What is actually wrong with incest?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Sure I can. The question in the OP is: "What is actually wrong with incest?", so here's my opinion in quick summary -

• Incest has no benefit to society

• Incest is illegal

• Incest has mental health implications for both parties involved that would not present in a relationship were they unrelated

• Incest carries with it a known and quantifiable increased risk of health complications arising from reproduction that does not present itself if the parties are unrelated

• Incest has implications within family law and inheritance rights that cannot be ignored

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

"(1) Homosexuality...has equally been regarded by society for many centuries as an offence against nature....

(2) Exclusive homosexuality, whether the condition be congenital or acquired, can result in great distress and unhappiness for the individual and can lead to depression, despair and suicide.

(3) The homosexually oriented can be importuned into a homosexual lifestyle which can become habitual.

(4) Male homosexual conduct has resulted, in other countries, in the spread of all forms of venereal disease and this has now become a significant public health problem in England.

(5) Homosexual conduct can be inimical to marriage and is per se harmful to it as an institution."

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nor have you it seems - poor example. Firstly this is not related to their genetic condition. It is to do with consent and their ability to give it. Further the The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 makes it an offence to have or attempt to have sexual intercourse with a mentally impaired person unless they are married which means that no - Intellectually Diabled people are not precluded from sex or reproduction. And also the law is targetted at the person having sex with them as much as at them themselves.

If word play and missing the point were an olympic sport tax, you'd be a shoe-in for the gold medal. My point was that the law DOES preclude people in society from having sex. Intellectually disabled people are precluded from having sex.



Play around with the wording of that sentence and introduce special circumstances all you like, but the point still stands. We as a society DO indeed preclude people from having sex.

The fact is that mediating probabilities on potential illnesses in offspring is not a valid argument from precluding anyone sex. People with genetic conditions are not precluded from reproduction even where both people contain only the recessive alleles for the condition and no dominant ones for not having the condition.

It might not be a valid argument TO YOU, but it is indeed a valid argument considered by the majority of society. If you'd care to argue against society, well, by all means be my guest and see how many people will entertain you. I'm only entertaining you to be polite, to be perfectly honest about it.

And as I said if it were discovered tomorrow that white couples were 100% more likely to have deformed children than interracial - I doubt you would be accepting arguments precluding white people marrying or having sex.

We'll talk about that issue in the unlikely event that the issue ever becomes a possibility. Until then, lets just stick to discussing incest shall we?

So the genetic probability arguments fail to answer the OPs actual question of "What is actually wrong with incest".

Ignoring evidence that doesn't suit your argument again?

Do play again but "I assure you I am speaking from experience" is not an argument to my ears. Anecdote does not an argument make young padewan. In fact "Trust me and take my word for it" arguments are MORE likely to invite my suspicion and evaluation.

Me too! I just figured, y'know, seeing as you thought it was OK for you and all to do it first, you'd appreciate the sentiment -

Deleted User wrote: »

I have only knowledge of one sibling pair personally who engaged in incest. While I personally feel they were too young to do it when they did (by a long way) - they thankfully came out of the experience no worse for wear. 4 years they were at it and their relationship thankfully naturally evolved back into pure sibling love and they "grew out of" having sex with each other in their own words.

You can keep declaring that if you like. But if you think that we are having the same conversation speaking of two consenting adult siblings as we are when we are speaking of a 40 year old man buggering his 10 year old son or daughter then at least we can understand why you are not making much sense or good arguments on this issue.

We're clearly not having the same conversation as you are desperate to try and introduce special conditions and exceptional arguments to support your position. Whereas I'm actually interested in talking about ALL aspects of incest, you're only interested in talking about what suits you.

I love when people put "clearly" before something that is patently false. I am perfectly ok with differing standards of morality when they are well reasoned and based. The whole point of morality for me is to come up with moral arguments about why any thing is wrong or not. And as I said saying "X is not for me" and jumping from there to "No one else should do X" is not a good moral argument. At all. If it was then we would have to ban just about everything.

I see, so as long as something suits you, you're OK with it. Well, that wasn't rocket science. The point of morality with respect to society for me is that if something is against the common interest of a society, then indeed it should be banned. This is why there are plenty of things that are already illegal. Incest being but one of them. You happen to disagree with the point of view that incest should be banned, so I'll offer a solution -



Find a few more like minded people such as some of the posters on this thread, agree a manifesto between you (good luck with that, some posters here see nothing wrong with incest as long as the participants have no reproductive rights, love to be a fly on the wall for that one!), and then go out and gather public support for the idea that there is nothing wrong with incest and it should not be illegal.

Disingenous lies. I am dismissing/ignoring nothing out of hand. I am explaining in great detail and length why I disagree with the points. Disagreeing (especially at such length) is the exact opposite of ignoring.

You haven't explained anything yet as to why you think incest is of any benefit to an individual or to society. What you HAVE done, is tried to nail down the issue of incest to one single objection, ignored evidence that doesn't suit you, and introduced some crazy ass examples of word play to distract from talking about what you don't want to talk about.

