should incest between brothers and sisters be legal? [Archive] - Page 2

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 11:03 AM

]"Daddy loves you, this is what people who love each other do".

Is that a lie?

Is it 'consensual'?

Is it 'abuse'?

Of course it's a lie, because it's obvious that the father is trying to mentally abuse the kid. If the kid realizes when he's older that he's been raped, then he can have the father condemned. You're mixing up everything to make people believe that relationships between two consenting people are wrong. At first you brought up the idea of kids, then you bring up the idea of little kids of 3 years old. Of course at 3 you cannot really know if you want to have sex, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about adults who just want to be free to love each other. What you're talking about here has nothing to do with the subject. I don't see why we should forbid two adults to have sex together in order to protect kids who are not in the same situation. I think it's lgical that an adult knows when a kid doesn't understand what it means to have sex, and if the adult still has sex with the kid while the kid does not get it, it's a rape.

If that's what you've been taught since you were 0, how do you know it is wrong? What if you believe it, is it wrong then?

It is wrong because the other person lied to you in order to satisfy their own feelings or impulses.

The difficulty here Sweets is that you're talking from a society where incest is considered wrong. Turn it on its head and what we now call 'abuse' isn't necessarily abuse at all.

Abuse is when you do something to someone without their consent, that's all.

I find that final comment (in bold) very disturbing. It makes me want to go and hug a 5 year old (platonically, of course). How easy it is to throw children to the wolves.

Come on, I'm only saying that everyone can judge if they were raped or not. Legalizing incest would not make rapes increase because it's always a question of consent, whether it is legal or not.

Would you still be able to pursue this as a criminal offence, a rape? Isn't this rather unfair on the other family member? Imagine a scenario. An older brother really loves his sister, the sister really loves her brother. They have sex, and as far as the brother is concerned his sister was okay with it. Years later she says she only did it to please him. Has he raped her? He didn't think it was rape, he thought it was consensual. What if it turns out that he 'coaxed' her into it. Is it rape then? When does 'coaxing' become 'mental abuse'?

Again, this is not rape, she agreed with it, she judged the situation and decied she wanted to please her brother, this is her fault if she regrets if after, the brother has done nothing wrong. We all make love for different reasons, and we all take our own decisions. It's too easy to accuse the guy in this case, the girl had every right to say no. This is ridiculous.

Yes, I agree with you here. I suppose the difficulty is, however you state it, it will always be a restriction. It isn't perfect, but it is about achieving a balance - drawing the line in the place where it causes restriction to the least, and protection for the many.

Yes, but I dislike the idea that you restrain someone to protect someone else when the two cases have nothing to do with one another. That reminds me of people who want to forbid hijab to protect women who are forced to wear it, and they in the meantime restrain those who do want to wear it. That's not a solution.

Oh, and dear Scheherazade, if my father wanted to have sex with me, I would explain him that I'm not interested, as I would do with any guy I am not interested in. No big deal.
And no, I don't have kids, but that doesn't impede me from having views on the question, thank you.
See, I didn't break the rules this time, I'm not banned yet.:)

sprinks

04-14-2008, 11:12 AM

Come on, I'm only saying that everyone can judge if they were raped or not. Legalizing incest would not make rapes increase because it's always a question of consent, whether it is legal or not.

But what if they can't judge if they were or not? Maybe just as most of us here have been brought up to believe incest is wrong, there is most likely others out there who have been taught that what is happening is right, even though according to society it is not right, and they don't know any different and they don't know that they have the choice to tell the person what they are doing is wrong? Maybe I've misread something along the way or missed something and so there is more to this comment, if so, I apologise sincerely, but from what I understand right now, this comment could be incorrect; people can't always judge if they were raped or not. It depends on the individual situation.

From what I've read, the argument seems to get quite heated at points, generally due to misunderstanding other people.

I think there is a few reasons why this keeps happening...

1. No one really seems to know what is being discussed, the topic changes from incest to the impact on the children to being compared with gay rights to rape, and everything else.

and

2. There isn't one situation being used. People one second will generalise about all instances of incest, then it becomes a specific example, then it becomes incest with children produced, then it becomes incest among people who didn't know they were related, then it becomes about incest in animals, then it becomes incest being rape, then it becomes incest among homosexual siblings. People then seem to get agitated because "That's not what they were talking about."

The question is "Should it be legal" not "Should it be legal in certain circumstances with certain outcomes for certain situations."

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 11:29 AM

But what if they can't judge if they were or not? Maybe just as most of us here have been brought up to believe incest is wrong, there is most likely others out there who have been taught that what is happening is right, even though according to society it is not right, and they don't know any different and they don't know that they have the choice to tell the person what they are doing is wrong? Maybe I've misread something along the way or missed something and so there is more to this comment, if so, I apologise sincerely, but from what I understand right now, this comment could be incorrect; people can't always judge if they were raped or not. It depends on the individual situation.

Yes, maybe it's more complicated than what I said. The thing is, I was brought up with the idea that incest was wrong, but that did not impede me from thinking by myself and telling myself that if I want to make love with my brother and he wants too, I'll have no problem with it. I believe people can detach themselves, it's all in detachment, they can ponder the question when they have developed their personality and ways of seeing the world, and they can decide what they want or not.
It's not the same for little kids, because their world is built around their parents, so I see what you mean, but once they grow up, they can decide if what their parents did was right or wrong according to them. Of course if they decide it was wrong, it's too late. But the thing is what I wanted to talk about in the beginning was not kids, it was relationships between two consenting people, and everyone can judge things properly at a different age. I just think that bringing the idea of little kids into the question only aims to touch people's feelings and make them say 'yes, we should forbid incest'. I just don't support this strategy.

sprinks

04-14-2008, 11:32 AM

But the thing is what I wanted to talk about in the beginning was not kids, it was relationships between two consenting people, and everyone can judge things properly at a different age. I just think that bringing the idea of little kids into the question only aims to touch people's feelings and make them say 'yes, we should forbid incest'. I just don't support this strategy.

This is pretty much exactly the type of thing I was getting at in my other post before this one (post 274)

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 11:34 AM

This is pretty much exactly the type of thing I was getting at in my other post before this one (post 274)

This is exactly what I thought too, you are right.

sprinks

04-14-2008, 11:37 AM

This is exactly what I thought too, you are right.

Thanks, now if everyone understands the point we just made, the conversation might stop having so many disagreements and arguments! Which would be a good thing for all involved :)

blp

04-14-2008, 01:05 PM

Sexual relations, in my opinion, are not a part of familial love, nor should they ever be.

Er...what about husband and wife?

TheFifthElement

04-14-2008, 02:54 PM

Of course it's a lie, because it's obvious that the father is trying to mentally abuse the kid.

Why is it obvious? Aren't you falling into the very mentality you have criticized here:

Also, a lot of people here who are outraged when it comes to incest do not think for one second that behind the pseudo pathology, there might be love, that's all, just love, sometimes it happens. But it needs to be destroyed or transformed into something dirty and unacceptable, I wonder why.

if the parent means it, and is motivated by love, then surely it is fine?

At first you brought up the idea of kids, then you bring up the idea of little kids of 3 years old.

No, actually you brought up the issue of kids by stating that incestuous relationships should be accepted where the two parties are consenting adults. So in order to explore the subject you have to fully understand and agree on what is 'consenting' and also what is 'adult' because, as with the rest of the debate, these are concepts which are imposed on us by society. Yes, the example of 3 year olds is extreme, but this was purely in response to your comment as follows:

And yes, if it's consensual, it doesn't matter even if the kid is young.

but clearly it does matter, clearly by your standards 3 is too young. How young is too young? What age would you set it at? Why? Isn't this just as arbitrary?

Abuse is when you do something to someone without their consent, that's all.

is it really that simple? Do you not think it is possible to secure consent and it still be abuse? Do people not abuse relationships of trust?

Again, this is not rape, she agreed with it, she judged the situation and decied she wanted to please her brother, this is her fault if she regrets if after, the brother has done nothing wrong. We all make love for different reasons, and we all take our own decisions. It's too easy to accuse the guy in this case, the girl had every right to say no. This is ridiculous.

Ridiculous indeed, but..wait a minute, isn't this exactly what you said here?

If they were very young when it happened and thought it was ok at the time because of what the older one told them, when they grow up they can realize that it was actually a rape

Yes, but I dislike the idea that you restrain someone to protect someone else when the two cases have nothing to do with one another.

But actually they do have lots to do with each other, because if you open the door to one then the other will follow. Take for example this comment which, in principle, I don't disagree with:

I'm talking about adults who just want to be free to love each other.

Ask yourself, do you choose to love your brother, or are you indoctrinated into 'loving' your brother? If you are concerned with relationships of choice, do you choose your family?

If you're concerned with relationships of choice, being truly free to choose who you do and don't love, then surely the only way to do this is outside the family unit? Family is imposed on you, familial love (with the exception of marriage) is imposed on you from the moment you are born. How do you know you love your brother, where does that love come from, is it really a love of choice?

kelby_lake

04-14-2008, 04:01 PM

[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;555435
I'm talking about adults who just want to be free to love each other. What you're talking about here has nothing to do with the subject. I don't see why we should forbid two adults to have sex together in order to protect kids who are not in the same situation.

Incestuous feelings are a mental illness. It isn't like making a choice between people who aren't your relations. You can't let these people hurt themselves because in the long run, they will.

kelby_lake

04-14-2008, 05:35 PM

You wouldn't be though. Okay, if mental illness doesn't exist, then aren't all these 'crimes' normal?
Do you talk about incest as in lust or love?

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 05:57 PM

You wouldn't be though. Okay, if mental illness doesn't exist, then aren't all these 'crimes' normal?
Do you talk about incest as in lust or love?

I was talking about mental illness related to the idea of incest. And I was talking about love, too.

Scheherazade

04-14-2008, 06:20 PM

Following message has been posted by Sweets America; however, due to a glitch in Forum software, unfortunately it has been deleted:

Why is it obvious? Aren't you falling into the very mentality you have criticized here:

if the parent means it, and is motivated by love, then surely it is fine?

Jesus, reread what I wrote, it is NOT fine if only ONE of the partners is motivated by love. You're playing with words.

No, actually you brought up the issue of kids by stating that incestuous relationships should be accepted where the two parties are consenting adults. So in order to explore the subject you have to fully understand and agree on what is 'consenting' and also what is 'adult' because, as with the rest of the debate, these are concepts which are imposed on us by society. Yes, the example of 3 year olds is extreme, but this was purely in response to your comment as follows:

but clearly it does matter, clearly by your standards 3 is too young. How young is too young? What age would you set it at? Why? Isn't this just as arbitrary?

I also stated earlier that being an 'adult' is different for everyone, it depends on everyone's own mentality and personality, two people of the same age do not necessarily have the same views on things. Now it's up to everyone to judge if they're prepared or not, if they understand or not. I cannot make any generality about age.

is it really that simple? Do you not think it is possible to secure consent and it still be abuse? Do people not abuse relationships of trust?

What I don't understand is that you're using those things to back up the fact that incest is wrong. But if we follow your argumentation, all sexual relationships should be forbidden because a guy can always abuse the trust of a girl to sleep with her, this is not specific to incestuous relationships. Your argument seems to say that we should forbid everything to prevent everything from happening, and that's just not my way of living, I prefer taking risks.

Ridiculous indeed, but..wait a minute, isn't this exactly what you said here?

Yes, I see what you mean. The difference for me between the two was that I was talking about a relationship between a baby and his father while the other example of the brother and his sister was made of two adults. And to me the sister who slept with her brother to please him chose to do so, while the baby or the very young kid does not always choose to do so. Now I see what' you're going to say, that's true that we cannot determine an age when people are responsible, but for me the adult has more experience of how human beings can abuse you, whereas the kid is new to this, and thus I am tempted to think that the sister of the example, being an adult, made a choice and decided to ignore the fact that she was coaxed, maybe because she was scared of losing the love of her brother if she did not please him, I don't know, but she chose to do what she did.

But I don't see why talking about incest between adults should imply talking about incest between adults and little kids. It's not the same thing, I think the father who wants to sleep with his little dauther must naturally see if she understands what it's about. He will feel it if he's just wanting to coax her. But consenting people should not pay for people who abuse others.

But actually they do have lots to do with each other, because if you open the door to one then the other will follow.

I'm not sure.

Ask yourself, do you choose to love your brother, or are you indoctrinated into 'loving' your brother? If you are concerned with relationships of choice, do you choose your family?

Well, I have always found it ridiculous that people say we're compelled to love our family members. I have some family members that I don't care about, it's not because they're from my family that I will love them. I love my brothers because of who they are. I love my mother but I have hated her as well, and at some point I felt I had no feelings for my father. It comes and goes, like in every human relationship.

But, I never thought we could choose to love someone either. To me, love is not a question of choice, it just happens with some people we meet, whether they're from our family or not.

If you're concerned with relationships of choice, being truly free to choose who you do and don't love, then surely the only way to do this is outside the family unit? Family is imposed on you, familial love (with the exception of marriage) is imposed on you from the moment you are born. How do you know you love your brother, where does that love come from, is it really a love of choice?

This shows you don't know me at all, because I never said I wanted to choose who I love, I've never felt that love was a choice, I've loved someone with all my heart even if the relationship was impossible, and I still love him, and I will always do, and that's how it is. Consent is not synonymous with choice. You can love someone and not want to sleep with them. And again, I don't think family love is imposed on me. I've learned to love some family members like I would have learned to love anyone else.

Incestuous feelings are a mental illness. It isn't like making a choice between people who aren't your relations. You can't let these people hurt themselves because in the long run, they will.

This idea of mental illness has been invented by people who were afraid of things which are different. And if I want to hurt myself, I will be happy if you let me do so, this is my life and my feelings. Thank you.

TheFifthElement

04-15-2008, 04:03 AM

Jesus, reread what I wrote, it is NOT fine if only ONE of the partners is motivated by love. You're playing with words.

I did read what you wrote. You too are playing with words; I didn't say that the daughter didn't love the father, you assumed that it was one way. We cannot see into the minds of other people, if the daughter loves her father, and the father loves his daughter, then by your reckoning it would be okay providing they both consented?

Oh, and for the record, I am not Jesus.

I also stated earlier that being an 'adult' is different for everyone, it depends on everyone's own mentality and personality, two people of the same age do not necessarily have the same views on things. Now it's up to everyone to judge if they're prepared or not, if they understand or not. I cannot make any generality about age.

then how do you legislate for that? How do you give people clarity about what is, and what isn't okay to do?

But I don't see why talking about incest between adults should imply talking about incest between adults and little kids. It's not the same thing, I think the father who wants to sleep with his little dauther must naturally see if she understands what it's about. He will feel it if he's just wanting to coax her. But consenting people should not pay for people who abuse others.

But again, it is you who refer to 'little kids'. What I am talking about is grooming. The father who waits for his daughters 16th birthday (in UK that would be the legal age of consent) to take their 'love' to the next level. And in a society which was permissive about incest, if his mother had sex with him on his 16th birthday, and he 'consented' then it is natural for him to approach his daughter in a similar way providing she 'consents'. But this is where the difficulty lies. How did that consent arise, and was the consent of entire free will, or a product of indoctrination? Does it matter whether the indoctrination was as a result of love or of abuse? Isn't it simpler, easier to say 'don't do it' for the protection of both parties, so that the daughter doesn't realise 10 years on that she's been 'raped' and the father doesn't risk having, possibly entirely inadvertently, abused his daughter.

What I don't understand is that you're using those things to back up the fact that incest is wrong.

