What is actually wrong with incest?

Czarcasm

Grolschevik wrote: »

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.

The search function on the touch site is pants, so I had to trawl back thru the thread to find it, but is this a valid enough as an example of comparing homosexuality to incest, not only are they comparing, but they are actually equating the two in saying that one is actually the same as the other, and they cannot see how a person could support homosexuality and not incest-

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could be in support of Gay marriage but not allow Incestuous marriage.

No joke, no troll, I just don't see it.

I can accept 'The bible says so' as the foundation for a belief - but beyond that - there is no reason two consenting adults shouldn't be able to do whatever they want in terms of marriage and sex, so long as it doesn't directly harm others.

It's a terrible analogy tbh, simply because of the fact that as I pointed out- we know more about both issues now than we did historically speaking, so we understand that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, whereas incest is a sexual attraction.

One is an issue that is inherent to the individual, in that a person is gay and that can never change, whereas a sexual attraction to a person is dependent upon external influences, which change all the time.

pharmaton

Grolschevik wrote: »

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.

don't know why you can't see it

Jernal wrote: »

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

the basis of the argument is that if homosexuality is against nature and we accept it then why not incest.
There's a dozen more where that came from.

Grolschevik

Czarcasm wrote: »

The search function on the touch site is pants, so I had to trawl back thru the thread to find it, but is this a valid enough as an example of comparing homosexuality to incest, not only are they comparing, but they are actually equating the two in saying that one is actually the same as the other, and they cannot see how a person could support homosexuality and not incest-




It's a terrible analogy tbh, simply because of the fact that as I pointed out- we know more about both issues now than we did historically speaking, so we understand that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, whereas incest is a sexual attraction.

One is an issue that is inherent to the individual, in that a person is gay and that can never change, whereas a sexual attraction to a person is dependent upon external influences, which change all the time.

I believe the intent of the post you quote was to make exactly the point I mentioned about society's historical views and (implied) how they evolve.

I actually see the fact that many in liberal democratic societies now would generally agree with your last two paragraphs as evidence in support of this point. 100 years ago, that opinion would have been in the minority, and 500 years ago, it might have got you burnt at the stake.

I don't see your quoted example (nor, on my reading of this thread, do I remember coming across any potential quoted example) that stated an equivalence between homosexual behaviour and incestuous behaviour.

My conflation point still stands, in my opinion.

Czarcasm

Grolschevik wrote: »

I believe the intent of the post you quote was to make exactly the point I mentioned about society's historical views and (implied) how they evolve.

I actually see the fact that many in liberal democratic societies now would generally agree with your last two paragraphs as evidence in support of this point. 100 years ago, that opinion would have been in the minority, and 500 years ago, it might have got you burnt at the stake.

I don't see your quoted example (nor, on my reading of this thread, do I remember coming across any potential quoted example) that stated an equivalence between homosexual behaviour and incestuous behaviour.

My conflation point still stands, in my opinion.

But the poster didn't mention anything about history or society? They just said that in their opinion they couldn't understand how anyone could support gay marriage and not incestuous marriage?

Surely that's more of a comparison (take two issues and weigh them against each other, seeing no difference) than it is a conflation (take two issues and use their similarities to bolster your argument for one issue using the other). I would've thought this post was a better example of conflation-

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Undoubtedly a co-incidence but amazing how similar your arguments are to what the Supreme Court said on homosexual acts.

I'm just bringing this up to demonstrate how eccentric and silly such comments can seem in retrospect.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1983/3.html


While both of your arguments have varying degrees of truth (and both have elements of absurdity, too), history has taught us that there is no right of intervention into private relationships where no harm arises. And even where harm can arise in terms of known, and even probable genetic abnormalities - cystic fibrosis, for example - society has dropped any claim to intervention.

Nemeses

23 pages later and here we are..

Incest is wrong kids. M'kay?

Grolschevik

Czarcasm wrote: »

But the poster didn't mention anything about history or society? They just said that in their opinion they couldn't understand how anyone could support gay marriage and not incestuous marriage?