Except that you will be - so I will be expecting your next reply which we both know you will be giving.

See now that's called goading. Was that really necessary? The reason I said I wouldn't be giving you fannyadams after this is because I can see for you the discussion is merely an intellectual one. You have shown no willingness whatsoever to discuss the issue of incest beyond your own limited parameters. How can anyone enter into a discussion like that which effectively limits the discussion to discussing your opinion only, rather than the the actual multitude of issues involved?

I will borrow from a better boards.ie writer than I for this one. Morality for me is the rules we as a species set for how best we as a species can live together. When you enter into a relationship with a partner for example you define rules and boundries for that relationship. This often involves compromise and discussion - and is often ongoing.

And yet you have not yet once shown any willingness to compromise, while your idea of discussion only revolves around merely ONE aspect of the issue of incest.

"Morality" is just the fancy name we apply to engaging in that operation on a society level rather than a personal couple of family level.

What makes up a society tell me? Commonality, ie- ideas we share with other people. So as members of a society, we have our own individual morality, and sometimes our individual morality goes against the collective morality in a society.

The things that agree with our set out rules we label with terms like "good" "right" "nice" and those that do not with "bad" "wrong" "evil".

I'm not such a big fan of labels, but sure, feel free to knock yourself out. In my opinion morality isn't as black and white as you see it, and we can always over-ride our morality.

For me all things are "innocent until proven guilty". That is everyone should be allowed do anything - until such time as good arguments are presented showing they should be considered harmful and wrong and evil and bad.

You mean a person should be free to do as they please because it suits them to do so? Well, in that case, why would anyone want to do what doesn't please them? Because they must obey the rules of a society in order to progress within that society. This is why free thinking never really caught on. We'd all LIKE to do what we want, but in order to progress and evolve within a society, we must obey the rules of that society and work within the system of that society if we want to effect change. You can't do it from the outside looking in if you choose to exclude yourself from that society.

No such arguments are being presented here in regards the morality of incest. Even more so from you as you just trot out name calling to back up your arguments and disingenuous lies about what I have or have not been saying and doing.

There have been, but you have chosen to ignore them, and not once did I engage in name calling nor lying. Would it be OK with you if I suggested you come down off your high horse now?

No. I did not. I just explained to you I was not comparing the two things but showing how the different things within incest invite entirely different discussions. Incest involving consenting adults and incest involving father son pederastry are clearly massively different things - yet we call them both "incest". That was my point. It is not a complex one to comprehend.

So we're agreed then, incest is incest? You're right, it's not difficult to comprehend. Why you went and introduced pederasty into the argument is still beyond me though, as according to your own definition of pederasty - a male adult can have sexual relations with a male teenager without it being incest. On the other hand, a father having sexual relations with his son - that's incest.

Your misunderstanding is not mine. If a father has sex with his boy then this is incest. It is also pederastry. The only one not getting this is you. Not me. That is all I was saying and that is all I am still saying - so the fact you take me reiterating myself as "Backpedalling" shows you not only do not understand what I was saying - you do not understand "backpeddalling" either. Perhaps we need a seperate thread to teach you english?

I get it alright, I still don't understand why you felt the need to introduce it though. Perhaps if you explained yourself better instead of trying to talk over my head I might better understand what you are trying to say. There's no need for the smarmy personal digs either, it might make you feel clever, it might even get you a few thanks, but it does nothing to endear me to listening to your point of view. English is not my first language, but I'd say I have a fairly good grasp of the basics.

Or maybe you should check dictionaries and not JUST wiki given just how unreliable wiki is? A good rule in life is double check anything you think wiki is telling you.

An even better rule is to be open minded in a discussion and allow for the fact that people will not always see things the same way you do, and you have to be aware of that and understand it and accept it, and then try and see things from their point of view before you can influence them to see things from your point of view.

Again the point of my use of the word - regardless of your definition of the word - is simply to comprehed: We have one word "incest" but clearly the moral arguments are different depending on exactly who is having sex with who. If you see no difference between consenting sibling adult sex - and non-consensual father-preteen sex then you are beyond help.

I already addressed this -

Czarcasm wrote: »

morality is a fluid concept that can differ vastly from person to person - the idea of a 30 year old man having sex with a 13 year old boy might be repulsive to some, but perfectly normal to others - really depends on who you ask, so morality cannot be ignored or dismissed.

And it really does depend on who you ask. My morality doesn't jig with your morality so you think I am beyond help. This is when I accepted that I had to leave morality aside and discuss just the facts, because we were never going to agree on morality.

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.

Yes but Cody 30 years on we have gained a far better understanding of both homosexuality and incest. It has already been established that the two issues aren't comparable, but starling puts it better than I could've done in trying to express my point of view.

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.

I'm not so sure that's true Cody. Nowadays we have laws that allow social workers and Gardai to intervene in private relationships where members of a society are considered to be at risk, in domestic abuse cases for example, or where a child is suspected of being abused or neglected, and because intervention into private relationships has become more acceptable in society, there are far less members of society at risk nowadays than there were historically speaking.

