Should Incest be banned?

[Saint Frankenstein]

But why can't we discuss it in a forum that is set up to discuss (sometimes odd) things? Nothing anyone says here is going to make any difference to what happens IRL. When someone tries to shut down debate on a subject without actually putting forward arguments, then it raises a red flag to me (not specifically accusing you of anything). If it disturbs you, pick another thread. Nobody is forcing you to participate.

I have no power to "shut down" discussion of this. The only thing I can do is report something and this thread doesn't break a rule, I think. (Potentially the rule about illegal activity, I guess. But I haven't reported anything.) So you are free to debate it to your heart's content, as far I'm concerned. But just as how I can choose not to participate in this thread, you can choose not to reply to me or ignore my posts if you don't like them. Goes both ways.

And for the last time, I have given reasons why I'm against it. It's not my fault no one wants to respond to what I said and then rudely pretend I'm not saying anything.

 

[Alien826]

I have no power to "shut down" discussion of this. The only thing I can do is report something and this thread doesn't break a rule, I think. (Potentially the rule about illegal activity, I guess. But I haven't reported anything.) So you are free to debate it to your heart's content, as far I'm concerned. But just as how I can choose not to participate in this thread, you can choose not to reply to me or ignore my posts if you don't like them. Goes both ways.

And for the last time, I have given reasons why I'm against it. It's not my fault no one wants to respond to what I said and then rudely pretend I'm not saying anything.

OK, let's drop it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yikes! You, too? As a person who worked in mental health, you actually think incest is acceptable? Tsk tsk. I'm not seeing any good arguments for it, just the same lame "consenting adults" garbage, which is lazy and doesn't even begin to consider wider society. It's the go-to argument for hedonists and nihilists, though. Repeating "consenting adults" over and over is not an argument. People have consented to being murdered before. People consent to things that are bad for them and those around them all the time. Have you thought this out?

If it's consenting and leaves no victims it does become a question of why ban it? If you can't produce solid evidence of harm then it's probably best to not ban it because most likely it is unfairly and without sufficient cause impeding on the rights of others. Amd it's not lazy or nihilist or failing to think about wider society, the consenting adults thing, for me, is about maximizing and preserving personal liberty without needless outside forces telling you can't when there probably exists no real good reason to ban it outside personal religious amd moral beliefs.

Also, I gave my reasons why. I don't know why you and the other guy act I didn't give my reasons.

Claims but not evidence.

First cousin pairings still cause issues and aren't desirable. We know this. A lot of things were common in the past that are No longer acceptable, of course, and that's one of them. Many times, such arrangements were a matter of survivial. We have no need for it now. Plenty of potential partners to choose from these days. No incestual pairing is going to be healthy at the very least psychologically, compared to non-blood related pairings. It's really quite simple.

What issues are there with first cousin pairing? It's not genetic, not until it's been multiple generations as the first poses no more risk than a randomly paired couple. Psychologically I doubt it as incest taboos are not universally defined.
Without citing evidence, without being able to state specific problems, your claims appear no different than those who say being gay is wrong just because and being trans involves getting skin mutilated on a whim.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no rational basis to object to sexual activity between two closely related adults if you view consent as the sole meaningful consideration for the morality of a sexual act.

Can you present something else that should be considered?

 

[Tiberius]

Yikes! You, too? As a person who worked in mental health, you actually think incest is acceptable? Tsk tsk. I'm not seeing any good arguments for it, just the same lame "consenting adults" garbage, which is lazy and doesn't even begin to consider wider society. It's the go-to argument for hedonists and nihilists, though. Repeating "consenting adults" over and over is not an argument. People have consented to being murdered before. People consent to things that are bad for them and those around them all the time. Have you thought this out?

And if two adult siblings have consensual sex in the privacy of their own bedroom, how is wider society even affected?

Also, I gave my reasons why. I don't know why you and the other guy act I didn't give my reasons.

Hmmm, I must have missed that post where you presented a well-reasoned argument.