Surely that's more of a comparison (take two issues and weigh them against each other, seeing no difference) than it is a conflation (take two issues and use their similarities to bolster your argument for one issue using the other). I would've thought this post was a better example of conflation-

I would have thought that the "history and society" point is directly implied by the context and the content of that poster's other posts. I saw it, and understood where he/she was coming from.

And your second point; no, that's not conflation, it is indeed comparison. But a comparison between how the Supreme Court treated an issue 20 years ago with how most members of Irish society view it now. Again, an example of how society's views have moved on with regard to their views on one issue, and might possibly also evolve in the future with regard to a different issue.

pharmaton

Nemeses wrote: »

23 pages later and here we are..

Incest is wrong kids. M'kay?

some people are naturally broadminded and have an affinity for understanding human nature, others just tolerate stuff because they want to appear liberal. What we've got here are the latter.

Czarcasm

Grolschevik wrote: »

I would have thought that the "history and society" point is directly implied by the context and the content of that poster's other posts. I saw it, and understood where he/she was coming from.

And your second point; no, that's not conflation, it is indeed comparison. But a comparison between how the Supreme Court treated an issue 20 years ago with how most members of Irish society view it now. Again, an example of how society's views have moved on with regard to their views on one issue, and might possibly also evolve in the future with regard to a different issue.

OK, now I think I get you re: comparison/conflation.

It's only my own personal opinion though that I don't think society will evolve to a point where it will recognise sexual attraction as a rights issue in the same way it has recognised sexual orientation as a rights issue.

By that I mean- It is highly unlikely we will ever see incest as something society should legislate for and protect, and I haven't seen any arguments yet that should suggest that we should legislate and protect some people's perceived right to have sexual relations with their family members.

Incest is a concept that flies in the face of a society that considers itself to be civilised. For most individuals that make up that society, the idea of sexual relations with family members is abhorrent and abnormal. From an ethical and evolutionary perspective and in order for the human race to propagate, the socially acceptable way this is done is to engage in sexual relations with those individuals who do not already share our genetic material.

There IS actually an argument to be made in the case of consenting adults who are related to each other who would inadvertently engage in an incestuous relationship, but in order to do that, advocates of the case to be made for incest would have to use the argument that society's concept of the family unit itself has evolved, and now it is socially acceptable for a woman to have children with multiple fathers, or that a man can be a father to multiple children with different women, and those children in turn may unwittingly engage in sexual relations with their half sibling.

I wouldn't make that argument though, but I don't have a problem with not being seen as "liberal", and I doubt anyone here on Boards who DOES consider themselves liberal will make that argument, as in order to argue the point, you would have to base your argument for incest on the issue of multiple parentage, and having an issue with multiple parentage is hardly a liberal point of view.

nozzferrahhtoo

April O Neill wrote: »

Did you just type this?

If I did not then someone has hacked into either my Boards account... or my brain.

April O Neill wrote: »

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

Again not so much. Not as much as you might expect. For example the benefits of inbreeding are known in many breeding programs. Rather than send you off to google to "find it yourself" I actually provided a link for that in an earlier post.

Inbreeding does not cause problems per se. It only increases the likelyhood that already existing problems surface sooner than they otherwise might have.

April O Neill wrote: »

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

Ah the old "I have no evidence so I will send people off to find it for me" trick.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

some people are naturally broadminded and have an affinity for understanding human nature, others just tolerate stuff because they want to appear liberal. What we've got here are the latter.

Speak for yourself. You certainly are not speaking for me. I have no dog in any "liberal" race. I simply find the arguments for calling incest immoral to be lacking.

stoneill

Poor oul Tom_Cruise - still looking for a girlfriend, even if it is his sister.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

You are engaging in word play again with trying to replace one word with another to suit your opinion.

You really struggle with the concept of analogy don't you. The point I was making was that we do not have to make arguments to justify why we let people enter into other kinds of relationships. The onus is entirely on the ones saying it is bad to defend that claim - not the ones saying it is good or not bad.

Czarcasm wrote: »

incest has already been deemed guilty

Based on no evidence or arguments it seems. Just personal opinion. Which is all my point is. The OP title is "What is actually wrong with incest" not "Do people generally think incest is wrong".

