should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

[vheissu]

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

Well, I haven't personally expressed that it should be illegal, just that I find it wrong but that I really don't care if they do, as long as it's limited to just sleeping together (last time I checked my personal opinion was not the law). I think I've said it so many times in this thread, I'm beggining to think my posts are misinterpreted or simply not read. And if you see it that way, then does making other things illegal equal to persecuting people? Is every law an imposition of moral disgust?
And I think that this whole case was started by the couple being found out by the appearance of children, so technically the concern began with the presence of the kids involved rather than just the two of them sleeping together.

[naomi moon]

I think it's just repulsive and sick but I guess they are free to do whatever they like.

[islandclimber]

Well, I haven't personally expressed that it should be illegal, just that I find it wrong but that I really don't care if they do, as long as it's limited to just sleeping together (last time I checked my personal opinion was not the law). I think I've said it so many times in this thread, I'm beggining to think my posts are misinterpreted or simply not read. And if you see it that way, then does making other things illegal equal to persecuting people? Is every law an imposition of moral disgust?
And I think that this whole case was started by the couple being found out by the appearance of children, so technically the concern began with the presence of the kids involved rather than just the two of them sleeping together.

ah... sorry then if I misinterpreted... I thought you were arguing for making it illegal... I should pay more attention next time... sorry...

well, all laws that prohibit things that do no harm to anyone else are imposition's of moral disgust, such as laws against gay civil marriage, etc... if someone wants to behave a particular way, live a certain lifestyle, as long as it harms no one else it should be allowed...

I agree the case started with the children, but even then it is an imposition of moral disgust that was the fabric of the case... nothing more or less...

[Bakiryu]

I believe it should be legal, as well as gay marriage. After all, who cares what people do? If two consenting people love each other they should allowed to be together be they siblings, cousins or whatever.

[papayahed]

Ya know, is it illegal right now? A friends parents are first cousins.

[metal134]

I think the whole genetics argument is a fallcy and an excuse for people to say why it should be illegal. Let's just call a spade a spade; you are preaching eugenics and there is not a whole lot in this world that screams totalitarianism more than eugenics.

[SleepyWitch]

Ya know, is it illegal right now? A friends parents are first cousins.

I think first cousins is different. I'll have to research it (of course it varies depending on what country you're in, too). I it's OK if they get a special permit or something... or maybe that was 40 years ago and now you don't need a permit?

[vheissu]

I think the whole genetics argument is a fallcy and an excuse for people to say why it should be illegal. Let's just call a spade a spade; you are preaching eugenics and there is not a whole lot in this world that screams totalitarianism more than eugenics.

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.

[SleepyWitch]

aw, poor vheissu, don't get mad, OK?
if it's any help, my head is hurting now too

[vheissu]

Mad?? Oh no, don't worry, I'm back to being calm. Had breakfast with my flatmates and had my rant about this thread and they just pointed out to the fact that it's actually getting childish...rather than actually discussing this we're merely stating a sort of...'I'm right and you're wrong' opinion.
My opinion is not going to change and there's no way I'll be able to change other people's opinion either.


Anyway, have an essay for tomorrow...on clinical trials. Wonder what would happen if I started a thread on that

[Lote-Tree]

I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society.

The whole society has many disgusts. We have evolved these digusts and Incest is one of them.

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

Oh yes. This - as long as it does not harming anyone - everything is permitted.

What about consensual prostitution?
What about consensual murder?
What about consensual drug taking?

Islandclimber it is about time we looked at this " as long as it does not harm anyone...everything is permitted ethos and see it for it is...on the whole it can be quite self-fish.

[Sweets America]

The whole society has many disgusts. We have evolved these digusts and Incest is one of them.



Oh yes. This - as long as it does not harming anyone - everything is permitted.

What about consensual prostitution?
What about consensual murder?
What about consensual drug taking?

Islandclimber it is about time we looked at this " as long as it does not harm anyone...everything is permitted ethos and see it for it is...on the whole it can be quite self-fish.

You're always saying 'we have evolved', always comparing us today to other animals... with pseudo scientific evidence...

Yeah, I don't see why something which doesn't harm anyone should be forbidden. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with prostitution, I do whatever I like with my body, and you too. It's the same thing about drugs, I don't see why it would annoy anyone if I do drugs. Of course the problem would be if I did drugs and took my car and hit someone with the car cause I'm driving under influence, but taking drugs in itself is not a problem.

Now about 'consensual murder', I really don't see what you mean...

[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).

What worries me, personally, about making incest legal is the fact that we already have a society in which daughters are abused by fathers, neices abused by uncles. If incest became legal then how easy would it be for children to be groomed into family relationships?

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?

[Sweets America]

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).

What worries me, personally, about making incest legal is the fact that we already have a society in which daughters are abused by fathers, neices abused by uncles. If incest became legal then how easy would it be for children to be groomed into family relationships?

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?

I think the question of children is a challenging one. The debate becomes more difficult with that because while I think people are totally free to love one another and have sex together, when it comes to having a kid, things are different because a third person is thus involved and it is disturbing to bring a new person on the planet without asking for his/her point if view. But I apply that to disabled and non-disabled kids. So the question is always tricky because you force someone to be here, alive, on this planet.

I don't agree however with your argument about father abusing daughters, because if we follow such arguments, we end up not doing anything because of 'what ifs'. It's just like people who want to ban the veil to protect those who are forced to wear it.

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.

[manolia]

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?

Me too I am just wondering..those here who don't mind about incest would they think the same when the two consenting adults were a father and his 18 year old daughter?

I don't care what people do in their own bedroom.

Amen to that I don't really care either.