should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

[Delta40]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

To a weed, another weed is a wondrous flower.

[cacian]

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]

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]

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.

[cacian]

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*]

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

how else would you differentiate between the two?