What is actually wrong with incest?

Jimoslimos

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.

Confirmation bias.

As has been pointed out several times, incest doesn't cause abnormalities, but it is a risk factor for them - increasing with the level of inbreeding.

As an example of how this works can be seen in the Afrikaner population of South Africa who have one of the highest rates in the world of inherited genetic disorders. The vast majority of whom can trace their roots back to just 14 families from the Netherlands over 300 years ago.

Cody Pomeray

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

I was responding to the question of how incest made its way into our legal system.

Given that the original law of 1567 actually refers to Leviticus 18:17, I'd say this is a more constructive and specific contribution than simply "google anthropology", which is not as helpful in discovering the source of incest law.

There is a clear relationship between the prohibition of incest and religious belief, just as there was during the prohibition of homosexual acts.

Czarcasm

Way to skip over and dodge most of my post. However:

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

Not at all. The discussion on any issue is ongoing. Decisions once made do not get set in stone for all time. We discuss them - rediscuss them - and sometimes they change and sometimes they remain the same. The abortion issue is a good example. It is currently in some state of flux.

Just because X is banned - this is no reason to give up the discussion. Those who are for X can keep discussing - debating - campaigning - and the next time it goes to vote - or the time after that - it might change. Womens rights, abolition, black rights, gay rights, freedom for slaves - all of them are examples where public opinion was swayed over time by ongoing discussion and ongoing discourse.

So while society might be against it now that is no reason to not answer the OPs question with "Nothing at all" and point out that current opinion on the matter is baseless and poorly argued. There simply is not any arguments - much less from this thread or you - being presented as to why two consenting adults should be precluded exploring a romantic relationship solely because they are related.

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Cazrcasm I'm not going to engage in a quote war, so I'm just going to respond to a critical point
Yes, the "Uncle" situation is anomalous, as are the even stronger 'step-father' situations as can arise, because the same argument can be tendered, i.e. these people are in a permanent, ongoing de-factor or actual family relationship with these people, and yet are free to engage in sexual relationships with them. This suggests an irrationality in the law.

I won't get into a quote war either Cody, but the quote unquote uncle situation is not anomalous because the uncle is not actually their uncle, he is a family friend. With regard to step-parents, the law is quite clear there- they ARE family members, as are foster parents, so they cannot engage in sexual relations with their family members even though they are not the same bloodline.

D-FENS

April O Neill

I reckon you can't separate the genetic and moral objections. I reckon we instinctively think "bleurgh" because we KNOW that shít ain't good for the gene pool.

nozzferrahhtoo

April O Neill wrote: »

I reckon you can't separate the genetic and moral objections. I reckon we instinctively think "bleurgh" because we KNOW that shít ain't good for the gene pool.

We "know" a lot of things as a species. Many of them turn out to be quite false on further inquiry however. Why do you think it is bad for the gene pool per se? And in what situations? What % of the population as a whole do you think would need to suddenly start engaging in incest for the gene pool to be affected at all?

One lesson I have learned in life is that if you are ever going to question yourself... the best places to start is on the subject where you feel you "just know" you are right.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jernal wrote: »

Homosexuality is also against nature.

I would hate to derail this thread but I would be interested in some other thread sometime to explore why you think the above. I certainly see no reason to think so. Though I guess it heavily depends on what you mean by "against" and "nature".

If you ever find yourself posting on a thread on the subject drop me a PM and I will join.

The rest of your post however... nail on head.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So while society might be against it now that is no reason to not answer the OPs question with "Nothing at all" and point out that current opinion on the matter is baseless and poorly argued. There simply is not any arguments - much less from this thread or you - being presented as to why two consenting adults should be precluded exploring a romantic relationship solely because they are related.

Well if you see current law and the current opinion of society on the matter as baseless and poorly argued, lets hear your argument as to why you think it is baseless and poorly argued.

I haven't seen any well founded, well argued arguments from this thread, and indeed much less from you, as to why two consenting adults shouldn't be precluded from exploring a romantic relationship solely because they are related.

Vicar in a tutu

I hope there never comes a day when someone introduces me to their new boyfriend Grandad.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

lets hear your argument as to why you think it is baseless and poorly argued.

Huh? What do you think I have been doing? Re-read all the pages of posts I just made.

Summary:

There is no basis - certainly none on this thread - for suggesting there is anything morally wrong with it.

