Should incest be banned?

[McBell]

Then you must also have an issue with ANY sex that can create a child with a risk of birth defects.

Now, what I am asking you is this: Assuming that it were possible to ensure that incestuous sex never resulted in a pregnancy, would you still have a problem with such sex? If so, why?

When you come in here and start saying that since we can't 100% make sure that pregnancy will never happen, and your resulting refusal to leave that particular issue alone is exactly what I was talking about back in post 628.

It is simply because he has an issue with family members getting it on with each other.
The whole genetic argument is merely a smoke screen for his "yuck" factor.

 

[Tiberius]

Oh, of course. I just think it's funny that he thinks he is fooling anyone.

 

[nnmartin]

Now, what I am asking you is this: Assuming that it were possible to ensure that incestuous sex never resulted in a pregnancy, would you still have a problem with such sex? If so, why?

because it is immoral and a contributing factor to social decay.

(It is also against the Order of Nature though you have made no attempt to try and understand that concept, but seem merely content to descend into a debate over semantics.)

We can see social decay occurring before our very eyes - think at how crime rates, drug abuse, violence, corruption, exploitation and general levels of immorality have increased over the last few decades.

This is all due to the human desire to have what they want, when they want regardless of the consequences. Mainly this is due to capitalism and bourgeousie social democracy.

Those campaigning for 'freedom' for all unless direct harm is caused are merely adding to this melting pot of decay.

Legalising incest is a prime example of this.

This would send out the message that incest is not an irresponsible activity thus feeding the monster of immorality that lurks beneath the surface of society.

did you choose to just disregard the point I made about Nature telling us that incest is wrong - if it were fine then why would it create abnormalities in children and why don't we all feel an attraction to our relatives?

 

[nnmartin]

The Glorious Post 628

It's not up to him to specify how this is to be done. He is proposing a hypothetical. If the genetic concerns could be completely eliminated, would you have a problem with it?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it because incest is wrong.

Sexual activity occurs normally due to the latent desire to produce children.

We know that in many cases , incest does not produce correct ones - thus it is not meant to occur.

We also know this because most normal people do not feel an attraction to their relatives.

So, whether a child is actually produced or not is not entirely relevant.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

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.

Frubals; well said


Edit: I must have hit back lol, this is the 40th post - but still answers just about every post in the last 40 posts of this thread; 600 posts later - with all the counter arguments (many of which are very valid) therein, those in favour of banning incest remain unchanged - unwilling to engage the counter-arguments.

 

[Tiberius]

because it is immoral and a contributing factor to social decay.

Define social decay. And then clearly explain exactly how incest leads to it.

(It is also against the Order of Nature though you have made no attempt to try and understand that concept, but seem merely content to descend into a debate over semantics.)

Define natural order.

We can see social decay occurring before our very eyes - think at how crime rates, drug abuse, violence, corruption, exploitation and general levels of immorality have increased over the last few decades.

Please show me how incest will lead to any of these. Please not that "morality" is a subjective term. Some people think it is immoral to eat meat, for example.

This is all due to the human desire to have what they want, when they want regardless of the consequences. Mainly this is due to capitalism and bourgeousie social democracy.

Providing that everyone is consenting, what harmful consequences come from incest?

Those campaigning for 'freedom' for all unless direct harm is caused are merely adding to this melting pot of decay.

Legalising incest is a prime example of this.

Boy, you're really good at using a lot of words to say nothing.

This would send out the message that incest is not an irresponsible activity thus feeding the monster of immorality that lurks beneath the surface of society.

Poetic claims, but completely unsupported.

did you choose to just disregard the point I made about Nature telling us that incest is wrong - if it were fine then why would it create abnormalities in children and why don't we all feel an attraction to our relatives?

Given that people tend to be lactose intolerant on average, isn't that nature's way of telling us that drinking milk is wrong? Given that people don't have wings, isn't that nature's way of telling us that flying is wrong?

 

[nnmartin]

Given that people tend to be lactose intolerant on average, isn't that nature's way of telling us that drinking milk is wrong? Given that people don't have wings, isn't that nature's way of telling us that flying is wrong?

that really is absurd.

now ,those people that have some kind of food allergy would quickly learn not to eat that product.

But we are all theoretically baby-producing-by-incest intolerant hence we should all stay away from such activity.

As for your wings analogy, well, that is just too silly to comment on.

The rest of your post is just the usual argument-over-semantics drivel that has become synonymous with the good name Tiberius.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, I would still have a problem with it because incest is wrong.

