should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AimusSage

The LAW is always an exponent of culture. It reflects the norms and values of a culture and how these can best be protected, these norms and values change over time, and with that, the law changes. It's all through history, not such a big surprise.

---

Absolutely. The philosopher that seems to be completely ignored by modern educational systems is Edmund Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke). Your statement above Aimus is the heart of Edmund Burke's ideas.

Quote:

---

When it comes to incest there might be more than just cultural conditioning that makes people think it is icky and yuck and other such exclamations of discomfort. (although culture certainly helps)

---

Quite right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vheissu

If the siblings didn't grow up together, it's obvious that it is nobody's fault they ended up together. You can't prevent falling in love, can you?

To clear this out, just because I don't approve of incest between two people who know they are siblings doesn't mean I don't approve of homosexuality or sex outside of a double room or that a pure, white wedding is the only way. Please don't assign stereotypes of other people because of one comment.

---

Ditto for me. If siblings don't know they're siblings, then they are not at fault. However, once they are aware of such a transgression, they have to understand that they should no longer continue. Hey one of western culture's founding works of literature is Oedipus Rex, who is personally disgraced and ashamed from unknowlingly having incest with his mother. And he is quite right to feel so. It is a moral transgression of incredible magnitude. And let me spell out again what that moral transgression is: the crossing of romantic love with family love.

Thanks Lote. And let me second your post, which i wanted to highlight on its own:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

I think one thing missing from the above is TRUST.

Without it family unit will not function sucessfully.



They are not good enough.

We have evolved to have incest taboo.



When you put everything to consent - then anything possible.

Thus we should not for example forbid:

consensual drug taking.
consensual "murder" like the recent case with the consensual canibals...
consensual prostitution
consensual violence
consensual casual sex
consensual whipping, beating, branding
consensual [INSERT YOUR FETISH WHATEVER...] etc etc...

Yes. CONSENSUAL. You can do anything as long as you love each other etc...

No. I think this CONSENSUAL Thing is eating away our sense of morality. It is leaving us rather empty, barren and purpose-less.

I value freedom and individuality. This freedom has to be with Responsibility to yourself and the society you live in...it is too easy to say as long as you love each other everything is possible...I think it's about time we say No it's quite selfish...?

---

That is a magnificent outlining of why such laws exist.

Personally, I'm not going to go into the law ramifications of incestual relationships. However, I believe that if it is indeed love, then why repress it?

I'm for love of any form, if it is the warm loving kind that we are all fond of. :)

just to tease you two guys and pick up on the most harmless point Lote mentioned:
how would you guys go about making sure that nobody has casual sex? if it were to be illegal (as Lote said it should be), would you send police officers snooping around ppl's homes, checking on them to see if anyone's having casual sex? ;) I can't really see how this idea goes together with the freedom you value so highly :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

just to tease you two guys and pick up on the most harmless point Lote mentioned:
how would you guys go about making sure that nobody has casual sex?

---

As I said I have thrown that in to give you handle ;-) and you duly picked on it and disregarded the rest. Just as I predicted ;-)

Quote:

---

if it were to be illegal (as Lote said it should be), would you send police officers snooping around ppl's homes, checking on them to see if anyone's having casual sex? ;)

---

Erm same goes for incest. How can you police that?

Would you ask every sister and brother that they had sex?

It's nonsense isn't it?

It's not the application of law that is important here. Its the moral ground.

Can you see the difference?

Quote:

---

I can't really see how this idea goes together with the freedom you value so highly

---

You can't have Absolute Freedom.

Society and civilisations arose by moderating Freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

just to tease you two guys and pick up on the most harmless point Lote mentioned:
how would you guys go about making sure that nobody has casual sex? if it were to be illegal (as Lote said it should be), would you send police officers snooping around ppl's homes, checking on them to see if anyone's having casual sex? ;) I can't really see how this idea goes together with the freedom you value so highly :D

---

Oh I would not make that illegal. I grew up with the notion that casual pre-marital sex was wrong. Of course it occured and I took part, but it was not something I went and told my parents. I did not go to my mother and say, "hey mom, guess what I just did for the first time today." :p :lol: Today I'm frankly shocked at how parents let their children live together with an unmarried lover. I would not approve of my children doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

As I said I have thrown that in to give you handle ;-)



Erm same goes for incest. How can you police that?

