Should incest be banned?

[nnmartin]

you have to take the Bible in context though - eating shellfish is one of the many laws that was changed with the coming of Jesus.

Anyway, rather than getting bogged down in a futile scriptural debate you will notice that is is not just the Bible which condemns incest.

In most countries it is against the law for a start - that should indicate to you that many people feel the same way about this issue and have worked out that is wrong for many reasons.

Your obsession with objectivity really doesn't cut the mustard because there are so many cases where that cannot be proved.

How about a 15 year old boy having sex with an adult?

That is against the law - surely that is subjective only yet it is deemed in the interests of society to make the age of consent 16.

What say ye to that?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

How about a 15 year old boy having sex with an adult?

That is against the law - surely that is subjective only yet it is deemed in the interests of society to make the age of consent 16.

What say ye to that?

I am currently looking at a poster that is asking for MARRIED men aged 15-30 to emigrate to south australia. It is from the 1950's, the perception of age is something that society can never agree on - because it is an attempt to use how many days since a person was born as a measure of their capacity to give their informed consent to something such as the creation of a contract.

Social perspectives of issues like age changes over time, likewise, there was once a time when marrying second cousins and even first cousins was relatively commonplace; especially amongst the upper class, among royalty this was even MORE pronounced, with marriage between siblings rare but not unheard of. The simple fact is that perceptions of what is normal or even moral is something that changes over time as society changes; that doesn't mean that one society is more moral than the other, but rather that the perspective through which they view morality has altered.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
Till the mind itself is transcended such news [on incest] will appear even after it being banned.
Nicola Yates and Andrew Butler: Father and daughter face jail after admitting having sex | Mail Online
Actual abuse of 5 Browns daughters by father Keith Brown 'went far beyond charges' | Mail Online
Australian Father, Daughter Reveal Sexual Relationship That Led to Birth of Two Children | Fox News
German 'Adolf B' who slept with his daughter 500 times jailed for 3 years | Mail Online

Love & rgds

 

[nnmartin]

informedignorance:

that may be the case but for NOW incest is banned in most places.

do you really think this law should be changed just because in the future society's attitude towards it MAY change? (it may well not - I think that more likely)

 

[Tiberius]

you have to take the Bible in context though - eating shellfish is one of the many laws that was changed with the coming of Jesus.

Ah, here we go! The excuses start in order for you to justify dismissing parts of the Bible and keeping others.

Funny how all the parts of the Bible that changed with the coming of Jesus are the parts you happen to be okay with, and the parts that didn't change are the parts that you think should still apply, isn't it?

Tell me, how have you determined which parts were changed and which parts were not? Is there a list of them somewhere? Or are you just guessing?

Oh, wait! Jesus DIDN'T change the law after all!'

Matthew 5:17-19

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven​

Jesus states very clearly that he did not come to change the laws, he came to fulfill them, and those laws he fulfilled were only the laws related to how to sacrifice animals to please the lord. Once Jesus was sacrificed, humans no longer needed to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins. That is the only thing that changed. The laws regarding the prohibition of shellfish eating still apply!

Anyway, rather than getting bogged down in a futile scriptural debate you will notice that is is not just the Bible which condemns incest.

Yeah, no doubt you will try to find some way to get around what I just said, won't you. And it will be nothing but subjective opinion...

In most countries it is against the law for a start - that should indicate to you that many people feel the same way about this issue and have worked out that is wrong for many reasons.

You haven't been able to give us any reasons though. I wonder why not.

Your obsession with objectivity really doesn't cut the mustard because there are so many cases where that cannot be proved.

How about a 15 year old boy having sex with an adult?

That is against the law - surely that is subjective only yet it is deemed in the interests of society to make the age of consent 16.

What say ye to that?

I say that age of consent is arbitrary, and really should be different for each person. As I said in the bestiality thread, I've seen some 14 year olds who are emotionally ready, and I;ve seen grown adults who aren't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

-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.
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...

