should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

[SleepyWitch]

I think it's fairly obvious I'm referring to genetic defects which affect children born from two siblings. I have not mentioned at all any other type of genetic disease, because it is not relevant to this topic.

but why do you think it's not relevant? the genetic aspect would be the only "scientific"/"rational" etc whatever you'd like to call it argument that any court could adduce here, but they can obviously not do that because then they would have to make a lot of things illegal: drinking during pregnancy, disabled ppl having children, maybe they'd even have to introduce genetic screening and order every disabled foetus to be aborted??? I mean in all of these cases the birth of a disabled child is very probable and could be prevented. So why is it not prevented in these cases but with incest it is? Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely against this kind of eugenics, I'm just trying to understand the logic of the court rulings.

[vheissu]

but why do you think it's not relevant? the genetic aspect would be the only "scientific"/"rational" etc whatever you'd like to call it argument that any court could adduce here, but they can obviously not do that because then they would have to make a lot of things illegal: drinking during pregnancy, disabled ppl having children, maybe they'd even have to introduce genetic screening and order every disabled foetus to be aborted??? I mean in all of these cases the birth of a disabled child is very probable and could be prevented. So why is it not prevented in these cases but with incest it is? Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely against this kind of eugenics, I'm just trying to understand the logic of the court rulings.

Ok, I don't think it's relevant because the court case is referring to incest in general directing it to the possibility of producing children in particular. They are dealing with trying to define as legal the relationship these two want to continue (they're problem, as I think most in this forum have agreed) and continuing to have more kids and possibly raising the ones the already have. This is linked to...what did they say...an aspect of 'harm to society' (I'm not exactly quoting) since it involves children, which are members of a family but of society as a whole as well, and as I've already said, who exactly is responsible for these 4 children?

It is this particular case that has one of the partners having a disability. It isn't necessarily looking at the rights of procreation between disabled people in general, but at the fact that the mother/sister may have been led by the father/brother in this relationship. So, again, in this case, does the sister have different rights (will the court see her as a special circumstance? Equal blame, if they see it as a blame, to both?) from the brother?



I see it as separate from all other causes of genetic diseases (drugs, alcohol, etc) because it just simply does not apply (in my opinion as usual) to this case. Applying genetic screens, genetic tests, regulations and whatever else people will come up with as whole in order to point the finger at whoever is found not fit for parenting is just such a huge issue that it cannot be decided by one law or the decision of one court case.

[Lote-Tree]

- the children of incestuous couples are likely to be disabled
- the more vulnerable/weaker of the two partners has to be protected
- the constitution says that families are the basic unit of society and have to be protected
- incest puts a lot of strain on the families involved

I think one thing missing from the above is TRUST.

Without it family unit will not function sucessfully.

some arguments for legalization were:
- disability can have many causes, e.g. when one/both parent(s) in a non-incestuous relationship are disabled themselves, the children are very likely to be disabled. However, disabled ppl are, of course, allowed to marry and have children
- the incidence of incest is very low because normally children who grow up together (even if they are adopted and not genetically related at all) develop a psychological incest taboo, i.e. they will see the other children as their siblings and out of bounds sexually, even when they are NOT related. So legalizing incest would not result in a lot of ppl suddenly getting interested in it and practicing it.

They are not good enough.

We have evolved to have incest taboo.

- Sleepy's own argument: why should one of the partners be more vulnerable and weaker than the other, as long as they are both of age and have all their faculties intact? In this particular case, the woman (sister) was more vulnerable because she was mentally handicapped, plus the man (brother) beat her. But this isn't always the case, so how can you tell which partner needs to be protected? Plus, there can be a "weaker" partner (battered wife or husband) in any relationship and yet ppl are not generally prevented from marrying. You can only define who is the weaker partner after abuse has taken place, not before ppl marry ???

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...?

[papayahed]

They did incestuous things all the time in the noble courts of the past, didn't they? Sure the result wasn't great... The genetical thing is indeed a concern, but, especially if the siblings didn't grow up together, I don't find it icky nor yucky. I guess all these people who find it icky and yucky don't approve of homosexuality and sex outside of a double bed in a room where the walls are painted white?:P

That's kind of a leap don't you think? I don't see the correlation.

Quite honestly I consider myself pretty open and accepting of others lifestyles but I would rather gouge my eyes then see any one of my relatives on top of me. Does that make me a prude?

[SleepyWitch]

consensual casual sex

you think casual sex should be illegal?

[vheissu]

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...?

I agree with you here!

