Incest

[Margim]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Personally I don't see any double standards in the above post, and if anyone else does, would you please point them out?

I guess I find the double standards in that you seem to define natural or unnatural based on some personal standard of what you see as 'sick' or natural. What makes one form of sexual sexuak behaviour ok, while the other is abnormal?

Simply becuase people feel a certain way, does that make it right to act in that way? Who does have the right to determine whats acceptable and what isn't.

Pilate, above you mentioned that 11% of the world had homosexual urges, and therefore suggested it was 'natural'. I'd bet it was a bigger percentage than that who had felt the urge to kill someone at some stage... that deosn't make it 'ok', does it?
In addition, you also wrote, that homosexuality occurs in most animal species - well, so does incest...

So...

Again - doesn't it come down to personal choice and standards of morality?

 

[WillJ]

@10Seven and Margim: I'm pretty sure what Pilate means by "natural" is present in nature and inherent (as opposed to acquired), which is the standard defintion of natural. He does NOT mean "natural" as in "OK," at least AFAIK. He's saying that homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature (that is, in non-human organisms) and that it is something inherent, something you're "wired" to be, as opposed to choosing it; whereas incest is unnatural because it does not occur in nature and is something you choose to do, without you being inherently wired to do it in any way.

I think he's wrong, though. Not only does incest sometimes occur in nature, but I don't see why being attracted to your sister, father, cousin, or whatever is any more of a choice than being attracted to some random woman or man that you, say, see in a magazine. That is, unless you think that's a choice too, in which case I think you're an idiot.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Removal of ovaries is pretty close to certain.

Yeah, I guess you're right. But then why would the woman have sex anyway?

 

[10Seven]

WILLJ
Though unclear, I hadn't intended to criticise the 'nature' aspect.

OVARIES
Wouldn't stop sex would it? I don't think that cool chemical mix is produced there... I think I've misunderstoon someone's post

 

[Margim]

Originally posted by WillJ
I think he's wrong, though. Not only does incest sometimes occur in nature...

I think I said that in my last post (last 'paragraph').

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by 10Seven
WILLJ
Though unclear, I hadn't intended to criticise the 'nature' aspect.

No prob.

Originally posted by 10Seven
OVARIES
Wouldn't stop sex would it? I don't think that cool chemical mix is produced there... I think I've misunderstoon someone's post

I always assumed the "cool chemical mix" is produced there; maybe I'm wrong though.

Originally posted by Margim
I think I said that in my last post (last 'paragraph').

Yeah, I know. Kudos to you for saying it, since I wouldn't have realized it myself...

 

[Margim]

Originally posted by WillJ
Yeah, I know. Kudos to you for saying it, since I wouldn't have realized it myself...

Oh, it wasn't for credit - just trying to clarify that we were making the same points, rather than arguing opposite sides of the coin...
These arguments get confusing sometimes, and I often get confused between playing devils advocate, offering my own opinions, exploring theoretical arguments and knowing which one of the above three I'm currently in. It helps to try and clarify who one is agreeing with at a particular time

 

[Syterion]

I think the biggest misconception within this thread is how people still think that incest is all about pedophilia. But this thread is about two consenting adults.

I think that incest is sick too. I am also personally repulsed by homosexuality. Isn't that perfectly natural, since I'm heterosexual? But it's not for me to dictate others' actions.

IMHO it has been adequately proven that homosexuality is biologically natural, if not normal, in the same way that it has been proven that albinos are natural but not normal.

This thread has not convinced me that there is such a thing as a "natural" sexual connection between a parent and a child or a sibling and another sibling. In fact, I fully believe that it will NEVER be proven, just as I believe that pedophilia is a mental illness and not some sort of natural sexual urge.

If homosexuality is a mental illness, then it's a mental illness that afflicts eleven percent of the world population and varying percentages of almost every animal species on earth. To me, that is stretching the definition. Don't you think so? Animals don't make "choices" in the same connotation that we make "choices". Their sexual actions are governed by instinct.

Thus I think there is an excellent case that homosexuality is natural and not a choice, just as it is virtually a given to assume that heterosexuality is natural and not a choice.