I don't. I have no view on whether incest is wrong or right. In my country it is illegal; all I am trying to do is to help you understand the basis of the law, so perhaps in understanding it you might begin to have an appreciation of what it is trying to achieve. If you read the law (which I posted earlier on) it is entirely designed to protect relationships of trust or if you prefer, relationships which are imposed on people due to circumstance, and in which there is an imbalance of power. The law is an acceptance of how delicate these relationships are, it provides clarity to all concerned about what is, and is not deemed to be acceptable; so, as a parent it is clear to me where the boundaries of my 'love' for my son lie. It is not another thing I need to agonise about, is it okay, is it not okay, if I do this will it 'harm' him, etc, etc. It is an acknowledgement of how easy it is to turn a relationship of trust into a relationship of abuse, and it sets 'safe' boundaries within which people can be secure that they're not going to tip the balance. It's also an acnknowledgement that some relationships are forced on us - I cannot choose my father, I cannot undo the fact that he is my father. The law says, 'certain relationships are forced on you, they are not your choice, so we are going to place limits on those relationships to protect both parties', and it works. Ultimately the law has to be designed in such as way as to protect the most vulnerable of those parties, mainly children but not just children. This is, as you have acknowledged, because children have no power. In fact the only power children have is the power to make people like them, which is the very thing that people, through love, or abuse or whatever, are prone to exploit. This is why the boundaries are set, if you like, conservatively, so that it limits as greatly as possible the possibility of harm resulting.

The law must provide clarity and certainty. I am comfortable that the current basis of the law (in UK) provides that.

So, let me set you a challenge. You have said that inter-familial relationships should be acceptable between 'consenting adults', which means that there are, as we have explored already, curcumstances in which you do not think inter-familial relationships should be allowed. Which, in a nutshell, means there will need to be law to regulate it. Design your revised law which specifies exactly under what circumstances it is acceptable/not acceptable to have inter-familial relationships, in such a way which does not leave it open to 'abuse'. What would be the 'penalty' for failing to comply with this law?

Sweets America

04-15-2008, 06:38 AM

I did read what you wrote. You too are playing with words; I didn't say that the daughter didn't love the father, you assumed that it was one way. We cannot see into the minds of other people, if the daughter loves her father, and the father loves his daughter, then by your reckoning it would be okay providing they both consented?

You still don't get what I mean and you're still playing with words. If the daughter loves her father, this love is not necessarily a sexual love. I told you already that you can love someone without wanting to sleep with them. If the father wants to sleep with his daughter but that the daughter just loves him platonically, then the father would rape her if he slept with her. You're mixing up different kinds of love.

then how do you legislate for that? How do you give people clarity about what is, and what isn't okay to do?

I don't give clarity, neither do I want any law to do so, it's up to everyone to know who they want to sleep with. I'm fed up with laws, they only make generalities and I already said that everyone is different. I don't want to legislate for that and I will not decide what is ok and what is not, I can only see what is ok for me and what is not for me. For my neighbour it will be different. The only common point I would see with everyone is that things get wrong when we abuse others. Now you're going to say that maybe for my neighbor that's not true, but you'll be playing with words again. I'm only talking about relationships which cause no harm. We've been debating for ages to know if something which causes no harm is ok! The abuses are another problem, but forbidding things which are not abuses will not solve the problem. It's forbidden today, but do you think it impedes people from abusing others? If you think a law will help, you're naive. Again, we really have two categories, the consensual thing and the abuse. There will always be abuse but there will always be people who are very happy to sleep with their brother. Just leave them alone.

But again, it is you who refer to 'little kids'. What I am talking about is grooming. The father who waits for his daughters 16th birthday (in UK that would be the legal age of consent) to take their 'love' to the next level. And in a society which was permissive about incest, if his mother had sex with him on his 16th birthday, and he 'consented' then it is natural for him to approach his daughter in a similar way providing she 'consents'. But this is where the difficulty lies. How did that consent arise, and was the consent of entire free will, or a product of indoctrination? Does it matter whether the indoctrination was as a result of love or of abuse? Isn't it simpler, easier to say 'don't do it' for the protection of both parties, so that the daughter doesn't realise 10 years on that she's been 'raped' and the father doesn't risk having, possibly entirely inadvertently, abused his daughter.

Come on, it's you who says that you want a law to protect little kids, it' not me. But about your example of the father, it's not because his own mother had sex with him when he wzs 16 that he will assume that his daughter will be ok with it too! People are not robots, your reasoning is biased. Oh, it might be simpler to say 'don't do it' to prevent a risk, but that's not a solution to punish some people for what others do, I hate that. If you always did that you would forbid everything. Fifth, I just want to live, and there are other people like me who just want to live without society pissing them off about every little thing.
Maybe my mistake is that I believe everyone can think for themselves and be responsible of his own body and sexual activities. You are not compelled to let yourself be indoctrinated. You can always say no if they don't force you, and if they blackmail you or coax you, you can always tell them to go to hell because they're not worth your love. If you believed in the indoctrination and thought it was ok to have sex, it's your choice, I think you would feel it if it felt wrong to you, you would feel that something is not right for you even if your father wants you to believe the contrary. But again, wanting to prevent those kinds of cases by forbidding everyone to have sex with their family is not a solution, you just smother a whole population.

I don't. I have no view on whether incest is wrong or right. In my country it is illegal; all I am trying to do is to help you understand the basis of the law, so perhaps in understanding it you might begin to have an appreciation of what it is trying to achieve. If you read the law (which I posted earlier on) it is entirely designed to protect relationships of trust or if you prefer, relationships which are imposed on people due to circumstance, and in which there is an imbalance of power. The law is an acceptance of how delicate these relationships are, it provides clarity to all concerned about what is, and is not deemed to be acceptable; so, as a parent it is clear to me where the boundaries of my 'love' for my son lie. It is not another thing I need to agonise about, is it okay, is it not okay, if I do this will it 'harm' him, etc, etc. It is an acknowledgement of how easy it is to turn a relationship of trust into a relationship of abuse, and it sets 'safe' boundaries within which people can be secure that they're not going to tip the balance. It's also an acnknowledgement that some relationships are forced on us - I cannot choose my father, I cannot undo the fact that he is my father. The law says, 'certain relationships are forced on you, they are not your choice, so we are going to place limits on those relationships to protect both parties', and it works. Ultimately the law has to be designed in such as way as to protect the most vulnerable of those parties, mainly children but not just children. This is, as you have acknowledged, because children have no power. In fact the only power children have is the power to make people like them, which is the very thing that people, through love, or abuse or whatever, are prone to exploit. This is why the boundaries are set, if you like, conservatively, so that it limits as greatly as possible the possibility of harm resulting.

I know the aim of the law is to protect people, but I still find it unfair. It's just like this law about the legal age to have sex, it is preposterous. Laws do not reassure me, they make me feel smothered.
And I find it strange that you would need a law to see where the boundaries with your son lie. This is scary that you would base that on a law instead of feeling it yourself. I'm sure that without any law, you would feel it if you did something to your son without his consent. Laws do not set anything safe, they are illusions because peope are not robots who follow them blindly. Your law just gives you an illusion that thinsg are going to be secure and right. You say it works while we see lots of cases of people breaking those so-called laws....

In fact the only power children have is the power to make people like them

Oh boy, that surely doesn't work with me. :lol: At least you can be sure I'll never sleep with your kid. Maybe a difference between you and me is that I don't see kids as innocent little things.

So, let me set you a challenge. You have said that inter-familial relationships should be acceptable between 'consenting adults', which means that there are, as we have explored already, curcumstances in which you do not think inter-familial relationships should be allowed. Which, in a nutshell, means there will need to be law to regulate it. Design your revised law which specifies exactly under what circumstances it is acceptable/not acceptable to have inter-familial relationships, in such a way which does not leave it open to 'abuse'. What would be the 'penalty' for failing to comply with this law?

I never think 'interfamilial' relationships should be forbidden. Let me tell you once again that the law is not about incest, the law is about rape. If a father rapes his daughter, I will not put it in the incest thing, but in the rape one, as any other rape case. The fact that it is a father with a daughter is not relevant. They are just two people and one of them abused the other. As I already said, why not forbidding all sexual relationships between human beings so that it will prevent rape??

Virgil

04-15-2008, 06:46 AM

I can't believe this is still going on. Where's Sleepywitch? She started this mess. :p

SleepyWitch

04-15-2008, 09:02 AM

I can't believe this is still going on. Where's Sleepywitch? She started this mess. :p

I have fled :D j/k
sorry, I'm busy with exam preparation and don't have much time too read y'all's detailed posts :(

TheFifthElement

04-15-2008, 09:23 AM

Sweets, I think there's little benefit discussing this any further, primarily because there's no getting past this comment:

I don't give clarity, neither do I want any law to do so

which brings us back to where we were at the beginning. True individualism, true freedom = chaos. For any social structure to work there has to be rules, those rules need to be clear and easy to follow otherwise you have chaos, people not knowing what you can do, can't do. Being part of a society means that there are benefits and sacrifices. If you're not prepared to make any sacrifices, then you have to give up the benefits.

The problem is, you say "the law is not about incest, the law is about rape" but without clarity there is no "rape". And it's questionable whether people in a familial relationship are ever in a position to make a truly informed 'consent' This is what I was trying, and failing perhaps, to make clear.

Virgil

04-15-2008, 09:30 AM

The problem is, you say "the law is not about incest, the law is about rape" but without clarity there is no "rape". And it's questionable whether people in a familial relationship are ever in a position to make a truly informed 'consent' This is what I was trying, and failing perhaps, to make clear.

It was clear to me and it added another layer to the argument. I quite agree.

Sweets America

04-15-2008, 09:41 AM

Sweets, I think there's little benefit discussing this any further, primarily because there's no getting past this comment:

which brings us back to where we were at the beginning. True individualism, true freedom = chaos. For any social structure to work there has to be rules, those rules need to be clear and easy to follow otherwise you have chaos, people not knowing what you can do, can't do. Being part of a society means that there are benefits and sacrifices. If you're not prepared to make any sacrifices, then you have to give up the benefits.

The problem is, you say "the law is not about incest, the law is about rape" but without clarity there is no "rape". And it's questionable whether people in a familial relationship are ever in a position to make a truly informed 'consent' This is what I was trying, and failing perhaps, to make clear.

I have been wanting to tell you that I wanted to stop discussing that anyway because we just don't see the world the same way. I'm sorry if I sounded blunt. I think I just prefer chaos. I also think entire freedom will never exist in this world anyway, and I was only trying to have the little freedom I could have on this subject. I don't feel part of society, I've never been anyway. My being here makes me part of a society to the others, but in my mind I am not. I think I just prefer being by myself. I was only defending love, that was all, but even love is not possible here, sometimes. I enjoyed discussing with you anyway.

islandclimber

04-15-2008, 07:20 PM

I posted in here near the beginning of this thread and am shocked this is still being argued about... wow, what an issue... well, just to add two more cents of my own...

In reading through the many arguments for keeping it/making it illegal, I keep seeing people arguing against it because it is immoral and not natural... some people have gone so far as to state that other animals do not commit incest... which is an entirely ludicrous claim... most species of animals commit incest, but just like with humans it isn't common, it is a small percentage... though, my brother and sister both have dogs from the same litter and the male routinely tries to hump the female.... so, again, incest does occur among other animals, only infrequently, as with humans... so this takes me to my first point...

--- too say it is not natural is entirely absurd and irrelevant.... not natural in who's opinion? is this a fact? no, it isn't... what is natural, is exactly what each person decides is natural... and there cannot be any other definition of natural... for each of us is different, what is natural for me, might be appalling and disgusting for you, and likewise, to some degree... you cannot make blanket statements regarding all humanity with regards to certain actions being natural or not... just the fact that incest has been happening among humans and animals since the beginning of time, means it is entirely natural, however few choose to participate in it...

also it is a ridiculous leap of logic, to say that because something is not natural it is therefore morally wrong, and should be illegal... how can anyone make that judgment... based on that we should rewrite the legal system than to outlaw anything that is unnatural... and legalize all natural behaviours... well as Nietzsche said, the fundamental fact is of all human history is murder, rape, abuse, violence, and so on and so forth.. these things are some of the most natural human behaviours... murder has always been common, theft, rape, violent assault... emotions of hatred leading to violence... I mean, if anything is natural among humans, it is violent crime... and not just relegated to psycopaths either... regular people have murdered one another for all of time, it may be less common now in the developed world, but that is irrelevant... so next time a murderer is up for trial, according to the natural and not natural argument we should let him off, because he was just following what is human nature... I guess then we would have to rewrite immorality and morality as well, which might suit Nietzsche fine, go "beyond good and evil", institute master morality....

last of all with regards to not being natural, as I stated above, if it is consider unnatural and that is the basis for illegality and immorality, then why don't we make cosmetic surgery illegal, anyone who gets it should go to jail... oh and lets see, I'm sure we could some up with a long list here... eating oneself into a state of obesity, which no animal does, and in fact, until recently was not all that prevalent among humans... are you saying because it is unnatural to be obese, we should send obese people to jail along with the incestuous people???

--- now the argument of immorality.... so who gave anyone here the right to decide what is immoral and moral for all humanity... for even any other person beside themself... if an action is not harming anyone it is entirely moral in my opinion... to state otherwise is incredibly egotistical and self righteous... it is saying you are so perfect a person that you can decide upon what is right and wrong for others... well, last time I checked, perfection is still a dream for everyone on this planet, and therefore no one, and I repeat, no one has a right to force their moral beliefs upon others.... the only things that are immoral are those that harm others... there is nothing else immoral, and I will stick by that statement forever...

secondly, here, if one does say that incest is still immoral, as it for some reason harms others.... well, smoking harms others but it is legal, drinking harms others but it is legal... obesity harms others, but it is legal... the cost on the health care system from obesity and smoking is enormous.... absolutely ridiculously high... and smokers and obsese people add to waiting lists that make it so others can't get health care treatment in a timely fashion.. the waiting lists here in my country are absurd for surgery.... so should we call obesity and smoking immoral and jail people for doing this, or fine them, or send them to counselling... I am confused here, for these things cause far more harm than a few isolated cases of incest...

also on morality, I keep seeing incest compared to homosexuality.. and everyone against incest says they have no problem with homosexuality and it is fine... well... until about 20 years ago, and still even now, homosexuality is widely persecuted, they don't have even close to equal rights, they are discriminated against, they are abused, picked on, insulted... and many religious based moralities still find it offensive and immoral... and for that matter, only a century or so ago it was basically considered immoral and wrong by almost the entire world... and to boot, it was considered not natural... well, now we come to incest.. and of course it is much less common than homosexuality... but who cares... it is the same type of person, still condemning others for what they do, who they love, the way they are...

---- all this is also only in regard to incestuous relationships where there is full consent by both partners... and no, I don't agree with a daughter being groomed for that role... that would need to be examined before a father would ever be allowed to marry his daughter... but in general father-daughter relationships are abusive relationships anyways, so in most cases that is harmful and therefore shouldn't and wouldn't be allowed but just the same as any other abuse should not be allowed, regardless of it being incest related or not... but on occasion, rare occasion, I am sure there are some parent-sibling relationships that aren't abuse of trust or abusive in any way, just love... so you cannot make it illegal... otherwise you are destroying freedom of choice in regards to one of the most important parts of life... love...

now a brother and sister, both fully grown... the statement I made about small numbers of most species committing incest, well it is almost always brother-sister, almost never parent-offspring... if a brother and sister fall in love and want to have a relationship, that is perfectly fine in my books, and harms no one, including themselves... but if you want to argue that it does harm someone please tell me who??? I am interested to know who is harmed by this, other than those with delicate sensibilities, who for some reason think it offensive and wrong that others should behave in any way they don't like...

in the end all I want to say is that incest is perfectly natural, for a tiny percentage of all populations.. almost all animals as well... therefore the natural argument falls apart....

secondly, the immorality argument, is entirely egotistical and self righteous.. who appointed each one of us god over all others??

third, I remember now, others stating that if it is made legal it will encourage it... that is load of garbage... encourage it???? how would it encourage incest.... as I stated animals commit incest, but only infrequently and as a tiny percentage... it would still be very infrequent... it is not as though if it was made legal, there would be advertisements with slogans such as "have an incestuous relationship today" or "marry your brother" ... how on earth would not having it be illegal encourage it... it would still be illegal to force someone, but that should be illegal regardless of whether it is incest or not... so I doubt we would see an enormous spike in incest if it was made legal... but I guess I could be wrong....

cheers

Shalot

04-15-2008, 08:22 PM

Sex is always such an issue for people. It doesn't matter whether you're doing it by yourself or with your legal, married, heterosexual spouse -- there is always some kind of mental "OH NO OMG" associated with it.

