-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should incest be banned?
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
If two adults are consenting to sex, that's all that matters in my book. An exception to this I grant is for individuals who lack sufficient agency to be consenting in an informed fashion (e.g. minors, comatose/unconscious, mentally retarded).
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Posting it in this thread is adding an extra special level of insult considering the typical rhetoric around LGBT rights. Posting it at all just flags someone as prejudiced.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The op states Should incest be banned?
The thread is not about LGBT in any way
except perhaps by common Prejudice
The thread is not about LGBT in any way
except perhaps by common Prejudice
Me Myself
Back to my username
Yes.
It punishes people for doing something that damages no one in an arbitrarial way.
I am not saying we should base our laws in theoretial future societies. I am saying we shouldn´t turn off our brain and not argue against laws that are unfair to others.
If it wasn´t for people that were ahead of the here and now for their times, the here and now of today would be full of black slavery, witch burnings, women treated as not even citizens, etc.
You need to see beyond what you have in front of you.
Yes, I will always defend living in the here and now, but also I must defend understanding waht we NEED here and now.
I don´t like incestuous relationship as a principle, but I understand that condemning them just because I dn´t like them is the same as condemning black people because people felt they were inferior, condemning women because men would feel treathened with them having more power, etc.
now if you think none of this things have nothing to do with it, you might need to get a little abstract logic practice. Patterns exist in human behaviour, wether you want/can look at them, or not.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Because it's the only way you can say that something applies to EVERYONE.
Got a source for this or are you just guessing?
Are you even capable of providing evidence for your claims?
How do you know if you can't prove them objectively?
Oh right, you're guessing again, aren't you?
-quote]No need to act like [apes] though - it's called civilisation.[/QUOTE]
And, pray tell, how do apes act?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Alright, let's see what you;ve got.
Such as?
Which do not manifest after one generation, and anyway, this is talking about offspring from such relationships. What if the people never have children?
Give a specific example.
Wow, you're getting rather vague here! This means nothing.
How do you figure this?
From people like you, no doubt.
You've gotta be kidding me.
"Don't do your sister, it will make America look bad!"
First of all, does America go around advertising things that will make it look bad? Secondly, there are plenty of worse things that will make America look even worse. Pretty much any country in the world will be the same. Honestly, if the worst thing about a country is that some of its population are sleeping with their relatives, then that country must be pretty much paradise!
Yeah, two consenting adults having sex is somehow abusive if they are related.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam condemn eating shellfish. Are you going to demand that seafood restaurants stop serving it?
The fact that something is condemned by religion doesn't make it wrong.
Why not?
So the fact that they have cultivated a close and loving relationship means nothing to you?
Last edited:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
lol, you make me laugh.
You say this, but you;lve also said that one of the reasons incest is wrong is because God said not to.
Let me make this clear:
You've just said that we should live in the here and now, and yet just a post or two ago you were claiming that incest is wrong in part because an old book said so.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Just a couple notes
That isn't enough of a reason, to me, to ban it. But it makes me give it the side-eye. Sibling to sibling or biologically related but physically distant (didn't grow up together) may be very different particularly as adults.
(Damn Easter is complicated.)
There IS the concern of emotional abuse/coercion among incestuous couples purely due to the possibility of a power imbalance that can never really be addressed. A father and daughter for example, even as an adult the father often may have more power in that relationship. How many of us have felt obligated by parents in even the silliest of situations.
That isn't enough of a reason, to me, to ban it. But it makes me give it the side-eye. Sibling to sibling or biologically related but physically distant (didn't grow up together) may be very different particularly as adults.
While I agree with your point, the majority of Christianity doesn't have an opinion on shellfish other than "Yummy" or "Eat on Fridays for the 40 days prior to the first Sunday on/after the first full moon after the vernal equinox."
(Damn Easter is complicated.)
Likely no. The poster continues to create fictional stories about how my happy relationships must be falling apart at the seams, just because they're of the type he doesn't approve of. I don't suspect that anything will likely sway him from "God said" and "ew, icky"
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
True, but this won't be the case in all such relationships.
Which is my point. If people feel free to disregard the bits of the Bible that say that shellfish are an abomination unto the Lord (one has to wonder why God made them then if he hates them so much), why can't people feel free to disregard the bits of the Bible that say, "Don't screw your sister"?
I gotta agree with you. Martin has given us nothing but arguments based on "It's icky!" "God says no!" and making claims of a scientific nature, but then never actually supporting those claims.
I hope you listen to this, Martin.
I don't care about your opinions, I don't care about your god, and until you start producing evidence to support your claims, I don't care about what you say, either.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Maybe not in anyone one given or particular population, but the rate of which homosexuality is observed in several populations does indeed make it a naturally occurring thing. But technically to use the animal example then bisexuality is more natural and more the norm since we often do not observe a strict adherence to ideas of heterosexuality or homosexuality0, but rather forms of bisexuality is what is really wide spread and commonly observed.
We also know anxiety disorders are not widespread, but they do naturally occur for genetic reasons. We also know a number of disorders happen because of environmental or cultural conditions. Soldiers have a high risk of PTSD because their occupation subjects them to extremely high stress situations. We rarely see Anorexia Nervosa outside of Western culture because the same elevated and unrealistic ideals of beauty do not exist outside of Western culture. And even though the circumstances are unnatural, the results still occur naturally as a result of social influences.
