Should incest be banned?

[nnmartin]

psychological damage, abuse issues, corruption of trust and emotion - this we could call Spiritual damage.

Have you ever had sex with a girl who was a long term friend - afterwards the friendship is not usually the same and tends to dissolve.

We don't want this happening within the family, as family is meant to be for life.

Spiritual and psychological damage are two of the issues here. (amongst others)

 

[McBell]

psychological damage, abuse issues, corruption of trust and emotion - this we could call Spiritual damage.

Have you ever had sex with a girl who was a long term friend - afterwards the friendship is not usually the same and tends to dissolve.

We don't want this happening within the family, as family is meant to be for life.

Spiritual and psychological damage are two of the issues here. (amongst others)

nice try.
However we are not a group on elementary school kids.

Want to try again on at least a high school level?

 

[Me Myself]

Have you ever had sex with a girl who was a long term friend - afterwards the friendship is not usually the same and tends to dissolve.

I have.

We are still very good friends.

 

[Tiberius]

psychological damage, abuse issues, corruption of trust and emotion - this we could call Spiritual damage.

Oh, Martin, are you purposely ignoring what I am ACTUALLY saying?

I have made it clear that I am asking for SPECIFIC things. You are just giving me general terms, like psychological damage (given an example os psychological damage that occurs as a result of consensual sex between siblings), abuse issues (did Billy or Sally do the abusing, and what specific kind of abuse was it? What effects did this alleged abuse leave behind?), corruption of trust (please explain how any trust between Billy and Sally was corrupted) and corruption of emotion (please explain how Billy's or Sally's emotions have been damaged/hurt).

Have you ever had sex with a girl who was a long term friend - afterwards the friendship is not usually the same and tends to dissolve.

Yes, I have, and she is still my best friend.

We don't want this happening within the family, as family is meant to be for life.

And you seem to be implying that incest will break a family apart - despite the fact that you have NEVER shown how this is the case.

Spiritual and psychological damage are two of the issues here. (amongst others)

You haven't even established those two yet. All you've done is use buzzwords that sound important but don't really say anything, and those that do carry meaning have not been shown to apply to the situation I described.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Eh, he isn't gonna come up with anything, because there is no OBJECTIVE proof that consensual incestuous sex harms anyone. Of course, i don't buy into the theory that we ought to make something illegal just to protect someone, even if there was proof that consensual incestuous sex would harm people.

The best nnmartin has been able to come up with, is to say that it's gross, and that it's supposedly immoral. nnmartin has proven, pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he hasn't any objective proof for his position. He keeps putting forth his opinion, worded a little differently each time, in hopes that we will be fooled into thinking he's actually presented proof.

I can say this much, in nnmartin's defense, is that every other person who's jumped on the bandwagon about incest being immoral and wrong, has been unable to do any better. Even neologic didn't say much more than "ew it's gross, and society doesn't like it either, so it must be bad".

 

[Quintessence]

Eh, he isn't gonna come up with anything, because there is no OBJECTIVE proof that consensual incestuous sex harms anyone.

I smell a Ph.D. thesis in the making...

But in seriousness, maybe there has been research on this? Aside from the obvious genetic aspect whereby inbreeding for too many generations increases the likelihood of deleterious gene expression?

If he wants to believe incest is wrong, who cares? What bothers me is that his opinion is the law of my country and the grounds for such a law are frivolous.

 

[nnmartin]

as you have just pointed out, incest can well lead to genetic abnormalities in children.

this is a good enough reason for banning it - and this is objective proof.

This point has also been made over and over by me yet is simply dismissed due to the vague notion that those with inheritable diseases are allowed to have carnal pleasure.

two wrongs does not make a right.

Now, if someone would like to make a separate thread on the inheritable diseases then go ahead, it could be interesting.

but whatever the outcome of that argument is , the fact remains that incestous reproduction leads to abnormalities in the children.

 

[Quintessence]

as you have just pointed out, incest can well lead to genetic abnormalities in children.

this is a good enough reason for banning it - and this is objective proof.

No. It's not a good enough reason for banning it. Nor is it objective. You're still making a value judgement that is subjective.

1) Not all sex is for reproduction. Therefore, this "problem" does not apply in all cases.

2) Genetic abnormalities happen regardless of who is having sex with whom. Let's just ban sex altogether then, right?

3) Claims of what genetic patterns are "abnormal" or "bad" is not objective and stinks of eugenics.

4) Problems associated inbreeding take several generations to manifest in any significant fashion.