The answer to the first one seems to be "Nothing at all". The answer to the second is - as you correctly point out - "Yes".

I am discussing the first one - if you want to derail into the second one then have at it but you are on your own.

NuckingFacker

Omackeral wrote: »

Going down on your sister is a lot like drinking non alcoholic beer.

Sure it would taste the same but it's just wrong.

I want my joke back, thanks. There's rental fees and stuff due... No cheques.

Czarcasm

Deleted User wrote: »

You really struggle with the concept of analogy don't you. The point I was making was that we do not have to make arguments to justify why we let people enter into other kinds of relationships. The onus is entirely on the ones saying it is bad to defend that claim - not the ones saying it is good or not bad.

You don't make your point very well then when you try to introduce scenarios involving claims that have already been proven to be false. The situation as it stands RIGHT NOW, is that incest is illegal. I don't have to defend that position. Therefore it is up to you to make the argument to justify why we should let people enter incestuous relationships.

Now, lets hear a good argument from you as to why we should change the law, as it stands, to allow people to enter incestuous relationships?

Based on no evidence or arguments it seems. Just personal opinion. Which is all my point is. The OP title is "What is actually wrong with incest" not "Do people generally think incest is wrong".

The evidence has been presented to you numerous times in the form of medical, scientific, legal and sociological evidence; you have just chosen to ignore it. The evidence presented involved no personal opinion, so your point is moot.

The answer to the first one seems to be "Nothing at all". The answer to the second is - as you correctly point out - "Yes".

I haven't pointed out anything but the facts. Please, apart from trying to put words in my mouth, I know you think of yourself as some sort of all-knowing Yoda (Yoda know fcukall if we're to be honest about it!), but don't try to put thoughts in my head that aren't there. That only works in the movies, fantasy land.

I am discussing the first one - if you want to derail into the second one then have at it but you are on your own.

You are NOT discussing the first question either, you are desperately stuck on arguing the morals of the issue, which is the basis of the second question, rather than the first.

Again I repeat - lets hear a good argument from you as to why we should change the law as it stands, to allow people to enter incestuous relationships?

Cody Pomeray

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

Okay, well if a book said or implied this, it's simply wrong. The law on incest does not extend to adoptive family, and it certainly does not extend to step parents or step siblings, who may enjoy a permanent family relationship with another adult with whom they have a sexual relationship.

So this is an anomaly. It suggests there is an irrationality in the law, and that the law is not merely seeking to protect those who have an ongoing (legal) family relationship from relationship trauma or emotional and sexual subjugation.

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.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

The epigenetic theory of homosexuality or any other biological explanation is not what commands acceptance of homosexuality. The homosexual lifestyle and homosexual acts would be just as valid if that sexual orientation were found to be 'elective', or to have its genesis in childhood upbringing.

As interesting as the scientific awareness of homosexuality may be, science isn't why it's OK to be gay. It's OK to be gay because we accept that what you do in your bedroom with another consenting grown up is essentially none of society's business. I think your reasoning in this instance must be completely disregarded.

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Okay, well if a book said or implied this, it's simply wrong. The law on incest does not extend to adoptive family, and it certainly does not extend to step parents or step siblings, who may enjoy a permanent family relationship with another adult with whom they have a sexual relationship.

This ISN'T where I read it now (just to make that clear), but it may have been WHY I mistakenly remembered that I read similar to it as actually having been written into law (I'm trying to remember stuff I read over ten years ago), but here it is anyway: This is a discussion paper on the law of sexual offences in Ireland, and I would ask you to look at Chapter 7, Section 2 - The Extended Incest Offence -

During the passage through the Dail of the Bill of the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act, 1995, an amendment was proposed which would have had the effect of extending the offence of incest to the non-blood relationships of stepparent and step-child and adoptive parent and adopted child. A recommendation along the same lines is contained in the Report of the Working Party on the Legal and Judicial Process.

At present it is an offence for a man to have carnal knowledge of a female person who is, to his knowledge, his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother (i.e. within the prohibited categories). The argument for extending the scope of the offence is that in step-parent and adoptive parent situations, the child is, for all intents and purposes, part of a family and its relationships are no different in familial terms to those of children to their biological parents.

