Should incest be banned?

[nnmartin]

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

Your comments about commonsense, morality and public opinion are based on out of date cultures from way back in the past.

Things were different then so no real point comparing today's society to those of the past.

Eating bugs may not be everyone's idea of a gourmet meal but this is not the same as having sex with them.

Now that would be strange.

 

[Drolefille]

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.

So all I have to say is that it's not just my opinion but the High Muckity Muck of Mucking's opinion too and therefore you should listen to it.

If you can't come up with a logical reason to ban something that isn't "ewww icky" you should probably not ban it.

I mean, if I think Christianity is eewwww icky, should I ban it? (Obviously I should, this is a perfectly good argument. Just see the natural revulsion I have.)

 

[nnmartin]

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.

How can using the Highest Judge of the land as an example be considered a fallacy?

 

[Drolefille]

How can using the Highest Judge of the land as an example be considered a fallacy?

Which Judge is that?

 

[McBell]

Your comments about commonsense, morality and public opinion are based on out of date cultures from way back in the past.

Things were different then so no real point comparing today's society to those of the past.

Eating bugs may not be everyone's idea of a gourmet meal but this is not the same as having sex with them.

Now that would be strange.

You sidestep with bull **** like a practiced pro.

 

[McBell]

How can using the Highest Judge of the land as an example be considered a fallacy?

It is an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Me Myself]

Your comments about commonsense, morality and public opinion are based on out of date cultures from way back in the past.

Things were different then so no real point comparing today's society to those of the past.

So? thi9ngs are gong to be different i the future too. Maybe in the future a lot of things that you consider imoral will be held perfectly moral, and you wold be held immoral for condemning people about it.

If our society has evolved it´s morality over time, what makes you think we are at our prime moraly? EVERY society things this about itself with incredibly scarse exceptions.

my comments are completely on date in the sense that you can understand from them (well... I think you can understand if you try...) that not because everyone think something it´s true it is going to be magicaly true.

In that regard my comments are very effective in revealing the unreliable superiority of the majority for a moral stance.

Furthermore, if you are a christian "The road to heaven is narrow and there are few that pass through it". Moraly correct people are a minority (unfortunately), don´t kid yourself about that one.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Argument from incredulity. This is a logical fallacy and is not a valid argument.

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.

And yet you cannot provide any objective method to determine if something is against the natural order, can you. You can't even tell me what the natural order is.

The fact that brother and sister are chemically repelled

Provide a source for this.

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.

Prove that this will happen after one generation.

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.

Can you show me a picture or an account of ANYONE who is even just mildly handicapped DUE SOLELY to the fact that this person's parents were brother and sister?

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.

Once again you make the claim that such deformities and abnormalities manifest after one generation - that is, perfectly healthy parents produce deformed children - when the parents are siblings. I ask you once again to provide a source for this. A LEGITIMATE source.

And you have completely ignored my previous post. Could you address it please?

 

[nnmartin]

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.

What's with the insistence on objectivity - does a judge solely rely on this?

Apart from the biological factors there are some serious psychological issues to deal with as well. Having sex with your sister that you have grown up with is likely to cause mental and social problems albeit in a possibly indirect way that may not be provable in a laboratory.

There are many indirect consequences of actions that are hard to prove in an objective manner but that does not mean they do not exist.

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

No need to act like them though - it's called civilisation.

 

[nnmartin]

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

This is referring to the request for 10 more examples of why incest is wrong and what it can cause.

1. Indirect psychological problems
2. Physical abnormalities.
3. Inheritance issues
4. Other legal issues.
5. Social decay
6. Bullying
7. Embarrassment for a region/nation.
8. Sexual abuse issues
9. Most major religions condemn it.
10. It is not real love.

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

Get a divorce quick!

 

[nnmartin]

So? thi9ngs are gong to be different i the future too. Maybe in the future a lot of things that you consider imoral will be held perfectly moral, and you wold be held immoral for condemning people about it.

It makes sense to live in the here and now not base laws on theoretical future societies.

For now, there is no place for incest in modern societies and I can't see any reason why it should be legalised.

Can you?

 

[not nom]

It makes sense to live in the here and now not base laws on theoretical future societies.

For now, there is no place for incest in modern societies and I can't see any reason why it should be legalised.

Can you?

well, yeah, actually. besides comedy, here's a really good reason:

you want to ban it, but it IS banned. sooooo... you'd have to legalize it first, before you can ban it again, you see? if banning incest floats your boat, I don't think society should stop you from following your dream!

Peter Tosh- Legalize it - YouTube

 

[nnmartin]

that is daft because it is obvious from my posts that I know it is banned already.

did you not even properly read your post which quoted me as saying '....why should it be legalised.......'

