Should incest be banned?

[Tiberius]

Tell ya what can you demon-straight one time when incests has not been a sign of or caused psychological damage?

Can you demonstrate a single time when it HAS been the cause of psychological damage?

and you say the genetic reason is lacking i have 2 words for you inbreeding coefficient....
i was going to quote Darwin but its hard to find a good one that encompass everything... his own family tree makes a good case study of the dangers of inbreeding ironically

So they use contraception. Your argument becomes invalid.

your own article admits that these kind of cases are rare and most cases of incest are abuse.

Because the person is raped? Then I don't see what is so abusive of incest, seeing as it's the RAPING act that causes the abuse.

Banning the whole concept prevents abusers from hiding behind consent.
Most cases are abuse. These people need protection. Banning incest is one level of this protection.

One could make the same thing about sex in general.

And if you think the rights of a few are more important then the well being of the gander, may i smoke a cigaret next to you in the dinner? maybe I'll chain smoke in the bar you go too.....

Ah, but that involves other people who may not wish to be involved, doesn't it?

as for the genetic problems being that of the individual(and off spring)...Well an insectuist society would quickly degrade and fall apart. For the strength of the population and the country inbreeding is dangerous.

And what if (as has been asked so many times before) they use contraception? People can have sex without getting pregnant. It's remarkably easy! And why do you think that people who engage in incest always want to have kids from it?

I didn't move the goal a second timel, demonstrating a few cases doesn't win your point considering how few they are.

You asked for something, and then decided you wanted to ask for something else. It IS moving the goalposts.

as for banning sex... most of the time sex is not abuse, unlike incest where a majority of the cases are abuse.

And I'm all for banning abuse of sexual partners.

But you have not shown that incest - in and of itself - is abusive.

I'll tell you what. Show me one single case of two people being psychologically damaged in a relationship that would be considered happy and healthy apart from the fact that the relationship is incestuous and I'll yield to the idea that incest is harmful and should be banned.

 

[nnmartin]

Incest is very similar to the bestiality case.

The fact is that it leads to abnormal children.

and the same with bestiality, contraceptives do not always work - ie: condoms may fall off, split or not be used in the heat of the moment.

Therefore it is possible that children could result from incest.

We now have several reasons for banning it.

Objective: Risk of producing abnormal children.

Subjective: Morality and abuse issues.


Case closed I think.

 

[Tiberius]

Incest is very similar to the bestiality case.

Only in that you think they are icky.

The fact is that it leads to abnormal children.

First of all, incest does not need to lead to children at all. Plenty of couples have sex all around the world every day, and with proper use of contraception, pregnancy does not occur. Why should this be any different if the two people are related.

And secondly, do you think that bestiality leads to abnormal children? You do know that bestiality can NEVER result in pregnancy, yes?

and the same with bestiality, contraceptive do not always work - ie: condoms may fall off, split or not be used in the heat of the moment.

Then you should use that risk as a basis to ban all sex.

Therefore it is possible that children could result from incest.

Do you propose banning one-night-stands for the same reason?

We now have several reasons for banning it.

Objective: Risk of producing abnormal children.

Subjective: Morality and abuse issues.

Case closed I think.

Your reasons are pitiful.

 

[Protester]

This is like your complaint about polygamy. You cannot assume that many people will do it, when hardly anyone does it. It's not just a social taboo but a psychological aversion - towards incest that is.

The fear/complaint that it will be bad when EVERYONE does it or even MANY PEOPLE do it, is irrational.

Many of you perhaps want to claim that we descended from the lower animals. I will point out, that the lower animals have an aversion to incest. In fact primitive tribes of humans, have taboos against the practice. it is certainly not in the Judeo-Christian tradition to support such a practice as a norm,Why Did God Allow Incest in the Bible?

One can always ask, what is the profit in discussing such a perverse behavior anyway? It is sensationalism, because it does happen so rarely – – and with good reason.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course, those primitive tribes don't have any reliable contraception, do they. The taboo would probably stem from the easily observable fact that unions between closely related people can lead to birth defects in children born from that union.