5) The probability of a child inheriting some particular "bad" condition from an incestuous couple versus a non-incestuous one is a great deal more complicated than you seem to be granting.

6) The human species is in absolutely no danger of inbreeding depression. There's seven blasted billion of us. We're not exactly a threatened or endangered species. Only when dealing with a T/E species does balancing the issues of inbreeding over many generations become vital for ensuring that species survival.

 

[9Westy9]

any act of reproduction can produce children with defects

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Then we should ban all acts of reproduction! Besides, with the bodily fluids, the smells.... its icky! And there is the chance of abuse and other psychological problems as well as problems inflicted on the wider community such as cheating, the need to support offspring, the need to provide additional health services.

 

[rageoftyrael]

lol, i made that comparison in one of my comments a few pages ago, about how we aren't exactly an endangered species. Let me make this clear, we do not need people to protect us from ourselves. we need people to protect us from each other! i mean really, even if incest were legalized, i highly doubt it would become very much more prevalent in our society. i don't think incest, in and of itself, is wrong or immoral, but i still find it yucky. i don't want to have sex with my sisters. and most people think it's yucky, so, inspite of your fearmongering nnmartin, you have nothing to fear, even if it was legalized. so essentially, your argument really does come down to "that's gross, make it illegal!"

 

[Tiberius]

as you have just pointed out, incest can well lead to genetic abnormalities in children.

So can many things, such as people who have genetic inheritable diseases. Are you suggesting that the possibility of leading to genetic abnormalities in children is grounds for banning any sex that can lead to that?

this is a good enough reason for banning it - and this is objective proof.

Despite the fact that this only is an issue when children are conceived from sex - and stopping conception is something that we are quite good at.

This point has also been made over and over by me yet is simply dismissed due to the vague notion that those with inheritable diseases are allowed to have carnal pleasure.

Well, it's dismissed on two grounds, both of which I have mentioned above:

1. If you want to ban one type of sex on the grounds that it can lead to genetic abnormalities in children, shouldn't we ban all kinds of sex that can lead to genetic abnormalities in children?
2. It is quite an easy matter to prevent pregnancy from occurring.

You ignore these rebuttals each and every time they are presented.

two wrongs does not make a right.

But the problem of genetic abnormalities in children conceived from incestuous sex being avoided by preventing conception entirely does make a right.

Now, if someone would like to make a separate thread on the inheritable diseases then go ahead, it could be interesting.

I'd certainly be interested in what you have to say...

but whatever the outcome of that argument is , the fact remains that incestous reproduction leads to abnormalities in the children.

The fact remains that incestuous sex doesn't have to lead to children at all!

 

[nnmartin]

how can you force an incestuous couple to use contraception?

are you advocating mandated sterilisation or abortion in these cases?

 

[Neo-Logic]

How does a brother and sister having consensual sex harm the larger interests of society?

Did you read the sentences that followed the one you're quoting? Usually it's a good idea to read the whole post through one time, then start quoting, not the other way around my friend. But, I'll bite!

How does a brother and sister having consensual sex damage public health?

I wrote "There is a 'health' issue because birth defects can happen over time in conception between persons related to a particular degree, but this is a lesser issue." Note, I state that health reason is less important of the three between than morality. And yes--there is a reason, because contraception doesn't prevent higher than normal and increased birth defects rates when children is the desired outcome, and not necessarily just sex between brothers and sisters.

How does a brother and sister having consensual sex harm safety?

I never suggest it harms safety. You misunderstand my original sentence that reads: "the right of privacy to sexual acts between individuals is limited and can be regulated to preserve larger interests of society, usually along the lines of public health, safety and morality of some kind" to mean that incest harms ALL of public health, safety AND morality.

What kind?

By now I'm assuming you didn't read through the post ...

Where's the public interest involved with siblings having consensual sex? Sex is PRIVATE. Where's the public interest involved in ANY consensual sex?

By now I"m still assuming you didn't read through the post ...

And then you play the morality card, despite the fact that some people don't see it as immoral at all. I don't see where you''ve said anything objective that is a legitimate argument against incest.So morality is dictated by general consensus? If most people thought murder was okay, would it become moral too?Claiming that there's a legal basis is rather circular, isn't it? And your personal opinion? Well, at least you have the decency to admit that it is subjective!

Democratic process is by nature, subjective, but with boundaries. Since democratic process reflects the opinions of the people and their subjective personal moralities, the resulting outcomes are in a sense, morality dictated by general consensus.

I never claim that even the democratic process is 'objective'. Instead, I said "This is a less objective and more subjective whims of democracy at work here, but one that's well within the purview of our democratic process.".