First cousin pairings still cause issues and aren't desirable. We know this. A lot of things were common in the past that are No longer acceptable, of course, and that's one of them. Many times, such arrangements were a matter of survivial. We have no need for it now. Plenty of potential partners to choose from these days. No incestual pairing is going to be healthy at the very least psychologically, compared to non-blood related pairings. It's really quite simple.

Again, big claims, no support.

Come on, surely you can do better than that.

 

[Tiberius]

Now you're going to be demanded to write a huge essay as to why it's gross.

Now why would I do that?

People are allowed to have their subjective opinion, you know. And if @We Never Know wants to think it's icky, then they can.

 

[Tiberius]

The only thing I can do is report something and this thread doesn't break a rule, I think. (Potentially the rule about illegal activity, I guess. But I haven't reported anything.)

Of course, a discussion about illegal activity can't be taken as an encouragement to carry out that illegal activity.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a moot point anyway. It's already illegal and you'll never see a serious, sizable movement to change that.

 

[dybmh]

It's just silly to ban something because it's icky to the majority. That's a bad reason. There's people that think the majority is icky, they call us "vanilla", and would never choose to have an encounter the way that is natural and normal for us. They're able to work out relationships that are safe and healthy for them even though they are outside the norm and potentially risky. No one is banning them.

And it's equally silly to project some sort of parent / child grooming horror story on each and every individual that fits the category described in the OP.

I have no idea why people who are in strong oppostion cannot simply acknowledge it's a religious taboo with a psychological and physiological basis, but no actual moral imperative behind it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think of the Whittakers as exibit A on the matter.....

 

[Tiberius]

I think of the Whittakers as exibit A on the matter.....

And what argument are you making here?

 

[Twilight Hue]

And what argument are you making here?

Whittakers are an inbred family.

If you can't tell then I can't help you.

 

[Tiberius]

Whittakers are an inbred family.

If you can't tell then I can't help you.

What I can tell is that you didn't read my opening post.

Because if you had, then you would have seen that I was specifically talking about sex that did NOT produce offspring. After all, birth control is easy to get these days, and is quite effective.

So could you please try to address the question I asked and stop with the strawmen?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The title says it all, really. Do you think there is a problem with incest (keeping the debate limited solely to individuals who are genetically closely related having sex with each other for fun rather than reproduction) that justifies it being banned? What reasons do you have for your position?

Bear in mind that I want to discuss the issue with regards to consenting adults. Naturally, I think a parent who has sexual contact with their young child is doing something that is harmful, but that is because it is sexual contact with a young child. Likewise any cases where one person is pressured against their will to be involved.

I also don't want to bring up the issue of genetic problems in any children that are produced. Birth control is easy, safe and effective. I'd like to keep it confined to the issue of the act of sex alone.

So please base your discussion on whether the people involved are consenting adults who are not being unduly influenced in any way whatsoever.

Do you think there is a problem with an incest ban that justifies it being removed?

If so, what?

 

[Tiberius]

Do you think there is a problem with an incest ban that justifies it being removed?

If so, what?

I personally hold the opinion that if everyone is a consenting adult, then people should not be told who they can and can't have sex with. I think that if we start saying, "Person A, you as a consenting adult can not have sex with Person B, who is also a consenting adult," then we better have a damn good reason. Because as soon as we start saying such things and justifying it by saying it's "against social morals," then we get into dangerous territory. The same argument has been used to justify outlawing interracial sex, and gay sex. The vague claim of "morality" in itself is not justification enough to claim that one person must be prevented from having sex with another.

Now, in cases where consent is not present, then there is clear justification. Rape has been very clearly shown to cause a great deal of harm to people. And the same with sexual acts with children. These cause clear harm to the people involved, and so bans against these particular sex acts can be justified. But without such a demonstration of harm in incest between consenting adults, I don't see how a ban can be justified.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I personally hold the opinion that if everyone is a consenting adult, then people should not be told who they can and can't have sex with. I think that if we start saying, "Person A, you as a consenting adult can not have sex with Person B, who is also a consenting adult," then we better have a damn good reason. Because as soon as we start saying such things and justifying it by saying it's "against social morals," then we get into dangerous territory. The same argument has been used to justify outlawing interracial sex, and gay sex. The vague claim of "morality" in itself is not justification enough to claim that one person must be prevented from having sex with another.