But there is also an equally possible chance that beneficial traits will become predominate, and there is a chance that any bad or good genes will be erased from that particular lineage. Children inherit approximately a 50/50 ratio of genes from the mother and father. Depending on what genes are dominate and recessive the parents give determines what traits the child will have, as well as what genes will be carried. When two siblings reproduce, there are genetic similarities but the risk of genetic defects is no higher than any regular couple for a first generation inbred child. But even for a second, third, even fourth or more, what traits will become dominate will depend on the genes of the parents, and which genes their children inherit. With the children it will depend on what genes they pass on. And after the grand children (or longer in many cases) will the homogenized breeding start to have a significant effect, but it really just depends on what genes the first parents had.
But from an evolutionary view point, it's not necessarily a good thing as adding to the gene pool is preferred. [/quote]

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.

But see, people don't need to be in love to have sex. Sometimes people get bored, or curious, or horny, or horny and bored and curious at the same time. There have probably been quite a few curious teen siblings that practiced and satisfied their curiosities with each other first.

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.

Read it, studied it, and lost my faith when I was finished. And according to God's Law, all sins are equal except for denying the Holy Ghost. Everything else is just as bad and forgivable.

In most countries it is against the law for a start - that should indicate to you that many people feel the same way about this issue and have worked out that is wrong for many reasons.
Your obsession with objectivity really doesn't cut the mustard because there are so many cases where that cannot be proved.
How about a 15 year old boy having sex with an adult?
That is against the law - surely that is subjective only yet it is deemed in the interests of society to make the age of consent 16.
What say ye to that?

Well just about every culture does have an incest taboo. But from there what is considered incest and close family, and who is and isn't off limits sexually, varies. Quite often first cousins are not only ok but they are considered the ideal mate. Sometimes a brother or sister is ok. Now I'm not sure of any cultures that consider a mother or father to be ok, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
As for the age of consent, that also depends on the culture. Biologically a woman is ready to have sex once she has her first period, and a man is ready once he produces sperm. Physiologically people are ready for sex at a very young age, as even during infancy a boy's penis can become erect and a girl's vagina can become wet. Culturally and legally it varies. Romeo and Juliet were only about 13. In America the legal age varies from 16 to 18 depending on the state. And in some European countries I don't know the legal age, but it isn't unheard of for a 12 year old to be sexually active in the more permissive societies.

informedignorance:
do you really think this law should be changed just because in the future society's attitude towards it MAY change? (it may well not - I think that more likely)

It would have the potential to prevent war, save minority groups much grief, and make things much easier for us all if we could change laws to revolve around current trends. We could legalize pot and gay marriage, abolish the death penalty, and secularize all governments over night if we could do that.

 

[nnmartin]

Jesus states very clearly that he did not come to change the laws, he came to fulfill them, and those laws he fulfilled were only the laws related to how to sacrifice animals to please the lord.

Yeah, no doubt you will try to find some way to get around what I just said, won't you. And it will be nothing but subjective opinion...

Like I said , this isn't really the place for a scriptural debate but your quotes here can easily be refuted by standard Christian theology and further quotes.

I am , however, interested in the section in bold - how do you equate the fulfillment of the laws with animal sacrifice only?

I say that age of consent is arbitrary, and really should be different for each person. As I said in the bestiality thread, I've seen some 14 year olds who are emotionally ready, and I;ve seen grown adults who aren't.

I can agree with you there to a degree.

However some laws are made for the common good - ie: in this case to protect those of 14 and 15 that are not mature enough to give consent.

This logic also applies to incest - some people may not be responsible enough to know that incest is wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Like I said , this isn't really the place for a scriptural debate but your quotes here can easily be refuted by standard Christian theology and further quotes.

In other words, some people have a different opinion than me. Irrelevant. Unless they can back up their opinions with verifiable facts, I don't care, and my opinion is just as valid as theirs.

I am , however, interested in the section in bold - how do you equate the fulfillment of the laws with animal sacrifice only?