Would you ask every sister and brother that they had sex?

It's nonsense isn't it?

It's not the application of law that is important here. Its the moral ground.

Can you see the difference?

---

yep, I guess I can, or at least I try to.
well, if you want to talk about morals and separate them from the application of the law, that's fine with me. but in that case, you have just underminded your own argument. there are many things that may be immoral but not illegal, e.g. drinking, smoking, lying, adultery, rudeness, exploiting the developing world etc. all of these are immoral but legal. so you've got kinda hoisted on your own pedard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

so how can the judges and courts measure harm empirically? they are only humans, too? I suppose they probably can't and this is why they are often over-protective as in "better safe than sorry". In general, I agree with this principle, but we should not delude ourselves that it was based on empirical measurements or logic.

---

I didn't say that it was.

This is the danger in only reading part of the discussion, what I said about the law was :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Does anyone know the history of how incest laws came about? As I understood it, incest was not always illegal but became illegal as a result of observation of the development of deformities in children born from incestuous relationships, but I'll be honest and say that I can't direct you to any evidence to back up this understanding. That being said, it seems a sensible basis for the law.

Without knowing the history of the law it is difficult for us to debate the rights and wrongs of it. Isn't it possible that the law was put in place for an entirely valid reason as, I think, vheissu has been arguing, but because incest is no longer common we can no longer observe the adverse effects of it? Logically it seems to make sense to spread the gene pool, but logical arguments often seem to have little effect in largely emotional debates (or so I have found anyway).

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

One thing I really don't understand, and is perhaps a matter for a separate debate, is why there is very prevalent view in current society that just because you want something means you can have it? I love my brother so I can have sex with him, I'm infertile but I can have a baby, I haven't got any money but I can have the latest mobile phone. What's so wrong about limits? Total, complete freedom = chaos, doesn't it?

---

to which Sweets said :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica

And, about total freedom being cahos, that might be the case. But again, I don't see the problem with doing something which doesn't harm anyone else.

---

which leads you back to where you started, but in answer to your statement the judges and the courts don't measure harm. They don't make the law, they merely implement the laws enacted by the government of the country in which they're in. If there's a fault it lies with the legislature, not the judiciary. Looking at the judges is just looking in the wrong place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica

My attitude here is one of openness, that's all. Trying not to judge. There is a moment when I say to hell with what people think, because this is MY life, My body, My choices, and those are the liberties I am trying to have.

---

Sweets, I have no problem with your choices, but one thing you can't choose to do is live in a moral vacuum, and the truth is that we all judge including you, and including me, for example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

Wow, now I am appaled at the number of people who think that's disgusting, wrong, perverse or whatever. You're judging that from the point of view of the society you've always been in. The weird thing for me is that you don't even realize that you've been brainwashed in order to think that this or that is wrong.

---

which is in itself a judgemental comment, not critical, but definitely judgemental.

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line. You can choose to sleep with your brother, that is true, but you must also accept that by doing so, if you do so in a country where it is illegal, you are breaking the law. You must also accept that whilst you may not understand the reasons why it is illegal, there may well be very good, very justifiable reasons why it is illegal. Just because you or I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there, which is the point I was alluding to in the beginning. It is difficult to debate because the reason we might not see the harm now, is because by making it illegal the harm that it causes is simply no longer visible to us. It is also difficult to draw the line by saying, it's okay so long as the two people don't have children. Biology is a tricky thing, what if there was an accidental pregnancy - the answer would be that either the baby is born, or the State forces abortion. Who would find forced abortion palatable? If the baby is born then so is the next one, and the next one. Where does it end?

This probably illustrates the problem with all laws. Either society deems that all things can be done, or it imposes limits. As soon as limits are imposed, because of the nature of such things, those limits will be imperfect. Some will want the line drawn here, others over there. It'll never be 100% right for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Oh I would not make that illegal. I grew up with the notion that casual pre-marital sex was wrong. Of course it occured and I took part, but it was not something I went and told my parents. I did not go to my mother and say, "hey mom, guess what I just did for the first time today." :p :lol: Today I'm frankly shocked at how parents let their children live together with an unmarried lover. I would not approve of my children doing it.