Honestly, we could be arguing about whether it's okay to cheat on your spouse, and we could probably get as many responses.

Virgil

04-15-2008, 08:45 PM

in the end all I want to say is that incest is perfectly natural, for a tiny percentage of all populations.. almost all animals as well... therefore the natural argument falls apart....

What kind of logic is this??? The very fact that it's a small (not just small but infintesmal) percentage tells yopu that this is unnatural. There are always anomalies, and in this case this anomaly is a perversion. If you don't understand natural law and how most legal systems build upon it, look it up.

--- now the argument of immorality.... so who gave anyone here the right to decide what is immoral and moral for all humanity... for even any other person beside themself...
Estabished culture of thousands of years across every culture.

secondly, the immorality argument, is entirely egotistical and self righteous.. who appointed each one of us god over all others??
You live in a democracy? Do you know of any politician anywhere in the world that is running on legalizing incest? I dare any politician to run on this issue. I dare anyone to bring it up as a referendum. It would fail miserably. You have a biased demographic here on lit net of young people who believe in complete unadulterated freedom. And it still lost 37-12. That's over three to one. In the general population this would easily lose 10 to 1 if not even worse.

islandclimber

04-15-2008, 10:04 PM

What kind of logic is this??? The very fact that it's a small (not just small but infintesmal) percentage tells yopu that this is unnatural. There are always anomalies, and in this case this anomaly is a perversion. If you don't understand natural law and how most legal systems build upon it, look it up.

Estabished culture of thousands of years across every culture.

You live in a democracy? Do you know of any politician anywhere in the world that is running on legalizing incest? I dare any politician to run on this issue. I dare anyone to bring it up as a referendum. It would fail miserably. You have a biased demographic here on lit net of young people who believe in complete unadulterated freedom. And it still lost 37-12. That's over three to one. In the general population this would easily lose 10 to 1 if not even worse.

are you serious??? Majority means right, eh???

well look at the holocaust, a majority got convinced that murdering jewish people was the answer to all problems...

and rwanda in 94... well, the entire hutu population with very few dissenters decided they needed to wipe the entire tutsi population off the face of the earth with machetes... hmmm... again majority rules as you say... so those people were right in your books??? or anyone else who makes the leap of logic that majority means the way it should be...

oh, I know about natural law, and how legal systems like to build off it... or say they do anyways... off some supposed natural laws... natural laws eh??? well everyone who has responded ignored most of my post... there is a natural law called law of the jungle where the bigger, faster, stronger are the better.. maybe we should revert to that as well... if you are stronger you can take from those who are weaker with impunity.. that is so called natural law.... maybe we should just revert to primitive caveman culture... I would argue against the existence of any so called natural laws... it is a dead philosophy.. natural theories maybe, but laws... I think not... there are no objective, universal truths or laws about nature and humanity... that is the nature of the world... mankind has invented some to suit his purpose... if you want to take them as fact that is your choice... but don't force them upon me... as well, everything any human does is natural to that person, just for the fact they are doing it... we do what we feel is natural to us... so you are calling everyone who doesn't follow the common, and majority way of being natural, well you are basically calling us all a little off our rockers... or perverse, or however you want to put it.. you are saying there is something wrong with not following the natural path of the majority... well I have many ways I walk the far from natural path... am I a perversity?

and the animals that commit incest are not ostracized, nor persecuted.. hmm.. stating that other animals don't seem to mind... I guess that's human rationality and reason, or these supposed faculties, I guess they are operating so well here.... oooohhh,,, someone I don't know is in love with their brother... put them in jail or else the world will fall into corruption and perversity...

and you concentrate on one part of my post... what about the others.. I am interested to see what is thought here... obesity happens in no animals besides humans... well, not wild animals anyways... and I doubt it happened before we started leading our sedentary modern lifestyles... so as I asked before shouldn't we put these people in jail too.... oh and the smokers, they are harming infinitely more people than people commiting incest... and for that matter lets put everyone who drives a big suv, or a truck in the city in jail as well.. they're polluting the planet and harming all of humanity... and so on and so forth...

but instead we should concentrate on keeping love from happening at all cost when it is incestuous... not because it harms anyone... but because we have delicate sensibilities with regards to it...

homosexuality was also considered a perversion and evil by all these established cultures over thousands of years, that you speak of, or most anyways... should we start condemning and persecuting them again... is that what you are saying, condemn all people who aren't into the traditional and so called normal way of life? I just can't see that working for some reason... no one is perfect, and condemning people because they have a different morality then you is not the answer... so these cultural/religious moralities have already shown their inherent fallibility in many ways... usury at one point was one of the worst sins... read Dante's "Inferno"... now it is the most common way to lend money.. excessive interest rates... as said above, homosexuality... ummm, lets see.. premarital sex was a sin... having a bast&)d child was definitely not okay for ages and ages... adultery at different times was punishable by death... some cultures girls were married off at 10 years old... I don't think that the fact a culture has a long established morality has anything to do with it being right... that is laughable, in fact with what many cultures, well, all cultures have supported and propped up with regards to morality and ethics for thousands of years, and in many cases continue to do so... lawyers are supposed to lie in court... haha.. if your client admits that he murdered someone, but he wants to say he didn't you either have to let someone else take the case, or defend him by lying... and we worry about harmless incest...

Well, running on a platform that included legalized incest would certainly pound several nails into any political career! You certainly got that right, Virgil. I think the politician would be stoned or run out of town in disgrace.

Good point about the biased demographic here. I'm in the "over thirty" group of "older persons," myself. Call me "Grandma." LOL I think 10-1 in very conservative, though. More like 1000-1. Complete, unadulterated freedom is anarchy, is it not?

unadulterated freedom? freedom to do what harms no one is not unadulterated freedom, and is not anarchy... if it is please do explain? I am not saying people should be able to murder or rape, or steal, or abuse or various other harmful crimes... I am saying they should be free to do as they please as long as it harms no one... but instead we should continue to concentrate on persecuting those who harm no one, while ignoring almost all of the white collar crime, tax evasion, fraud, etc. that goes on in the western world... yes, lets focus on incest and how it offends us so therefore should be a crime...

as well, again, who cares whether it is 1000-1... does majority mean right automatically... because as I said above, this says that mass genocides of the past were perfectly excusable because the majority of those countries thought they were correct.... and it doesn't matter that this is the majority of all humans that thinks this way... who cares... what right does the majority have to impose their moral belief system on anyone else with regards to things that harm no one????? I repeat again for emphasis: harm no one... does that mean nothing, that it harms no one.

and good for the politician who would be willing to be stoned out of town in disgrace for advocating freedom of choice, free will... I would be one of his very few votes...

Virgil

04-15-2008, 10:08 PM

well look at the holocaust, a majority got convinced that murdering jewish people was the answer to all problems...

and rwanda in 94... well, the entire hutu population with very few dissenters decided they needed to wipe the entire tutsi population off the face of the earth with machetes... hmmm... again majority rules as you say... so those people were right in your books??? or anyone else who makes the leap of logic that majority means the way it should be...
What are you talking about? None of these are examples of democracies. I can turn the question around on you. Who made you God to decide what is not moral? Society has deemed a social impact to incest. There are victums and the blurring, not just blurring, obliterating of the distinction between familial love and romantic love is anti social.

Well, we disagree. Incest is perversion.

metal134

04-16-2008, 12:49 AM

I think religion is perverse and harmful, but I'm not clamoring to outlaw it.

islandclimber

04-16-2008, 01:28 AM

What are you talking about? None of these are examples of democracies. I can turn the question around on you. Who made you God to decide what is not moral? Society has deemed a social impact to incest. There are victums and the blurring, not just blurring, obliterating of the distinction between familial love and romantic love is anti social.

Well, we disagree. Incest is perversion.

yes we disagree and that is okay...

It really does not matter whether those countries are democracies or not, as the majority of people participated in these things in those countries... if the majority in a democracy got convinced that the best path was to wipe out another population they would probably do it... the majority is easily manipulated, not that this is the cause of the illegality of incest, but it shows that majority is often wrong... so whether they were democracies or not the majority of people still committed awful atrocities and participated in genocide... and most of these people were normal people... at least before it began... in Rwanda hutus sliced up their neighbours and their friends, if they were tutsis for an example of how badly a majority can be manipulated... and how wrong they can be..

I did not claim to be god.. at least I don't recall... everyone is their own god with regards to what they believe is moral or immoral... that is quite obvious, whether some people take their moralities from an external source, it is still their choice to follow them.. even the law... with regards to the law though, the only things it should regulate and not allow are things that are harmful to others in my opinion... and who cares whether incest is anti-social... we can't persecute people for being anti-social... I am most often anti-social.. I want nothing to do with 99 percent or more of people... should I be condemned for that... but I will not judge others for what they do if it harms no one... and even then I won't but that is my choice... and I will do as I please as long as it harms no one, the law is irrelevant here... or so I believe... but it doesn't matter...

this thread is tiresome, it should go in the religious forum where people argue back and forth with no one ever changing their mind :D

metal134

04-16-2008, 02:07 AM

There is no "societal impact" of incest. You know why? because legal or illegal, not that many people are doing it. It's not an epidemic and it's not going to be an epidemic. Let's just call a spade a spade. You want to legislate your reservations. It's just like Nietzsche said; democracy is the oppresion of the masses. So what if 99% of all people don't want it. Who cares? People suck anyway. It's like Neitzche said; democracy is just the oppression of the masses (which, by the by is why, contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a democratic republic and there is a huge difference). And, by the way, though I know this comment wasn't directed at me Virgil, I feel the need to address it anyway. You say, "we disagree, incest is perversion." Well, uh, no. We don't disagree. Incest is perversion, I just don't want to legislate what I feel is perversion because it's none of my business. And also, I really could not care less about the damaging long term effects of consensual adult incest. They made the decision, they have to live with it and I refuse to aknowledge it as a reason for saying it should be illegal.

SleepyWitch

04-16-2008, 02:15 AM

metal134

04-16-2008, 02:26 AM

When we start legalizing one wrong action, others follow.
And in response to that, I would make the same argument in reverse.

metal134

04-16-2008, 02:51 AM

Well, if sibling incest is ever legalized, then I want the right to withhold my tax dollars. As I said, it would be a victimless crime as the withheld money would benefit me more than the government, who's rich enough as it is. In fact, in a roundabout way, it would benefit the government.
If you're expecting me to disagree with you on that point, the I'm sorry to disappoint.

Virgil

04-16-2008, 07:10 AM

yes we disagree and that is okay...

It really does not matter whether those countries are democracies or not, as the majority of people participated in these things in those countries... if the majority in a democracy got convinced that the best path was to wipe out another population they would probably do it... the majority is easily manipulated, not that this is the cause of the illegality of incest, but it shows that majority is often wrong... so whether they were democracies or not the majority of people still committed awful atrocities and participated in genocide...

I can't speak about the majority of Rwandans, I don't know enough about it. But the majority of Germans did not participate in the halocaust.

Set that aside, your logic then proposes that majorities don't and shouldn't control anything. That's rediculous.

I lived in a pure democracy for years - Switzerland. I, personally, never called the US a democracy because I know it's not. There are differences, I agree, but I don't agree they're huge.

Do you mean that the US is a republic? And if so, Switzerland is not a republic? They have pure democracy there?

as for consensual adult incest and democracy, I think it's legal in France and France certainly is a democracy.

Well, I'm sure if it ever became prevelant, it would be made illegal. The very fact that is is so unusual -actually unnatural - saves them on this. In fact it's disgraceful.

Virgil

04-16-2008, 12:33 PM

Yes, Switzerland is a pure, or direct, democracy. Parliament is powerless to pass any law. Everything must be voted on by the citizens. We voted at the Town Hall (Gemeinde) almost every Sunday. The preseident is not elected by the people but rotates every year among the members of Parliament, one from the Swiss canton, then the French canton, then the Italian canton, usually.

I always thought the US was a federal republic.

I did not know that about Switzerland. On one level that is good, on another it is bad. But I can see how it would prevent Switzerland from being a world power. I've never supported that kind of a system. In some cases on a State level in the US we have referendums, and to me I don't think citizens are qualified to understand the intracies of most issues. We elect and pay legislatures to study and discuss and debate issues. If we don't like their decisions we vote them out. And I wonder how many citizens in Switzerland actually vote every week. You don't have to answer that. It'll take the thread off topic.

Yes, the US is a Federal Republic. I wasn't sure what you meant in that post.

metal134

04-16-2008, 12:59 PM

Oh, that doesn't disappoint me at all. I'm tired, but have to be up, and I'm still trying to figure out what your argument in reverse would be. Sorry I'm so dense tonight. It's nearly three in the morning here.
My argument in reverse would be that if you start outlawing something just because you find it disagreeable, other opressive laws will follow.

metal134

04-16-2008, 01:20 PM

I wouldn't want to laws against something just because I find it disagreeable.

I find it very disagreeable and annoying that so many people use the street I live on to cut through to another street, especially early in the morning when I'm still sleeping, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

I hate flip-flops in a restaurant, even a casual one. I hate flip-flops anywhere but the beach. They aren't real shoes and feet are dirty and ugly. But I don't think a law should be made outlawing flip-flops. Or feet. LOL

I don't think people should be able to play their car stereo so loud that it disturbs other drivers even when their windows are up, but I don't mind that much. I think there is a law against that, though, but I don't really care.

Incest, though, is a different matter. It's so potentially psychologically damaging. Some people say let the damaged ones lie in the bed they made, but often, it's the taxpayers who are paying the bill. It's that way in France.
Yeah, YOU don't want to make any of those things illegal, but what if SOMEBODY ELSE does. Incest is a different matter TO YOU. To ME, it is oppressive, uneccessary and ridiculous legislation. And you guys keep coming back to that "society has to have laws, lines ahve to be drawn, etc. etc." argument. What I and others are saying is this shouldn't be a law and this is not where the line should be drawn.

TheFifthElement

04-16-2008, 01:50 PM

Not that Wikipedia should be considered necessarily a 'reliable' source of information, but there's an interesting article here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

I think incest is a hard issue to argue on a moral stand point. I completely understand the basis of the UK law (which is based around relationships of 'circumstance', primarily where there is a disproportion of power between the two involved in said relationship of 'circumstance', and therefore easy to abuse without it necessarily being 'abuse') and it seems to make sense; and I understand why it would have to be a criminal offence with a fairly hefty penalty (if you're going to 'outlaw' it, fines aren't going to cut it), but I don't know about US law, or anywhere else for that matter. Does anyone know, or is anyone prepared to comment on the basis or construction of the law ex-UK?

Can you have an opinion on the law if you don't know what the law actually is?

metal134

04-16-2008, 02:01 PM

It's just a fact of life that laws aren't going to please everyone. I'm not pleased by all of them. But, that's life.
If that's the case, then don't complain about something you think should be illegal but others don't That argument only works here because it's a law YOU favor. If it was a law YOU were adamantley against being discussed, would YOU be so quick to say, "Oh, well we can't please everyone." And at the risk of sounding even more blunt than I usually do, I think that in this case, those of you who think it should be illegal are the ones who should not have your pleasure satiatited because, quite frankly, it's none of your business what they do. We can't please everyone, so why shouldn't YOU be the one who is unpleased in this case?