Now, in cases where consent is not present, then there is clear justification. Rape has been very clearly shown to cause a great deal of harm to people. And the same with sexual acts with children. These cause clear harm to the people involved, and so bans against these particular sex acts can be justified. But without such a demonstration of harm in incest between consenting adults, I don't see how a ban can be justified.

You want incest allowed because of the risk to interracial or gay sex?

*ponders*

That doesn't seem right. If anything, gay sex and interracial sex are much less likely to be targeted for control if they are seen as standalone considerations not linked to incest.

Start tying the three together and the practical impact is a vastly increased likelihood that gay or interracial sex will be either societally or legally controlled.

Perhaps I should frame my question a different way. Who is being harmed by existing restrictions on incest? Who is being helped?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What I can tell is that you didn't read my opening post.

Because if you had, then you would have seen that I was specifically talking about sex that did NOT produce offspring. After all, birth control is easy to get these days, and is quite effective.

So could you please try to address the question I asked and stop with the strawmen?

The fact is that incest does produce offspring rather than the fixed responses you desire here.

 

[Tiberius]

You want incest allowed because of the risk to interracial or gay sex?

*ponders*

That doesn't seem right. If anything, gay sex and interracial sex are much less likely to be targeted for control if they are seen as standalone considerations not linked to incest.

Start tying the three together and the practical impact is a vastly increased likelihood that gay or interracial sex will be either societally or legally controlled.

Perhaps I should frame my question a different way. Who is being harmed by existing restrictions on incest? Who is being helped?

I have no idea how you got that.

I said the argument "But we have to ban it because it's against morality!" was once used as justification to ban gay sex, as well as inter-racial sex. This shows that if "morality" is the only argument there is for banning something, then it's not sufficient justification.

As such, there needs to be more than simply a moral argument against incest to justify banning it.

As to your questions, if two consenting adults want to have sex, then denying them that is, I would argue, a violation of their rights. No one is being harmed, after all. And I would say that no one is being helped by a ban on incest, since sexual acts don't generally affect other people. When was the last time your life was affected in any way by the couple living three doors down from you having sex? I'm going to guess the answer is "never."

 

[Tiberius]

The fact is that incest does produce offspring rather than the fixed responses you desire here.

I think you need to read my OP again.

Birth control is cheap, easy to use, and effective. Pregnancy is easily avoided. And I specifically mentioned that I wanted to concentrate on the actual act of sex alone, not any potential offspring.

 

[PureX]

I personally hold the opinion that if everyone is a consenting adult, then people should not be told who they can and can't have sex with. I think that if we start saying, "Person A, you as a consenting adult can not have sex with Person B, who is also a consenting adult," then we better have a damn good reason.

We have good reasons, such as marriage contracts and other social constructs that when disregarded, cause social cohesion to disintegrate. Nothing among we humans is "do whatever you want" because we humans are a social, cooperative species. We are required to sacrifice some degree of our selfishness for the good of everyone, together. And because sexuality is such a powerful motive among humans, it needs to be held In check, especially.

I know that selfish individualism is all the rage these days in our greedy, selfish, capitalist culture, but we can all see that it's tearing us apart, and turning us all against each other. Because the truth is that we are a social species, and not a bunch of lone individuals, as we unfortunately currently imagine ourselves to be.

Because as soon as we start saying such things and justifying it by saying it's "against social morals," then we get into dangerous territory. The same argument has been used to justify outlawing interracial sex, and gay sex. The vague claim of "morality" in itself is not justification enough to claim that one person must be prevented from having sex with another.

Now, in cases where consent is not present, then there is clear justification. Rape has been very clearly shown to cause a great deal of harm to people. And the same with sexual acts with children. These cause clear harm to the people involved, and so bans against these particular sex acts can be justified. But without such a demonstration of harm in incest between consenting adults, I don't see how a ban can be justified.

Your whole position relies on the blind assumption that selfishness equals freedom and that individual freedom is the ultimate social value. When in fact it's not the ultimate social value at all. It's just a common, socially unhealthy, desire.