Jesus came to be sacrificed, yes? And he said that he came to fulfill the laws. There were laws regarding the sacrifice of animals to atone for the sins of people, then Jesus came and was sacrificed to atone for the sins of people. Now we no longer need to sacrifice animals to atone for sins. It seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

I can agree with you there to a degree.

However some laws are made for the common good - ie: in this case to protect those of 14 and 15 that are not mature enough to give consent.

This logic also applies to incest - some people may not be responsible enough to know that incest is wrong.

Do you also agree with me that there are some 14 year old people who are emotionally mature enough to deal with having sex?

 

[ChristineES]

I am beginning to wonder if we're ever allowed to believe or say that we believe anything is wrong anymore? Just because other people see things as all right, others will still see it as wrong. I don't think there is anything is wrong with that- having differing opinions is pretty normal.

As for incest, it is illegal right now in the USA and other places, unless the law is changed, it will remain that way. And I don't have to apologize because I see it as not right. I like to believe that I am entitled to my opinion, just as everyone else it.

Edit: Before you say anything, I don't make the laws. I have nothing to do with making any laws.

 

[Tiberius]

Oh, don't get me wrong. It's fine that you don't like it.

My point is just that so long as no one is getting hurt or being involved against their will, then we can't say that it is wrong to do it. You don't have to do it, but I don't think that person A has the right to say that something is illegal just because they don't like it.

 

[ChristineES]

Oh, don't get me wrong. It's fine that you don't like it.

My point is just that so long as no one is getting hurt or being involved against their will, then we can't say that it is wrong to do it. You don't have to do it, but I don't think that person A has the right to say that something is illegal just because they don't like it.

You have just a much right to your beliefs as I do to mine, too. I didn't mean to say otherwise.

 

[Protester]

Good habits, such as brushing your teeth and tying your shoes are some things that you don't want to unlearn, but behavior which is not beneficial in the short or long term one might find hard to unlearn even when the people themselves who are habitually doing something that is self-destructive and realize they should quit, will find it difficult. One very famous historical case:

Exodus 14:5 ¶ When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, "What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?"---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

Jamieson, Fawsett, and Brown Commentary (1871)

Exodus 14:5:

5. the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, &c.—Alas, how soon the obduracy of this reprobate king reappears! He had been convinced, but not converted—overawed, but not sanctified by the appalling judgments of heaven. He bitterly repented of what he now thought a hasty concession. Pride and revenge, the honor of his kingdom, and the interests of his subjects, all prompted him to recall his permission to reclaim those runaway slaves and force them to their wonted labor. Strange that he should yet allow such considerations to obliterate or outweigh all his painful experience of the danger of oppressing that people. But those whom the Lord has doomed to destruction are first infatuated by sin.

Habits make it hard to learn new and potentially better behavior, as the above Pharaoh Found out the hard way.

 

[McBell]

Good habits, such as brushing your teeth and tying your shoes are some things that you don't want to unlearn, but behavior which is not beneficial in the short or long term one might find hard to unlearn even when the people themselves who are habitually doing something that is self-destructive and realize they should quit, will find it difficult. One very famous historical case:

Exodus 14:5 ¶ When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, "What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?"---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

Jamieson, Fawsett, and Brown Commentary (1871)

Exodus 14:5:

5. the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, &c.—Alas, how soon the obduracy of this reprobate king reappears! He had been convinced, but not converted—overawed, but not sanctified by the appalling judgments of heaven. He bitterly repented of what he now thought a hasty concession. Pride and revenge, the honor of his kingdom, and the interests of his subjects, all prompted him to recall his permission to reclaim those runaway slaves and force them to their wonted labor. Strange that he should yet allow such considerations to obliterate or outweigh all his painful experience of the danger of oppressing that people. But those whom the Lord has doomed to destruction are first infatuated by sin.

Habits make it hard to learn new and potentially better behavior, as the above Pharaoh Found out the hard way.

That is nice little sermon.