If the laws on incest were so extended, a question to be asked is would such a child have any more protection from the law than at present? Also, would an extension outside the historical consanguineous relationship dilute the offence to the point that the case for a separate incest offence would diminish?


If it were decided to extend the incest laws beyond the present categories based on consanguinity to second families and adoptive families, would there be any case for a further extension, for example to any family with whom a child is living permanently or on a long-term basis, e.g., foster families.

So this is an anomaly. It suggests there is an irrationality in the law, and that the law is not merely seeking to protect those who have an ongoing (legal) family relationship from relationship trauma or emotional and sexual subjugation.

So I don't think it's fair to say the above, they WERE reviewing the law after the 1995 amendment, but of course, they never followed up on it and that report was obviously buried, and the 2012 report isn't actually law yet either!

I couldn't disagree with this more.

The epigenetic theory of homosexuality or any other biological explanation is not what commands acceptance of homosexuality. The homosexual lifestyle and homosexual acts would be just as valid if that sexual orientation were found to be 'elective', or to have its genesis in childhood upbringing.

As interesting as the scientific awareness of homosexuality may be, science isn't why it's OK to be gay. It's OK to be gay because we accept that what you do in your bedroom with another consenting grown up is essentially none of society's business. I think your reasoning in this instance must be completely disregarded.

So you don't think because we are now a more informed society (because of scientific discoveries), our views as a society have changed? I think you'll have to re-think that one if you're trying to argue that society comes to understand behaviors using the on the "it's none of my business" principle.

Cody Pomeray

Czarcasm wrote: »

This is a discussion paper on the law of sexual offences in Ireland[/URL], and I would ask you to look at Chapter 7, Section 2 - The Extended Incest Offence -

Yes, they discussed it, in fact - this debases any claim in relation to the protections offered by the law even further.

It would be one thing if the Act of 1908 had never been revisited.

My count is that the Act is in the process of being revisited for the 3rd time, but there may have been other amendments I'm not counting. And then there was the added discussion paper you reference.

What does the exclusion of adopted family, step parents, and step siblings during all of this reflection and amending imply

It implies that the purpose of the ban on incest, as amended, is not to protect individuals from overbearing family-sexual relationships, pressure to remain in certain sexual relationships, nor to protect individuals from messy break ups which threaten their family relationships.

No, instead the law is simply an irrational and arbitrary ban on certain adult relationships over others. You can engage in a sexual relationship with your adoptive sister who is a carrier for cystic fibrosis and Huntingdon's carrier (she is a very unfortunate individual), but you may not have a sexual relationship with your cosanguine sister.

The fact that lawmakers actually reflected on this sort of anomaly, and yet never moved to correct it demonstrates the worst kind of irrationality - the deliberate kind.

So you don't think because we are now a more informed society (because of scientific discoveries), our views as a society have changed

I think science has shaped people's liberalism, certainly.

However, I don't think science is itself the reason why homosexuality should always have been acceptable.

Sticking golfballs up your backside is strange and undesirable imo, and it's not genetic, but if someone just wants to do it in their own time, that's their choice.

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes, they discussed it, in fact - this debases any claim in relation to the protections offered by the law even further.

It would be one thing if the Act of 1908 had never been revisited.

My count is that the Act is in the process of being revisited for the 3rd time, but there may have been other amendments I'm not counting. And then there was the added discussion paper you reference.

What does the exclusion of adopted family, step parents, and step siblings during all of this reflection and amending imply

It implies that the purpose of the ban on incest, as amended, is not to protect individuals from overbearing family-sexual relationships, pressure to remain in certain sexual relationships, nor to protect individuals from messy break ups which threaten their family relationships.

No, instead the law is simply an irrational and arbitrary ban on certain adult relationships over others. You can engage in a sexual relationship with your adoptive sister who is a carrier for cystic fibrosis and Huntingdon's carrier (she is a very unfortunate individual), but you may not have a sexual relationship with your cosanguine sister.

The fact that lawmakers actually reflected on this sort of anomaly, and yet never moved to correct it demonstrates the worst kind of irrationality - the deliberate kind.