And yes--if 2/3rds of American population decided that murder was moral by consensus and voted it into the constitution via a new amendment, it would be the subjective morality of individuals forming a consensus and dictating morality by law.

And yes--this is how it works. There are of course, metes and bounds of how far this can be taken, but as it stands, right to privacy is not absolute. And among the state interests of safety, health and morality, morality is what constitutes the legal basis of state interest in incest. This is no different than dozens of other laws in place based on morality--cruelty against animals, indecency laws, bestiality, etc. These are all subjective moralities at play, regardless of whether or not someone thinks beating up animals while naked in public then having sex with them doesn't harm anyone or anything.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Why SHOULD either be the case? He presented you with one potential scenario, not a commitment to enact law to prevent any incestuous conceptions.... why the heck are you so hung up on using the law to ban types of sexual unions, to require contraception, to sterilise people or to have abortions?

Why is creating laws your first recourse for addressing things you do not like?

 

[Tiberius]

how can you force an incestuous couple to use contraception?

are you advocating mandated sterilisation or abortion in these cases?

Geez, Martin, people use contraception every single day. They do it VOLUNTARILY. Do you know what that means? Do you think that people won't do it unless there is a law telling them to?

 

[Tiberius]

Did you read the sentences that followed the one you're quoting? Usually it's a good idea to read the whole post through one time, then start quoting, not the other way around my friend. But, I'll bite!

Yes I did. And you explained nothing, you just made a few vague statements without given any reason to believe that they represent reality.

I wrote "There is a 'health' issue because birth defects can happen over time in conception between persons related to a particular degree, but this is a lesser issue." Note, I state that health reason is less important of the three between than morality. And yes--there is a reason, because contraception doesn't prevent higher than normal and increased birth defects rates when children is the desired outcome, and not necessarily just sex between brothers and sisters.

You are throwing away your best argument? You say that this is the LEAST important one, but it is the only one you can actually demonstrate! And even this falls apart when contraception is used.

The health issue doesn't apply.

I never suggest it harms safety. You misunderstand my original sentence that reads: "the right of privacy to sexual acts between individuals is limited and can be regulated to preserve larger interests of society, usually along the lines of public health, safety and morality of some kind" to mean that incest harms ALL of public health, safety AND morality.

So you are still making general statements. And you are apparently posting things that don't apply.

How about you just post relevant stuff?

By now I'm assuming you didn't read through the post ...

By now I"m still assuming you didn't read through the post ...

And I'm assuming that you were just posting a bunch of stuff that you don't think applies to incest at all.

Do you think that incest harms public health, safety or morality?

If so, please provide SPECIFIC examples.

If not, quit wasting everyone's time posting irrelevant stuff.

Democratic process is by nature, subjective, but with boundaries. Since democratic process reflects the opinions of the people and their subjective personal moralities, the resulting outcomes are in a sense, morality dictated by general consensus.

In other words, forces the views of the majority onto the entirety. You don't see how that is unfair?

And yes--if 2/3rds of American population decided that murder was moral by consensus and voted it into the constitution via a new amendment, it would be the subjective morality of individuals forming a consensus and dictating morality by law.

And I hope you see the problem with this system.

And yes--this is how it works. There are of course, metes and bounds of how far this can be taken, but as it stands, right to privacy is not absolute.

So two people doing something in their own homes, something which does not affect ANYONE else do not have a right to privacy?

And among the state interests of safety, health and morality, morality is what constitutes the legal basis of state interest in incest.

A morality that you've said is dictated by the majority!

This is no different than dozens of other laws in place based on morality--cruelty against animals, indecency laws, bestiality, etc. These are all subjective moralities at play, regardless of whether or not someone thinks beating up animals while naked in public then having sex with them doesn't harm anyone or anything.

Cruelty against animals and indecency is subjective?

If someone breaks a dog's leg, is that a subjective thing? Of course not. It is clearly seen that this hurts the animal - it involves a living thing in something which it does not want to be involved in. How can that ever be viewed as acceptable?

And indecency, like someone having sex in the middle of a crowded street is also clearly seen to involve people who do not want to be involved - in this case, everyone who sees it and does not want to see it.

As for bestiality, we've got a whole thread on that, feel free to go and post there.

 

[Neo-Logic]

In other words, forces the views of the majority onto the entirety. You don't see how that is unfair?And I hope you see the problem with this system.

The democratic process is majority rule with minority protection. It's the least unfair of all the systems. I can see many problems with the system, but it's the least problematic of all the systems that exists. The majority can dictate moral laws based on their individual subjective morality. This is not news here.