---

so, I'm 26, my bf is 27 we are not married and live together and if you were my dad you'd not allow it? ;)

Oh...I thought you meant between a nun and a monk in which case I would've said -- but never mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

yep, I guess I can, or at least I try to.
well, if you want to talk about morals and separate them from the application of the law, that's fine with me.

---

Policing brother and sister incest. It can't be done. It would be silly.

Quote:

---

there are many things that may be immoral but not illegal, e.g. drinking,
smoking, lying, adultery, rudeness, exploiting the developing world etc. all of these are immoral but legal. so you've got kinda hoisted on your own pedard?

---

How does any of the above equate with the Trust that is required in a family unit for it to function?

Do you have a Trust between your drink and yourself?

Do you have Trust between your smoking and yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything

---

Yes. But it is also selfish.

No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.

Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.

There can be no absolute freedom.

Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.

This " as long as it does not harm anyone..." ethos is flawed. It is short-sighted and selfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Policing brother and sister incest. It can't be done. It would be silly.



How does any of the above equate with the Trust that is required in a family unit for it to function?

Do you have a Trust between your drink and yourself?

Do you have Trust between your smoking and yourself?

---

nope, but e.g. if parents smoke inside their own home and their children are around and inhale all the second-hand smoke it harms the children. i.e. it is immoral, but it is not illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

so, I'm 26, my bf is 27 we are not married and live together and if you were my dad you'd not allow it? ;)

---

Well, I couldn't stop you, nor would I. But I would show my disapproval, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, I couldn't stop you, nor would I. But I would show my disapproval, yes.

---

heehee, well, if my real dad forced me to marry my hubbers this would mean that my hubbers would be legally obliged to feed me (which my dad is legally obliged to do until I'm 27 and still studying). my hubbers doesn't have enough money to feed me, so I'd have to claim welfare. so the state would have to give me money which had better go to ppl who don't have a rich dad. which would be very harmful for society. :D alternatively, I could sue my dad, which would be very harmful to the functioning of our family unit.. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chasestalling

Oh...I thought you meant between a nun and a monk in which case I would've said -- but never mind

---

:p hmmm, ok.

Though I'll refrain from stating anything new, I'll just say thank you to Virgil for looking up and posting all the published info and to FifthElement, I very much agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

nope, but e.g. if parents smoke inside their own home and their children are around and inhale all the second-hand smoke it harms the children. i.e. it is immoral, but it is not illegal.

---

Here in the UK smoking in public transports and council premises are illegal. This part can be policed.

But you can't equate immorality of incest with smoking second hand smoke?

That would be ludicrous won't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Here in the UK smoking public transports and council premises are illegal. This part can be policed.

But you can't equate immorality of incest with smoking second hand smoke?

That would be ludicrous won't it?

---

yep it's illegal in public transport and buildings plus in pubs over here,too.
second hand smoke can cause cancer and result in the children dying a slow painful death. heheheh, but at least when they are dead they can't procreate and endanger the gene pool :lol: so I guess you are right, it's not comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Yes. But it is also selfish.

No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.

Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.

There can be no absolute freedom.

Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.

This " as long as it does not harm anyone..." ethos is flawed. It is short-sighted and selfish.

---

Yes Lote, that's what I said too! See :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

but one thing you can't choose to do is live in a moral vacuum,

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line.

---

Do we agree? Oh goodness, I must be having a mental breakdown! (only joking :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

yep it's illegal in public transport and buildings plus in pubs over here,too.
second hand smoke can cause cancer and result in the children dying a slow painful death. heheheh, but at least when they are dead they can't procreate and endanger the gene pool :lol: so I guess you are right, it's not comparable.

---

I think you make a light of an issue of incest which is about trust in a family unit.

Without Trust family does not work.

My father smoked 60 a day. But his smoking did not break the trust that required in the family and none of us got cancer.

And neither did millions of others whose fathers smoked.

But if millions of others had incestous relationships?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

I think you make a light of an issue of incest which is about trust in a family unit.

Without Trust family does not work.

My father smoked 60 a day. But his smoking did not break the trust that required in the family and none us got cancer.