Scheherazade

04-16-2008, 02:33 PM

Final Warning:

R e m i n d e r

Please discuss the ideas but not each other.

Posts resorting such comments will be deleted without any further notice.

kelby_lake

04-16-2008, 03:25 PM

Virgil

04-16-2008, 04:04 PM

sprinks

04-16-2008, 04:31 PM

However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.

Good point... I don't think everyone here who defended the decision maybe really thought about what would happen if one of their family members tried to commit incest with them. But from what most people have said, they wouldn't care all that much even if it was their own family where the incest was occuring; but that is more directed at other people being involved, although I do believe some people said they would do it.
Also I think peoples reaction to a relative offering to commit it with them would depend on how the relative went about it. Most people will claim to have some creepy relative who hits on them... But maybe if it's a one of question thing, you say no, they understand and give up, I think most people could get over that easy, whereas others would still not be able to look at that person the same ever again though; but generally it would be better than if the relative kept harrassing you to do it.
I hope this makes sense... I know what I'm trying to say, but it's harder to say it at 4 am :lol:

Janine

04-16-2008, 04:42 PM

I wouldn't want to laws against something just because I find it disagreeable.

I hate flip-flops in a restaurant, even a casual one. I hate flip-flops anywhere but the beach. They aren't real shoes and feet are dirty and ugly. But I don't think a law should be made outlawing flip-flops. Or feet. LOL

:lol: Antiquarian, I would be locked up, if they were illegal...OMG...I have a whole collection of flip-flops! They are the fancier 'sandal' type ones, not the ugly flat ones. They are the only thing comfortable for my big toe, which has a bone spur on it and hurts when it swells in the humidity:( . Do you feel same way about sandals? I wear open shoes all summer long. My feet need air! I do polish my toenails and make sure my feet are clean and groomed. If they became illegal, I would be :bawling: I'm 58 and proud to be a flip-flop wearer! It's true though - some feet should definitely not be revealed - ughly! Hope you still like me....

Otherwise - I see the contraversay rages on in here concerning the real topic. I think this thread has now become the most popular on the forum.

Janine

04-16-2008, 05:32 PM

Oh, Janine! I only meant those totally flat plastic beach things that are barely there. I think sandals are quite nice. I'm sorry if I offended you. Hope you still like me! :blush:

:lol: OMG, you did not offend me at all, A...I really thought your post was hilarious. I liked all the things you brought up. Yes, the really sloppy ones, I hate too; I hate people wearing those jeans with all the big rips in them, like across the knees. There are many modern/fade type things I hate, but we can discuss that later, privately. I don't really want to offend anyone on here. NO, you did not offend me one bit. I just laughed, because I am wearing them this minute and I even wear them all winter, as my bedroom slippers....pretty weird, huh? I am kind of 'flip-flop' addicted by now.

I actually did get annoyed with my son on his 30th birthday - we took him to a nice restaurant and we all dressed up and he was dressed nicely, too, but had on flip-flops - I told him I was could not believe he was wearing those! He said "It is my birthday and I feel like wearing them". I thought they looked pretty silly.

Shalot

04-16-2008, 05:40 PM

I have no "issues" with my personal sexual life. I never have had.

I wasn't talking about YOU personally. In general, society has a hard time about what is acceptable in regards to sex, whether it's sexual behaviour, or sex education.

I can't believe we're still talking about this. I am going to have to get another forum.

Virgil

04-16-2008, 10:19 PM

:lol: OMG, you did not offend me at all, A...I really thought your post was hilarious. I liked all the things you brought up. Yes, the really sloppy ones, I hate too; I hate people wearing those jeans with all the big rips in them, like across the knees. There are many modern/fade type things I hate, but we can discuss that later, privately. I don't really want to offend anyone on here. NO, you did not offend me one bit. I just laughed, because I am wearing them this minute and I even wear them all winter, as my bedroom slippers....pretty weird, huh? I am kind of 'flip-flop' addicted by now.

I actually did get annoyed with my son on his 30th birthday - we took him to a nice restaurant and we all dressed up and he was dressed nicely, too, but had on flip-flops - I told him I was could not believe he was wearing those! He said "It is my birthday and I feel like wearing them". I thought they looked pretty silly.

Well, I don't mind open sandles on women, but I can't help feeling that it looks so wimpy on men. :p :lol: Now I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of ate mail. ;)

Janine

04-16-2008, 10:52 PM

Well, I don't mind open sandles on women, but I can't help feeling that it looks so wimpy on men. :p :lol: Now I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of ate mail. ;)

*Blurts out a huge laugh!* :lol: I am laughing at the 'hate mail 'part! You are such a riot, Virgil!

Probably, in the hate mail, they will call you a sexist or an anti-feminist/feminist(?)! ;) :lol:

Virgil

04-16-2008, 11:05 PM

*Blurts out a huge laugh!* :lol: I am laughing at the 'hate mail 'part! You are such a riot, Virgil!

Probably, in the hate mail, they will call you a sexist or an anti-feminist/feminist(?)! ;) :lol:

:D Glad I made you laugh.

metal134

04-17-2008, 12:41 AM

actually shocked that there are this many people that would defend this perversion.
Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.

islandclimber

04-17-2008, 12:51 AM

There was loads of fuss about cannabis being taken down from class b to class c. Legalising incest would imply that it is acceptable.
However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.
People have said 'It's their business' but it doesn't just affect them. What about their family, their friends, the people they know? Especially the family. 'Difference' can only be stretched so far- what about psychopaths? They're not 'different', they're ill. Not that incest and psycopathy on on a par but you understand what I'm saying.
In the UK, and most other places, people who commit incest will never be accepted into society, which is what our law is based around. Most people take the law as their guide- you may not admit it but you do- to what is right and what is wrong. Even if you legalised it, the few that have committed it, will essentially be imprisoned anyway by society and will never lead a normal life. That's as good as being in jail.

With regards to cannabis... it is absurd that it is considered an illegal and dangerous drug when alchohol is not... alchohol is much more dangerous and messes your mind and body up far far far more than marijuana... people who are drunk, are much more susceptible to acts of violence, etc. as well... other drugs maybe are more problematic and i will not start an argument here about legalizing all drugs, whatever my opinion on the subject:D .... but marijauna... give me a break... make alchohol illegal first...

secondly, you are trying to say that no matter how broadminded a person may be they would be disgusted and appalled if they new someone who committed incest or had a relative approach them... what gave you this window into everyone's mind??? how do you claim to speak for all humanity... that is a ridiculous generalization that has no substance at all.. yes, maybe the majority, even the overwhelmingly large majority may be disgusted, but not all... and I am one of the tiny minority... and I am proud of it... and if a relative approached me, well, I would most likely say no, but frankly, I would have no problem with it, and would not find it in the least disgusting... and far more so if it was just people I knew who were committing incest... if it is love, good for them, I applaud them... and I always will... as well... if I did happen to say fall in love with a cousin or other relative, and they were in love with me, I would have no problem with committing incest myself.... now, that I think puts me wholly in the realm of the ridiculously perverse according to almost everyone here.... hahaha.... good, I like it... I love it... I don't see myself committing incest as I have met my relatives and am not in love with any of them, nor am I attracted to them in that way, but if one came along and we had something special, I would not hesitate however much of an outcast that makes me...

also, family and friends... well if they were accepting and actually cared for these people in a loving relationship they would have no problem... they make it their own problem and choose to be appalled and disgusted by it... so in my opinion the shocked family and friends rejecting them, they are the ones with the serious and perverse problem... and implying something is acceptable does not mean we are going to have an outbreak of it, I really don't see this happening... it is only a tiny minority who will ever be attracted to a relative, and much less to a sibling... so really, I don't follow this argument as being one of any validity...

Antiquarian, you posted examples of studies... well those studies are inherently biased in the first place because of how culture already regards incest and most likely the people conducting the studies... second the statement about most were not of a benign or positive nature to the female involved... well I think I have made it clear I do not support abusive relationships of any kind, incestuous or not, so that statement is irrelevant to this discussion... third, those people have not studied every single case of incest.... and I am sure some are based on just love... you can argue against that all you want, but the fact of the matter is, these people will be persecuted regardless and some great and amazing psychologist (sarcasm) will find some reason to say it wasn't real love and was harmful, or will convince those involved that they are seriously messed up and need help regardless of reality... so again you haven't shown me anything...

and incest is only psychologically damaging because society shuns these people and psychologists and friends, and family all do their best to convince them they are so messed up and borderline insane... so there is the problem... society's narrowminded nature... oh well, I guess it can't be helped...

*Classic*Charm*

04-17-2008, 12:52 AM

Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.

I have to disagree with you Metal. To say that matters like this are none of our business is to bury our heads in the sand. What about sexual abuse of children? In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?

metal134

04-17-2008, 01:10 AM

That is our business because there's a victim. But what consensual adults do is none of our business.

islandclimber

04-17-2008, 01:15 AM

I have to disagree with you Metal. To say that matters like this are none of our business is to bury our heads in the sand. What about sexual abuse of children? In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?

wow!!! again I have to ask: are you serious????

You are comparing incest to child molestation???

child molestation is abusing the defenseless... incest where there is only love involved is hurting no one... no matter what anyone says... seriously.... tell me who it actually harms.... and explain to me how... I would like to know... I really would... tell me how it harms just the normal person... the person who doesn't self inflict the harm upon themselves by getting all worked up and disgusted over the issue...

and by saying that in some cultures it is normal for children to have sexual experience with adults, you are only supporting the argument that thousands of years of culturally developed moralities mean nothing at all... zip... zilch... zero... nothing.... for if thousands of years of moral development lead to the idea that it is okay for adults to be sexually intimate with children.. well then I think it is safe to assume that just because a morality has been progressing for hundreds or thousands of years, it doesn't mean a thing with regard to being right in my books, or in another culture's viewpoint...

I am done with this thread... I have only found self-righteousness here... we are all human... we all have flaws... we all have perversities, if you would like to call them that... we all are different and that is what makes us interesting... that is what makes us unique... that is what makes us essentially human: the fact we choose for ourselves, our own path, our own nature, our own morality... everything a single human being does is natural, essentially, to that person... this is obvious... whether it is natural to all humans is an absurd point to ponder... there are no objective and universal laws in the universe.. none whatsoever... just theories.. and one may have faith in a theory, but at the same time they need to respect everyone else's right to have faith in their own ideas and theories! this should be obvious, but it is apparent from this thread and well my experience with humanity in general that this respect is seriously lacking... I am no judge of others, and I do not and will not ever judge another human being for doing something that harms no one... I will not, myself, even judge a human being for anything... who made me god... I try to love every single thing on this planet, as everything deserves love, whatsoever it is they may have done.... in my opinion the only immorality is something that harms someone else... everything else... and I repeat, everything else is moral!! in my opinion... but the narrowmindedness will prevail, as it always does, and people will continue persecuting others for being different, however harmless.. I guess if their is a natural law, it would be this... that humans persecute anyone different from the norm... whether it be the religiously different, the sexually different, the physically different, the mentally different... the fundamental fact of human history is that difference has always been persecuted...

goodnight.

metal134

04-17-2008, 01:37 AM

In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?
I would also add to this that I am completely unconcerned with what they do in other cultures. Did you know that in other cultures, they find eating beef to be about one of the worst crimes you can commit? So should we be worrying about what other cultures are thinking or doing?

And islandclimber pretty much hit the nail squarley on the head.

*Classic*Charm*

04-17-2008, 01:38 AM

I am most desperately sorry for having offended anyone. This was never my intention. My argument was to the extreme and I am sincerely sorry.

Please allow me to clarify my position. My argument refers to incestuous couples having children. Of course it is no one's business what two consensual adults do, and I would absolutely never take away from the love between two people, no matter what their relationship.

I do, however, believe that there are some things for which every couple should be accountable. That, of course, is having a child. I do not think it is fair for anyone to bring a child into the world when there is such a high risk that the child will have serious health issues. To intentionally give birth to child whose life will be one of hardship is not fair, in my eyes. Is this child not, in a small way, a victim?Of Course, I know that this is not always the case, and I do not mean to imply that the couple could not be the most capable, loving, and devoted parents. I do, however, think that there are other ways if such a couple wishes to be parents.

Again, my most sincere apologies. I certainly do not mean to offend and I'll be more careful about my rash choice of words in the future.

metal134

04-17-2008, 01:54 AM

I do, however, believe that there are some things for which every couple should be accountable. That, of course, is having a child. I do not think it is fair for anyone to bring a child into the world when there is such a high risk that the child will have serious health issues. To intentionally give birth to child whose life will be one of hardship is not fair, in my eyes. Is this child not, in a small way, a victim?Of Course, I know that this is not always the case, and I do not mean to imply that the couple could not be the most capable, loving, and devoted parents. I do, however, think that there are other ways if such a couple wishes to be parents.
But again, what about two people in a non-incestous relationship who have serious genetic problems with a high risk of passing it on to their children? Should they then be barred from having children?

*Classic*Charm*

04-17-2008, 01:59 AM

I'm not saying anyone should be barred, or that they shouldn't! I'm not naive enough to think that that could or should ever happen. I'm simply saying that they have a much greater responsibility when deciding to take on such an endeavour.

metal134

04-17-2008, 02:45 AM

Of course they do. But I'm just pointing out the fallacy of using the potential gentic problems as a reason for criminalization of incest. I've heard all of the arguments and I agree that there are many negatives. I just haven't seen or heard anything compelling enough to warrant a law.

mahishi

04-17-2008, 04:09 AM

According to my point of view ,I think its not good,but they can love each other.

Virgil

04-17-2008, 08:35 AM

Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.

Correct. Not everything that is disgusting and perverse should be illegal. Just things that have a detrimental effect to society. And I think there is a solid case for that when it comes to incest.

I'm actually sick of this thread. I've made my case. I've listened to the counter arguments. I'm not going to change my mind. I'm done.

kelby_lake

04-18-2008, 11:41 AM

yep. we aren't exactly going to change each other's mind so it's agreeing to disagree

barbara0207

04-29-2008, 06:14 PM

This case is not about brother and sister, but father and daughter, but I thought I'd post it here. Most of you may have heard about it already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news.jhtml

papayahed

04-29-2008, 06:15 PM

I was wondering if someone was going to post about that.

barbara0207

04-29-2008, 06:25 PM

I was wondering if someone was going to post about that.

Do you disapprove (of posting it, I mean?)

I was wondering how a crime like that could go unnoticed by family, friends, neighbours and authorities. Or did people just keep their mouths shut?

papayahed

04-29-2008, 06:34 PM

Do you disapprove (of posting it, I mean?)

I was wondering how a crime like that could go unnoticed by family, friends, neighbours and authorities. Or did people just keep their mouths shut?

I don't disapprove (I was thinking about posting it myself).

I was wondering the same thing? Didn't the wife/mother/grandmother say she didn't know?

barbara0207

04-29-2008, 06:38 PM

Yes, she did. But I can't imagine she had no idea or at least suspicion. But Fritzl is said to be a tyrant. Perhaps she did not dare to say anything because she was too afraid.

papayahed

04-29-2008, 06:48 PM

Yes, she did. But I can't imagine she had no idea or at least suspicion. But Fritzl is said to be a tyrant. Perhaps she did not dare to say anything because she was too afraid.

That's true, an article said that three of the kids grew up with the grandparents, how did people not wonder where those three came from?

barbara0207

04-29-2008, 06:54 PM

Fritzl told them his daughter was living with a sect now and, being unable to raise her children, had laid the newborn babies at his door. But credulous must you be to believe that?