The one argument that keep cropping up is essentially "I find it ikky therefore everyone else should too". Which is a complete nonseq. and leap.

Other than that the only attack on incest seems to be to focus on one bad form of it (say a parents raping their pre-teen child) and using this to indict the word "incest" as a whole.

If there are any other arguments against it I certainly have not seen it - especially not from yourself.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I haven't seen any well founded, well argued arguments from this thread, and indeed much less from you, as to why two consenting adults shouldn't be precluded from exploring a romantic relationship solely because they are related.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you think there is something wrong with it then the onus is on you to say why. Not on me to say why not. After all if you replace "they are related" with "they are white" in the above have you got arguments defending the right of your average while couple to be romantically involved? Why should we even have to present them?

Cody Pomeray

Czarcasm wrote: »

With regard to step-parents, the law is quite clear there- they ARE family members, as are foster parents, so they cannot engage in sexual relations with their family members even though they are not the same bloodline.

The law does not regard sexual relationships with step parents and step children as incestuous. For clarity, I'm talking about adult sexual relationships. Any offence against a child would be brought under sexual offenses legislation in the normal way.

meeeeh

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I was responding to the question of how incest made its way into our legal system.

Given that the original law of 1567 actually refers to Leviticus 18:17, I'd say this is a more constructive and specific contribution than simply "google anthropology", which is not as helpful in discovering the source of incest law.

There is a clear relationship between the prohibition of incest and religious belief, just as there was during the prohibition of homosexual acts.

There is the same connection between religious beliefs and incest as it is between morality and sex. They both just verbalize something that is already there. In other words, incest isn't forbidden since Bible, it was forbidden before. In the same way incest didn't become taboo in Europe when Christianity became widespread, it already was taboo.

There are different theories why incest taboo is so widespread but non of them cites religion. The whole incest taboo is so much wider than just sexual act itself that it really can't be compared to homosexuality as being product of some christian or whatever morality. It defines how the society evolved, if it is matrilinear or patrilinear and so on. Not all societies define incest in the same way but it seems that all or almost all know some kind of incest taboo. As I said some form of incest taboo is probably more widespread than "do not kill". It is fascinating subject that tends to be waaaaay oversimplified when described just as a sexual practice and discussed only inside morality.

meeeeh

Deleted User wrote: »

Huh? What do you think I have been doing? Re-read all the pages of posts I just made.

Summary:

There is no basis - certainly none on this thread - for suggesting there is anything morally wrong with it.

The one argument that keep cropping up is essentially "I find it ikky therefore everyone else should too". Which is a complete nonseq. and leap.

Other than that the only attack on incest seems to be to focus on one bad form of it (say a parents raping their pre-teen child) and using this to indict the word "incest" as a whole.

If there are any other arguments against it I certainly have not seen it - especially not from yourself.



Innocent until proven guilty. If you think there is something wrong with it then the onus is on you to say why. Not on me to say why not. After all if you replace "they are related" with "they are white" in the above have you got arguments defending the right of your average while couple to be romantically involved? Why should we even have to present them?

That kind of arguments happen when people are not taught any social sciences in school.

Cody Pomeray

meeeeh wrote: »

incest isn't forbidden since Bible, it was forbidden before.

Sure - there were societies that prohibited incest before they had contact with Christian scripture. You seem to think I'm denying that. I'm not. I answered a straightforward question regarding the genesis of Irish law as regards the prohibition of incestuous acts.

Although incest may well have been prohibited if the bible had not existed, nevertheless our earliest legislative provisions (i.e. the Act of 1567) do indeed quote and reference The Bible.

This is all completely irrelevant. The cultural artifact reasoning is just as impotent, of course.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

That kind of arguments happen when people are not taught any social sciences in school.

If you feel you need to learn any just ask and I will teach you what I can. If you feel there is any you know that I do not - feel free to add it to the thread. The above post however I can not really work with. It has no content.

April O Neill

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We "know" a lot of things as a species. Many of them turn out to be quite false on further inquiry however. Why do you think it is bad for the gene pool per se? And in what situations? What % of the population as a whole do you think would need to suddenly start engaging in incest for the gene pool to be affected at all?

Did you just type this?

Yup, some things turn out to be false on further inquiry. Others, not so much. Inbreeding, for example.