So two people doing something in their own homes, something which does not affect ANYONE else do not have a right to privacy?

Privacy is not absolute. Unlawful things done in privacy doesn't make them any more lawful. That being said, your entire argument advocating incest is focused solely on those between siblings. It should also be noted that I said anti-incestuousness laws are often passed to protect children and guard against child (even if past the age of consent) and parental incestuous relations because parents often have the most influence in their children's lives and fear of coercion and undue influence may apply. I even said laws don't necessarily concern "adult siblings, per se" because circumstances and intentions of the morality laws are less concerned with them. But even sibling relations fall under the jurisdiction of morality laws, even in the privacy of their own homes.

And your claim that it doesn't affect 'ANYONE' is only that. The state can exert interest based on safety, morality, and public health. It has grounds on all three with some holding more weight than others. Safety in parent-child relations. Public health because resulting children can have higher than normal birth defects and rates between siblings and or between parents/child when procreation is the desired goal, not the recreational sex--something hard to prevent. Morality because there is a social contract and the state can promote certain values for the general welfare over and in place of other values.

Cruelty against animals and indecency is subjective?

Absolutely. So are parental rights vs parental restrictions, such as spanking, which in some cases, can constitute abuse. This news to you?

 

[nnmartin]

.
As for bestiality, we've got a whole thread on that, feel free to go and post there.

oh no!

let's not dig that thread up again.

what is it with you and bestiality/incest, can you not get enough or something?

 

[Tiberius]

The democratic process is majority rule with minority protection. It's the least unfair of all the systems. I can see many problems with the system, but it's the least problematic of all the systems that exists. The majority can dictate moral laws based on their individual subjective morality. This is not news here.

I fail to see how it is fair to say that two people can't engage in a consensual sexual act in the privacy of their own home when said act does not involve anyone else.

Privacy is not absolute. Unlawful things done in privacy doesn't make them any more lawful.

Yes, provided there is a valid reason for it to be unlawful.

Your argument seems to be rather circular: It's unlawful because there's a law against it, and we established that law against it because it's unlawful.

That being said, your entire argument advocating incest is focused solely on those between siblings.

That is the example which I used. However, you seem to be concentrating on situations such as a parent having sex with an underage child.

My position is that consensual sex between two closely related people is not in and of itself harmful to either of those people.

It should also be noted that I said anti-incestuousness laws are often passed to protect children

And incest with children would be wrong because it is rape.

and guard against child (even if past the age of consent) and parental incestuous relations because parents often have the most influence in their children's lives

Are you actually saying that consensual sex between a 40 year old child and their 65 year old parent is going to be the same as a 15 year old child and their 40 year old parent?

and fear of coercion and undue influence may apply.

May apply? Then again, it may not apply.

And what you are speaking of is wrong because it is rape, not incest.

I even said laws don't necessarily concern "adult siblings, per se" because circumstances and intentions of the morality laws are less concerned with them. But even sibling relations fall under the jurisdiction of morality laws, even in the privacy of their own homes.

So if two siblings do something in the privacy of their own home which harms neither of them, which they are both willing to be a part of and no one else ever knows about, what harm has been done?

Or are you going to admit that there are some laws that are concerned not with protect the physical, mental and emotional safety of people, but with needless meddling in people's lives?

And your claim that it doesn't affect 'ANYONE' is only that.

Within the last year, a consensual act of incestuous sex act took place in your country. Please, tell me how your life has been affected by this act.

The state can exert interest based on safety, morality, and public health.

And I will ask you the same question I have asked Martin. Give SPECIFIC examples of these threats to safety, morality and public health that are a result of 20 year old siblings having sex with each other.

Safety in parent-child relations.

If a parent has sex with an underage child, then it is wrong because it is rape. If the child is a mature adult, and both consented to the sex, then what safety has been jeopardized?

Public health because resulting children can have higher than normal birth defects and rates between siblings and or between parents/child when procreation is the desired goal, not the recreational sex--something hard to prevent.

That's a minutely small percentage you are talking about. How many people out there have incestuous sex for the purposes of creating a child?

Morality because there is a social contract and the state can promote certain values for the general welfare over and in place of other values.

What are you talking about when you say "Social contract"?

Absolutely. So are parental rights vs parental restrictions, such as spanking, which in some cases, can constitute abuse. This news to you?[/QUOTE]

oh no!

let's not dig that thread up again.

what is it with you and bestiality/incest, can you not get enough or something?

Oh, is that the best you have? If I was arguing in support of gay marriage, would you accuse me of being gay?