Should incest be banned?

[nnmartin]

I'll start with my best buddy Tibs:

What about atheists?

Yes, it's also bad for atheists to commit incest.

And where did Cain and Abel's wives come from? Or did they do it with Eve? And what about Noah's family? There weren't enough people on the ark to avoid having sex with close family members.

Emergency measures ordained by God are different.

If I can find an instance of incest in the animal kingdom, will you drop that argument?

Not at all, animals are animals - we are not.

so it's different again.

So is climbing into a metal tube and flying through the sky at the speed of sound, yet people do that. And I assume you don't have a problem with it.

that is not going against the order of nature though.
Man has God given ability to build machines but not to sleep with his sister.

Many more? Then I assume you won't have a problem naming ten more issues about the harm/disadvantages of incest that you haven't already mentioned.

I can do that - no time right at this moment but I will provide in due course.

Think of the legal and inheritance issues for a start - what a mess that would be!

lol, only you could acknowledge something as your own subjective opinion and then turn around and present it as objective fact in the same sentence. It's not something to be proud of.

I'll take that as a compliment - thanks.

So like brothers and sisters, not cousins?

cousins not so bad but still a bit close to home really.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Man has God given ability to build machines but not to sleep with his sister.

If this were true, this would not be an issue.

 

[not nom]

I found a good reason to ban it, so it can be funny.

if we knew for sure incest was not something that actually occured, we could accuse our most dear friends of it without that being more offensive than necessary; without hurting any third parties' feelings! awesome.

*drafts legislation proposals*

 

[Tiberius]

I think it is right to ban something that is morally wrong - of course.

Others think differently though.

I will discuss in more detail later.........

And I hope, when you do discuss this, that you will explain HOW we can objectively determine the morality of things, Martin! because if you are going to be discussing the morality of things, this needs to be defined! If you don't, then all you will be doing is arguing your opinion.

I'll start with my best buddy Tibs:

Aw, shucks...

Yes, it's also bad for atheists to commit incest.

Why? We don't have the whole "God said not to" thing going on.

Emergency measures ordained by God are different.

Wait, let's not forget that this is a system God set up! Why would he set up a system that he KNEW would require the implementation of emergency measures? Seems a bit short sighted on the part of God, don't it?

Not at all, animals are animals - we are not.

Actually, we are animals. Members of the ape family.

so it's different again.

I dare you to give me evidence to show that we are not animals.

that is not going against the order of nature though.

Yes it is. Do we find planes growing naturally? No. We have to go through a long and complicated process to create a plane. Planes are not natural. They are completely UNnatural.

Man has God given ability to build machines but not to sleep with his sister.

If I had a sister (I'm an only child), I expect my penis would fit in her vagina just as well as it would fit in any other woman's. I certainly DO have the ability to sleep with a sister (if I had one). I'm sure that other men (many of whom DO have sisters) have a similar ability.

I can do that - no time right at this moment but I will provide in due course.

I'm going to hold you to that...

Think of the legal and inheritance issues for a start - what a mess that would be!

I sure hope you can do better than that!

I'll take that as a compliment - thanks.

I tell you that it's not something to be proud of, and now you;re proud of it?

cousins not so bad but still a bit close to home really.

There are actually quite a few very famous people who married their cousins.

Anyway, let me give you a hypothetical scenario...

Tom and Sarah meet, fall in love and get married. They later find out that they are brother and sister. What should they do?

 

[nnmartin]

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

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

I didn't realise humans were meant to behave like animals.

How can incest be made not weird then?

Furthermore, I can't see any normal person bedding their sister.

 

[nnmartin]

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.

Makes no difference to the issue whether wordings such as 'it's against the order of nature' are used in other areas.

The fact is , incest is against the order of nature - if supposed bigots also use this same argument then so what.

It changes nothing.

 

[methylatedghosts]

It's my feeling that siblings who have been brought up together and who have sex with each other possibly have some serious mental health issues. I don't feel it would be a psychologically healthy relationship. I feel like perhaps there would be some history of abuse or trauma of sorts, particularly of a sexual kind. However, I'm not a professional in these matters, so I'm just guessing. I suppose it could be theoretically possible for two siblings of sound mind to have a healthy sexual relationship. Unlikely, though, I feel. In the case of two adult siblings, not discovering their sibling-ness until after the fact, I think that's a different story. I don't imagine the average person would be comfortable with that kind of discovery, and continuing the relationship.

 

[nnmartin]

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?

That is pure nonsense - the suns going out is nature.

The fact that brother and sister are chemically repelled and that if they have offspring the children are retarded and have their eyes too close together means that nature is trying to tell you something.

ie: it is not meant to be.