You have eyes and the internet, therefore access to a wealth of peer-reviewed research. Knock yourself out.

meeeeh

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Sure - there were societies that prohibited incest before they had contact with Christian scripture. You seem to think I'm denying that. I'm not. I answered a straightforward question regarding the genesis of Irish law as regards the prohibition of incestuous acts.

Although incest may well have been prohibited if the bible had not existed, nevertheless our earliest legislative provisions (i.e. the Act of 1567) do indeed quote and reference The Bible.

This is all completely irrelevant. The cultural artifact reasoning is just as impotent, of course.

Not that there are societies, almost every society in it's evolution forbids some forms of incest. Which would signal that religion is brought in to reinforce that but did not invent it or even spread it. In the same way as lent was brought in as mechanism to cope with the shortages of food at the end of the winter.

I said I'm not overly interested in morality of incest, I wouldn't do it but it doesn't bother me if other do it. What bothers me is some sort of smug thinking that comparing incest to homosexuality or explaining it just with morality is any less simplistic explanation as 'it's icky'. The real question is why do we find it immoral or icky and the answer is certainly not because Bible says so.

Cody Pomeray

meeeeh wrote: »

The real question is why do we find it immoral or icky and the answer is certainly not because Bible says so.

So what? I'm not suggesting this is the reason for the yuck factor, I gave the bible as the direct inspiration for the law. Obviously the bible itself was inspired by cultural norms ***this is irrelevant***.

Just because something was once, and for a very long time, undesirable does not mean there is any inherent rationale for its ongoing prohibition. Societies believed all sorts of crazy stuff in the past, some with grounds in genetics.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty. If you think there is something wrong with it then the onus is on you to say why. Not on me to say why not. After all if you replace "they are related" with "they are white" in the above have you got arguments defending the right of your average while couple to be romantically involved? Why should we even have to present them?

You are engaging in word play again with trying to replace one word with another to suit your opinion. If you think there is something wrong with the current belief in society and the law as it stands, then it is up to you to put forward the case for why it should be changed. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here.

If you absolutely MUST use that analogy, then incest has already been deemed guilty, and it is up to you to appeal it's innocence.

2 stroke

DaveDaRave wrote: »

So homosexual incestuous relationships. Whats the argument against them, since they cant breed.

My brothers are ugly.

Scruffles

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Why is incest bad? Just because the media etc portray it as taboo, does not mean it's bad.

The only reason I would condone incestual relationships is if the the relatives choose to have a child, this is unfair as it is likely the baby may develop deformities. Only in this scenario is it a crime. Just like rape, murder etc are all crimes because they impose a negative cost to society and the individuals involved. Otherwise, I really don't mind if a brother and sister decide to have sex.

Take a step back and think about it for a second, you only think it's wrong because you're told it's wrong. Incest was practiced for hundreds of years in the royal family. Many indigenous tribes still practice it, because they aren't exposed to media etc telling them what's right or wrong. They act on human nature, and frankly, incest is a desire most humans share. Hence, the abundance of incest themed porn produced. Even freud himself said young boys fall in love with their mothers, and young girls fall in love with their fathers. It's human nature, so why condemn it. It's not harming anybody.

I really don't understand why consensual incestual relations are illegal either.

feck all is wrong with incest, if that just means a relative and a relative being partners,however breeding shoud never happen for the childs sake.
a relative-relative partnership isnt wrong, unless are a strong follower of
social rules.

this will bore the sht out of anyone who doesnt like animals but am a small time pet chicken breeder and had been given hatching eggs that unknown to self the ma and da were bro and sis.
one cockerel;kanner,was born under developed and also developed a life threatening illness through his lack of development,was syringe feeding a DIY feed every day and also had to give him baycox,luckily he survived and is now the biggest healthiest cockerel on our yard,from the same birth date;a hen named blondie;different inbred parents same problem;same syringe feed and a makeshift special care unit using the top of her incubator in their brooder, poor girl lasted till exactly a week old.
another chick; lorna-same parents as blondies ,born with a deformed foot,luckily it wasnt bad enough to need splinting,specialist confirmed her issue and the others were the result of the inbreeding had only found out when they were due to be born about the parentage, the guy who gave the eggs said kanner was the only one to have ever survived from his 'cuckoo maran' parents.
absolutely fck all idea why he inbreeds,its easy enough to mix flocks to make sure that doesnt happen.

