What is actually wrong with incest?

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

Because I don't see the discussion as one based on morals entirely. The question was "what is actually wrong with incest?"
You suppose it's a moral question.

I think most people are treating this as a moral question.

To clairfy, if not a moral question, what category are you putting this in?

If incest was "right" and widespread in society there would be considerable genetic mutations which may have wiped out smaller societies in the past. Since the human species is programmed to survive it would be deemed disadvantageous to have a popualtion which reproduces defectively.

So what? You can say the same for breeding with the disabled or the genetically unwell. What is your point?

This is absolutely a moral question, that point is inescapable.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think most people are treating this as a moral question.

To clairfy, if not a moral question, what category are you putting this in?

Do questions have categories now?

So what? You can say the same for breeding with the disabled or the genetically unwell. What is your point?

This is absolutely a moral question, that point is inescapable.

you believe it is a moral issue because that is your stance on the subject and you point blank refuse to acknowledge any other pov. It doesn't make your pov right though but this discussion will continue to go around in circles until you do.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

it's actually at the core of the debate.

I find I can not agree with that. Evolution is just the science telling us how we came to be here today. It is not a template for how we should act now that we are here. In fact very few decisions we make about our lives and society are made from a genetic perspective.

Further there seems to be a bit of "What iffery" about your assertion that a society allowing incest would be at an Evolutionary disadvantage and would have considerable genetic mutations. There are quite a few problems with that thinking:

First incest does not cause genetic mutations. It just increases the probability that already existing ones in the gene pool will be expressed and overall the increase across a species is not that high relatively speaking.

Second the number of people wishing to engage in incest are very small and hence the effect of it would not even be close enough to significant... let alone have the effects you envision.

Third if you increase the likelihood of a faulty gene being expressed... rather than allowing it travel unexpressed throughout the gene pool... you actually increase the likelihood that it will be REMOVED from the gene pool because the expression of that mutation may affect their reproductive fitness in turn. If my child was genetically mentally handicapped then the probability of it passing on that genetic deformity is much lower than if my children were carriers and not expressors of that genetic issue.

Fourth is that if the theory that incestuous reproduction is selected against in nature were true then it would be true across nature not just in us alone. However this is not what we observe. In fact many animals engage in it and the benefits of using it in artificial breeding programmes are also known.

Summary: So not only would I be very cautious about using evolution to build a moral or societal template on this issue... I would be doubly cautious of it being done so incorrectly or based on too much assumption. Genetics simply is not that straight forward which is why Eugenics ideas fail so often.

pharmaton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I find I can not agree with that. Evolution is just the science telling us how we came to be here today. It is not a template for how we should act now that we are here. In fact very few decisions we make about our lives and society are made from a genetic perspective.

I never suggested it was a conscious decision, in fact I'm suggesting it is an unconscious innate one.

Further there seems to be a bit of "What iffery" about your assertion that a society allowing incest would be at an Evolutionary disadvantage and would have considerable genetic mutations. There are quite a few problems with that thinking:

First incest does not cause genetic mutations. It just increases the probability that already existing ones in the gene pool will be expressed and overall the increase across a species is not that high relatively speaking.

Second the number of people wishing to engage in incest are very small and hence the effect of it would not even be close enough to significant... let alone have the effects you envision.

Third if you increase the likelihood of a faulty gene being expressed... rather than allowing it travel unexpressed throughout the gene pool... you actually increase the likelihood that it will be REMOVED from the gene pool because the expression of that mutation may affect their reproductive fitness in turn. If my child was genetically mentally handicapped then the probability of it passing on that genetic deformity is much lower than if my children were carriers and not expressors of that genetic issue.

Fourth is that if the theory that incestuous reproduction is selected against in nature were true then it would be true across nature not just in us alone. However this is not what we observe. In fact many animals engage in it and the benefits of using it in artificial breeding programmes are also known.

several times throughout this thread I have pointed to the scientific basis with emprical support which suggest that from birth to the age of six, we form a binding identity with our siblings which negates a sexual bond, it is suggested that this is of evolutionary design.