Virgil

04-29-2008, 08:42 PM

This case is not about brother and sister, but father and daughter, but I thought I'd post it here. Most of you may have heard about it already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news.jhtml

I saw it in yesterday's newspaper. Absolutely incredible that it could go on for 24 years. It's hard to believe she couldn't have had an opportunity to escape. I hope this man gets the harshest of punishment. Frankly he's lowest of the low.

metal134

04-29-2008, 08:48 PM

I would love to hear his justification. That would be amusing.

SleepyWitch

04-30-2008, 01:51 AM

I hope this man gets the harshest of punishment. Frankly he's lowest of the low.

I hope so, too.
He must have planned everything so meticulously and his whole life must have revolved around locking up those ppl and heaving children with his daughter.... I don't see what anyone gets out of planning such a crime and basing his whole life on it... :confused: :mad:

Sweets America

04-30-2008, 02:22 AM

I can't believe people put this in the incest thread. That has nothing to do with incest between consenting people, it's RAPE and abuse. You people really use any means to reach your end, but I hope some people out there will avoid falling into the trap of "incest is wrong" because of this video.

vheissu

04-30-2008, 06:22 AM

Sweets America

04-30-2008, 06:31 AM

Sweets I think you have a fair point: this last case is one of rape and abuse, even if the victim was that horrible's man daughter, so it doesn't really relate to the what this thread has been discussing.

Since it has been brought up though here and not anywhere else:

I just read that Fritzl will probably get 15 years of imprisonment. Which I thought unfair, he should get at least the same amount of time that his daughter and the 3 kids were locked up for.
The wife has apparently been cleared of not knowing anything. Which I just can't believe: how can you live with someone and not pick up, even slightly, on their manners and moods? Wasn't she even suspicious that something was going on?

The saddest part will be for the victims to get used to life 'outside'.

Thanks, at least one person understands my point. :p
I don't know about his wife not knowing about the situation. I think that it's possible to live with someone, think you know them very well and actually you realize one day that you never really knew them. That's scary, but I think that's possible, some people are real manipulators. There has been another story like that, I think it was in France, about a woman who was married and had three kids and she killed all the babies and put them into the freezer. Her husband was never aware that she was pregant until he found the freezed babies. Well, he claimed he was not aware of it. But I think this might be possible.

Yeah, the kids will have to get used to life outside now, but the sad thing is that life outside is not necessarily great either.

Virgil

04-30-2008, 10:26 AM

You're point is well noted Sweets. :)

kelby_lake

04-30-2008, 11:11 AM

It's horrible and all the more worse because it's incestuous

SleepyWitch

04-30-2008, 01:36 PM

I just read that Fritzl will probably get 15 years of imprisonment. Which I thought unfair, he should get at least the same amount of time that his daughter and the 3 kids were locked up for.

yeah, vheissu, I agree with you. I don't know about the law in Austria, but I think in Germany a "life" sentence means a maximum of 15 years (or maybe it was 25?). I think they can't actually lock anyone up for their whole life or 999 years like in the US (I might have got it wrong, though). :mad:
edit: I did get it wrong, it's theminimum that's 15 years, not the maximum. but in practice, they normally don't lock up an old man for longer than that, assuming that a) he will die before the end of the sentence anyway and b) that an old person deserves to spend their final days outside of prison, even a perverted criminal

Nightshade

04-30-2008, 01:52 PM

humm I was wondering if this thread would be woken up, but here is my question isnt what he did just "evil" on its own with out the incest bit being added into the mix, surley he should be getting the same punishment eitther way, yes the incest additin was twisted and horrid but any man keeping a woman in a dugenon for 24 years deserves server punishment.

barbara0207

04-30-2008, 05:04 PM

Sweets America

04-30-2008, 05:08 PM

Sorry I posted it here. I see your point, sweets. I didn't think about the implications for people who are for incest between consenting adults. (Just don't call me "people" next time you want to reproach me. :) )

Yes, I see what you mean about 'people'. :blush: I hesitated between that and 'barbara' but I thought it was not only about you, more about those who would use what you posted to back up the idea that incest was wrong.

barbara0207

04-30-2008, 05:27 PM

Yes, I see what you mean about 'people'. :blush: I hesitated between that and 'barbara' but I thought it was not only about you, more about those who would use what you posted to back up the idea that incest was wrong.

I had completely forgotten about the heated discussion concerning consenting adults, I just thought this might be something for the incest thread. Of course, Nightshade is right in a way.

here is my question isnt what he did just "evil" on its own with out the incest bit being added into the mix, surley he should be getting the same punishment eitther way, yes the incest additin was twisted and horrid but any man keeping a woman in a dugenon for 24 years deserves server punishment.

However, I wouldn't call it "incest bit", that makes it seem too harmless. A parent is usually someone a child trusts, and abusing your own daughter is one of the most horrid things you can do to your offspring - short of murdering them. Perhaps it's even worse than murder - because by abusing her and imprisoning her he killed her soul.

mad_troll

01-19-2009, 09:24 PM

Brother and Sister consensual incest is o.k. Look at ancient Egyptians.

librarius_qui

01-20-2009, 01:07 AM

No, without the exclam mark ... (Which was why I didn't vote.)

The Torah forbids it. So do the Greeks. & The Romans ... Is there any legislator in their mind that thinks it to be healthy?!

Zee.

01-20-2009, 02:10 AM

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAhA

Oh this thread is hilarious.

Incest is unnatural. Period.

AshleyEliz

01-20-2009, 03:31 PM

I simply just... see it as wrong.

Plus, I'm sure science can show that there are definitely SOME medical conditions that can be attributed to incest.

But I don't really know.
I just think it's, for lack of a better work, icky.

JacobF

01-20-2009, 05:17 PM

This is an interesting situation because you'd think, all past incidents involving 'forced' incest aside, that two consenting adults have the right to participate in a sexual act that does not harm any other parties. But as others have mentioned there are repercussions to incest, like genetic deformities. I hate using children as a reason to choose one side of an issue, because it's so trite and abused in this society, however I think this is one situation where we must think of children. Just because two adults want to indulge in their sexual fantasies does not mean a child they bring into the world should suffer for it. Plus, I don't think its in anyones best interest to bring genetically inferior human beings into the world (on purpose).

Obviously, not all couples who engage in incest are going to reproduce -- they would ideally use protection -- but not every one of them will. And sterilization does not seem viable to me. If a couple were to engage in incest and didn't want to have a child they would use a condom. So, I think incest should be illegal. But my main gripe with the OP's question is that, even if a law was passed, consensual couples would probably still engage in incest. It's not like killing a bunch of people where it's obvious that you've committed a crime -- it's behind closed doors.

Joreads

01-20-2009, 05:45 PM

No, without the exclam mark ... (Which was why I didn't vote.)

The Torah forbids it. So do the Greeks. & The Romans ... Is there any legislator in their mind that thinks it to be healthy?!

I am with Lib here NO!

Virgil

01-20-2009, 09:28 PM

I am with Lib here NO!

If you read through the thread you will see that some people amazingly support it. Unbelievable. Moral relativism at its worst.

sprinks

01-21-2009, 03:55 AM

I can't believe this got woken up!

Silas Thorne

01-21-2009, 04:20 AM

I think it's great! ;) We can all slowly devolve back into fish people, like in the stories of the great prophet H.P. Lovecraft.

Silas Thorne

01-21-2009, 04:26 AM

And bring back lead pipes!

Joreads

01-21-2009, 05:41 AM

If you read through the thread you will see that some people amazingly support it. Unbelievable. Moral relativism at its worst.

Oh I didn't go to far back and now I am glad that I didn't

sprinks

01-21-2009, 05:46 AM

Oh I didn't go to far back and now I am glad that I didn't

Yeah it isn't worth it. We never got anywhere, there was a reason we all stopped discussing it!!

Silas Thorne

01-21-2009, 06:51 AM

oh and I also voted: No, exclamation mark.

*Classic*Charm*

01-21-2009, 04:29 PM

Wow this thread got nasty a long time ago, Im surprised it wasn't locked!

I'll just say that the Genetics homework sitting in front of me is saying it might not be such a good idea...

optimisticnad

01-21-2009, 04:45 PM

Oh Sleepy, please. How repulsive to even think this. Come on.

I'm totally with you. Has everyone gone bonkers? Eugh.

My question - once you start thinking incest between siblings is 'ok' 'tolerable' - then next you'll be saying father/daughter mother/son is ok too. And no, I'm not exaggerating. I mean why not if you think its ok between siblings? There are no logical arguments against it because it has nothing to do with logic in the first place! I didn't no threads like this existed. Wow.

kandaurov

01-21-2009, 05:39 PM

"Marriages with cousins,” said Mrs. Swithin, “can’t be good for the teeth."
Virginia Woolf, in Between the Acts

This is very interesting indeed.

Incest used to be common practice. According to the Bible, all Mankind is the product of an incestuous relationship, since Adam and Eve were the only humans and, moreover, had no daughters. In Odyssey, the keeper of the winds, if I remember correctly, had 12 sons and daughters, all of which were intermarried. Up until some centuries ago, the typical aristocratic family was essentially a group of inbreds.

But as you’ve said, genetics-wise, incest is a bad idea. It weakens us, deforms us, under the ruthless “survival of the fittest” rule we wouldn’t have stood a chance back when utmost physical health was vital to our existence.

To prevent this, we have attached to incest an incredibly powerful stigma (the most powerful one, alongside that attached to rape) in order to disencourage us from practicing it. That’s why we feel such visceral disgust when the very topic of “incest” is brought about”.

I’m happy to see that the proposal for decriminalisation of incest was met with such fierce resistance, but all I want is you to understand exactly why you feel this way. You can’t just say it’s wrong. It’s important to at least realise a) that we react like this because we’re influenced by an inhibiting stigma, and b) why does the stigma exist.

Having said that, I’d vote like Lib would: no. Not no with exclamation mark, because that would be my irrational response to it, but no all the same, for the abovementioned reasons.

Zee.

01-21-2009, 06:06 PM

It's unnatural. I mean, we all know the genetic deformities that come of it. That should be your answer right there. If it goes against nature, which it does, it is - to me, wrong.
But i'm talking about instances when they have children...

And even if they didn't - it's just.. icky.

atiguhya padma

01-21-2009, 06:47 PM

Incest, if it produces offspring, is wrong. Simply because, genetically it is unfair and irresponsible for brothers to father their sisters children, as this creates all kinds of genetic problems. In fact, in the Muslim community, where first cousins frequently marry and inter-breed there are a higher percentage of genetic problems in children than in the general populace.

Take out the reproductive element, however, and the 'wrongness' of incest becomes less obvious. In fact, other than possible psychological problems that might occur with incestuous relationships, I cannot see where non-productive incestuous sex is wrong. In fact, I'm not even sure that psychological problems would necessarily arise in such relationships. I once knew this girl who kind of hero-worshipped her brother. One day she told me how she had seen him almost naked in the house, and as she told me this, I knew that she had at some point developed a crush on him, maybe even still did. I never really thought of that as anything to be ashamed of, or to keep hidden. But it was certainly a feeling to be careful about.

Zee.

01-21-2009, 07:06 PM

Its not just irresponsible but it's like I said.. unnatural. Children or not.

kandaurov

01-21-2009, 07:07 PM

Point well taken, padma, and I understand how you're trying to undermine the moral (more like visceral?) argument. But the original question must be answered, and it concerns legalisation. How do you monitor whether it is for reproduction or pleasure? If you were to legalise incest when not practiced for reproduction purposes you would be creating a dangerous precedent which would most certainly result in the birth of many inbred children.

Zee.

01-21-2009, 07:13 PM

Incestural ( I don't even think that's a word.. ) relationships of any kind, children or not...

wow.

I don't think there should be any hesitation about this matter.
The whole idea makes me sick.

Put aside culture, religion, personal.. whatever it may be, we all know what can come as a result of it. It is, like i've said quite a lot in this thread -
unnatural.

kandaurov

01-21-2009, 07:24 PM

Well yes, it's supposed to make you sick. Like I've said in the other page, there's a powerful stigma attached to incest. But I think we should be able to discuss incest; indeed, we should be able to discuss anything; otherwise we are full of dogmas instead of thought-through opinions. Taboos go against everything I believe in, and what I believe in is that everything is debatable, and that if you're right on any matter at all, than you should be able to prove it with logic and arguments.

All I'm saying is that we won't go very far if we roadblock some roads just because they're slippery.

Virgil

01-21-2009, 07:29 PM

I not going to get back into this repulsive argument. This was my case in post #79 earlier in this thread:

Wow, what a raging debate. Sorry i had to miss this last night. I had a personal emergency and couldn't get on to lit net. And what's a debate without Virgil sticking his two cents in.

There are a number of points to respond to, but so many that it will be impossible to respond to them all. First, I think Wikipedia has a very intersting entry on incest. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest. But let me pull out some highlights.

Quote:
Virtually all societies have some form of incest avoidance.[1][2] The incest taboo is one of the most common of all taboos. Most modern societies have legal or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages.[3] Although not universal, incest constitutes a cultural taboo in most current nations and many past societies,[4] with legal penalties in some places. In some societies, like Ancient Egypt, brother–sister, father–daughter and mother–son relations were practiced.[5][6]

Which family members constitute those covered by the incest prohibition is determined by the society in which the persons live. Some societies consider it to include only those related by birth or those who live in the same household; other societies further include those related by adoption, marriage, or clan.[7]

Quote:
Some researchers hypothesize that humans have a kin recognition ability that functions in part to enable incest avoidance between close relatives, thereby protecting the gene pool of the family or tribe from excessive damage by inbreeding; and, that this kin recognition system may form a biological basis for social and psychological prohibitions against incest. [12]

Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity (the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair). This occurs because close relatives are much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals. This is especially important for recessive alleles that happen to be deleterious, which are harmless and inactive in a heterozygous pairing but, when homozygous, can cause serious developmental defects. Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call inbreeding depression, a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes, which can contain various genetic problems, appear more often in the offspring of procreative couplings whose members both have the same gene. For example, the child of persons who are both hemophiliac has a nearly 100% chance of having hemophilia.

Quote:
Psychology

Presumably because of the genetic harm done, animals inbreed only in extremely unusual circumstances: major population bottlenecks and forced artificial selection by animal husbandry. Pusey & Worf (1996) and Penn & Potts (1999) both found evidence that some species possess evolved psychological aversions to inbreeding, via kin-recognition heuristics.

Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans should possess similar psychological mechanisms. The Westermarck effect, that children who are raised together during the first five to ten years of life have inhibited sexual desire toward one another, is one strong piece of evidence in favor of this. In what is now a key study of the Westermarck hypothesis, anthropologist Melford E. Spiro demonstrated that inbreeding aversion between siblings is predictably linked to co-residency. In a cohort study of children raised communally (as if siblings) in the Kiryat Yedidim kibbutz in the 1950s, Spiro found practically no intermarriage between his subjects as adults, despite positive pressure from parents and community. The social experience of having grown up as brothers and sisters created an incest aversion, even though the children were genetically unrelated.

Further studies have supported the hypothesis that some psychological mechanisms cause children who grow up together to lack sexual attraction to one another. Spiro's study is corroborated by Fox (1962), who found similar results in Israeli kibbutzim. Wolf and Huang (1980) reported similar aversions in Taiwanese "child marriages", in which the future wife was brought into the family and raised with her fiancé. Such marriages were notoriously difficult to consummate and led to decreased fertility of the marriage. Lieberman et al. (2003) found that childhood co-residency with an opposite-sex sibling (biologically related or not) was significantly correlated with moral repugnance toward third-party sibling incest.[12]

Quote:
Laws against adult incest are sometimes questioned on the grounds that such relations do not harm other people and so should not be criminalized. Some legal systems no longer criminalize adult incest. The French Criminal Code removed its incest prohibition long ago, and other countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Israel, Argentina, Brazil as well as a few other Latin American countries and several U.S. states have followed suit. In most countries where the crime of adult incest has been abolished, acts of incest involving a minor are still punishable.