That's kind of a leap don't you think? I don't see the correlation.

Quite honestly I consider myself pretty open and accepting of others lifestyles but I would rather gouge my eyes then see any one of my relatives on top of me. Does that make me a prude?

Exactly, and there must be a reason why this has stopped being so common as it was then. I can't even think of Queen E II with...I'll just stop there.


This has seriously given me a headache. I'll just refrain from looking at this thread for a good hour (it's such a coincidence that csi is on right now )

[Lote-Tree]

you think casual sex should be illegal?

Yes. Sex should be sacred. Like in the olden times ;-)

But I put that in just see if anyone spots it and you picked it out of others

[SleepyWitch]

Yes. Sex should be sacred. Like in the olden times ;-)

But I put that in just see if anyone spots it and you picked it out of others

heehee, good old Lote do you mean sacred as in the good old tantric times olden times or sacred as in "sex serves procreation and should not be fun"?

[islandclimber]

you think casual sex should be illegal?

yes, I'm confused too... and lots of fetishes are legal, as long as they don't harm anyone... which is the case here... naysayers are basically saying two people should not be allowed to have a relationship because they are brother and sister, which is entirely unreasonable as they are harming no one else in so doing... if you don't like it, and find it disgusting and gross which is apparent, then don't pay attention to it, and secondly, a married brother and sister could live next door to you and you would probably not even know, so who does it really harm...

and to say their children are more likely to be born defective... well so are disabled people, drug addicts, alcoholics, and others, and yet they are all allowed to have relationships and children.. so to say all other cases of increased rates of genetic defect ar irrelevant is entirely wrong, as to make part of your claim for not allowing incest is the increased rate of genetic problems, therefore you should have a problem with allowing all births from people who are prone to genetice defect... that is just logic...

and i would rather gouge my eyes then see one of my relatives on top of me too Papaya, but that doesn't mean we should be able to decide for others, just because we find the thought utterly and completely appalling... back to casual sex, some people find the thought of it appalling and disgusting, yet it is allowed

[Sweets America]

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 makes me laugh out loud when you say you value freedom while you link it to morality, and thus to a sense of restraint. And to those who could not see themselves in bed with their brothers and sisters, I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society. Tolerating the fact that others have relationships with family members does not compell you to do so in any way.

[islandclimber]

That makes me laugh out loud when you say you value freedom while you link it to morality, and thus to a sense of restraint. And to those who could not see themselves in bed with their brothers and sisters, I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society. Tolerating the fact that others have relationships with family members does not compell you to do so in any way.

this is exactly what I think Sweets... Just because I do not want to sleep with my family members, does not mean I have the right to persecute others for doing so... we should respect their right to decide for themselves in regard to this... it harms no one and if it grosses you out, don't think about it...

[vheissu]

this is exactly what I think Sweets... Just because I do not want to sleep with my family members, does not mean I have the right to persecute others for doing so... we should respect their right to decide for themselves in regard to this... it harms no one and if it grosses you out, don't think about it...

But who said anything about 'persecuting' or 'imposing your disgust to society'?

[Lily Adams]

My biological instincts tell me "no" when I hear the word incest. I mean, who wants disabled children? It's very clear in the biological sense-the genes one gets from mom and the genes one gets from dad have to be different, or disabilities are more likely to occur. The more different the genes, the better off the child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#...ological_basis

But as for the emotional part...gosh that's just really weird. I mean it's like if you say "whatever floats your boat" and they have disabled children, that costs a lot of money. It's always about money though. Darn our need to eat food.

And then there's the whole pursuit of happiness thing. Things are never black or white.

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

But it exists, Virgil.

[papayahed]

and i would rather gouge my eyes then see one of my relatives on top of me too Papaya, but that doesn't mean we should be able to decide for others, just because we find the thought utterly and completely appalling... back to casual sex, some people find the thought of it appalling and disgusting, yet it is allowed

You have me confused, I don't care what people do in their own bedroom.

That makes me laugh out loud when you say you value freedom while you link it to morality, and thus to a sense of restraint. And to those who could not see themselves in bed with their brothers and sisters, I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society. Tolerating the fact that others have relationships with family members does not compell you to do so in any way.

Seriously, how does stating my feelings impose anything on society?

[islandclimber]

But who said anything about 'persecuting' or 'imposing your disgust to society'?

making it illegal is persecution of people who are doing no harm to anyone... and is imposing moral disgust...

papaya I think I just misread your post... I find it very unappealing, to say the least, but what others do in the bedroom is their own choice, so I agree with you...