Summary: So not only would I be very cautious about using evolution to build a moral or societal template on this issue... I would be doubly cautious of it being done so incorrectly or based on too much assumption. Genetics simply is not that straight forward which is why Eugenics ideas fail so often.

I am not building a moral template. Once again, the question is why is it wrong and if the answer is as simple as we are designed to not find our siblings attractive then that's clear enough for me.

Czarcasm

Deleted User wrote: »

Now you are just getting personal and insulting. Emotional much?

I'll leave these here -

Deleted User wrote: »

Anecdote does not an argument make young padewan.
...
Except that you will be - so I will be expecting your next reply which we both know you will be giving.
...
Perhaps we need a seperate thread to teach you english?
...
If you see no difference between consenting sibling adult sex - and non-consensual father-preteen sex then you are beyond help.

And the above examples are just from ONE post.

Especially given you are the one ignoring the points I am making in favor of linguistic grammar nazi pedantry - which also just happens to be false because the defintiion of the word you are clinging desperately to on wikipedia does not match the dictionaries. The only one involved in word play here is you - and youre not even doing that well. So lets stick to the topic of the thread and not the personal attacks ok?

See above. It is not I who is trying to engage in linguistic pedantry, it is you who is trying to tease out the themes of incest and will not let go of the word pederasty, even when it has been shown to you that a relationship can be pedasterous, but not incestuous. You also engaged in linguistic pedantry when it was pointed out to you that society and law DOES prohibit sections of society from indulging their sexual desires.

Saying it twice does not make it less false. They ARE allowed have sex and they ARE allowed reproduce. The law just dictates they have to be married to do it is all.

Linguistic pedantry.

And the law does not preclude THEM from having sex either so you are doubly wrong. It precludes US from having sex with them.

Linguistic pedantry. I won't even ask what's this "us" and "them" business!

(This is exactly WHY there is ongoing discussion on the mental capacity bill, to get recognition and equality for intellectually disabled people who are just as horny as anyone else, but you haven't considered the possibility that two intellectually disabled people might want to have sex with each other.)

The original point which you are retreating from is that we do not mediate peoples right to reproduce based on genetics. We do not say "You are more likely that everyone else to have a deformed or sick child - therefore you should not reproduce. So why anyone feels we suddenly SHOULD start to do so with incest is beyond me and - seemingly - you too.

Doctors and Consultants advise people with genetic conditions against reproduction on a daily basis. I know you don't like anecdotes so at this stage I won't bother my árse.

It's not beyond me though why any medical practitioner would advise a person against having a child if they were known to be a carrier of certain genetic conditions, and doubly so if his wife were also a genetic carrier.

Which is why I pointed out that this genetics argument does not actually answer the OPs question.

It does, but it just doesn't answer it to your pedantic satisfaction. There are more people reading this thread than just you or I and quite frankly I'm growing tired of you.

This is a false and disingenuous outright lie and misrepresentation from you here. I am talking about incest as a whole. I always have been. I have not precluded talking about any part of it.

No, you want to break it down and talk about what YOU see are the different moralities and scenarios involved. According to you, incest is an unhelpful umbrella term. You want to break it down into specifics.
Well, that's just being pedantic.

All I have done - and rightly too - is acknowledge the fact that WITHIN that discussion on "incest" there are several subdivisions of discussions to have. There are vastly different moral discussions to be had between consenting adults siblings having sex - and parents sexually exploiting underage children.

No, all you have done is be pedantic, condescending and insulting. You have tried to distract and detract at every point that been made to you, because YOU don't see it as "a good enough reason". Well, if I may burst your bubble for a minute - the world does not revolve around you, and nobody here is answerable to you. As I said before, I was only entertaining you to be polite, but now, I grow weary and my patience with you has worn thin.

I am all for discussing both - all I did - much to your unexplained chagrin - is acknowledge that there are sub-discussions to be had and that it is worth being aware of the distinctions between them.

So you don't want to discuss incest as a whole, but you want to break it down into sub-discussions that say incest is ok in one case, but it's not ok in this case, etc. The law doesn't have time to consider the merits of each individual case by case basis, therefore a line is drawn somewhere, just like the line that is drawn for the age of consent that not too many adhere to, or are even aware of before they reach it.