Okay. Then since we have both agreed that it is very easy to ensure that sex does not lead to children, I think we can take it as a given that we are talking about incestuous sex in which contraception is used. I've already agreed with you that since incestuous sex can lead to birth defects, this is cause for making sure that it doesn't happen.

So in the future, let's confine our discussion to incestuous sex that CAN'T lead to pregnancy, okay?

Sexual activity occurs normally due to the latent desire to produce children.

We know that in many cases , incest does not produce correct ones - thus it is not meant to occur.

We also know this because most normal people do not feel an attraction to their relatives.

So, whether a child is actually produced or not is not entirely relevant.

You say that it isn't MEANT to occur. This implies a conscious will of some sort. Pray tell, whose will would this be?

 

[nnmartin]

The will of Nature.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Quit dodging me, nnmartin! you said it was okay for a stepfather and a daughter to have sex, or a adoptive father and his daughter to have sex. If you wish to take that back, fine, but if you don't, then you have literally nullified every single argument you have put forth, except for potential defects. So, do you stand by that? If you do, you pretty much have to stop arguing from any other argument than the biological, cause all other issues you brought up would still (theoretically) occur between a stepfather and daughter. So, which is it? Is it okay for a stepfather and daughter to have sex, or isn't it?

 

[nnmartin]

it's not really ok from a moral point of view, and as I said , it is very distasteful.

However it is not technically incest so should not be banned by law.

 

[Tiberius]

The will of Nature.

That tells me nothing. As do all of your posts.

 

[nnmartin]

think of 'will of Nature' as an allegory.

That may help your understanding.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Okay, here's the problem as i see it, nnmartin. You may have said it isn't okay morally, and that it is distasteful, but that because it technically isn't incest, it shouldn't be illegal. How does that make sense? The way you've been arguing, at least with all the social decay nonsense, this is something you would want to stop! If outright incest should be made illegal, for any number of supposed psychological reasons, than wouldn't that same logic apply in the case of a stepfather/adoptive father scenario? If we are stopping people from doing things cause it hurts society, than shouldn't we, by that logic, stop the stepfather from taking "advantage" of his daughter? This seems like circular reasoning that you are putting forth, nnmartin. Like i said, if a stepfather and daughter having sex is "ok" even if distasteful, than literally every argument except the biological ones must be dropped.

 

[Tiberius]

think of 'will of Nature' as an allegory.

That may help your understanding.

Allegory for what? Surely you are describing something real that exists in this universe and outside of your mind. So why resort to using allegory? Can't you describe the actual thing?

 

[nnmartin]

I said 'think of it as allegory' to avoid the usual Evolution 101 response.

Man must go along with nature's wills and methods to a large extent, and it seems as if incest is just not in the overall game plan here.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yet the occasional act of incest is not that rare in nature; incest sustained over generations on the other hand is more rare (and more destructive) within nature.

 

[Tiberius]

I said 'think of it as allegory' to avoid the usual Evolution 101 response.

Man must go along with nature's wills and methods to a large extent, and it seems as if incest is just not in the overall game plan here.

What in the world are you talking about? What is this "evolution 101 response" you talk of? Why do you seem to think that nature is something APART from man? Why do you keep speaking as though nature has a conscious will?

And why can't you just talk in plain English?

 

[nnmartin]

I was trying to avoid a lecture on how evolution supposedly works.

but we can see clearly, that when we mess with nature things usually go wrong in the long term , as in the AIDS example I gave earlier.

Radiation, nuclear power etc.. seems to be messing with nature and this can also have devestating effects.

Incest is another example, though admittedly to a lesser extent.

 

[Tiberius]

I was trying to avoid a lecture on how evolution supposedly works.

but we can see clearly, that when we mess with nature things usually go wrong in the long term , as in the AIDS example I gave earlier.

Radiation, nuclear power etc.. seems to be messing with nature and this can also have devestating effects.

Incest is another example, though admittedly to a lesser extent.

So is space travel. medicine. You concentrate on what you can twist to support your position, and ignore everything else.

Now, unlike you, I have a fairly good grasp of how evolution works. And incest doesn't go against evolutionary theory at all. Not unless you can show that a desire to have incestuous sex is genetic and that this trait can be carried on to offspring. Which it can't, because this trait will be carried by those who have a greater likelihood of having some condition which will prevent them from living long enough to pass that trait on.

Now, can you stop making unsupported claims? it's an old joke now. Post some evidence that any of what you say is true. Stop hiding behind vague and nonsensical claims.