal and normalizing it into American culture, the shame and tension would not be so prevalent in familial circles and incarceration rates would decrease. 

Fischer, author of “Oedipus Wrecked?: The Moral Boundaries of Incest,"  argues the claims that society constantly reforms the morality of incest by assessing historic times in which families depended upon incestuous relationships for integrity and survival and contrasting that to modern society considering incest a taboo topic. Her evidence is an analysis of a modern case of an incestuous relationship of Woody Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn, a relationship in which society deemed inappropriate by using arguments with no concrete evidential support. Woody Allen and his wife, however, are not biologically or legally related; however, society deems this relationship inappropriate due to Woody Allen’s previous relationship with Soon-Yi Previn’s mother, who is not her biological mother. Society still considers this incest; however, there is not a chance of these two individuals producing genetically defective children because of close genetics. Therefore, because the reason of defective offspring typically standing as the reason society frowns upon such relations and society groups this relationship under the genre of incest, it discredits society’s argument against not only this specific relationship but also incest itself. 

The modern ban on incest for reasons that marriage should be between unrelated men and women for the purpose of producing children has been overthrown by the legality of gay marriage. Adam Liptak’s article “Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices" conveys the arguments in the supreme court case for gay marriage, which includes the claim that it is the supreme court’s job to protect minority groups from being discriminated against as well as not deny homosexuals the basic right to marriage. “Same-sex couples say, of course: ‘We understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled,’ Justice Kennedy said, strongly suggesting that the reasoning resonated with him” (Liptak, 1). Justice Breyer added, “Marriage is about a basic right as there is”. Despite the fact that this case was for gay marriage, the same claims can be made for incestuous marriage. If defective children are the sole reason society rejects incest, then why can’t incestuous relations between two brothers or two sisters ensue, especially since they biologically cannot produce children and gay marriage was legalized in 2015? Ironically, however, an argument against gay marriage was “‘The state doesn’t have an interest in love and emotion at all,’ Mr. Bursch said. ‘It’s about binding children to their biological moms and dads’” (Liptak, 1). Incestuous marriages between brother and sister could produce children who would be biologically bound to their mom and dad; however, these children might have some defects. Therefore, society wants children bound to parents but it does not want “defective” or “damaged” children. This insulting notion suggests that there is something wrong or inferior about handicapped individuals and that society should actively work to limit the production of such individuals. This is not only discriminatory against incestuous individuals but also any person who is handicapped or with any genetic disorder. Justice Kaga stated, “the court has a role in protecting minorities even when majorities made their views known at the polls. We don’t live in a pure democracy.” Despite the majority of society believing that incest is morally wrong and an abomination to American culture, the Supreme Court, and any other federal court for that matter, has a responsibility to overlook judgements and provide justice for all. The United States of America runs on a government and justice system where there is a separation between church and state. ‘We live in a constitutional democracy’” (Liptak, 1). Therefore, personal beliefs and judgements must be silenced in order to fully recognize the rights of this minority group and provide them justice as well as protection under the law. 

Many individuals consider incest a taboo, uncomfortable topic and it is a widely-popular idea that incest produces defective offspring. Max Planck’s research team publish the article “Criminal Prohibition of Incest in International Legal Comparison" that proposes that by using the possibility of defective children being produced by incestuous relationships as the reason for outlawing such unions suggests that handicapped children are damaged and unwanted. Also, restricting an incestuous union between two adults for the biological reason of defective offspring, the ban discriminates against them by permitting individuals with autosomal dominant disorders as well as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, which both have a fifty percent chance of passing on the disorders. “Autosomal Dominant Disorders Mnemonic” includes a list of the autosomal dominant disorders including, but not limited to, diseases such as marfan syndrome, dystrophia myotonica and neurofibromatosis, which all have the ability to produce physical malformations as well as other impairments. “Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer” states that men with a mother or sister with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer also have a fifty percent chance of passing down the disease. Women over the age of 35 have a much higher risk of having defective children, miscarriages, and health issues pertaining to the pregnancy (Matthiessen). The risk only increases with age after 35. The pregnant women that are forty years of age have a thirty-two percent chance of miscarriage and that number jumps to fifty percent chance at the age of 45 (Matthiessen). Individuals with or carriers of an autosomal dominant disorder, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and women over the age of 35 know that they put their offspring at high risk for defects and even death continue to reproduce with society’s approval. Because individuals with or carriers of any of these disorders are allowed to have produce offspring without any legal limitations or social disapproval, it discriminates against any individuals wishing to partake in an incestuous relationship and produce offspring. The best solution is not to take away the rights of these individuals, but to recognize the rights of incestuous individuals wishing to partake in marriage and produce their own offspring. 

       “Here are the values that I stand for: honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values,” once said Ellen DeGeneres. Sexuality, marriage, and social norms are all constructs of society that have transformed throughout time. Incest was not only prevalent in certain historic periods and cultures, but it was also though necessary for survival. Incest has been considered scientifically and morally wrong; however, this is not the case. The lack of evidence for this argument as well as the large amount of evidence concluding that this is not a sound argument to begin with is more than enough to conclude that incest’s ban has no verification. Incest is a relative topic in modern society because of the claims and arguments made to justify gay-marriage. The same claims made to defend gay marriage, as well as some against such a union, work to further justify why incestuous relationships and marriages should be legalized. Society has changed its norms in order to fit new generations of ideas and individuals. Much like the Constitution of the United States is a living, breathing document, social norms change and adapt to the culture, people, and time period. Marriage is as basic a right as any and this right should be given to consenting incestuous individuals over the age of eighteen and should be recognized by the law. Love is love. Despite not being a part of the incestuous community, I believe in the equal rights of all and I do not believe in shying away from conversations that are uncomfortable and weird. It is important that as a society that we do not shy away from ideas that make us uncomfortable even if that means discussing taboos like incest. “I will not stay silent so that you can stay comfortable” (unknown).