From time to time proposals have been made for the repeal of incest laws, for example, the proposal in Australia by the Model Criminal Code Officer's Committee in the November 1996 discussion paper "Sexual Offences against the Person". This particular proposal was later withdrawn by the Committee due to a large public outcry. Defenders of the proposal argue, however, that the outcry was mostly based on the mistaken belief that the committee was intending to legalize sexual relations between parents and their minor children.

One thing to keep in mind is that the wiki entry conflates all types of incest into a general term, while we are particularly speaking of sibling incest, even something less dubuious as cousin incest. For me, the key paragragh is the one on psychology which I'll requote here:

Quote:
Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans should possess similar psychological mechanisms. The Westermarck effect, that children who are raised together during the first five to ten years of life have inhibited sexual desire toward one another, is one strong piece of evidence in favor of this. In what is now a key study of the Westermarck hypothesis, anthropologist Melford E. Spiro demonstrated that inbreeding aversion between siblings is predictably linked to co-residency. In a cohort study of children raised communally (as if siblings) in the Kiryat Yedidim kibbutz in the 1950s, Spiro found practically no intermarriage between his subjects as adults, despite positive pressure from parents and community. The social experience of having grown up as brothers and sisters created an incest aversion, even though the children were genetically unrelated.

The basis of my argument rests on this: that brother/sister love is fundementally different than romantic love and to cross the two would be a perversion that would have essentially destroy the family unit and therefore undermine society. Now, you can pull that apart and say what consititutes the family as the basic social unit, but centuries of cultural formation has built it and to destroy it would be chaos. Moral laws are by nature evolved to sustain society. And people are civilized to establish moral boundaries. Civilization equates to moral boundaries. Something like sibling incest requires a moral boundary.

As to the specific case, I still doubt that these adults had no notion that siblings could not do this. They are using it as an excuse to get out of criminal prosecution. Two years does strike me as a harsh penalty for this, but then again I'm not sure what the right penalty is. Certainly changing the marriage laws to accomodate this perversion is out of the question.

Let me reiterate and highlight my main argument:
The basis of my argument rests on this: that brother/sister love is fundementally different than romantic love and to cross the two would be a perversion that would have essentially destroy the family unit and therefore undermine society.

kandaurov

01-21-2009, 07:39 PM

Well Virgil, since you've stated your opinion so clearly earlier you really don't have to get back into this argument. Your point is well taken. You might feel strongly about it, but certainly we're allowed to have this debate, right? If only to confirm your suspicions. Hell, I myself would have voted "no". Just trying to keep an open mind and see how opposing views defend themselves.

optimisticnad

01-22-2009, 09:40 AM

kandaurov

01-22-2009, 05:30 PM

Opti, I respect and to some extent understand your opinion. However, this has to be the first time my having an open mind has been criticised just because the subject matter is "gross", or, which would be far worse, taboo.

You know what, this is really not worth it. I can see this is a sensitive issue to some people and I'm not here to pick up fights. I'm not posting here anymore, no point being mistaken for a sick pervert when all I want is us to be able to debate every possible issue. May this be a lesson to me. Virgil, you're a good man, Opti, you're great fun. Forgive me if I offended either of you in any way.

Niamh

01-23-2009, 01:26 PM

In fact, in the Muslim community, where first cousins frequently marry and inter-breed there are a higher percentage of genetic problems in children than in the general populace.

I think you will find its not just some muslim communities that marry their first or second cousin (think its third cousins that is taboo), but a lot of western countries (alot of christian countires i might add) have done this in the past, especially amongst the gentry. (see mansfeild park by Austen for an example.) And i'm sure there are still people that do. I worked with a guy who had been seeing his cousin for a couple of years. A brother and sister on the other hand, i dont think is right and definitely NOT and parent and child. There has just been a big incest case over here.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0122/breaking32.htm

optimisticnad

01-23-2009, 05:21 PM

You know what, this is really not worth it. I can see this is a sensitive issue to some people and I'm not here to pick up fights. I'm not posting here anymore, no point being mistaken for a sick pervert when all I want is us to be able to debate every possible issue. May this be a lesson to me. Virgil, you're a good man, Opti, you're great fun. Forgive me if I offended either of you in any way.

:blush: you've not offended me at all. i hope i haven't offended you either. i just feel quite strongly, as do you. it's great that you have an open mind but i feel like some issues just aren't debatable - like you wouldn't tell someone 'oh i'm trying to keep an open mind about what Hitler did.' Now how wrong does that sound? That's how i feel about this topic, it's like you telling me to you'e keeping an open mind about mass genocide. wrong. and there's no logical reason against it is there? there's moral, as with this issue.

atiguhya padma

01-26-2009, 01:41 PM

There is a huge gulf between the moral issues revolving around Hitlers activities and the question of incest. I can't believe the two can be considered equivalent.

Taliesin

01-26-2009, 04:55 PM

:blush: you've not offended me at all. i hope i haven't offended you either. i just feel quite strongly, as do you. it's great that you have an open mind but i feel like some issues just aren't debatable - like you wouldn't tell someone 'oh i'm trying to keep an open mind about what Hitler did.' Now how wrong does that sound? That's how i feel about this topic, it's like you telling me to you'e keeping an open mind about mass genocide. wrong. and there's no logical reason against it is there? there's moral, as with this issue.

I call Godwins law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law) on your post.
I am afraid you just lost the debate.

For my two cents, I myself don't really feel that I am in the position to throw stones at other peoples sexual habits - the argument that it feels icky is a question of aesthetics and not ethics.

The argument that it can produce children that have genetic problems is plausible, however, what if they don't? Why not criminalize having children between relatives if that is the problem and not the all incesters - plus, the incest law in UK apparently also covers step-brothers and -sisters and homosexual incest - in that case it seems absurd.

The argument that it can be difficult to be fully consenting with a person who is a relative - well, if they are both adults and have agreed to it, then it is their problem and theirs only - if it messes up their heads then too bad - regular couples manage to mess each other up too. It is not the business of others.

The argument that it destroys the social system. Well, I have been hearing a quite similar argument against gay civil union laws here which probably explains why this argument especially annoys me (together with the "icky and unnatural" argument".)
Well, first, as Virgil cited, people tend to have a high natural aversion against incest - which means that only a tiny per cent will ever do it. Which means that they really wouldn't be much noticed anyway.
Call me naive, if you wish, but somehow I think that what forms ones' family as the cornerstone of society is the love and other warm fuzzy feelings and towards each other - and not what some other two people somewhere else are doing in their beds.
I wonder if sex between relatives would be decriminalized, would it decrease the feelings you have for your family? Would you suddenly feel that all your family relationships are suddenly a total mess and would need to go to a psychiatrist because a few folks somewhere are doing things the way you find distasteful?
Somehow, I think not.

Amundsen

01-26-2009, 05:28 PM

hmmm. And what about legal murder? Stalin or Hitler as a saint? Burning books? Watching executions in TV? Or I can be your new god? Incest isn't good thing. That's my opinion. I don't force you take my opinion but in judging what will be good and what will be bad be wise, very wise. Incest with you brothers and sisters.

Taliesin

01-27-2009, 03:05 AM

How many times do I have to call Godwins law on this topic?

kandaurov

01-27-2009, 05:20 AM

Tal, do like I did and just stop trying. This is going nowhere...

optimisticnad

01-27-2009, 08:27 AM

Tal, do like I did and just stop trying. This is going nowhere...

:brickwall

Just move on. Plenty more topics to discuss....

I'm all up for freedom of speech but not when it's for the sake of provoking others. After this post I refuse to come here again. Good day.

Calidore

09-28-2013, 07:39 PM

Wow, the threads you come across when looking down search results....

Volya

09-28-2013, 09:12 PM

I'm surprised that the vast majority of people voted 'No'. I thought most people here were open-minded.

AuntShecky

09-29-2013, 12:56 AM

In the context of the Internet, this is an extremely "old" thread.

You can't really discuss this topic as a real life possibility-- there's too much of a "yick!" factor. But it does appear in literature. It exists as a theme in mythology (the ancient gods and goddesses.) By the way, whom did Adam and Eve's children marry? Back in '09 some Litnutter mentioned "Middlesex," an excellent novel by Jeffrey Eugenides, but a century earlier Thomas Mann had a short story (maybe a novella) about a brother and sister. The title was their names, but I can't think of it! I believe the boy and girl shared their names with characters in the Ring cycle. Anybody know what the title
is?

Volya

09-29-2013, 04:56 AM

I just find it remarkably bigoted that most people seem to think that just because they personally find it disgusting (as I do too, the notion of having sex with one of my siblings is horrific to be quite frank) that means other people should not be allowed to do it. It's not as though it hurts anyone else (with the possible exception of their children, but we haven't made lots of other things that hurt children illegal).

papayahed

09-29-2013, 10:12 AM

Well this is a blast from the past.... Good Times, Good Times...

cacian

09-30-2013, 04:37 AM

oh my should even the question arise how does one begin let alone be.
anyway it is not about legality people would still what they want to do.
it is about the concept. I guess it is the pharaohs all around.

Oedipus

09-30-2013, 10:02 AM

Reproduction has to be avoided; or the fetus screened for genetic problems and aborted if they have them. The thing itself is alright; if consensual - why shouldn't it be? People had the same reaction about miscegenation once.

tonywalt

10-03-2013, 01:30 PM

I had two male cousins who dated each other. Didn't bother me and there's no risk of a 'special needs' child.

SentimentalSlop

10-11-2013, 08:05 PM

Buh4Bee

10-13-2013, 09:20 PM

Personally, incest to any degree does not sit well with me. But if two consenting adult siblings want to hit the sack, I guess what they do in privacy is their private business.

cacian

10-20-2013, 05:09 AM

For the people who are offended that more people on here aren't "open-minded" enough, what does open-mindedness really mean to you? Just blindly condoning everything or considering the arguments from both angles and thinking them over carefully before coming to a conclusion? The latter is the real thing. The first one is just stupidity and refusing to think. I am not saying that if you support incest you're stupid, but don't be offended if not everyone supports it for other reasons.

i agree. open mindedness is to recognise that other people may differ in opinions.
incest is medically/genetically wrong to start with and that should be enough to deter people from doing it.
two of my mother's cousins married and have two grown up children who are now both on wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.
same blood situation. .
i went to school with this girl who use to sit next to me. she was tall blond and quite nice looking but she was completely disabled. she could not talk walk properly. she was disabled from head to toe. here parents were cousins. again same blood situation. i felt sorry for her.
it was not her fault.

not a very nice thing to do incest. you could imagine the worseness of it even more when tow siblings are it. utter wrongness for the reasons i stated.

cacian

10-20-2013, 05:14 AM

I'm surprised that the vast majority of people voted 'No'. I thought most people here were open-minded.

open minded about incest?
open mindedness is to accept that other people would have a different opinion from you.
that is what it means. incest is not right to the majority of people and that is an opinion that must be accepted. that is open mindedness.

cacian

10-20-2013, 05:15 AM

Personally, incest to any degree does not sit well with me. But if two consenting adult siblings want to hit the sack, I guess what they do in privacy is their private business.

indeed LOL it is them it is not you. you can't stop it but you can prevent it.

cacian

10-20-2013, 05:29 AM

How many times do I have to call Godwins law on this topic?

how is Godwin to do with it Taliesin? i live on Godwin road as it happens ;)
Freudian slip may have a take on it or two.

Delta40

10-20-2013, 05:45 AM

I don't believe incest is right and I'm not referring to 'incest property' laws which bore no threat of inbreeding but was self serving marital laws from the dark ages classified as incest to ensure that families didn't lose their property. I mean incest in its truest form both as a moral and biological wrong - although there is probably a stronger argument for the biological but I don't have any shame in throwing my moral standard in here for good measure having been a victim of incest myself. Having said that, it doesn't take experience to know that incest is a moral wrong. As responsible beings, we can discern rights and wrongs without having to be subject to them. It just means we have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the affect the wrong can have upon us if we do experience it.

Oedipus

10-21-2013, 04:48 AM

Most of the arguments against non-reproductive, consensual incest - what we are, in the main, discussing here - center around two main themes.

The first is rationalisation of personal dislike; I would argue that you shouldn't oppose two people of age doing a thing they both wish to do because - simply and entirely - it makes you feel 'icky'. Remember that only a few decades ago, or even less, we would have seen exactly the same arguments used against gay and lesbian couples - in fact you can modify many of these arguments to refer to homosexuals without too much modification, and the arguments have the same merit in both cases.

The other is a resort to the naturalistic fallacy - again, for the longest time, homosexuality was 'unnatural', and now, because of a different set of biases in society, it is not. Exactly the same could happen for incest.

Again I do not refer to incest that results in reproduction. Today, however, we have any number of ways to prevent birth; and we do not prevent two people with recessive genes that could result in defects from reproducing, if they are not related: why is this different?

Delta40

10-21-2013, 08:04 AM

You can put that argument forward if you like. I guess some sisters like their brothers to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make incest illegal.

What about the ick factor of consent? I mean can you f uck the family dog as well even though it can't actually say ok? And if that's the case, why the need to ask for a family member's permission? I'm sure there are families that bring the meaning of 'honour thy father and mother' to a whole new level anyway without ever having 'asked' but were raised to do as they were told. What do you have to say to this sort of practice?

Eman Resu

10-21-2013, 09:33 AM

What about the ick factor of consent? I mean can you f uck the family dog as well even though it can't actually say ok?

I wish that I could see the correlation here between non-consensual sexual relations with animals and consensual relations between people who are related by accident of birth. According to the recent Vegetarian Times study, more than 300 million people in America alone don't subscribe to vegetarianism, and yet none of them seems concerned with obtaining the consent of the animals they eat, so I don't see much validity in a once-removed comparison at all, but for the vegetarian, there's one heckuvan "ick factor" in other people eating animals without their consent.

I'm sure there are families that bring the meaning of 'honour thy father and mother' to a whole new level anyway....

Again, I'm uncertain what Ephesians 6:2, or Deuteronomy 5:16 (or the Fourth or Fifth Commandment, depending upon your slant on Life) is doing here, but I'd always thought that these verses were geared primarily toward obedience in Children, so as to make order out of chaos. Wouldn't "****ing" someone with whom you shared no Love - no intimacy on the intellectual, emotional nor Spiritual levels - be at least as dishonourable to one's Parents as would enjoying physical intimacy with a Cousin with whom you already shared Love, intellectual intimacy, emotional intimacy and Spiritual intimacy? I suppose that would depend upon one's Parents in the end. Those who referred to sexual congress within a Loving relationship as "****ing" - and who encouraged their progeny to do likewise - probably wouldn't feel particularly "dishonoured" that their offspring were communing with one another anyway.

cacian

10-21-2013, 09:46 AM

Delta40

10-21-2013, 10:06 AM

I don't use the word love when it comes to incest. I love my brother but that's because he's my brother and I don't see why my love for him should be used to justify incest. Sure, we can have 'nice' incest and 'bad' incest if you like. Consensual incest where two family members love each other and say it's ok to be intimate with each other and those who don't actually get afforded such a privilege but are raised in an environment where such practices are the norm but incest is incest however it gets dressed. Either way, I object to it.

Someone I once knew bore the child of her father and is now a chronic alcoholic. He was a very gentle, loving parent and she trusted him always and strove to please him in every way possibly imaginable. She was coerced through love into that situation. It wasn't her who reported him and she was distraught when he went to jail. Her father could not deal with her husband taking his place and things just fell apart for him - that's how the child came about.