Cody you beautiful bastard, I knew you'd come good with a better legal argument than "What about Uncle Fester, the family friend molester?". I'm on mobile again at the minute but soon as I'm back on the laptop I'll address the legal argument you're putting forward.

I think science has shaped people's liberalism, certainly.

However, I don't think science is itself the reason why homosexuality should always have been acceptable.

Sticking golfballs up your backside is strange and undesirable imo, and it's not genetic, but if someone just wants to do it in their own time, that's their choice.

But that personal opinion comes from a better understanding of people's behaviour, which comes from information, which comes from scientific discovery; in the same way as science has given us a better understanding of homosexual behaviour - A person has a choice about sticking golf balls up their ass, they don't have a choice about being gay.

pharmaton

I'm not going to quote all the posts I'm going to respond to because it will just be a wall of text.
The incest taboo is more than just a moral opinion, it is an inherent one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

I simply find the arguments for calling incest immoral to be lacking.

The general ban on incest acts a protection to families. It's not some off the cuff outrage because something is different, it concerns itself with the nature of relationships and the family itself.

There is concern over the true nature of incestuous relationships. Given the power dynamics and dependence involved, how likely is it for a parent-child sexual relationship to be truly a product of freely given consent, and how much is likely to be the result of coercion or abuse or undue influence? even in sibling relationships, that is a significant concern. Society's interest in preventing abuse is more than sufficient to justify a general ban on incest. (note: society has no comparable compelling secular interest in banning homosexual sex or relationships).

Second, there's the question of the impact allowing incestuous unions would have on all families. Unlike gay marriage, opponents of which have argued will somehow devalue or harm straight marriage without ever being able to articulate how or why that should be true, allowing incestuous relationships would directly and irrevocably alter and harm the stability of the family unit. Legalizing incest would necessarily inject romantic and sexual tension, possibility and discord into every family relationship. Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters would suddenly become potential sexual partners - and that change would bring with it a significant devaluation of the security and stability offered by the family structure. Again, legalizing gay marriage does not have any remotely comparable negative effect.

Any argument that it would be hypocritical to support gay marriage but not incestuous marriage founders on the shoals of those two critical distinctions

Incest is only a moral argument if you are do not concern yourself with the destructive effect incest has had or could have on families.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

The incest taboo is more than just a moral opinion, it is an inherent one.

Assert much? Substantiate ever?

Also off topic. The title of the thread is "What is actually wrong with incest?" not "Do people generally think incest is a taboo?". I am already aware people think it a taboo. The point of the thread is to explore WHY that might be and simply asserting it is inherent does not really answer the question.

I would expect that it has as much to do with cultural norms as it has to do with any inherent attribute like genetics or human nature.

Also why are you copy and pasting text from other forums and not citing your source? Are you trying to pass it off as your own?

pharmaton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Assert much? Substantiate ever?

Also off topic. The title of the thread is "What is actually wrong with incest?" not "Do people generally think incest is a taboo?". I am already aware people think it a taboo. The point of the thread is to explore WHY that might be and simply asserting it is inherent does not really answer the question.

I would expect that it has as much to do with cultural norms as it has to do with any inherent attribute like genetics or human nature.

Also why are you copy and pasting text from other forums and not citing your source? Are you trying to pass it off as your own?

I thought you might like the opportunity to answer the points set out in it. I'll be waiting. (the quoted text was highlighted btw to differentiate it from my own)

meeeeh

Tedcop wrote: »

Nope, homosexuality is very relevant as it can be a good gauge inconsistent logic thus exposing bias. And since the thread is about the morality of incest in this thread morality is all that is relevant.

Firstly who said this is only about morality?

Secondly, homosexuality is emotional and sexual preference for something. Incest taboo is social institution that also involves marital practices, social relations etc. It's like saying that pasta and Italian cuisine are the same.

pharmaton

meeeeh wrote: »

Firstly who said this is only about morality?

