Incest

[Margim]

Hitro - Look, personally for a few reasons I don't agree with incest, buggery, homosexuality or hetrosexual relationships out of wedlock.
But standards seem 'fluidish' these days. If gay marriage is fine, incestuous relationships have to be ok too. Saying that one type of genetic make up in a child is any less valuable than another could arguably be said to be as biased equally biased as racism.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Syterion
Rare, but what do you think if that was the case?

Not nearly as rare as you may think. Many reports have shown this sort of thing goes on quite a bit (and not just in rural areas either).

I've heard of a recent study (out of the UK I believe) that claims that first cousins could safely marry provided they were related through their mothers.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Incest between consenting adults? None of my business. Who am I to tell two consenting adults that they cant have a romantic relationship merely because it offends me?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Margim
Theoretically, if there is nothing ethically wrong with aborting a pregnancy, there are no moral grounds to condemn incest (consenting adult incest - which is as different from child rape as paedophilia is from homosexuality) either, on the basis of the gene-pool defense used in earlier posts. Frankly, the only thing wrong with it is that people find it distasteful (yes, I actually do to).
Lets lose our so called 'enlightened' arrogance in talking about sexuality and admit that we all have our own standards to which none of us will completely agree. We have justifications, but is one person's really any better than anothers?

edit:spelling

It is precidely because no one person's wisdom is sufficient to give him the neccessary insight to guide his own life that no man's opinion be used to guide another's. That is why God gave us law, to protect us from ourselves.

This discussion, and the objectively revolting conclusions that many here choose to draw from it, are the only evidence required to prove that the wisdom of man is foolishness.

(Isaiah 5:20)"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil..."

Suffice it to say, I stongly and vehemently disagree with the legalisation of incest on any grounds. There is no such thing as subjective standards of morality, and trying to base a legal system on something that doesn't exist is foolhardy.

(Inflammatory content removed, thread magically re-appears after brief sojourn into oblivion.)

 

[MarineCorps]

I do belive this is the first incest thread I have seen in my time here. But I have no opinion on this matter myself. Unless it's abuse in which case I (Duh) am against it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

Absolutely 0% are wired so that they like their cousin Billy-Sue [or Billy-Bob, as the case may be].

Marriage between first cousins has been common practice in very many cultures, including pre-industrial rural Scandinavia. Now, most of these cultures have not practiced love marriage - the fact that assets stayed in the family certainly helped making it popular among the parents of bridal couples - but I've heard enough stories of girls eloping with their cousin to escape marrying a none-relative to find the above statement flatly unbelievable.

Of course, marriage between first cousins used to be very common among European royalty. And if we look at ancient Egypt marriages between brother and sister or father and daughter were commonish among royals and top aristocracy, while Incan tradition apparently demanded that the ruler's head wife was his full sister.

Swedish law only forbids parent-child and brother-sister marriages - cousin-cousin or even uncle-niece/aunt-nephew marriages are OK. They're not normal practice nowadays, however. (Same-sex couples can't marry, but they can have a so-called "registered partnership", which from a legal POV is much the same as a marriage. I do not know if a brother-brother or sister-sister couple could register one.)

As for me, I feel strongly that parent-child and sibling-sibling sexual relationships are wrong. Cousin-cousin disturbs me much less. However, as far as consenting adults are concerned, I see little point in the state trying to stop it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I might, btw, share a little incest-related anecdote from my family history (2nd quarter of 18th C):

After spending some twenty years as a POW in Russia, this ancestor of mine return to his native village and meets, for the first time, his daughter, born after he left. An apparently fully consensual sexual relationship develops. After some years, the authorities find out, and my ancestor is executed. His daughter - out of sorrow or shame; we can't know - takes her own life. This in turn prompts a young man who was hoping to marry her to take his.

 

[Speedo]

This time, I do agree that Speedo raises good points and defends a position that has valid ground.

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

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

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.

 

[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?

 

[betazed]

I voted yes. But after reading the whole thread I wish I voted no.

I always thought incest was defined as "sexual relation between persons (adults) who are relatives"

in which case it is their problem and their choice and they are free to do what they want.

What I did not know was "incest" could also be "sex between persons where one of the parties is not an adult but they are related" in which case it comes under pedophilia. Hmmm.... Then it is not ok. I think.