I said nor implied no such thing. In fact what I am saying is quite the opposite. I am unsure what you hope to gain from this sustained misrepresentation of everything I say.

A pain in my fcuking face tbh, as I haven't misrepresented you at all.

I am perfectly happy to - and have on many occasions - change my moral position in the face of good moral arguments. I just think leaping from "I do not want to do X because I find it unappealing or disgusting" to "No one else should do X either" is _not_ a good moral argument. If you think it is I would enjoy hearing why.

So you'll only change your position provided the argument is good enough to sound appealing to you then? Yeah, that'll fly well in the face of laws that were in place to maintain order in society long before your árse was as big as a shirt button.

Again this is the exact opposite of what I am saying. I am saying a person should be free to do as they please until such time as we can think of any good reasons why they should not be. If we can think of no good reason why a person should not do X then why should a person not be allowed to do X?

Yes, you think a person should be allowed do what they like until an argument is made to them that is good enough in their opinion to have them want to change their behaviour?

You probably can't see the flaw in that argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

I never suggested it was a conscious decision

I know. I never claimed you did. That changes nothing about what I said.

pharmaton wrote: »

it is suggested that this is of evolutionary design.

I know what the suggestion is. I am merely laying out what I think is wrong with that suggestion. There are issues with it. Big ones. As I laid out above but you did not actually address any of them.

pharmaton wrote: »

we are designed to not find our siblings attractive then that's clear enough for me.

There is no reason to think we were "designed". It is a poor choice of word but let us run with it for the sake of the conversation.

We are "designed" to do (and not do) quite a lot of things but we rise above that all the time.

We are "designed" to see patterns where often none exist and our how methodology of science is built around weeding that out of us because it is positively corrosive to progress.

We are "designed" with a blind spot. We are "designed" with vestigial organs and features that are not only unhelpful but positively harmful. We are "designed" with a sewage pipe travelling through a pleasure complex.

The idea therefore that if we are "designed" to do something we should and if are not then we shouldn't is an assumptive leap even if the "design" part was correct. But even that does not appear to be due to the issues I laid out in the previous post.

pharmaton

to be honest with ya lads if you want to bang away on your sister have a ball, as long as she is consenting to it, it's no ones business but your own. If people find it ick just remember that they probably don't find their sisters attractive and it might just be more than morals governing their decision.

meeeeh

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think most people are treating this as a moral question.

To clairfy, if not a moral question, what category are you putting this in?

So what? You can say the same for breeding with the disabled or the genetically unwell. What is your point?

This is absolutely a moral question, that point is inescapable.

Incest taboo is one of the most basic cultural phenomenons, probably more universal than murder or rape for example. Treating it as moral question just isn't good enough.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'll leave these here

You can leave them wherever you like. There is a big difference between them and outright insulting people like you are engaged in. The "young padewan" one for example is just a modern turn of phrase that people say all the time.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It is not I who is trying to engage in linguistic pedantry

Yes. It is. It is you and you alone that is ignoring my point in favor of moaning about the word I used while making the point. Made only the worse by your definition of that word being wrong.

I repeat: My point was that within the discussion on incest there are different discussions to be had. A discussion about consenting adult siblings having sex is different to a father abusing an underage child. You simply ignore that point in favor of abusing the definition of one single word I used while making the point.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Doctors and Consultants advise people with genetic conditions against reproduction on a daily basis.

And that is a good thing. Advice is great. What people do with that advice is their own choice however. There is nothing "wrong" with them having sex or reproducing. They just have to be aware of the risks and make their choice maturely. Again the topic of the thread is "What is actually wrong with incest" and the above is not addressing it at all.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm growing tired of you.

You know where the exit is. No one is forcing you - to my knowledge - to be here. You can back out any time you see fit. As I said before though all indications are you will be doing no such thing so why do you bring it up? I am going nowhere - so do not get ratty just because your tactic of breaking your replies into a near unreadable mass of QUOTES has failed to scare _everyone_ off.

Czarcasm wrote: »

According to you, incest is an unhelpful umbrella term. You want to break it down into specifics. Well, that's just being pedantic.