Your comments are baseless. You don't ask bugs or flora if it's ok to kill them either so get off your circle of life high horse. This isn't a biblical debate thread (I was being witty - get a SOH) You are well acquainted with the other two threads that would welcome them!

Volya

10-21-2013, 11:09 AM

Delta40

10-21-2013, 11:18 AM

Volya

10-21-2013, 11:29 AM

Volya I hear what you're saying but even you are putting a standard on incest. So long as it is consensual. So long as it is non-reproductive. It's the same argument when people say that abortion is ok so long as..... You're either ok with incest 100% no matter how it comes about or you're 100% against it. Who are you to pick and choose when it's ok and when it's not ok? Should family members submit incest application forms and get approval from you based on criteria?

Why do I have to be 100% for or against it?

Who am I to pick and choose? Who are you to outright ban people from doing it? I know that the majority of people think it should be illegal and that the odds are it will never be legal in my lifetime, but that shouldn't stop me from putting forward my opinion of it and doing my best to change the minds of others.

cacian

10-21-2013, 11:43 AM

Delta, I don't understand how you can't see you are being just as prejudiced as a homophobe.

There is nothing wrong with incest as long as it is consensual and is non-reproductive. I personally find the notion gross, I also find the idea of putting my penis in another man's mouth to be gross, but I have no problem if other people want to do that in their own time.

incest is not healthy it is something no one should practice. the whole idea is that you have a brother and a sister a family and that you keep it at that. it is family. intimacy is to be practiced outside the family circle because it is healthier and people go on reproducing to make more families. to say there is nothing with it is not the way forward. those who practice incest suffer deep seated psychological issues which should treated rather then encourage to be practiced. it and say it is Ok because it is not.
surely a better progressive way of looking at it is to address it in order to move on from it rather then stagnate it.

Volya

10-21-2013, 11:57 AM

cacian

10-21-2013, 12:21 PM

'homosexuality is not healthy it is something no one should practice. the whole idea is that you have a wife or a husband and that you keep it at that. it is family. intimacy is to be practiced outside your gender because it is healthier and people go on reproducing to make more families. to say there is nothing with it is not the way forward. those who practice homosexuality suffer deep seated psychological issues which should treated rather then encourage to be practiced. it and say it is Ok because it is not.
surely a better progressive way of looking at it is to address it in order to move on from it rather then stagnate it.'

How does that sound cacian.

LOL Ok let's see.
homosexuality is different. one is born gay and therefore that one person will move on later on in life to be with the same sex partner.
incest is not. a brother and a sister are born to the same mother or father and therefore areof the same blood line family related.
this means they are born brother and sister first and by that they are to fulfil that bond of brother and sister which means no sex between them. that is the meaning of brother and sister. the minute they enter into sex it becomes incest.
that is quite different from homosexuality.

Volya

10-21-2013, 03:35 PM

I can see I'm not going to change anyone's mind here so I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

Oedipus

10-21-2013, 10:53 PM

You can put that argument forward if you like. I guess some sisters like their brothers to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make incest illegal.

You wouldn't do something personally so you want to make it illegal for others?

The rest is incoherent; I clearly said we were considering consenting adults.

Also: I guess some men like other men to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make homosexuality illegal. See how it's no different to what you said?

Delta40

10-22-2013, 12:29 AM

Oedipus

10-22-2013, 01:05 AM

As has been pointed out before, people are born gay. Incest is not a sexual orientation. For many its a learned behaviour and they would grow into consenting adults. You might not have a problem with that but I do especially if the family pattern is going to repeat itself.

What part of 'non-reproductive' don't you understand? "or many its a learned behaviour"? Unless you have some evidence, that's just an argument by assertion.

Delta40

10-22-2013, 03:37 AM

So society doesn't have a right to say who can f uck each other but it can say who has the right to reproduce? What hypocrisy!

cacian

10-22-2013, 05:04 AM

You wouldn't do something personally so you want to make it illegal for others?

The rest is incoherent; I clearly said we were considering consenting adults.

Also: I guess some men like other men to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make homosexuality illegal. See how it's no different to what you said?

please do not put homosexuality next to incest. it is not the same.
one is born gay and so naturally one pursues a life style of that of same sex relationship. this does not involve others being hurt or molested when two gay people get together.

incest involves non-consensual sex too. where by one imposes sex on the other.

a brother and a sister are blood related. by definition a sister and a brother means they have the same mother or father which means they are to apply to what a sister and a brother mean. this include no sex between them otherwise they are no longer seen as brother and sister.

look at it like a role play:
four people get a card each telling them they are : gay/gay then brother/sister. they all four act out what their titles/roles are.
the two with a cards that says gay on them will act out a gay relationship which m ay or may not involve sex depending.
those with a card that says brother/sister will act out their roles as that and therein no sex is involved whatsoever just family bond.
because they are brother and sister born to that title and therefore must stick to the definition of family.

Oedipus

10-22-2013, 06:19 AM

So society doesn't have a right to say who can f uck each other but it can say who has the right to reproduce? What hypocrisy!

Perhaps you ought to look up 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.

Oedipus

10-22-2013, 06:21 AM

[Homosexuality] does not involve others being hurt or molested when two gay people get together.

incest involves non-consensual sex too. where by one imposes sex on the other.

We are talking about consensual incest only. Non-consensual incest would be wrong because non-consensual sex is wrong, not because incest is.

Delta40

10-22-2013, 06:40 AM

Perhaps you ought to look up 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.

Go ahead pick on my use of words instead of admitting where you think society has a say. I say no from the get go while you think there is healthy incest which can be controlled.

How come the law doesn't prevent bad heterosexuals from reproducing or marrying? We don't do background checks on whether a couples relationship is healthy or not because its none of our damn business. All heterosexuals - even convicted rapists and murderers cannot be excluded so why should incestuous families have the door slammed in their face if the incest law is lifted?

You can't pick and choose a select few from one group when the same law doesn't discriminate at all for another group .

Oedipus

10-22-2013, 08:43 AM

Go ahead pick on my use of words instead of admitting where you think society has a say. I say no from the get go while you think there is healthy incest which can be controlled.

How come the law doesn't prevent bad heterosexuals from reproducing or marrying? We don't do background checks on whether a couples relationship is healthy or not because its none of our damn business. All heterosexuals - even convicted rapists and murderers cannot be excluded so why should incestuous families have the door slammed in their face if the incest law is lifted?

You can't pick and choose a select few from one group when the same law doesn't discriminate at all for another group .

Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.

cacian

10-22-2013, 09:47 AM

Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.

yes it has. it sets the wrong example to others that it is ok when it is not. it is very clear what the role of a brother and sister in a family set up means. anything outside this compound that results in sexual contact between them is outside the frame of what a sister and a brother mean. it is borderline lunacy to think it has no impact on anyone.

cacian

10-22-2013, 09:50 AM

We are talking about consensual incest only. Non-consensual incest would be wrong because non-consensual sex is wrong, not because incest is.

incest is has negative input and it only carries one meaning and that is of inappropriate undesired sexual act. a sister is to treat her brother like a brother and vice versa because that is what their respective titles suggest and what nature suggests too.

Delta40

10-22-2013, 11:06 AM

Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.

You're missing the point completely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The law of marriage for heterosexuals doesn't have any criteria attached to it at all. Obviously the state should have a vested interest in preventing all birth disorders don't you think? Yet even people with genetic diseases can reproduce and pass their problems down because that is their right so your argument that incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring is not a defense to include some incestuous couples but exclude others.

The fact is, if you lift the law on incest, you will have to face the reality that all people who engage in this practice, no matter what the relationship and however it came about, will have the thumbs up to marry AND reproduce. They don't have to account for their relationship nor will they have to ask for permission to reproduce because heterosexuals are not required to meet this standard. Goose. Gander.

At the moment, people who are engaged in incest are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition.

At the end of the day, the law against incest is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.

Oedipus

10-23-2013, 12:20 AM

[At the moment, people who are engaged in miscegenation are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition.

At the end of the day, the law against miscegenation is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.

[At the moment, people who are engaged in homosexual relationships are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition.

At the end of the day, the law against homosexual relationships is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.]

Oedipus

10-23-2013, 12:22 AM

If we allow incest, we ought to let incestuous couples have children. Nice strawman.

Oedipus

10-23-2013, 01:02 AM

I now leave the thread for the same reasons as Volya

Delta40

10-23-2013, 02:30 AM

So you should. The fact that homosexuals get used as a basis for comparison for the acts of an entirely different group is an absolute insult to them and I think they deserve an apology.

Aylinn

10-23-2013, 03:18 AM

If we allow incest, we ought to let incestuous couples have children. Nice strawman.
But, how would you make sure that incestuous couples will not have children? Will we have to force them to get sterilized?

cacian

10-23-2013, 03:44 AM

But, how would you make sure that incestuous couples will not have children? Will we have to force them to get sterilized?

I think incest should be sterilized.i am against sterilizing people it is not the right thing to do.
there are others ways to teach people not to.

islandclimber

10-23-2013, 06:16 AM

But, how would you make sure that incestuous couples will not have children? Will we have to force them to get sterilized?

And should we sterilize people born with genetic disorders? Or people with a familial disposition towards creating offspring with genetic disorders?

You're treading dangerous ground here... Eugenics. Nothing screams totalitarianism like Eugenics. Nazi Germany was quite obsessed with Eugenics.

The pretence of moral absolutism is disgusting. It's an invented fiction. Moral relativism is at its finest with this societally developed distaste for incest. You can try to make the argument that it is morally wrong to reproduce with that heightened chance for disorder, yet at the same time you would be arguing for laws against reproduction for all who might be predisposed to creating offspring with disorder.

Besides, incest is natural in a large number of species, not as a prevalent notion, but as the practice of a tiny minority. Then again, behaviour that is diametrically opposed to societal norms is always persecuted by the majority. If there is one thing the majority has always reeked of, it is intolerance. Human history, summed up briefly, intolerance for difference.

Buh4Bee

10-23-2013, 06:22 AM

So you should. The fact that homosexuals get used as a basis for comparison for the acts of an entirely different group is an absolute insult to them and I think they deserve an apology.

Delta, Apparently, we have no psychologist s on this forum. But you have argued a coherent balanced point. There is no correlaton between these two groups and to draw one based on reproduction shows ignorance. It's beyond offensive.

Aylinn

10-23-2013, 06:51 AM

And should we sterilize people born with genetic disorders? Or people with a familial disposition towards creating offspring with genetic disorders?

You're treading dangerous ground here... Eugenics. Nothing screams totalitarianism like Eugenics. Nazi Germany was quite obsessed with Eugenics.

The pretence of moral absolutism is disgusting. It's an invented fiction. Moral relativism is at its finest with this societally developed distaste for incest. You can try to make the argument that it is morally wrong to reproduce with that heightened chance for disorder, yet at the same time you would be arguing for laws against reproduction for all who might be predisposed to creating offspring with disorder.

Besides, incest is natural in a large number of species, not as a prevalent notion, but as the practice of a tiny minority. Then again, behaviour that is diametrically opposed to societal norms is always persecuted by the majority. If there is one thing the majority has always reeked of, it is intolerance. Human history, summed up briefly, intolerance for difference.

You misunderstood me. Oedipus is the one in favour of consensual and non-reproductive incestuous couples. I am merely asking her/him? how would he/she stop incestuous couples from reproducing and whether he/she has a better solution than forcing them to get sterilized.

islandclimber

10-23-2013, 07:11 AM

You misunderstood me. Oedipus is the one in favour of consensual and non-reproductive incestuous couples. I am merely asking her/him? how would he/she stop incestuous couples from reproducing and whether he/she has a better solution than forcing them to get sterilized.

Ahh. I'm sorry. I see that now.

Yet my response stands for whomever. Eugenics is dangerous ground to tread upon. Where do we stop in terms of who we allow to reproduce? And who decides that? The majority? Like the majority decided who was to live in Rwanda in 1994?

Do we have a society where the weak or genetically ill-disposed are prohibited from breeding? Do we abort all babies that show signs of disability? If two unrelated people with a high chance for a child with severe disability are allowed to reproduce then why are a brother and sister not allowed to reproduce?

Suggesting that incest should be illegal as though there is some kind of moral absolutism knowable to humankind, is absurd. As I stated the only somewhat valid argument could be the biological one against reproduction, but then one must also follow the course there, in order to not be a hypocrite, and outlaw reproduction for a much larger percentage of the population.

cacian

10-23-2013, 07:20 AM

Besides, incest is natural in a large number of species, not as a prevalent notion, but as the practice of a tiny minority. Then again, behaviour that is diametrically opposed to societal norms is always persecuted by the majority. If there is one thing the majority has always reeked of, it is intolerance. Human history, summed up briefly, intolerance for difference.
this is not about prosecution. this is about something that is damaging long term. incest is not natural to humans if it was then there should be no genetics defect from the onset. that is the bottom line. if it was natural then nature would allow it to flourish and since it does it rejects it abominably and so it is should do. rightly so. it is like weeds unwanted but forceful it grows and when it does it needs to be pulled out because it gets in the way of other plants.

Eman Resu

10-23-2013, 10:03 AM

cacian

10-23-2013, 10:07 AM

To a weed, another weed is a wondrous flower.

weed is weed. there is no another weed. a flower however has many other flowers. :)

islandclimber

10-23-2013, 03:48 PM

this is not about prosecution. this is about something that is damaging long term. incest is not natural to humans if it was then there should be no genetics defect from the onset. that is the bottom line. if it was natural then nature would allow it to flourish and since it does it rejects it abominably and so it is should do. rightly so. it is like weeds unwanted but forceful it grows and when it does it needs to be pulled out because it gets in the way of other plants.

Children of incestuous relationships are not guaranteed to have genetic defects, there is just a higher probability of them. The same with the children of certain unrelated people who have genetics prone to defects. Should we screen against all such defects in the populace Cacian? Anyone with a raised chance of having a child disability should not be allowed to reproduce then? Nature seems to reject reproduction by these unrelated people according to your standards as well? I have a good friend who has a severely autistic child. Should that have been screened for beforehand, and she and her partner not allowed to reproduce? Because if your argument against incest is that there is a raised chance of genetic defect in offspring, than according to your logic we should make it illegal for any human with this same raised chance to reproduce and by extension of this, to basically have an unrestricted relationship.

This is eugenics. Cleansing the population of unwanted genetic traits. It is disgusting. Much more so than incest.

Oedipus

10-24-2013, 03:56 AM

cacian

10-24-2013, 04:30 AM

I have never suggested screening against people for people.
I personally go with the meaning of what a brother and a sister mean in the dictionary and that is to fulfil role to brotherly or sisterly relationship, a family bond relationship, which means no sex between them whatsoever.
I keep it simple.
anything outside the meaning of either word is incongruent. I stick to the language definition. It makes sense to me.
if you were to role play the meaning of a sister to a brother on stage/in life you will have keep to the meaning to the words. that is what language requires and that is what logic and sense is.
to against it is to go against sense.
for this very reason I do not support consensual incest or incest.
it is a bit like saying let's play football and you suddenly start playing tennis. I am going to start thinking you are gonne a bit mad.
stick to what the meaning says is the bottom line.
if you insist on an incest relationship then you have to remove brother and sister out of the equation because the act does not match the meaning. but since it is practically impossible to do so then removing incest is the only option.

*Classic*Charm*

10-24-2013, 01:10 PM

Cacian, you are suggesting that somehow refraining from sexual intimacy is intrinsic to the definition of what it means to be siblings, which is not the case. Siblings are simply children of the same parents. Any other qualifications are ascribed by people such as yourself, not the relationship itself.