And neither did millions of others who fathers smoked.

---

but how does incest break the trust in the family unit when both partners are of age and consent? there is no rape, coercion, violence etc involved.
in this particular case, I think it was a good idea to take the children away from them, because their whole family was already dysfunctional even before the siblings had children. e.g. the brother (father) beat the sister (mother) but on the other hand, how will sending the father to prison for 2 years help the children? Also I wonder if this had happened in a middle class family which was otherwise not dysfunctional, i.e. where the is no violence involved and everybody's happy with the situation, would they be so ready to break up the family and put the father in prison?
edit: we're not talking about millions of others Lote, it's only like 1 or 2 percent of the population and due to the psychological factors that Virge quoted, making it legal would not result in an increase. However, I think vheissu was very right to point out that if the children grew up thinking that incest is OK, they might be more inclined to practice it themselves, so there would be an increase in the long run

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

heehee, well, if my real dad forced me to marry my hubbers this would mean that my hubbers would be legally obliged to feed me (which my dad is legally obliged to do until I'm 27 and still studying). my hubbers doesn't have enough money to feed me, so I'd have to claim welfare. so the state would have to give me money which had better go to ppl who don't have a rich dad. which would be very harmful for society. :D alternatively, I could sue my dad, which would be very harmful to the functioning of our family unit.. :D

---

:lol: Well, the solution would be that you would have to live at home and hubbers would have to live at his parents. :p ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

but how does incest break the trust in the family unit

---

It does because it is basesd on not wanting to have sexual relationship.

That is what distinguishes these types of relationship from others. This is the trust in the family unit. It is this Trust that we have evolved to respect with incest taboo. And the reasons for these taboos -others have given in plenty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Do we agree? Oh goodness, I must be having a mental breakdown! (only joking :) )

---

Don't worry it happens all the time.

But agreeing is boring isn't it? ;-)

I agree
You agree
End of debate.

See? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line. You can choose to sleep with your brother, that is true, but you must also accept that by doing so, if you do so in a country where it is illegal, you are breaking the law. You must also accept that whilst you may not understand the reasons why it is illegal, there may well be very good, very justifiable reasons why it is illegal. Just because you or I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there, which is the point I was alluding to in the beginning. It is difficult to debate because the reason we might not see the harm now, is because by making it illegal the harm that it causes is simply no longer visible to us. It is also difficult to draw the line by saying, it's okay so long as the two people don't have children. Biology is a tricky thing, what if there was an accidental pregnancy - the answer would be that either the baby is born, or the State forces abortion. Who would find forced abortion palatable? If the baby is born then so is the next one, and the next one. Where does it end?

This probably illustrates the problem with all laws. Either society deems that all things can be done, or it imposes limits. As soon as limits are imposed, because of the nature of such things, those limits will be imperfect. Some will want the line drawn here, others over there. It'll never be 100% right for everyone.

---

This is a very wise post. Many times politics is argued in black and white extremes but the reality is that legislatures try to find a balance point. That results in a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is that it tries to solve the problem where each side has some satisfaction. Unfortunately the bad thing is that it also creates cynacism because during politicing the values are promised in the absolute and the result is a comprimise.

Actually as a side note, i'm recalling two famous rock songs on that expresses such cynacism: The Who's "Wont Get Fooled Again",

Quote:

---

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

---

and The Rolling Stones, "Street Fighting Man":

Quote:

---

Hey! Think the time is right for a palace revolution
'Cauce where I live the game to play is compromise solution
Well then what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy London town
There's no place for a street fighting man
No!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chasestalling

Oh...I thought you meant between a nun and a monk in which case I would've said -- but never mind

---

HaHa, best line of the thread.

The crux of the situation is that incest "just isn't right". One of my coworkers was just telling me about his stint as a health inspector in the northwestern region of the US. In this day and age there are remote areas and towns that have a large percentage of birth defects due to inbreeding, this isn't a case of one generation this is a case of manay, many generations of inbreeding. The mind set in these communities is that they don't like strangers and they very much keep to themselves. The government agencies are fully aware of these situations. Even if you make incest illegal that won't stop the acts from happening.