Only to you it seems. If I wanted to have a discussion about the evils of boxing however I would not write banners up attacking "sport". I would recognise that there are different categories of "sport" which have little in common except one feature like breathing. The same thing here. I see no argument against the morality of "incest" if we are talking about adult siblings. I do have a problem with "incest" if we are talking about a father and his 10 year old kid.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The law doesn't have time to consider the merits of each individual case by case basis, therefore a line is drawn somewhere, just like the line that is drawn for the age of consent that not too many adhere to, or are even aware of before they reach it.

I am not the law. The OP asked US what we think is wrong with incest. They did not ask the law. And my answer is that I see many different kinds of incest and I see something wrong with some - and not with others. Just like if someone said there was something wrong with "sport" I would say I have a problem with some and not others.

And if you personally do not have the time to consider it on a case by case basis then why not do what we do with sport? Assume it is ALL ok and simply attack the forms that are not. People play what sport they want but the very occasional type is banned. Did that require much time? No. Did people have to go through each sport on a case by case basis to achieve this? No.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes, you think a person should be allowed do what they like until an argument is made to them that is good enough in their opinion to have them want to change their behaviour?

Again not what I am saying. Its hilarious how you keep denying misrepresenting me but continue to do it with such wild abandon.

I said nothing about the individual needing to be convinced to change their behaviour. I am takling about the society level. People _in general_ should be let do what they want until we _as a society_ and _as a democracy_ come to the concluson that X, Y and Z should be prevented, banned, made illegal, or whatever.

Do we split the entire population on the planet into two lists of who you can and can not have sex with? No. That is ridiculous. Instead you can have sex with whoever the hell you want except X, Y and Z. Much simpler approach right? Do who you want except who we as a society deem you can not.

That is _exactly_ what I am saying here too - no matter how many attempts you make to pretend I am saying other things.

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

Do questions have categories now?

Yes, of course they do.

A question may be, inter alia, scientific ("does smoking cause cancer?"), legal ("may individuals smoke cigarettes?") or moral ("is smoking right or wrong?").

You're either erroneously trying to answer the question on the rightness or wrongness of incest using a non-moral approach, or else you're engaged in a question that has nothing to do with the thread, and with the discussion at hand, i.e. what is 'wrong' with incest.

This is why I raise the issue of genetic abnormalities and disability - to underline the obvious fact that the simple fact of an evolutionary disadvantage is irrelevant to whether or not a sexual relationship is, or ought to be, permissible.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

to be honest with ya lads if you want to bang away on your sister have a ball

I have not seen many people on the thread suggesting they do? Have you? It would be a poor assumption that anyone arguing that side of the issue actually want to do it themselves.

I for example argue for gay rights at great length. I am not gay myself. Or even Bi. You do not have to be part of group X to argue for the side of group X you know.

pharmaton wrote: »

as long as she is consenting to it, it's no ones business but your own.

That would be my feeling too. If we are talking solely of consenting adults then I think the answer to "What is actually wrong with incest?" is "Nothing at all."

pharmaton wrote: »

it might just be more than morals governing their decision.

It "might" indeed. The chasm between "might" and "is" is not small here however. I have highlighted meticulously above the main issues I see with that assumption.

I am not discounting a genetic influence here. I just see very little to support it and quite a few counter arguments.

It is also probable that the issue is more connected to societal psychology and culture rather than genetics for example.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes, of course they do.

A question may be, inter alia, scientific ("does smoking cause cancer?"), legal ("may individuals smoke cigarettes?") or moral ("is smoking right or wrong?").

You're either erroneously trying to answer the question on the rightness or wrongness of incest using a non-moral approach, or else you're engaged in a question that has nothing to do with the thread, and with the discussion at hand, i.e. what is 'wrong' with incest.

This is why I raise the issue of genetic abnormalities and disability - to underline the obvious fact that the simple fact of an evolutionary disadvantage is irrelevant to whether or not a sexual relationship is, or ought to be, permissible.

Actually, I've avoided where possible discussing how I personally feel about it until I was asked a couple of pages back, I don't suppose you've read that though.

pharmaton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not seen many people on the thread suggesting they do? Have you? It would be a poor assumption that anyone arguing that side of the issue actually want to do it themselves.

do you think anyone on this thread in an incestuous relationship would willingly admit it?