What you have done in this case is not 'keep it simple', but made it far more complicated by qualifying the sibling relationship with what you think it entails (whatever "family bond" means to you). Not everyone accepts the same terms as you.

cacian

10-24-2013, 02:10 PM

*Classic*Charm*

10-24-2013, 02:45 PM

I am not sure I complicated it. I tried to simplify it to what the title of brother and sister mean.

how do you define sex?
it is an act between two people.
define these people?
they are either lovers/partners/husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend.
anything else you can think of you can add.

I don't see where any of those words exclude people who happen to be siblings.

what is the definition of a family?
a family consists of a brother/sister/mother/father.

That's a pretty limited definition, but I'll go with it.

how do I know the difference between a brother and a sister and two lovers just by looking at them?
lovers enjoy sex.
a brother and a sister enjoy a family bond. they do not have sex.

If you see a couple walking down the road holding hands, you can tell whether or not they have sex? You can see that just by looking at them, can you?

in order for me to be able to tell a brother from a lover I need to use sex to separate them.
sibblings do not have sex.
lovers do.

So, what if your father had a child you didn't know about. And one day, without knowing, you met this person. Are you saying that you would somehow, instinctively know that you are related, or are somehow unable to have sex with this person because you are siblings? What if you fell in love, neither of you knowing that you were related? Or do you think somehow that such a thing is just not possible?

how else would you differentiate between the two?

My point is that you cannot. The fact that the word "incest" exists implies that relatives do in fact have sex.

Siblings are children of the same parents.
Lovers are two individuals in a sexual relationship.

The two are not, by those definitions, mutually exclusive.

Any other characteristics are not part of the definition, but a description of what you think the relationship entails. The terms you have laid out are your own set of characteristics, and are not implied by virtue of the relationships themselves.

The notion that relatives do not engage in sexual relationships is based on your own observations, experiences, or assumptions. It is not, a priori, a part of the linguistic definition of a sibling or relative.

If you want to get technical, the word "relative" actually includes people who are married. Married couples typically have sex. They are both family, and lovers. How does that suit your definition?

cacian

10-24-2013, 03:27 PM

Ok I get what you are saying.
let's take cognitive behaviour for example:
in order for siblings to prove they are siblings they are to refrain from having sex.
why?
because
lovers will need it to prove they are lovers.

you can only have one or the other. lovers have sex and siblings have a family relationship.
that is the bottom line. I can only be in one place at any given time. sex is the same. sex is with lovers and family bond with sibblings. sex cannot be in two places at once.

If you see a couple walking down the road holding hands, you can tell whether or not they have sex? You can see that just by looking at them, can you?
normally a couple holding hand suggest they are lovers/companions/partners. the clue is in the word 'couple'. that is what I would think straight away.

So, what if your father had a child you didn't know about. And one day, without knowing, you met this person. Are you saying that you would somehow, instinctively know that you are related, or are somehow unable to have sex with this person because you are siblings? What if you fell in love, neither of you knowing that you were related? Or do you think somehow that such a thing is just not possible?
this is slightly complex but yes normally you should. instinct is key. you mentioned it yourself. blood is thicker than water or so they say.

My point is that you cannot. The fact that the word "incest" exists implies that relatives do in fact have sex.
yes should be able to tell the difference. if I were to act a sister role then sex in the act is out of the equation.

If you want to get technical, the word "relative" actually includes people who are married. Married couples typically have sex. They are both family, and lovers. How does that suit your definition?
relative yes many do intermarry it is not necessarily a good idea. married couple have sex yes. they are both family and lovers no.
they are either family or they are lovers. it cannot be both.
they are family to me means they have children. when they have children they are a family.
or they are family means they are siblings/ related and so on.
I can only be in one place at an given time.
I am a sister to my brother. that is once.
I am a girlfriend/ lover to my boyfriend/ lover. that is another once.
to be both in one go is not possible. it is one at a time.
this in the same way you cannot act out two roles. you can't act a mother and a lover in one single act. it is not possible.
the same apply to life.

*Classic*Charm*

10-24-2013, 04:04 PM

Ok I get what you are saying.
let's take cognitive behaviour for example:
in order for siblings to prove they are siblings they are to refrain from having sex.
why?
because
lovers will need it to prove they are lovers.

That's not what I am saying at all. Behaviour creates lovers. Behaviour does not create siblings. Siblings are so by nature of their genetics. Lovers are so by virtue of their choices. That is why being part of one does not exclude being part of the other.

you can only have one or the other. lovers have sex and siblings have a family relationship.
that is the bottom line. I can only be in one place at any given time. sex is the same. sex is with lovers and family bond with sibblings. sex cannot be in two places at once.

It can, though. That's why we're having this discussion. The question is not "can siblings have sex?", because we know that they can. It's called incest. The question is "should we allow siblings to have sex (in a legal sense)?". To say that sex cannot be in two places is not relevant to the argument because it simply is not true: there is no physical barrier that prevents siblings or relatives from engaging in intercourse.

normally a couple holding hand suggest they are lovers/companions/partners. the clue is in the word 'couple'. that is what I would think straight away.

Two girls in their twenties are walking down the street hand in hand. Are they friends? Sisters? Lovers?
How do you know? Or are you making an assumption?

this is slightly complex but yes normally you should. instinct is key. you mentioned it yourself. blood is thicker than water or so they say.

Are you really saying that you should instinctively know when you are related to someone? How related? Siblings? Half-siblings? 4th cousins 3 generations removed? Whether or not there is a genetic predisposition to detract interrelated matings (it exists in some animal species), it is not conscious, and could easily be overruled by behaviour. A person is consciously able to choose to engage in sexual behaviour with whatever partner they want. Your body is not going to stop you.

yes should be able to tell the difference. if I were to act a sister role then sex in the act is out of the equation.

Some people cannot or choose not to delineate between those two roles. That is why legality comes into question.

relative yes many do intermarry it is not necessarily a good idea. married couple have sex yes.

I'm not talking about relatives intermarrying. I am talking about the fact that, by definition, the term "relative" can be applied to two genetically non-related individuals who marry.

they are both family and lovers no.
they are either family or they are lovers. it cannot be both.
they are family to me means they have children. when they have children they are a family.

You don't believe that a married couple is a family? A married couple is only family by virtue of having children? Do you actually believe that?

or they are family means they are siblings/ related and so on.
I can only be in one place at an given time.
I am a sister to my brother. that is once.

That is a matter of genetics.

I am a girlfriend/ lover to my boyfriend/ lover. that is another once.

That is a matter of behaviour.

to be both in one go is not possible. it is one at a time.
this in the same way you cannot act out two roles. you can't act a mother and a lover in one single act. it is not possible.
the same apply to life.

Of course one can act out two roles. My mother is both my mother by virtue of genetics and my friend by virtue of our behaviour. There would be no stopping her from being my lover if we both chose to behave in that way. This is not the matter at hand. The question being asked is whether or not others have the right and/or the authority from legally preventing my mother and I from engaging in whatever relationship (behaviourally) we choose.

islandclimber

10-24-2013, 11:12 PM

I can only be in one place at an given time.
I am a sister to my brother. that is once.
I am a girlfriend/ lover to my boyfriend/ lover. that is another once.
to be both in one go is not possible. it is one at a time.
this in the same way you cannot act out two roles. you can't act a mother and a lover in one single act. it is not possible.
the same apply to life.

This is the most absurd thing I've read. You are suggesting that because one can only be in one place at any given time, one can only play a single part at any given time? I can read a book and listen to music at the same time, while drinking tea. Therefore, simultaneously, I am a reader, a listener, and a drinker. One can be a brother to his sister (defined by genetics), and at the same time be a lover (behaviour). Becoming a lover to a family member does not mean one's genetic code has transformed into something new and unrelated to one's (former, as you would have it) family. A brother and sister are still a brother and sister regardless of whether they have sexual intercourse or procreate. In your version it seems that this would not be the case?

One can make arguments for or against incest, but your periphrastic meanderings through your own warped version of logic are nonsensical to put it mildly. You really aren't arguing anything, well, not anything coherent. Your theory of "ones" isn't a theory, it's a fiction. I suggest it would fit better in the creative writing section. To suggest siblings only prove they are siblings by refraining from sexual relations, is... well... I'm speechless. I don't even know what to say with regard to this thought process. You undermine your argument with each keystroke.

islandclimber

10-24-2013, 11:33 PM

I know that I said I would leave, but islandclimber's points are so strong that I feel compelled to comment on my agreement.

Despite what I said earlier, it would indeed be indefensible to support consensual incest without supporting reproduction; therefore I revise my position: I support consensual incest and reproduction by incestuous couples. As for the link between the anti-incest argument and the anti-homosexual one, I make no apologies; my own best friend, who is gay, saw no problem with it. Perhaps Delta would retract his/her statement if they realized that I was not comparing homosexuals and incestuous couples, but merely noting that the argument they used was identic to many that were (and, sadly, are) used against homosexuals.

Agreed on the link between the anti-incest argument and anti-homosexual one. No apologies are necessary. They are linked in that as you say the arguments against both are quite similar and proceed almost entirely form a moralistic standpoint, and this comparison should not be offensive at all to open-minded members of the LGBTQIA community.

Any biological/genetics argument against incest is completely invalidated unless one is willing to state that we should screen all couples for the possibility of creating children with disabilities/genetic defects. SO please, if you argue from this viewpoint, stand up and state that basically all people with defects in their genes should not be allowed to breed, and then you can stand tall and proud next to some of the most valued anthropological and medical minds of the third reich. Eugenics is your cup of tea.

The moralistic argument is the exact same one that has been used for hundreds of years against those who identify as homosexual as Oedipus has stated. It is made under the assumption that there is some kind of moral absolutism in this world and that is knowable and infallible. Usually absolutism when it comes to a rather nebulous subject like morality, comes out of religion. The irony here, is that it doesn't get any more morally relativistic than religion. They pop up everywhere bringing with them new moralities and ethical codes, relative to the times and slowly grow more and more outdated as history passes them by. Eventually they collapse, or as in the case of Christianity for example, they begin to soften their stance on the infallible nature of their moral absolutism, they start to modify these morals. Ahh. Hypocrisy.

I digress. Incest is only morally wrong if there are certain universal morals that are knowable and exist in each and every creature on this planet. The fact that there are animals of many species who commit incest, alongside humans as well, suggest that this morality is certainly not universal nor absolute.

It is only biologically wrong, if you take the stance that all reproduction by those with propensities for genetic defects in their bloodlines is wrong (and therefore a crime). Have fun with that opinion.

*Classic*Charm*

10-25-2013, 12:01 AM

Any biological/genetics argument against incest is completely invalidated unless one is willing to state that we should screen all couples for the possibility of creating children with disabilities/genetic defects. SO please, if you argue from this viewpoint, stand up and state that basically all people with defects in their genes should not be allowed to breed, and then you can stand tall and proud next to some of the most valued anthropological and medical minds of the third reich. Eugenics is your cup of tea.

I don't necessarily agree with you on this point, because you keep bringing up screening. The fact is, genetic screening of every individual is highly impractical if not essentially impossible (time, cost, record-keeping, etc.) at this point. It also cannot predict, in many cases, how genes will affect potential offspring unless the other parent is also being screened. For the majority of sexual partnerships, we do not know the potential for creating disabled offspring (for lack of a more sensitive term) without testing. We do, however, know WITHOUT testing that the likelihood of creating disabled offspring is higher in offspring of related parents.

"Defects in their genes" is not really a thing, unless that individual has/suffers from a genetic condition. Two apparently healthy people are not aware of their ability to, together, create a genetic condition in their offspring. I'm not making any sort of statement about who should or should not procreate, I'm merely suggesting that throwing our hands up in the air and saying "Well, we'd have to test everyone in order to level the playing field!" is not really prudent.

I digress. Incest is only morally wrong if there are certain universal morals that are knowable and exist in each and every creature on this planet. The fact that there are animals of many species who commit incest, alongside humans as well, suggest that this morality is certainly not universal nor absolute.

I don't necessarily think that this argument holds up either. Animals are not the same case as humans. Most species to not retain conscious recognition of relatives, so "incest" is not really the same thing in their case. On a separate note, there is evidence that given the option of mating with a full sibling or a genetically-weaker non-relative, animals will choose the non-relative for no apparent reason. I cannot for the life of me remember what species those studies were conducted on, however. Cheetahs, for example, have been reduced to such a small population both in the wild and in captivity that they are essentially all related. The gene pool is horribly small, and for a reason researchers cannot understand, their ability to reproduce in captivity is very poor despite the amount of knowledge we have on their reproductive system. It has been hypothesized that their is some weird mechanism at work preventing successful breeding because of how highly inbred they are. HUGE digression. My point is that "animals in nature" cannot be used as a model for humans because they neither form the same types of familial relationships nor do they have our ability to consciously assess the rightness or wrongness of ANYTHING in a moral sense.

islandclimber

10-25-2013, 01:00 AM

I don't necessarily agree with you on this point, because you keep bringing up screening. The fact is, genetic screening of every individual is highly impractical if not essentially impossible (time, cost, record-keeping, etc.) at this point. It also cannot predict, in many cases, how genes will affect potential offspring unless the other parent is also being screened. For the majority of sexual partnerships, we do not know the potential for creating disabled offspring (for lack of a more sensitive term) without testing. We do, however, know WITHOUT testing that the likelihood of creating disabled offspring is higher in offspring of related parents.

"Defects in their genes" is not really a thing, unless that individual has/suffers from a genetic condition. Two apparently healthy people are not aware of their ability to, together, create a genetic condition in their offspring. I'm not making any sort of statement about who should or should not procreate, I'm merely suggesting that throwing our hands up in the air and saying "Well, we'd have to test everyone in order to level the playing field!" is not really prudent.

I don't necessarily think that this argument holds up either. Animals are not the same case as humans. Most species to not retain conscious recognition of relatives, so "incest" is not really the same thing in their case. On a separate note, there is evidence that given the option of mating with a full sibling or a genetically-weaker non-relative, animals will choose the non-relative for no apparent reason. I cannot for the life of me remember what species those studies were conducted on, however. Cheetahs, for example, have been reduced to such a small population both in the wild and in captivity that they are essentially all related. The gene pool is horribly small, and for a reason researchers cannot understand, their ability to reproduce in captivity is very poor despite the amount of knowledge we have on their reproductive system. It has been hypothesized that their is some weird mechanism at work preventing successful breeding because of how highly inbred they are. HUGE digression. My point is that "animals in nature" cannot be used as a model for humans because they neither form the same types of familial relationships nor do they have our ability to consciously assess the rightness or wrongness of ANYTHING in a moral sense.

Besides the fact it seems quite obvious I'm taking this argument to the absurd, in the same way people take it the other end of the spectrum, we do know of people who have disabilities and disorders passed on genetically, and they are still allowed to have children. Basically the argument can lead to many places. Cancer susceptibility for example. Why should we pass on such traits? Also, should we make it illegal for people with disabilities to have children? People with inherited genetic disorders are still allowed to reproduce. Regardless of the expense, you are either all in for eugenics, or not. If the true worry about incest is the higher probability of offspring with congenital birth defects, than it is necessary that this is done for all such high probability relationships, regardless of whether they are incestuous or not. For example, people with Autosomal dominant disorders should not be allowed to reproduce as that 50% chance of passing it on is quite high. Do we have a law against reproduction by such people?

Animals are not the same. Of course. And I have seen those studies as well. However, those studies are much the same as in humans. The overwhelming majority humans would likely not choose to be in an incestuous relationship even if it was legal and not so taboo. But this has nothing to do with morality. I suppose more what I meant with regards to animals is that the morality argument by humans often lies in the realm of it being unnatural and a perversion and therefore immoral. If their is a minority, however small, that throughout history of humans, and animals has been committing "incestuous acts" and inbreeding, than it is natural to that minority. The unnatural argument goes out the window, as it did with homosexuality (or at least should have). One can argue it is immoral, but only in a morally relativistic sense. Only according to societal constructs and taboos.