Morality can't be legistlatively regulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

The crux of the situation is that incest "just isn't right". One of my coworkers was just telling me about his stint as a health inspector in the northwestern region of the US. In this day and age there are remote areas and towns that have a large percentage of birth defects due to inbreeding, this isn't a case of one generation this is a case of manay, many generations of inbreeding. The mind set in these communities is that they don't like strangers and they very much keep to themselves. The government agencies are fully aware of these situations. Even if you make incest illegal that won't stop the acts from happening.

Morality can't be legistlatively regulated.

---

Ok, so let's say that 1% of the current population commits incest. What if legalizing it created a situation where now 10-20% might participate? Drug studies I've seen say that legalizing drugs increases the population's use. Once society removes boundaries of norms, then participation in that behavior goes up. As an anology, pre-marital sex was seen as immoral, and certainly it occured, but certainly not by everyone. But once that moral stigma was removed, everyone participates in pre-marital sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Ok, so let's say that 1% of the current population commits incest. What if legalizing it created a situation where now 10-20% might participate? Drug studies I've seen say that legalizing drugs increases the population's use. Once society removes boundaries of norms, then participation in that behavior goes up. As an anology, pre-marital sex was seen as immoral, and certainly it occured, but certainly not by everyone. But once that moral stigma was removed, everyone participates in pre-marital sex.

---

See I don't even know, is incest currently illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

See I don't even know, is incest currently illegal?

---

Good question. I have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

:lol: Well, the solution would be that you would have to live at home and hubbers would have to live at his parents. :p ;)

---

in that case my dad, mom and me would be very dysfunctional together (which is why I moved out in the first place) and hubber's sister would be even more dysfunctional and cry her eyes out because she would have to move out of hubber's room. also Father-in-Law would have to sort out arguments between hubbers and Sister-in-Law which would be very harmful to him, seeing as his wife as MS and lives in a nursing home and the poor man raised the kids alone and deserves some rest. see, it would only make everyone involved very unhappy. besides, my parents live in another town, so I couldn't go to my univ and my univ is better than the one at their place. so if I had to change univ, I would have poorer teaching, get worse marks and end up unemployed. then I'd have to claim unemployment benefit and would be a huge burden for society and of course I would do drugs, drink and eat junkfood. then I'd grow obese and be an even huger burden by requiring treatment for obesety. and then I'd go on a talkshow and whine and have fight with a b****y woman on the talkshow and I would strangle her and go to prison and use up a lot of tax money there. :D edit: while in prison, I would get raped by gangster women and then I would take it out on others and become a very mean and nasty person. so what's worse, pre-marital cohabitaion or all of this? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

See I don't even know, is incest currently illegal?

---

It is in UK, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, article 27 (as below)

Quote:

---

Family relationships (1) The relation of one person (A) to another (B) is within this section if—
(a) it is within any of subsections (2) to (4), or
(b) it would be within one of those subsections but for section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (status conferred by adoption).
(2) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if—
(a) one of them is the other’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, aunt or uncle, or
(b) A is or has been B’s foster parent.
(3) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if A and B live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B, and—
(a) one of them is or has been the other’s step-parent,
(b) A and B are cousins,
(c) one of them is or has been the other’s stepbrother or stepsister, or
(d) the parent or present or former foster parent of one of them is or has been the other’s foster parent.
(4) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if—
(a) A and B live in the same household, and
(b) A is regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “aunt” means the sister or half-sister of a person’s parent, and “uncle” has a corresponding meaning;
(b) “cousin” means the child of an aunt or uncle;
(c) a person is a child’s foster parent if—
(i) he is a person with whom the child has been placed under section 23(2)(a) or 59(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (fostering for local authority or voluntary organisation), or
(ii) he fosters the child privately, within the meaning given by section 66(1)(b) of that Act;
(d) a person is another’s partner (whether they are of different sexes or the same sex) if they live together as partners in an enduring family relationship;
(e) “step-parent” includes a parent’s partner and “stepbrother” and “stepsister” include the child of a parent’s partner.