Also if "incest" is defined as marriage between "adults related to each other" then also I do not think it is ok. Sure it was their choice but the possibly genetically defected child they will bring to life did not ask to be genetically defected, did he?

So maybe I should have voted the third option

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
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.

How do we determine if a deviancy is "natural" or "sick"?

(The above is not a rhetorical question.)

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by betazed
I voted yes. But after reading the whole thread I wish I voted no.

I always thought incest was defined as "sexual relation between persons (adults) who are relatives"

in which case it is their problem and their choice and they are free to do what they want.

What I did not know was "incest" could also be "sex between persons where one of the parties is not an adult but they are related" in which case it comes under pedophilia. Hmmm.... Then it is not ok. I think.

Also if "incest" is defined as marriage between "adults related to each other" then also I do not think it is ok. Sure it was their choice but the possibly genetically defected child they will bring to life did not ask to be genetically defected, did he?

So maybe I should have voted the third option

So you're not okay with marriage within family because it might result in genetically defected children, but you're fine with sex within family out of wedlock? It seems like it should be the other way around.

 

[The Last Conformist]

betazed: In my experience, "incest" always refers primarily to sexual acts. I wouldn't label a celibate marriage between close relatives as incestous.

 

[betazed]

Originally posted by WillJ
So you're not okay with marriage within family because it might result in genetically defected children, but you're fine with sex within family out of wedlock? It seems like it should be the other way around.

I am not saying I am ok with "sex within family out of wedlock" like I have no problem with it. (I surely would not do it).

But if two adults who are related had sex without wedlock without the intention to produce children I see no way how I could argue against them logically and tell them they are doing something incorrect! What can I tell them? That it is against my taste. Surely that is not an argument.

If they are married and intend to produce children then at least I have an argument against their marriage.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by betazed
I am not saying I am ok with "sex within family out of wedlock" like I have no problem with it. (I surely would not do it).

But if two adults who are related had sex without wedlock without the intention to produce children I see no way how I could argue against them logically and tell them they are doing something incorrect! What can I tell them? That it is against my taste. Surely that is not an argument.

If they are married and intend to produce children then at least I have an argument against their marriage.

Except that there is no way to be 100% sure that sexual acts won't produce children (protection can fail), and marrying does not necessarily mean you plan to have children.

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
How do we determine if a deviancy is "natural" or "sick"?

(The above is not a rhetorical question.)

I think the real question would be, does the fact that something is "natural" make it ok? And if one "natural" thing (homosexuality) would be ok, then why not another? (incest or etc)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, Pontiuth Pilate was obviously using "natural"=OK, "sick"=not OK. This isn't terminology I'd use myself, but, uncharacteristically, I'm not in the mood for a termological discussion ATM.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by WillJ
Except that there is no way to be 100% sure that sexual acts won't produce children (protection can fail), and marrying does not necessarily mean you plan to have children.

Removal of ovaries is pretty close to certain.

 

[10Seven]

Haven't read the entire thread - so my thoughts may be superfluous in adding...

Major arguments, apart from, 'it's sick' appear to be in asserting genetic issues, such as increasing mutation and deformity.

While part of this is an evolutionary issue, and that being debatable - depending on what you think about that theory I tend to agree, though am not entirely convinced.

MUTATION AND DEFORMITY.

Importantly, incest itself doesn't automatically lead to deformity, and would lead to even less mutation. Such instances of deformity are a result of a heriditary genetic disposition, and issues relating to recessive and dominant genes. With this being the case, it simply highlights an existing familial condition - and if there is none, none will show.

Essentially, if genetic variety, and change is the goal, then incest is 'bad', but if you have a genetic line that you wanted to maintain, then incest would be the way to go.

The proof, as such, is best seen in the intermixing of races - where 'incest' amonst a single race is extremely unlikely to lead to offspring with features semi-unique to another.

INCEST AND ABUSE
And this is where I would assert incest to be inherantly abusive. That it is impossible for an incestuous relationship to be anything but, where one party will have developed a position of authority/power over the other. This would be most obvious in a parent child relationship.

On the other hand, this might appear not to be an issue between close siblings which is where my predjudice comes in gross.