 

[HiddenDjinn]

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

I find it laughable when I hear this "rebuttal" used for all kinds of depraved behavior. Homosexuality is a common one. Sure, you can find an example of everything, including cannibalism, in the animal kingdom, but I don't believe it's considered natural until it is widespread among an entire population. In that sense, most of the acts that people "defend" as "natural" aren't even natural among humans. Yes, rainbow pride, I'm talking to you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is referring to the request for 10 more examples of why incest is wrong and what it can cause.

1. Indirect psychological problems why is they are happy with it.
2. Physical abnormalities. not if sterile
3. Inheritance issues Not if sterile
4. Other legal issues. ?other?
5. Social decay not if it is accepted ?
6. Bullying Why?
7. Embarrassment for a region/nation. Who would be embarrassed?
8. Sexual abuse issues None is mutual consent
9. Most major religions condemn it. So what ?
10. It is not real love. How do you Know.?

If the persons involved are sterile, It would be hard to make a case against incest.
Only the effect on offspring is a valid danger.

All the points you are subjective and most have been raise against Homosexuals and now part of history.
Legal issues vary with country

Actions with out Harm are not Sins. They are simply contrary to a belief.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Incest is not illegal in many countries
In some it is somewhat selective. in many others it is not prosecuted even though illegal.

From Wiki.....

Japan
Incest laws were effectively abolished in 1881 with the creation of the new Penal Code. Incest between consenting partners is legal.
Israel
Incest is legal in Israel.[27]
Russia
In Russia, consensual sex between adults, including incest, is not a crime.[18] However, under the Family Code of Russia, persons who are related lineally, siblings, half-siblings, and a stepparent and a stepchild may not marry.[19]
Portugal
Incest is not specifically prohibited under Portuguese law.[17]
France
Napoleon abolished incest laws in France and Belgium. Incest had been legal in these two countries.[5] On 27 January 2010, France reinstated laws against incest, which had been thrown out during the French Revolution as a "religious taboo" over 200 years prior. The new law, however, defines incest as rape or sexual abuse on a minor "by a relative or any other person having lawful or de facto authority over the victim". Incest between consenting adults is not prohibited.[14]
Europe
Most European countries have laws against incest between lineal ancestors/descendants, and between full siblings. However, in most countries these laws are no longer enforced if the incest takes place between consenting adults..[10]
Argentina
In Argentina, incest between individuals who are over the minimum age of consent is not prohibited.[3] Marriage between 3rd degree relatives (avunculate marriage) and beyond is allowed, with the exception of marriage involving lineal ancestors and descendants, which is considered null and void disregarding the degree of separation (parent/offspring, grandparent-grandchild).[4]
Brazil
In Brazil, incest is considered any kind of sexual interaction between two blood related human beings. It has no criminal punishment if the involved are over the age of 14, capable of acting upon their legal rights, and that consent means that the relationship is absent of any kind of coercion or fraud. An uncle or aunt is allowed to have a relationship with a nephew or niece provided that they have a health check.[5]

 

[zenzero]

Friend nnmartin,

Should incest be banned?

Socially yes, agree with you that it is a good idea to build a consensus upon.
However what about *THOUGHTS* that one dwells in the mind?
Till thoughts remain in some mind, it will crop up somewhere or the other.

Love & rgds

 

[McBell]

I find it laughable when I hear this "rebuttal" used for all kinds of depraved behavior. Homosexuality is a common one. Sure, you can find an example of everything, including cannibalism, in the animal kingdom, but I don't believe it's considered natural until it is widespread among an entire population. In that sense, most of the acts that people "defend" as "natural" aren't even natural among humans. Yes, rainbow pride, I'm talking to you.

What I find comical is that people think the argument "it is not natural" has any merit what so ever.
Not to mention the fact that you use a thread about incest to attack homosexuals.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

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.

Society evolves. That was my point. Judging based on what is publicly acceptable at the moment is really one of the most ignorant stances you can take.

 

[Drolefille]

I find it laughable when I hear this "rebuttal" used for all kinds of depraved behavior. Homosexuality is a common one. Sure, you can find an example of everything, including cannibalism, in the animal kingdom, but I don't believe it's considered natural until it is widespread among an entire population. In that sense, most of the acts that people "defend" as "natural" aren't even natural among humans. Yes, rainbow pride, I'm talking to you.

Neither is wearing glasses or typing on a computer if you want to be picky.

As for "acts" involved, they're the same sorts of things that straight people do. If you object to who we do them with, you're the one with the problem. I don't think i've ever criticised your choice of a sexual partner or reduced your existence to how you screw. So please refrain from doing so to the rest of us.

And seriously, doing this in an incest thread? Way to reverse the slippery slope.