---

this extends the prohibition to both family members and people who are, or have been, in a position of trust over the other. If you're really bored the whole Act is here : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003..._20030042_en_3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

in that case my dad, mom and me would be very dysfunctional together (which is why I moved out in the first place) and hubber's sister would be even more dysfunctional and cry her eyes out because she would have to move out of hubber's room. also Father-in-Law would have to sort out arguments between hubbers and Sister-in-Law which would be very harmful to him, seeing as his wife as MS and lives in a nursing home and the poor man raised the kids alone and deserves some rest. see, it would only make everyone involved very unhappy. besides, my parents live in another town, so I couldn't go to my univ and my univ is better than the one at their place. so if I had to change univ, I would have poorer teaching, get worse marks and end up unemployed. then I'd have to claim unemployment benefit and would be a huge burden for society and of course I would do drugs, drink and eat junkfood. then I'd grow obese and be an even huger burden by requiring treatment for obesety. and then I'd go on a talkshow and whine and have fight with a b****y woman on the talkshow and I would strangle her and go to prison and use up a lot of tax money there. :D edit: while in prison, I would get raped by gangster women and then I would take it out on others and become a very mean and nasty person. so what's worse, pre-marital cohabitaion or all of this? :D

---

Hmm, i guess that's for your father to decide. You could get a female roommate and split the costs with her as you must with hubbers.

Virgil:

Quote:

---

Oh I would not make that illegal. I grew up with the notion that casual pre-marital sex was wrong. Of course it occured and I took part, but it was not something I went and told my parents. I did not go to my mother and say, "hey mom, guess what I just did for the first time today." Today I'm frankly shocked at how parents let their children live together with an unmarried lover. I would not approve of my children doing it.

---

I think it is perfectly ok to do so as long as you do not force your kids to follow your own ideas, as long as you don't blackmail them or whatever.

Fifth:

Quote:

---

Sweets, I have no problem with your choices, but one thing you can't choose to do is live in a moral vacuum, and the truth is that we all judge including you, and including me, for example:

which is in itself a judgemental comment, not critical, but definitely judgemental.

---

Yes I am being judgemental because I am a human being, and this is what I hate in myself, but I try to go beyond as much as I can.

Quote:

---

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line. You can choose to sleep with your brother, that is true, but you must also accept that by doing so, if you do so in a country where it is illegal, you are breaking the law. You must also accept that whilst you may not understand the reasons why it is illegal, there may well be very good, very justifiable reasons why it is illegal. Just because you or I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there, which is the point I was alluding to in the beginning. It is difficult to debate because the reason we might not see the harm now, is because by making it illegal the harm that it causes is simply no longer visible to us. It is also difficult to draw the line by saying, it's okay so long as the two people don't have children. Biology is a tricky thing, what if there was an accidental pregnancy - the answer would be that either the baby is born, or the State forces abortion. Who would find forced abortion palatable? If the baby is born then so is the next one, and the next one. Where does it end?

---

I am just not fond of morality. I am part of a society but I don't feel like it. I am an individual and I intend to live my life as I want to, as long as I don't hurt people. The key is tolerance. I think life on this planet is already difficult enough to piss ourselves off with morality when we don't see the point of it. We all live in restraint. I have felt restrained from being myself for many years and today I just want to be as free as I can. Human beings are always putting barriers everywhere and making their own lives a living hell until they finally die. I am just confused.

Lote:

Quote:

---

Yes. But it is also selfish.

No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.

Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.

There can be no absolute freedom.

Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.

This " as long as it does not harm anyone..." ethos is flawed. It is short-sighted and selfish.

---

Yes of course it is selfish. But if you must spend your life restraining yourself to please the others, I don't see the point of being an individual with his/her own mind. I am having to argue as if incest were something terribly mean to do to the others, as if I were a bad person for wanting to be free to love someone who also loves me. That's crazy. I'm confused again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

I am just not fond of morality. I am part of a society but I don't feel like it. I am an individual and I intend to live my life as I want to, as long as I don't hurt people. The key is tolerance. I think life on this planet is already difficult enough to piss ourselves off with morality when we don't see the point of it.

---

isn't tolerance a form of morality?

isn't it possible that the restrictions have a point, but as we are not all experts in all things the point is not immediately apparent to us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

One of my coworkers was just telling me about his stint as a health inspector in the northwestern region of the US. In this day and age there are remote areas and towns that have a large percentage of birth defects due to inbreeding, this isn't a case of one generation this is a case of manay, many generations of inbreeding. The mind set in these communities is that they don't like strangers and they very much keep to themselves. The government agencies are fully aware of these situations. Even if you make incest illegal that won't stop the acts from happening.