UCDVet wrote: »

At the end of the day - incest is illegal because religious texts said it was wrong and our society embraced those beliefs. Now it's viewed as immoral and 'gross' (which is exactly how most anti-gay men would describe homosexual men 'making love').

do you know why incest in not common among societies across the globe? Because the societies that practiced it are no longer in existence and here to defend it.
Your need to justify it is almost obsessive which makes me think you have a more personal relationship to it. You've continuously disregarded every post that has discussed it from every other pov and clearly have no desire to change your mind anytime soon.
Also your disregard for homosexuality is plainly evident.

UCDVet wrote: »

Except lots of societies have and continue to practice it.

which ones would that be.

Claiming I have a personal relationship to incest is a weak Ad hominem attack. My personal beliefs are irrelevant to my argument.

not if your personal beliefs are biased and set out to achieve a particular agenda. Btw I didn't attack you personally, I'm questioning why you believe that of all the posts here, none of them..not one..has shed any light on the issue for you and you continue to end each post with a comparison to homosexuality.

If I've disregarded every post here, it is only because I don't have the time to read all 17+ pages before posting. You could have pointed me to relevant posts that made a compelling, rational argument in less time than it took to write this post where you attack me personally.

But my all means, I'm all ears (so to speak). I just haven't heard a single rational argument against incest laws....but I'm certainly willing to change my position in the face of reason.

try this one ...or maybe this one

Jernal wrote: »

If societies solely practised homosexuality they'd no longer be here either to defend it.

homosexuality is not is not compulsory.

Regarding your innateness point. What's the's the justification there? Because socieities everywhere feel there's a tendency for something it must be right?
Let me put this simply by analogy. Suppose humans were like mantises in that after sex females had a tendency to eat their male counterparts. Suppose also that was innate in every culture and society. I doubt you would you still be using those supposed facts as a reason to support sexual cannibalism.
Yet, here you are supporting incest by means of tendencies and suggestions of natural law.

I think you've misinterpreted my post, try reading it again.

Jernal wrote: »

Help me out a bit. If I misread something then odds are I'm not going to read it correctly the second time either.

I'm not supporting incest...try read it again.

Jernal wrote: »

If societies solely practised homosexuality they'd no longer be here either to defend it.

Regarding your innateness point. What's the's the justification there? Because socieities everywhere feel there's a tendency for something it must be right?
Let me put this simply by analogy. Suppose humans were like mantises in that after sex females had a tendency to eat their male counterparts. Suppose also that was innate in every culture and society. I doubt you would you still be using those supposed facts as a reason to support sexual cannibalism.
Yet, here you are supporting incest by means of tendencies and suggestions of natural law.

Jernal wrote: »

I never said you were supporting incest. I've read it again and I'm still confused as to what I've misunderstood.

The post is very clear, its reference and cites linkage which discusses the westermark effect, the theory which suggests that incest is innately abhorrent as a result of human development. That human societies have evolved to not be attracted to siblings and the ones which do not practice it have become the predominant societies.

starling wrote: »

Human relationships are complex, and bringing a sexual element in makes thing more complicated emotionally speaking. In the case of incest between relatives who have grown up together, all sorts of power dynamics are involved that make the issue of consent very conplicated. The example given of "two brothers in their thirties" who suddenly embark on an incestuous sexual relationship is not necessarily the typical way incest actually happens afaik. In sibling incest as far as I understand it tends to have its beginnings at a far younger age.

But I don't believe anyone is advocating early onset of incest, any more than the onset of any sexual interactions in youth. Like any debate to sexual permissibility, this should only apply to those who are sexually and physically mature.

There should be no automatic assumption of minority of age in respect of incest, because nobody appears to be promoting incest for minors.

The combination of the close established familial relationship and the young age of the people involved means that it is difficult to know how freely the participants consent and how much they have been influenced by the power dynamics of the relationship.

But we do not legislate for friends embarking upon sexual relationships.

In fact, it is entirely legal for an adult friend of one's parents, who is co-resident with the family, and whom a young person of 17 years might call 'Uncle' (though there is no biological relationship) embarking upon a relationship with the 'niece' or 'nephew', i.e. the offspring of the family with whom he is friendly. We admit this possibility despite the long term dysfunctions that may arise and strain the family dynamic.

The ban on incest is an irrational one, partially because it gives rise to these strange anomalies, and offers no explanation.

Now to get back to my original point: those are mental health / emotional issues which can easily arise with incest. The Supreme Court argument about mental health issues around homosexuality is not the same.

You say this, and then you offer some very legitimate observations on homosexuality, but you don't go on to explain why homosexuality should differ from incest in terms of susceptibility to mental health disease.

Certainly, we can reduce mental health stress on homosexuals by challenging homophobia. But who is to say we cannot challenge the mental health stress on participants to incest by challenging incest-phobia.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Nowadays we have laws that allow social workers and Gardai to intervene in private relationships where members of a society are considered to be at risk

Yes but the risk must first be established to the extent that there is evidence. The ban on incestuous relationships is an automatic ban.