Have you ever seen pictures of what these mutants look like?

surely that is enough of a reason to ban it.

 

[nnmartin]

Can someone explain the problem with incest other than deformed children which can be solved with medical science if it needs to?

How can medical science sort out people who have too similar genes to their parents? - the damage is already done.

 

[nnmartin]

Public opinion once held that the sun revolved around the Earth. Morality issues used to find no fault in slavery or rape.

Used to is the key word here though.

We have moved on since then - back in those days incest was probably acceptable too.

This really is a pointless analogy.

 

[methylatedghosts]

That is pure nonsense - the suns going out is nature.

The fact that brother and sister are chemically repelled and that if they have offspring the children are retarded and have their eyes too close together means that nature is trying to tell you something.

ie: it is not meant to be.

Have you ever seen pictures of what these mutants look like?

surely that is enough of a reason to ban it.

Would that be enough of a reason to stop anyone who's a carrier of an awful-looking genetic defect to reproduce? Or would you also include one's that aren't aesthetically offensive?

 

[nnmartin]

The problem is, we can't base our laws on what creeps us out. As much as I personally don't like it, I can't impose my creep factor on consenting adults.

Why the heck not?

Public opinion, consensus, commonsense morality, codes of ethics, natural revulsion - don't those things mean anything to you?

Incest creeps most people out and until that changes it is a good enough reason to ban it.

 

[Drolefille]

Why the heck not?

Public opinion, consensus, commonsense morality, codes of ethics, natural revulsion - don't those things mean anything to you?

Incest creeps most people out and until that changes it is a good enough reason to ban it.

That is a terrible argument.

 

[methylatedghosts]

That is a terrible argument.

It's not even an argument...

 

[nnmartin]

Would that be enough of a reason to stop anyone who's a carrier of an awful-looking genetic defect to reproduce? Or would you also include one's that aren't aesthetically offensive?

No, this is different.

The fact that many children produced by incestuous reproduction look weirdly abnormal is an indicator of willful mismanagement of God's law of nature.

The example you have given only refers to cosmetics.

 

[Me Myself]

Public opinion, consensus, commonsense morality, codes of ethics, natural revulsion - don't those things mean anything to you?

Public opinion: Yeah it´s what most people think. Like when they thought the world was flat.

Consensus: what everyone consenses to more or less. Like burning witches in the stake (most of who werent witches at all)

Commonsense morality: A very very VERY inferior morality most probably. What I see people doing out of "common sense" seems to support in-human stupidity that is practicaly without check.

Codes of ethics: Everyone has it. I know the word ethics much better than you probably, you probably even confuse it with morality. It has little to do with it actually. Ethics comes from Ethos and that means character. Everything that you are used to do is "ethical" to you. That doesn´t mean it is moral or even that it is moral to you.

Natural revulsion: Something that naturaly revulse? It is too wide to say anythign important. What naturaly revulses one person doesn´t revulse the other one. Like eating bugs, it´s incredibly natural in some tribes and parts of the world.

"these things": Given the contexts they mean a "carboard argument" if you ask me.

Look look! I just used my water gun on it

Incest creeps most people out and until that changes it is a good enough reason to ban it.

Most people are creeped out about the idea of eating bugs.

They would still be a much cheaper and enviromentaly friendly (MUCH MUCH MORE enviromentaly friendly) source of proteins than cows and meat en general.

 

[methylatedghosts]

No, this is different.

The fact that many children produced by incestuous reproduction look weirdly abnormal is an indicator of willful mismanagement of God's law of nature.

The example you have given only refers to cosmetics.

I don't quite see how "You two (siblings) can't have kids, because there's a 50% chance your child will have a genetic defect, and will look a bit funny" is any different to "You two (unrelated carrier) can't have kids because there's a 50% chance your child will have a genetic defect, and will look a bit funny"

 

[nnmartin]

That is a terrible argument.

Actually it is a perfectly sensible argument because all these factors will have influenced the High Judge of the Land into making his decision to ban incest.

So it is not just my opinion here but also the Judge's.

 

[Me Myself]

I didn't realise humans were meant to behave like animals.

How can incest be made not weird then?

Furthermore, I can't see any normal person bedding their sister.

The word normal creps me out. (seriously)

Let´s make it taboo.

 

[McBell]

Actually it is a perfectly sensible argument because all these factors will have influenced the High Judge of the Land into making his decision to ban incest.

So it is not just my opinion here but also the Judge's.

It is a perfect example of logical fallacy run amok.

Thus far all you have been able to present is nothing more than appeal to authority and appeal to number fallacies.