There are also a number of studies that strongly point towards a naturally occurring genetic cause for homosexuality. Quite a few that point towards the environment as well. But academically it's not even a question of if it happens naturally or not.
This whole thread is making if there is actually anyone here who is attracted to their siblings.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm sure it happens far more frequently than we'll ever know. Not by any means a high number, and likely no higher 8%-15% (probably closer to the low-end)of the population, but because most people would be terrified to admit they have any sort of attraction to their sibling, even under a confidential research setting, we will probably never even have an accurate estimation.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I have several strong reservations about incest:
-Incest is between people of close relations, between such people there are often particular power hierarchies such as parent-child etc; as a result there is the potential for undue influence of one individual over the other's decision making process
-Non sexual relationships that last a long time, particularly where either party is young at the time it begins (or has diminished capacity) have the potential for grooming the more easily influenced party, affecting the information to which they are exposed and therefore their decision making process indirectly by altering their general awareness f the issues, such as if certain types of relationship are typical within society.
-The offspring of incestuous unions where the ancestors have any significant history of sustained interbreeding (over numerous generations) between individuals of close genetic similarities (real close blood) may increase the possibility of certain types of genetic defects.
That said, I believe that any sexual relationship is fine so long as all parties involved give their informed consent; it is for that reason that the first and second reservations are so important to me. If the parties are not truly giving their informed consent then I consider the relationship to be an abuse in terms of one party exploiting the other's inability to refuse or their lack of awareness. If however they are giving their informed consent then I do not have any issue with incest.
The third reservation is more difficult for me to address; if we are to suggest that incest should be banned because it is more likely to lead to deformities, then we would be advocating a path of Eugenics, something that most people consider an ethical nightmare. Were we to ban such unions because of the risk of genetic defects in offspring, the same argument could be applied to non related couples who have genetic markers for different disorders such as inherited diseases. For this reason I believe that it should be up to the people involved to weigh this risk themselves...
As for moral reservations; I disavow my own reservations upon such issues as being a legitimate reason for banning them; were we to accept morality as a basis for law then we must accept the idea of a cultural law of dominance by the majority - such as used in many of the widely criticised attempted implementations of Sharia law.
-Incest is between people of close relations, between such people there are often particular power hierarchies such as parent-child etc; as a result there is the potential for undue influence of one individual over the other's decision making process
-Non sexual relationships that last a long time, particularly where either party is young at the time it begins (or has diminished capacity) have the potential for grooming the more easily influenced party, affecting the information to which they are exposed and therefore their decision making process indirectly by altering their general awareness f the issues, such as if certain types of relationship are typical within society.
-The offspring of incestuous unions where the ancestors have any significant history of sustained interbreeding (over numerous generations) between individuals of close genetic similarities (real close blood) may increase the possibility of certain types of genetic defects.
That said, I believe that any sexual relationship is fine so long as all parties involved give their informed consent; it is for that reason that the first and second reservations are so important to me. If the parties are not truly giving their informed consent then I consider the relationship to be an abuse in terms of one party exploiting the other's inability to refuse or their lack of awareness. If however they are giving their informed consent then I do not have any issue with incest.
The third reservation is more difficult for me to address; if we are to suggest that incest should be banned because it is more likely to lead to deformities, then we would be advocating a path of Eugenics, something that most people consider an ethical nightmare. Were we to ban such unions because of the risk of genetic defects in offspring, the same argument could be applied to non related couples who have genetic markers for different disorders such as inherited diseases. For this reason I believe that it should be up to the people involved to weigh this risk themselves...
As for moral reservations; I disavow my own reservations upon such issues as being a legitimate reason for banning them; were we to accept morality as a basis for law then we must accept the idea of a cultural law of dominance by the majority - such as used in many of the widely criticised attempted implementations of Sharia law.
Last edited:
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
This post reminds me of this clip from The Simpsons...but I can't find it in English. For all you Spanish speakers out there: ¡que lo disfrutes con salud!
[youtube]dT7fetM-FQ0[/youtube]
primas de shelbyville - YouTube
Translation
Jebediah Springfield: People, our search is over! On this site we shall build a new town where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast fields of hemp for making rope and blankets.
Shelbyville Manhattan: Yes! And marry our cousins.
Jebediah Springfield: I was- wha... what are you talking about, Shelbyville? Why would we want to marry our cousins?
Shelbyville Manhattan: Because they're so attractive. I... I thought that was the whole point of this journey.
Jebediah Springfield: Absolutely not!
Shelbyville Manhattan: I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!
[youtube]dT7fetM-FQ0[/youtube]
primas de shelbyville - YouTube
Translation
Jebediah Springfield: People, our search is over! On this site we shall build a new town where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast fields of hemp for making rope and blankets.
Shelbyville Manhattan: Yes! And marry our cousins.
Jebediah Springfield: I was- wha... what are you talking about, Shelbyville? Why would we want to marry our cousins?
Shelbyville Manhattan: Because they're so attractive. I... I thought that was the whole point of this journey.
Jebediah Springfield: Absolutely not!
Shelbyville Manhattan: I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!
Last edited:
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
How do you propose sterility is enforced in these cases of incest then?
Me Myself
Back to my username
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
No, there should be mandatory divorce in these cases.
A loving relationship between sister and brother means just that - ie: brotherly and sisterly love.
Not sexual love.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
Have you ever actually read the Bible and studied Christian theology?
That really is a pointless comment - eating shellfish and incest are worlds apart regarding God's Law.