If anyone else wants their personal perversion to be bumped up into that category, I'm afraid the burden of proof rests on them to prove that they are governed by sexual instinct, not choice.

Just because incest may not be a specific urge, that doesn't mean it is wrong. Is it wrong to have sex with someone you are not attracted to? It makes no sense, but it is legal.

But I agree with WillJ, I think it is perfectly natural to have an attraction to a cousin or maybe a sibling(though the sibling thing disgusts me, but I have to live with it). And I don't see how it is bad if two consenting adults have sex.

As for the genetic problem, I refer you to one of FredLC's posts.

Also, what about people who does have the same genetic problem, which meet, and fall in love of with each other, without being relatives? Say, two people who are genetically deaf, or two people with congenital diabetics. These have as high a chance, perhaps even higher, of coming up with a children that is handicapped in some way… still, they are not forbidden to marry and have kids. Keep in mind that, as their diseases are known, they are as aware of the high probability of a congenital disease as in the case of the incestuous couple. So, how exactly do these cases differ, except for the fact that in one they have blood ties and in the other they do not? Is this a valid qualifier to treat them differently?

And finally, the argument on parenting is not valid, because saying that parents will make kids predisposed to certain inappropriate practices(note:and I do not think incest is inappropriate) is true for both non-incestuous parents and incestuous, and you cannot assume so, because that exposes your bias.

I do belive this is the first incest thread I have seen in my time here.

I'm so original.

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate


Homosexuality is an abnormality, incest is an aberration.

I am 100% against what was above stated about Homosexuality. It is NOT abnormal, it is a choice by a human being, and if you think that homosexuality is abnormal, then you think choice is abnormal, and if you think choice is abnormal, wellll, I can't help you. If you believe the Bible crap on homosexuality, and have been successfully brainwashed, then I am not going to comment any further.

I am againt Incest, I mean, I do believe that the State should not go into the bedrooms of Citizens, but Incest just screws around with the gene pool, which is bad, apparently. I am against incest also on moral grounds, I believe it is is a choice to be made, but I personally find it disgusting. Please don't hammer me down too much on what I just typed.

Also, I am surprised moderators haven't closed this Thread down yet . . .

 

[Syterion]

Why should it be closed? Nothing was said that was offensive. And nobody knows if homosexuality is a choice, but I highly doubt anyone would choose to be homosexual, due to how they are perscuted. It seems only logical it is not a choice. And since only 11% of people are homosexual, then it is no the norm, which makes it abnormal. I know abnormal has a negative connotation, but I am using it now as literal as possible.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No, I don't believe "the Bible crap on homosexuality".

And no, homosexuality is NOT a choice! Lots of heteros tell me this and I always reply, "When did you DECIDE to start liking the opposite sex?"

You apparently do not understand what I mean by "abnormal". In this country, being of color literally makes you ab-normal. Ie, not normal, a minority. Does that mean being black or yellow or red is bad? I never suggested it. Being an albino is VERY abnormal. Is it bad? No. Homosexuality is an abnormality. Doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
No, I don't believe "the Bible crap on homosexuality".

And no, homosexuality is NOT a choice! Lots of heteros tell me this and I always reply, "When did you DECIDE to start liking the opposite sex?"

You apparently do not understand what I mean by "abnormal". In this country, being of color literally makes you ab-normal. Ie, not normal, a minority. Does that mean being black or yellow or red is bad? I never suggested it. Being an albino is VERY abnormal. Is it bad? No. Homosexuality is an abnormality. Doesn't make it wrong.

Ok, ok, I did not realize we have different views on what "abnormal" means. I assumed it meant a bad thing in the States, like it kinda does up here. Kinda like being racist, I guess.

And I still maintain that homosexuality IS a choice . . .

 

[Sims2789]

i do not morally agree with incest.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Re: the naturalness of incest, it is extremely common among some animal species - common mice, for instance - and among plenty of species it's an effective non-issue, because there is no way an individual can know who its siblings are.

So if homosexuality occuring among plenty of non-human species makes it natural, then incest too is natural.