Czarcasm

Scruffles wrote: »

feck all is wrong with incest, if that just means a relative and a relative being partners,however breeding shoud never happen for the childs sake.
a relative-relative partnership isnt wrong, unless are a strong follower of
social rules.

There's the problem right there though Scruffles - you have no issue with incest when there are no children involved, but someone else will say that incestuous couples have every right to have children if you are going to say they are just like any other couple.

I did find the chicken breeding story interesting though, but I wouldn't put relationships between chickens in the same bracket as relationships between human beings. Human relationships are far more complex, but your story did demonstrate the biological effects of the concept of inbreeding at least.

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The law does not regard sexual relationships with step parents and step children as incestuous. For clarity, I'm talking about adult sexual relationships. Any offence against a child would be brought under sexual offenses legislation in the normal way.

If a person is considered by the court to be a legal guardian of the child, then they can be prosecuted for incest, that includes adoptive parents, foster parents, and yes, step parents.

For even better clarity, and here's where your anomaly should have come in-

As far as I remember- a female under 17 years of age cannot be prosecuted for incest. A female over 17 years of age found guilty of incest is subject to a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison.

A male over 17 years of age found guilty of incest is subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Citycap

A game for all the family to play

NellyDean

for many people, a brother is a best friend.

Let's face it , it's always weird to **** a best friend.


A brother and a sister who let's say never met until adulthood and wanted to get it on? Let them at it.


It wouldn't be for me like, but why not?
I just think it's weird if they grew up together ,,.

Cody Pomeray

Czarcasm wrote: »

If a person is considered by the court to be a legal guardian of the child, then they can be prosecuted for incest, that includes adoptive parents, foster parents, and yes, step parents.

That's just incorrect. You need to consult the legislation. I'm not sure what I can even add to this apart from asking where you're getting this belief?

For even better clarity, and here's where your anomaly should have come in-

As far as I remember- a female under 17 years of age cannot be prosecuted for incest. A female over 17 years of age found guilty of incest is subject to a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison.

This matter is dealt with under the Criminal Law (Incest) (Amendment) legislation (2012), and will no longer be an issue.

cakemaker6000

OP, if you want to bang the hole off your sister...well...enjoy prison.

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's just incorrect. You need to consult the legislation. I'm not sure what I can even add to this apart from asking where you're getting this belief?

It's from memory Cody I'm afraid, and unfortunately I can't remember the name of the book tbh. I will admit it's been a few years since I had any reason to read up on the subject.

This matter is dealt with under the Criminal Law (Incest) (Amendment) legislation (2012), and will no longer be an issue.

While my point was more about the inequality being a legitimate anomaly, it's good to know too that it's a legal loophole that'll be closed off.

Can I be honest though? I had expected a blistering legal argument from you that would be a lot better than just a person of the age of consent having sexual relations with another person of the age of consent and unrelated to them, to demonstrate a legal anomaly that would be related to incest.

As regards the question of how state intervention should differ when it comes to homosexuality and incest (I'm posting from mobile at the minute, but I think you posed the question and said nobody had answered it yet around page 25), well, as I pointed out earlier in the thread- we know a lot more about homosexuality and incest in the 30 years since the David Norris case (there's your advocate of pederasty, but not incest, take note taxahcruel), and we know that homosexuality is an epigenetic predisposition, whereas incest, or sexual attraction to a member of one's immediate family, is not something a person is genetically predisposed to.

There are numerous external factors as to why a person may be attracted to another member of their immediate family, but none of them have anything to do with an intrinsic biological sexual orientation.

This is why I was so adamant that we not allow pederasty to be thrown in with incest, in the same way as we would not now allow pedophilia to be thrown in with homosexuality like was the case 30 years ago. We know now that there is no link between the two.

We also know that homosexuality and incest are two different things, and that is why the state, and society, takes a different view of both issues, and has a different approach to dealing with both issues.

Grolschevik

Czarcasm wrote: »

We also know that homosexuality and incest are two different things, and that is why the state, and society, takes a different view of both issues, and has a different approach to dealing with both issues.

From my close reading of this thread, I believe people are mistaken in their assertion that anyone compared homosexuality with incest.

There was an analogy made, however, between society's historical views on homosexuality, and society's current views on consensual incest between two adult siblings.

I believe that the conflation or confusion of this point has resulted in the last dozen pages of this thread.