Secondly, homosexuality is emotional and sexual preference for something. Incest taboo is social institution that also involves marital practices, social relations etc. It's like saying that pasta and Italian cuisine are the same.

tedcop keeps falling off, don't worry though he'll be back with a different username shortly.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

I thought you might like the opportunity to answer the points set out in it. I'll be waiting. (the quoted text was highlighted btw to differentiate it from my own)

Lots of people change the highlighting of their text all the time.

What they do not do so often is wholesale copy and paste someone elses text and try to pass it off as their own. No interest in replying to people who do that thanks. Ill just report it for plagarism instead.

If you have anything to say of your own then I am all ears... such as backing up the outright assertion in the previous post.

pharmaton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Lots of people change the highlighting of their text all the time.

What they do not do so often is wholesale copy and paste someone elses text and try to pass it off as their own. No interest in replying to people who do that thanks. Ill just report it for plagarism instead.

If you have anything to say of your own then I am all ears... such as backing up the outright assertion in the previous post.

next time I'll put in inverted commas for you, I stated at the start that I wasn't going to quote posts because it would just be a wall of text, nobody reads walls of text. As it happens you still haven't addressed any of the points in it, unless of course you have conceded the argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

As it happens you still haven't addressed any of the points in it, unless of course you have conceded the argument.

False. I addressed YOUR points. I did not address the text you tried to pass off as your own but were caught out on.

If you want to make your own arguments then great... im ready to talk. If I am typing and you are just copy and pasting the words of other people at me... then I may as well just go talk to _them_.

I dont like dishonesty and plagarisng someone elses text as your own is dishonesty.

pharmaton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. I addressed YOUR points. I did not address the text you tried to pass off as your own but were caught out on.

If you want to make your own arguments then great... im ready to talk. If I am typing and you are just copy and pasting the words of other people at me... then I may as well just go talk to _them_.

I dont like dishonesty and plagarisng someone elses text as your own is dishonesty.

really, that's your argument now? So it's evident then you are not really here to discuss the morality of incest but your only here for the sake of argument.

Can you not take even a little go at the points in the article?

nozzferrahhtoo

pharmaton wrote: »

really, that's your argument now?

Yes. That is my position. It is not going to change. If I am talking to someone and I find that the majority of their text was actually stolen from someone else and passed off as their own... I have no interest. Its as bad as outright lying.

I addressed the part of the post that was yours. It is you that is now not addressing that reply. You asserted out of nowhere that it is somehow "inherent". You have neither substantiated that nor explained exactly what you mean by it.

If you want to do either... I am here... I am not running away... here I am.

If you want to just paste other peoples words at me as if they are yours then I have no time for you.

pharmaton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. That is my position. It is not going to change. If I am talking to someone and I find that the majority of their text was actually stolen from someone else and passed off as their own... I have no interest. Its as bad as outright lying.

I addressed the part of the post that was yours. It is you that is now not addressing that reply. You asserted out of nowhere that it is somehow "inherent". You have neither substantiated that nor explained exactly what you mean by it.

If you want to do either... I am here... I am not running away... here I am.

If you want to just paste other peoples words at me as if they are yours then I have no time for you.

I'm going to work, later on I'll summarize the rest of the article for you.
In the meantime, I'll send a link to it to another poster so they can use the information in it to address your argument too. But to be honest with you it just sounds like you are not going to address them, not because they are not "from my mouth" but because you can't.

Czarcasm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Assert much? Substantiate ever?

Also off topic. The title of the thread is "What is actually wrong with incest?" not "Do people generally think incest is a taboo?". I am already aware people think it a taboo. The point of the thread is to explore WHY that might be and simply asserting it is inherent does not really answer the question.

Focussing simply on the morality of it doesn't answer the question either, yet some posters are still stuck on the morality issue despite the shedload of scientific and legal evidence presented as to why incest is wrong.

I would expect that it has as much to do with cultural norms as it has to do with any inherent attribute like genetics or human nature.

I don't see how anyone can be genetically predisposed to incestuous behaviour? Abhorrence or tolerance of incest though is of course related to cultural norms. Mormons practice incest as a matter of course, and I don't think I need spell out the issues that has caused!

"Human nature" though is too broad a term and too complex to refine an argument either way in support of incest or in objection to it.