I for example argue for gay rights at great length. I am not gay myself. Or even Bi. You do not have to be part of group X to argue for the side of group X you know.



That would be my feeling too. If we are talking solely of consenting adults then I think the answer to "What is actually wrong with incest?" is "Nothing at all."

that's the problem here, people are aligning the issue with gay rights. Arguing for the sake of argument and trying to bully people into "accepting" something based on their outdated moral system, which they believe is based on nothing more than, "if you don't like it that doesn't mean no on else should". And deliberately disregarding every other point discussed. The issues of abuse, freedom to consent, the line between them in this issue are NOT the same as those which were confronted during the debate on homosexuality. Nor the nature of it or it's genetic consequences.
It is these points which are so needed to be raised but have been given no airtime, due to the constant comparison to homosexuality. Everything about that is wrong.

I would never use the phrase here before but it is a case of PC gone mad.

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

The issues of abuse, freedom to consent, the line between them in this issue are NOT the same as those which were confronted during the debate on homosexuality.

People keep saying that, but nobody explains why. This question is remarkably similar to the homosexuality question in that it involves the conditions under which the state may intervene to prevent a sexual relationship between consenting adults.

And can we drop this issue of abuse, nobody is advocating the permission of non consensual incest.

carly_86

What the hell is wrong with you

pharmaton

If you want to compare homosexuality to incest, in terms of morality, there are a few major differences that should be considered. The vast majority of our morality and social systems have been based on religious values for centuries.
The bible categorically states homosexuality is wrong (albeit only the male kind) consequently our laws dictated that it was a criminal offense (albeit only for male kind) and subsequently society at large rejected homosexuals (albeit mostly men) for conducting offenses against all of the above. It became seeded in the psyche despite the fact that at one time human sexuality did not dictate against it.

The question of how it became so wrong in the eyes of our culture so that it was written as the word of god may be argued that it goes against nature, that man and woman were put here to procreate, that the bible is our moral guidance and wishes to steer us away from engaging in sex for pleasure and sanctifying pure relationship between man and woman.
That is was base animal instinct and has no place in civilised society.


Incest was practiced and spoken of in the bible, it is hardly the same moral compass concerning acts between siblings/parents that it has been where homosexuality was concerned.
The issues with incest are more deeply ingrained in our cultural psyche and the bible was not responsible for it. So what is and where did it start?

I've attempted to answer this question by providing evidence which suggests that we developed an innate sense toward it, possibly as has been discussed due to evolution demanding it. I'm sure there are other factors involved but to suggest it is purely moralistic in nature would be to disregard some very vital information.


There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of incest cases which have gone before the law in this country have been of an abusive nature. Because of the dynamic of families, the issue of trust and innocence is always going to be a pertaining to incestuous relationships. There are very few incestuous relationships which fall under the category of consentual, purely because of the nature of it but even I recognise there are some (very few) which do not fall under the typical umbrella and require greater understanding.
At no other point though would I actively support incest as being a staple in society.

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

Incest was practiced and spoken of in the bible, it is hardly the same moral compass concerning acts between siblings/parents that it has been where homosexuality was concerned. The issues with incest are more deeply ingrained in our cultural psyche and the bible was not responsible for it. So what is and where did it start?

Of course the bible was responsible for it.

The original 1567 Act, which travelled to Ireland, provided that:

Parliament statutis and ordanis that whatsumeuer persoun or personis committeris of the said abhominabill cryme of incest that is to say whatsumeuer persoun or personis thay be that abusis thair body with sic personis in degree as Goddis word hes expreslie forbiddin in ony tyme cuming as is contenit in the xviij Cheptour of Leuiticus salbe puniest

Whose gyst you can establish with modern English. The underlined part of the act refers to Leviticus 18:17, which provides

“[T]hou shalt notdiscover the shame of ye wife and of her daughter, nether shalt ye take her sonnes daughter, nor her daughters daughter, to uncover her shame: for they are thy kinsfolk, and it were wickednes”

The biblical origins of incest in our legal system could hardly be more explicit.

