Should incest be banned?

[Duck]

well I thought that until I joined the recent thread about bestiality over in the Sexuality section.

Many people seem to favour libertarian free will over commonsense.

Apparantly commonsense doesn't actually exist - it's all just subjective moralising.

I beg to differ however - I'd say that incest being what it is should be banned.

It's clearly against the order of nature and not necessary in any way.

why not just go out and find a normal partner or remain celibate?


I'd say that brothers and sisters shouldn't be able to have sex legally regardless of reproduction issues.

Same arguments are used by bigots to strip me of civil rights. I will come down on the libertarian free will side of things, thanks.

 

[JacobEzra.]

What about the fact that your opinions make me say 'ew'?

I find them disgusting, so why should you be allowed to say them?

I don't think opinions are equal to actions like incest. Dknt you find incest, "ew"?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Same arguments are used by bigots to strip me of civil rights. I will come down on the libertarian free will side of things, thanks.

Are you talking of homosexuality? If so, I don't see how the two are equal. One is born homosexual. One is not born to commit incest.

 

[Badran]

I don't think opinions are equal to actions like incest.

But some opinions are illegal, such as 'hate speech'. So both actions and words fall under the possibility of being legal or not, or allowed or not. If 'ew' is a good enough notion in actions case, i don't see why not in words case too.

Opinions that don't fit the public, or the majority's view would be outlawed too in that case.

Dknt you find incest, "ew"?

No, i don't. However, thats not to say that sex between brothers and sisters is okay in my view, or that it should be legal.

My point simply was that the 'ew' factor has absolutely nothing to do with it. Or at least should have nothing to do with it.

If it should be illegal then it should be so based on serious grounds, not someone's view of it as icky or weird and so on.

 

[McBell]

And where are the logical fallacies?

I think you misunderstand what he meant.

See, he is merely listing the logical fallacies he will be relying most heavily upon in this thread.

 

[McBell]

There's a difference between something that is morally wrong and something that's regarded as morally wrong.

Aside from the children issue which we've covered, you've given no reason that actually makes incest morally wrong.

Seems to me that this thread is nothing more than someone trying desperately to justify the only reason that matters to them:

God said No.​

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Um, how about that the partner would be your sister, brother, or could be your mom or dad or aunt or uncle.

Sorry, but that is completely disgusting. But sure, go on and say "to each their own"

Well yes that is what incest means. Thing is, you're not actually saying why it's disgusting, just that it is.

Which is fine for your own personal morality, but nowhere near good enough to impose as a rule on society.

 

[McBell]

Um, how about that the partner would be your sister, brother, or could be your mom or dad or aunt or uncle.

Sorry, but that is completely disgusting. But sure, go on and say "to each their own"

Yes, the "ew" factor should be the basis used for morality...

 

[McBell]

But some opinions are illegal, such as 'hate speech'.

Actually, it is not the opinion that is illegal.
It is the way said opinion is communicated that CAN BE illegal.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's depraved, immoral,

Immoral according to who?
Depraved according to who?

leads to retardation

Proof?

God forbids it

,

Which God? It seems to be common amongst most Gods, especially the Greek Gods.

It's funny how the ONE TRUE GOD always forbids everything you think it wrong and allows everything you think is right... works for all theists.

its unnatural and is just out and out weird. Many more issues of course as well.

Please show the other issues.

It's not unnatural, it's common among every other animal.

It's only weird because you make it weird...

 

[Badran]

I think 1st cousins are a bit close to the bone as well but maybe in some primitive cultures this kind of neandarthal behaviour is still necessary to an extent.

Perhaps you missed this and this, from the last time the issue was raised in another thread?

I don't think thats actually the case, but you never responded to them and i'm reposting them since i'm too lazy to post again explaining why your post is ridiculous.

 

[Badran]

Are you talking of homosexuality? If so, I don't see how the two are equal. One is born homosexual. One is not born to commit incest.

Coming up with a difference between the two examples doesn't address its main point though. Since the point wasn't that both scenarios are exactly the same.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not know a modern society where insest is not illegal, Though in a few countries dispensations for sibling marriages are possible. ( I do not know anywhere were cousin marriage is illegal)

Illegal or not... Incest not only takes place, but is common. People are only rarely convicted of incest anywhere.

 

[Badran]

Actually, it is not the opinion that is illegal.
It is the way said opinion is communicated that CAN BE illegal.

You're right. Perhaps i should have asked 'why' are they different then.

Or simply gave another example, of an action rather than an opinion, to make my point simpler.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I do not know a modern society where insest is not illegal,

Triple negative aka mindmelter

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Triple negative aka mindmelter

Not quite

(I do not know a modern society) (where insest is not illegal)

Works fine, when talking about the "illegality of incest."

 

[Duck]

Are you talking of homosexuality? If so, I don't see how the two are equal. One is born homosexual. One is not born to commit incest.

True, but I was speaking strictly to the arguments presented. The same arguments are used by the religious right (in almost, if not exactly the same words) to make arguments against repeal of sodomy laws or enacting legal protections (non-discrimination laws, employment protections, etc) for LGBT people. I think that the use of these arguments on the part of the OP should give the OP pause regarding their use, that is what I was trying to convey.

 

[cablescavenger]

Do you have any proof of this or is the "ew factor" enough proof for you?

I am not sure what the "ew factor" is?

This information was taken from the census data in 2001.

There has been a census in 2011, but I do not think the data subsets are available yet.

 

[not nom]

It's clearly against the order of nature

now that is a bogus argument whenever it is brought up. life itself is against the order of nature -- just you watch as the suns go out one by one. so are you going to outlaw life, too?

consenting adults can do whatever the **** (haha) they want to do. that means no minors, no offspring, but other than that, have orgies? I just don't care... if I spent one day listing all things I think are bad and wrong in the world, and should be changed ASAP, incest wouldn't be even on the list. though neither would legalizing it be.

I'd be more interested in why you came up with this topic than in banning incest (even more), to be perfectly honest

 

[Levite]

This topic has been mentioned in passing in a few threads recently so I thought it would be time to address the issue head on.

Should incest be banned and is it wrong?

I'd say yes and yes.

All the supposed logical fallacies apply here:

It's depraved, immoral, leads to retardation, God forbids it, its unnatural and is just out and out weird. Many more issues of course as well.

Subjective, objective or whatever type of reasoning - it is wrong and should be banned.

When I say incest I'm really talking about close family members.

I'll try to be open minded here but I can't really see any justification for legalisation.


Anyone have anything to say on this?

Well, obviously I don't think Jews should practice it, because the Torah forbids us from doing so.

But as for everyone else, who are not so commanded, I don't see it as much of an issue. First of all, I doubt it is very prevalent: social conventions probably see to that. But in any case, in the past it was generally extremely taboo because of the genetic issues that repeated incestuous matches can create in breeding; yet today, when we have effective birth control, I am not convinced that I can find reasons for it to be illegal.

It may or may not be moral, but I am not a believer in using the secular law to try and codify morality, since that may differ greatly from culture to culture and individual to individual. Legally speaking, if the partners are of age to consent, I think the law has no business asking any further questions.

That said, I do tend to be of the opinion that incestuous relationships are probably not particularly psychologically healthy. They probably blur boundaries that should be distinct and foster self/other issues, codependency, and various other dysfunctionalities. Such relationships are probably best avoided.

But there's a big difference between what is unhealthy and what ought to be against the law. People have the right to make stupid choices. That's part of what freedom is all about.