And has been mentioned countless times, so long as pregnancy is prevented (which is quite easy for just about anyone reading this thread), this issue does not apply.

 

[nnmartin]

But how can you legislate for compulsory contraception usage if you are bedding your sister?

That would be an 'infringement of civil liberties' and would have the PC brigade storming the White House with their feather dusters in a jiffy.:sarcastic

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Simple - you don't; you do not legislate for it at all, be it with or without contraceptives.

Do we legislate against a man and woman having sex without contraceptives just because they have the possibility of passing on inheritable defects? No.

 

[nnmartin]

better to ban it so as to avoid the chance of continuing the genetic trait of incest than to worry about some extremely small minority's interests.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

... FYI Incest is not a genetic trait ...

It's a behaviour that some in society find desirable (a minority) or undesirable (the majority) or neither (another minority, but more sizeable).

 

[McBell]

better to ban it so as to avoid the chance of continuing the genetic trait of incest than to worry about some extremely small minority's interests.

And do you also apply this "logical conclusion" to all situations where there is a chance to pass on an undesirable genetic trait?

If not, then why single out incest?

 

[Tiberius]

But how can you legislate for compulsory contraception usage if you are bedding your sister?

That would be an 'infringement of civil liberties' and would have the PC brigade storming the White House with their feather dusters in a jiffy.:sarcastic

You're kidding right?

You claim that not using contraception would be dangerous, and now you're protesting the use of contraception?

 

[nnmartin]

And do you also apply this "logical conclusion" to all situations where there is a chance to pass on an undesirable genetic trait?

If not, then why single out incest?

Because it is against The Order of Nature.

 

[nnmartin]

You're kidding right?

You claim that not using contraception would be dangerous, and now you're protesting the use of contraception?

Actually no, I am protesting against the legalisation of incest.

To put your theory into plan though would mean compulsory contraception usage for incestuous couples.

Not only would this be virtually impossible to enforce but it would raise a whole host of very difficult to deal with civil liberties issues.

Hence, the most sensible and straightforward course is to keep incest banned.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Once again.... you have NOT DEFINED this 'order of nature' (and no, the other thread does not do so - it merely points out a couple of areas that you believe are covered by this order)... this is not a semantic argument, you simply have not explained what the heck you are talking about - it would be like me saying that banning incest goes against the 'order of reality' wtf is the order of reality?

 

[Tiberius]

Actually no, I am protesting against the legalisation of incest.

To put your theory into plan though would mean compulsory contraception usage for incestuous couples.

Not only would this be virtually impossible to enforce but it would raise a whole host of very difficult to deal with civil liberties issues.

Hence, the most sensible and straightforward course is to keep incest banned.

Right, because if there's the risk of birth defects, contraception should be used, so it's better to simply say that sex that can result in birth defects should be banned.

Is that it, Martin? Are you saying that sex that can cause birth defects should be banned?

 

[nnmartin]

In the case of serious defects then, yes.

However this could be very hard to define and enforce.

But with incest the case is much clearer - we can notice just by seeing children born of incest that something is wrong. Usually there is a very stange look on the face or in the eyes and the forehead is too big.

This is clearly wrong and is the result of genetic warping.

It is nature's way of telling us that it should be banned.

 

[happyhappa]

I feel like it really damages familial relationships.

 

[Tiberius]

In the case of serious defects then, yes.

However this could be very hard to define and enforce.

But with incest the case is much clearer - we can notice just by seeing children born of incest that something is wrong. Usually there is a very stange look on the face or in the eyes and the forehead is too big.

This is clearly wrong and is the result of genetic warping.

It is nature's way of telling us that it should be banned.

Are you actually saying we should tell people that they can't have children if there is the risk of birth defects?

 

[McBell]

Because it is against The Order of Nature.

Except that you have not shown this claim to have any bearing on reality.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Are you actually saying we should tell people that they can't have children if there is the risk of birth defects?

Was he not clear? Yes he is. So am I. But that really deserves it's own thread if it needs discussion, it's scope is far beyond incest.

I don't agree with him that that means banning incest is a logical step, enforcing punishment on those that knowingly reproduce children with birth defects would be a sufficient deterrent.