I've attempted to answer this question by providing evidence which suggests that we developed an innate sense toward it, possibly as has been discussed due to evolution demanding it.

Again, so what? We all know that incest is generally frowned upon and it is not a prospect that most people find attractive.

Most people don't find amputees and the disabled or those suffering from heritable genetic abnormalities very sexually attractive either, but you know we're adults, we're expected to get over that.

Unless you're arguing that hemophilia and Cystic Fibrosis carriers or the physically or mentally disabled deserve legal prohibition from sexual activities in light of societies evolutionary caution from engaging in sexual practice with those people, it isn't at all clear what your point is here.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of incest cases which have gone before the law in this country have been of an abusive nature

.
And nobody would condone those cases. That's not being discussed. It really isn't. You can repeat it all you want, but nobody is defending abuse.

pharmaton

Do you know how many biblical prophets were involved/borne of incestuous relationships?
During a time when societies were smaller and inbreeding was a natural consequence incest was inevitable.
The fact is that societies have grown so that it's no longer an issue.

You continue to suggest that abnormalities is the premise of the argument as to why "it should not be attractive" but the innate response precedes that, that it is not a conscious decision based on whether we choose to produce defective offspring but as a result of that.


If you continue to see this as a moral issue only then yes, for you it will be the same as fighting for homosexuality to be accepted. As someone who has been involved in same sex relationships however I find the idea that my cause is one step away from your plight to accept incest deeply depressing.

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

You continue to suggest that abnormalities is the premise of the argument as to why "it should not be attractive" but the innate response precedes that, that it is not a conscious decision based on whether we choose to produce defective offspring but as a result of that.

You're completely refusing to answer the question, I take it?

The question, to repeat it, is so what? We are not slaves to our instincts. Our breeding instincts aroused by natural selection explains why amputees and the disabled are generally considered physically unattractive. But that's totally irrelevant when deciding whether amputees and the disabled ought to be allowed to engage in sexual relationships and procreate. We don't legislate for that, despite the fact that some such illnesses have greater genetic dangers than incest.

This is irrational.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

do you think anyone on this thread in an incestuous relationship would willingly admit it?

They might. This is After Hours and although I do not read After Hours (I usually only post on a thread here when requested by someone else) I know it well enough to know people on here have admitted to all sorts of things.

That does not change my point however. The point being that those arguing pro-incest on this thread may have literally no interest in engaging in it themselves. You do not have to have a dog in the race. As I said I argue gay rights and womens rights. I am neither gay nor female.

pharmaton wrote: »

that's the problem here, people are aligning the issue with gay rights.

Very few people are. In fact I can not think of one. I certainly have not either. I do not think it is anywhere near as "constant" as you make out.

What people _have done_ frequently however is drawn analogies to the gay rights issue. Nothing wrong with that. Analogies are helpful and useful tools.

A few people clearly have issue with analogy. They think drawing an analogy between two things is to compare them. It is nothing of the sort. Analogy is massively different to comparison.

There are quite a few analogies to be drawn between the two topics. My own analogy was simply to highlight that just like one does not have to be gay to fight for gay rights, one also does not have to want to sleep with their sister to suggest there is nothing wrong with incest. Nor does one have to be homeless to work for the homeless. Or be female to fight for womens rights.

Nothing about that analogy is comparing incest to homosexuality. At all.

pharmaton wrote: »

Nor the nature of it or it's genetic consequences.

Which are for the reasons I laid out not as significant as you appear to think they are. Alas you appear to have skipped over the actual counter points I made on that issue and not dealt with them.

I agree we need to raise and explore points... such as genetic consequences.... but they are not issues merely because you raised them. One has to establish that there ARE actual significant genetic concerns and unfortunately the only ones I have heard from you thus far are related to an oversimplification of Natural Selection and how it works.

You want to give them air time. I want to too. I laid out issued I say with it. Alas you have not given air time to responding to them. Airtime only works if we both give it.... otherwise you are in danger of merely soapboxing.