---

OMG that's what i wanted to say!! (ermmm something to that effect i mean). I remember a conversasion i had with one of my moms friends, a doctor, who told me that in some islands in greece there are high records (when compared to the rest of the country) of various mental deseases and one of the main reasons for this is that these areas were isolated and occupied in the past (when the country wasn't yet liberated) and they couldn't get in touch with the greek populations of the mainland, so they ended up marrying their first cousins etc. I don't know if that's true, i have no scientific knowledge on the subject ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

isn't tolerance a form of morality?

isn't it possible that the restrictions have a point, but as we are not all experts in all things the point is not immediately apparent to us?

---

I am not sure that tolerance is a form of morality. It could really be, and that's interesting. I guess that means I am ok with some forms of morality and not with some others? However, I always try to tolerate the forms of morality that I do not share as long as they are not imposed on me.

Now about the second part of what you said, I agree very much. But I guess I don't want to care about what ifs right now. Which might be irresponsible of me. But I'm not sure I am in a responsible mood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

Yes of course it is selfish.

---

And we don't like selfishness do we now lassie? :D

Quote:

---

But if you must spend your life restraining yourself to please the others, I don't see the point of being an individual with his/her own mind.

---

The Axial Age Philosophers have said it is when we let go of our Egotism then we can truly be human...it is then that we take part in a Larger Existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vheissu

And this is why I usually stear clear of these thereads. People start getting mean and get the feeling they have to find more and more ways of expressing their opinion. Preaching eugenics??!!! I never thought I'd see that even mentioned in this thread, but there you go. I really hope it wasn't directed at me or at anyone else who is opposed at the idea of incest.

The genetic argument is the only argument that can prove why incest can lead to a number of complications nobody would really want. And that includes the children involved.

I've stated more than a few times what I think of incest and won't repeat myself.

---

First off, what makes you think it was directed at you? If you are not talking about making it illegal, then why would my comment on the legislation of such a thing be directed at you? And secondly, how is it mean? As I said, I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

And we don't like selfishness do we now lassie? :D



The Axial Age Philosophers have said it is when we let go of our Egotism then we can truly be human...it is then that we take part in a Larger Existence.

---

Ah, we don't like selfishness. But if people consider it selfish to have one's own ideas for one's own damn life without compelling anyone to follow them, then what can I say? This is preposterous. Now if we say that, perhaps someone else could say that it is selfish not to let people live their lives the way they intend to do so just because the way they would like to live their own lives does not appeal to us. Yeah.
And I won't comment on how to become truly 'human' because I don't have the same definition of 'human' as you have.

Incest doesn't always cause health problems. It brings out the recessive genes. If it did necessarily cause the children to be retarded, then the entire non-African human population would have ~60 IQ. Also, the royal families of Europe practiced incest. Of course it should be legal. Like public nudity, making it legal isn't going to make it the next big fad.

I think its disgusting.
**** happens in this world thats imperfect, and once in a while two people might fall in love only to find out they share a parent- thats the world we live in. Its screwed up. But it doesn't mean we should accomodate our laws or our morals to EVERY single circumstance, there are exceptions to be made in this world, is up to each of us to make our own I'm an understanding person, but the fact that things like this are even questionable makes me wonder about out our foundation, we have become so accustomed to accepting everyone for who they are that its turned into welcoming some flat out crazy ****. I do not beleive in persecuting anyone, its their business, but i'm sure as hell not going to go around wondering, just because these particular circumstances are exceptional, if this is acceptable across the board. Its not. Its gross. What's next someone wants to marry their dog? Have sex w their kids? I mean be serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejbean

What's next someone wants to marry their dog? Have sex w their kids? I mean be serious.

---

Well there would no longer be CONSENTING ADULTS involved, now would there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

Well there would no longer be CONSENTING ADULTS involved, now would there?

---

I Agree. Th difference is one of consent. But...I love my doggies. ;) Dogs are the partners that suit me best, but that's another problem, isn't it?