Now all you need to do is show how it has anything to do with the thread topic.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

informedignorance:

that may be the case but for NOW incest is banned in most places.

do you really think this law should be changed just because in the future society's attitude towards it MAY change? (it may well not - I think that more likely)

Just as for bestiality I do not think the law WILL be changed, but I think it SHOULD be changed - for the same reasons I have stated in the other thread; if there is no victim, there is no crime. This IS something that society should take into account, rather than merely reinforcing taboo for the sake of it.

But there is also an equally possible chance that beneficial traits will become predominate, and there is a chance that any bad or good genes will be erased from that particular lineage.

I agree completely which is why I said 'may'; I was attempting to give as generous a response to my interpretation of the potential arguments against incest as is possible.

Children inherit approximately a 50/50 ratio of genes from the mother and father. Depending on what genes are dominate and recessive the parents give determines what traits the child will have, as well as what genes will be carried. When two siblings reproduce, there are genetic similarities but the risk of genetic defects is no higher than any regular couple for a first generation inbred child. But even for a second, third, even fourth or more, what traits will become dominate will depend on the genes of the parents, and which genes their children inherit. With the children it will depend on what genes they pass on. And after the grand children (or longer in many cases) will the homogenized breeding start to have a significant effect, but it really just depends on what genes the first parents had.

But from an evolutionary view point, it's not necessarily a good thing as adding to the gene pool is preferred.

I agree, which is why I stress the 'significant history of sustained interbreeding (over generations)' in simple fact, the biological case against incest is VERY shaky, it is a case of people stressing the potential negatives as much as possible as a means of justifying their own perspective.

 

[nnmartin]

RE: Biblical quote/interpretation

In other words, some people have a different opinion than me. Irrelevant. Unless they can back up their opinions with verifiable facts, I don't care, and my opinion is just as valid as theirs.

Ok, well that is an interesting point.

Yes, how do you decide who is the authority on interpreting the Bible?

I guess it really comes down to the church you attend or specific branch of theology you choose to follow.

Making up your own doesn't really serve much purpose though as it would just be fuelling your own ego.

Anyway, perhaps I'll start another thread soon in the Religious Debates section and see if you want to discuss this?

That could be interesting , and I'm fairly liberal on the topic.

Do you also agree with me that there are some 14 year old people who are emotionally mature enough to deal with having sex?

Yes, I can agree with that.

 

[McBell]

Making up your own doesn't really serve much purpose though as it would just be fuelling your own ego.

So whose ego are you fueling up?

 

[nnmartin]

er....yours perhaps?

 

[nnmartin]

My point is just that so long as no one is getting hurt or being involved against their will, then we can't say that it is wrong to do it. You don't have to do it, but I don't think that person A has the right to say that something is illegal just because they don't like it.

There is probably some food for thought there.



off topic comment coming up: (Matthew 16:16 is the refutation I would use for your shellfish example if you are interested)

 

[McBell]

er....yours perhaps?

So you are following MY interpretation of the Bible?

I highly doubt that.

Given you said that to make up your own interpretation would be fueling your own ego, I was wondering whose ego you were fueling.
I.E. whose interpretation you use.

 

[Tiberius]

RE: Biblical quote/interpretation

Ok, well that is an interesting point.

Yes, how do you decide who is the authority on interpreting the Bible?

lol, I love this. An authority on the Bible. A book that depends on people's interpretation. So an authority on the Bible would be someone who's opinion is more important than yours, despite the fact that there's nothing to show that their opinion is more important.

Making up your own doesn't really serve much purpose though as it would just be fuelling your own ego.

But isn't that whjy there are so many different denominations?

Anyway, perhaps I'll start another thread soon in the Religious Debates section and see if you want to discuss this?

That could be interesting , and I'm fairly liberal on the topic.

Please do.

Yes, I can agree with that.

So then you agree that the law does not always accurately represent the people. For example, the law says that 14 year olds are not mature enough to have sex, hence it is illegal for them to do so, but you agree with me that some 14 year olds are mature enough.