Vicar in a tutu

Nothing wrong with it if you don't mind having 5 legged children. Anyone that thinks incest is fine clearly has a defect.:eek:

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

If you want to compare homosexuality to incest, in terms of morality, there are a few major differences that should be considered. The vast majority of our morality and social systems have been based on religious values for centuries.

I am not so sure they have. Rather I think religious values change to match the majority opinion on morality in order to take a free ride and gain acceptance by association. Religion is used to rubber stamp moral opinions. I see very little to suggest the moral opinions ever came from religion. Do you?

I certainly think it is long past time we divorce out moral discourse from unsubstantiated religious nonsense however. If we are going to argue the immorality of incest then let us do so on it's own merits now and here today. Not on the opinions written down of bronze aged mostly literate peasants.

pharmaton wrote: »

The bible categorically states homosexuality is wrong

Does it though? Many people disagree. Devout Catholic Andrew Sullivan being the first name that jumps to mind. But whole divisions of Christanity are perfectly ok with it. Even some churches are now ordained gay ministers and pro-gay marriage supporters are FAR from found only in the atheist camps in places like the US.

Further one of the most oft quoted lines in the Bible against homosexuality actually does not tell you not to engage in homosexuality. It just tells you HOW not to engage in it. Remember saying "Do not do it like that" is not the same as saying "Do not do it". A point many willfully forget when quoting the line in question.

Suffice to say/repeat however: The contents of the bible are interesting in a study of the history of human morality. I do not see it as a useful tool for discussing morality here and now today.

pharmaton wrote: »

possibly as has been discussed due to evolution demanding it.

As I said above I agree this is "possible" but we need to get past merely pointing out it is possible. I do not think anyone disagrees it is possible.

Can we move past possible and come up with any actual evolutionary or genetic arguments to substantiate the hypothesis? I am not so sure we can.

pharmaton wrote: »

to suggest it is purely moralistic in nature would be to disregard some very vital information.

Which is why I would not suggest it. In fact in my previous posts I suggested a possible alternative explanation. Culture. Economics are also worth considering. Your daughter running off with your son has all kinds of historical financial and wealth implications.

pharmaton wrote: »

There are very few incestuous relationships which fall under the category of consentual

I have no data or statistics upon which to agree with the above. But I do not doubt it. However it is worth remembering the thread is about "what is wrong with incest". Not "what is wrong with non consensual sex". I think one assumption we can make however is that those of us who see no problem with incest are saying it with the attached assumption that we solely mean consensual incest.

Perhaps it is regrettable that the OP did not title the thread "What is actually wrong with consensual incest?" as it might have given us a clearer agenda for discourse. To draw that much hated analogy to homosexuality... clearly when people say homosexuality is ok they are not saying it is ok for one guy to bend another over a table and rape him. The fact they are defending CONSENSUAL gay sex goes without saying. So it should here too.

pharmaton

Nozzferrahhto..if you haven't seen the references to homosexuality then you may not have read much of this thread.
Wrt to hard wiring in humans see my previous posts.
This is not soap boxing, this thread has been done before and I'm familiar with the circular argument but in every case where an opposing or relative piece of information is pointed out (not just by me) it has been disregarded as moral concern and swiftly swept under the carpet.


I know of two incestuous situations personally. The first I wouldn't class as incestuous, a couple who were first cousins and relatively unfamiliar with each other (yet knowing they were first cousins) who embarked on a relationship and had two children both of whom inherited genetic abnormalities. They were both really decent people and I remember growing up how people referred to them and to this day still find it incredibly distateful. They were blamed for bringing two children into this world who would not have a fair chance at life. (both were physically disabled)

The second I'm unsure as if I should really divulge as it involved a friend I grew up with and her brother. He pestered her for sexual favours as a young child and she engaged his petitions. I don't believe she was ever happy to do so and to me it was sibling abuse.

If incest becomes an acceptable quirk in families it makes me wonder if she would have felt even more obligated to fulfilling his needs. (because y'know, thats perfectly normal)

I'm leaving this thread now as it nothing more than a pc discussion more concerned with querying peoples morals.

nozzferrahhtoo

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it if you don't mind having 5 legged children.

Given incest causes nothing of the sort... I am rather unsure what your point is? It is worth repeating once on every page of this thread... because people keep missing it.... incest does not cause genetic abnormalities.

