should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

That is a matter of behaviour.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oedipus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

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.

By this measure, anything which places a burden upon society in general - obesity, as an example, and the cost thereof, spread across the board in health care - should be viewed as immoral. That means that the only difference between incest and chocolate cake is the icing.¹


¹...and if your kinks lean toward certain things, there's no difference at all.²


²Would someone please pass me a fork?