(Personally, I'm unconfortable with natural~unnatural dichotomies, and prefer not to resort to them. Given the modern concept of 'nature' as what actually is - as opposed to the classical concept of it as what should be - I find it very hard to lable anything as "unnatural" with a good conscience.)

Incest, if that's the term in context, is also extensively used in animal husbandry to fix desired traits in a breeding line.

 

[Achinz]

Definitely a no. The opening premise comparing it to gay relationships is severly flawed as has been pointed out. Children cannot be considered to have an independent choice in the light the ploys a parent as adult can use from emotional blackmail to hints (and threats) of punishment.

 

[FredLC]

But than again, Achinz, I have several times (this should be about the 4th time) stablished that there is a difference between "incest qualified by child abuse and pedophilia" and "incest between consenting adults", the repulsive factor you refer to lying in the qualifier, not in the "incest".

Regards .

 

[The Last Conformist]

Perhaps there should have been different polls for parent-adult child, sibling-sibling, cousin-cousin, and so on.

 

[KoRnEa]

an interesting note i have to make about that different polls thing..

in Denmark, Norway, Germany, it's incest if it's between people that are 3 generations apart(that would be your aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces)

in U.K., France, Switzerland, Italia, and parts of U.S., it's 4 generaltions.(cousins)

in Australia, Philipines, and parts of U.S., 5 generations

different cultures have different views on this as well.
i think it's also interesting that AFAIK, Japan is the most incest-friendly country in the world, and Korea, it's geographically closest neighbor, is the strictest on this issue.

so something might be incest in some part of the world, but nothing out of onrdinary in another part of the world

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
Just for the sake of Devil's advocacy- how about incest between people of the same sex?

That is any boy's top wet dream: sleeping with two sisters at the same time .


On topic: If a adult brother and sister want to have sex together, who am I to stop them?

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Speedo
I'm not really defending it. Personally I think that incest is sick. I just like pointing out the double standards that so many people have when you move the argument from gays to incest

Hehehehe. I just saw this post. Yes, I know that you are not actually defending incest, but just attacking double standards, what is, in fact, pretty obvious when we read your arguments. And in fact, I agree with you on this particular issue.

Only that, as you must have experienced by changing sides, the arguments thrown at you in other threads are very solid, and the people that relied on them on the "gay marriage" issue can't counter them reasonably in "incest" issue. Hell, I myself changed my vote when I realized that very thing.

You proved your points on double stanndards, but at the price of also proving that some forms of incest are to be tolerated on the same grounds of personal freedom. I don't know if you think that it was a worthy price to pay for catching your adversaries in a lapse, though, as I think you probably see "incest" as something as reprovable as you think of homosexuality.

You know what they say, don't you? "Beware of what you wish... you may very well get it".

Regards .

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by FredLC
Incest was probably deemed wrong by ancients as they noticed, though experience, that it would lead to a higher percentage of defective children. The reason for why it happened has not changed – it still can generate that – but the approach from our society to this problem has. Today, individual rights have achieved prevalence over social command in private matters such as the sexual drive, and nothing but a deeply rooted tradition supports the forbiddance of such acts.

Despite the vast diversity of human cultures and social structures, incest taboos are a fairly universal constant. As you said, inbreeding would have been a very real danger for small, insular, past societies.

Only ruling classes would inbreed openly: the Egyptian pharoahs regularly married their own sisters or cousins, because they believed themselves divine and did not wish to pollute their bloodline with normal humanity. Such delusional detachment was what led to weak, sickly, mentally subnormal heirs, the ultimate downfall of many ancient dynasties.

Yet if a democratic modern nation were to legalise adult incest, most obviously sex between brother & sister, were would that lead? For many people, particularly teenagers, finding a sexual partner is not easy, and a challenge which drives much (if not most) of their social activity. Someone you already love as a family member, who you've grown up with, would be the easy option for getting sex, if it was considered OK.

Shy lads would just stay in and sleep with their sisters; neither sibling would meet or choose from a good range of potential partners. There'd be lot less people out there to meet, if you weren't in an incestuous relationship. Children born of sibling marriages would go on to do the same as their parents. Eventually, much of the national population could become inbred, antisocial and isolated.

Once you start accepting incest, where does it end?