Vicar in a tutu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given incest causes nothing of the sort... I am rather unsure what your point is? It is worth repeating once on every page of this thread... because people keep missing it.... incest does not cause genetic abnormalities.

Funny because I know of a couple who are related, and the kids all have abnormalities, and I've heard of others too Look at it whichever way you like though, it's seriously against nature.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

Nozzferrahhto..if you haven't seen the references to homosexuality then you may not have read much of this thread.

I do not recall saying there was no references to it. Quite the opposite in fact. What I said is that the references were analogies NOT comparison. Making an analogy between two things is not the same as comparing them.

pharmaton wrote: »

Wrt to hard wiring in humans see my previous posts.

See them? I replied to them. You skipped over much of the content of those replies. The Evolutionary argument you employ to suggest it is "hard wired" (as in genetic) are problematic at best.

pharmaton wrote: »

(both were physically disabled)

Your anecdote has very little to do with incest though. Many people with genetic disabilities copulate and procreate. They in turn have children with the same abnormalities. I personally know, for example, genetically deaf people who married and had children knowing they too would be deaf. And.... this one being more in the spirit of After Hours I feel.... I know some midgets too who have done so.

pharmaton wrote: »

young child and she engaged his petitions. I don't believe she was ever happy to do so and to me it was sibling abuse.

Agreed. Which is why it is useful as I said to remember when we are defending incest we are doing so between consenting adults. Children... related or not.... who pester and badger each other for sexual favors... are an entirely different issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Funny because I know of a couple who are related, and the kids all have abnormalities, and I've heard of others too

Yes but incest did not CAUSE that genetic deformity. The parents themselves already had that genetic deformity (probably not expressed) and their children inherited it (and expressed it).

It is an important distinction. Incest does not CAUSE genetic deformity... it only increased slightly the odds that people who already are carriers of that deformity will have children displaying the results of it.

meeeeh

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Of course the bible was responsible for it.

The original 1567 Act, which travelled to Ireland, provided that:

Parliament statutis and ordanis that whatsumeuer persoun or personis committeris of the said abhominabill cryme of incest that is to say whatsumeuer persoun or personis thay be that abusis thair body with sic personis in degree as Goddis word hes expreslie forbiddin in ony tyme cuming as is contenit in the xviij Cheptour of Leuiticus salbe puniest

Whose gyst you can establish with modern English. The underlined part of the act refers to Leviticus 18:17, which provides

“[T]hou shalt notdiscover the shame of ye wife and of her daughter, nether shalt ye take her sonnes daughter, nor her daughters daughter, to uncover her shame: for they are thy kinsfolk, and it were wickednes”

The biblical origins of incest in our legal system could hardly be more explicit.

This is so wrong it's not even funny. Incest taboo is so much wider concept than whole Christianity.

Just goggle endogamy, exogamy, incest taboo or cultural anthropology.

Turtwig

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Funny because I know of a couple who are related, and the kids all have abnormalities, and I've heard of others too Look at it whichever way you like though, it's seriously against nature.

I know a person who smoked for over 70 years and didn't die of cancer. I've heard of others too. Now, if I were to use him as an example to completely disprove the claim of science that smoking causes cancer what would your reaction be?

Homosexuality is also against nature. Nothing wrong or immoral about it though.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I said nothing about the individual needing to be convinced to change their behaviour. I am takling about the society level. People _in general_ should be let do what they want until we _as a society_ and _as a democracy_ come to the concluson that X, Y and Z should be prevented, banned, made illegal, or whatever.

Well Irish society has come to the conclusion that incest should be prevented and banned. There's the end of your argument.

Do we split the entire population on the planet into two lists of who you can and can not have sex with? No. That is ridiculous. Instead you can have sex with whoever the hell you want except X, Y and Z. Much simpler approach right? Do who you want except who we as a society deem you can not.

That's a fantastic approach actually, but Irish society got there before you, that's why Irish society deems that you can not engage in sexual relations with family members.

That is _exactly_ what I am saying here too - no matter how many attempts you make to pretend I am saying other things.

At least now we are in agreement. That wasn't so hard after all.