Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#26 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 4:10 AM
Ad hominem is slightly different, but in any case...

I hope that others who are against incest will read the reasons here and try to explain why it should be illegal (or why they think it shouldn't be). I don't really gain anything from discussions unless there's someone else who can give compelling, logical support for their positions (even if that opinion comes from religion). It helps me understand others better and fine tune my own opinion of issues.
Advertisement
Scholar
#27 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 11:25 AM
Just seeing if I can come up with some reasons, or use the ones already mentioned:

1) It should be illegal because I don't like it!
Wait, I don't like people buying big cars, but because I live in a democratic society that respects freedom, I let them. Letting people do what you like is not freedom, letting them do what they like is.

2) It should be illegal because lots of people don't like it!
Pretty much the same answer as above. It doesn't matter how many people dislike something, if somebody does want to do it, you need a better reason to ban the practice than mere unpopularity. Similarly, the Holocaust was not morally right even if most Germans supported it. Morality is not relative to the culture.

3) It should illegal because it makes people feel bad
Lots of things make people feel bad. Breaking up a relationship, for instance, or drinking a cold drink too fast. But they are not illegal. Some people might not feel bad about it, so we shouldn't be hasty to make things illegal unless we know that all people would feel bad about it, and that feeling would be worse than the enjoyment it could give at the time.

4) It should illegal because we've evolved to dislike it
Just because we evolved to do it, doesn't mean we should do it. What is natural is not necessarily what is morally right. For example, there is probably an evolutionary basis for aggression, but that doesn't mean we should be aggressive. What is is not always what [/i]ought to be[/i].

5) It should illegal because it could harm any possible children
Well, you can't harm hypothetical children, just like you can't kill imaginary friends. So incest should not be illegal just because children could be produced from it. And besides, harming children is not actually illegal. If it were, we couldn't give drugs that have side-effects to sick children, or push a child away from a hot object. So harm is justified when it brings a greater benefit than the harm itself - and what greater benefit could there be than being brought into existence?

6) It should illegal because people should have relationships outside of their family
Perhaps people should, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal for people to not do so. Going and living as a hermit in the mountains is not a crime, even though it involves not having any relationships at all!

That's all I can think of or see presented here, at least for now.
Mad Poster
#28 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 12:19 PM
Mhhm, yeah!!! Let's make it legal for parents to demand sexual favours from their children in exchange for college education funds or even housing. And who cares if your brother dumps you for your mother, you'll show them both by starting a relationship with your father. And if your father dumps you you can always go cry on some random friend's shoulder because there's no way in hell you're going to cry on your mama's shoulder because she's the bitch that stole your ex/brother from you. Isn't love grand and dosen't it conquer all? Definitely, a cause worth fighting for! BLEAH!!!
Instructor
#29 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:11 PM
Well thats an interesting way to put it. I doubt it would go as far as having relationships with your brother, mother and father. Now that's just ridiculous[fullstop]

Cass, 22, Australia
My Simblr
Scholar
#30 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:17 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Mhhm, yeah!!! Let's make it legal for parents to demand sexual favours from their children in exchange for college education funds or even housing.

Ridiculous. It is not right to demand sexual favours from anyone in exchange for anything (although offering sexual favours in the hope of getting a reward is usually accepted). Incest has nothing to do with that.

Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
And who cares if your brother dumps you for your mother, you'll show them both by starting a relationship with your father.

Yeah, and?

Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
And if your father dumps you you can always go cry on some random friend's shoulder because there's no way in hell you're going to cry on your mama's shoulder because she's the bitch that stole your ex/brother from you.

Yeah, and?
Mad Poster
#31 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by cassieandra
Well thats an interesting way to put it. I doubt it would go as far as having relationships with your brother, mother and father. Now that's just ridiculous[fullstop]



If it's such an Ok thing to do, why is it ridiculous? I mean, there are people who have sexual relationships with their friends, and with people they barely know. Including their family members in their list of sexual partners, expecially since it would be legal, why would it be ridiculous? It's a free world, people like to have sex with whomever they want, and in the name of love they'll do anything in their power to be with the one they love/want/whatever. Who are we to say they are doing something ridiculous?
Instructor
#32 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:25 PM
But what I'm saying is to want to have a relationship with all of them. I mean in a group of friends, yeah you might like one or two, but you wouldn't want to date all of them. You'd still have to have some sort of just family love that couldn't be made sexual.

Cass, 22, Australia
My Simblr
Mad Poster
#33 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by cassieandra
But what I'm saying is to want to have a relationship with all of them. I mean in a group of friends, yeah you might like one or two, but you wouldn't want to date all of them. You'd still have to have some sort of just family love that couldn't be made sexual.


If incest become legal, who's going to guarantee you that family love that couldn't be made sexual? Who's going to make sure that your brother/father won't make sexual advances on you that you do not want.


Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Ridiculous. It is not right to demand sexual favours from anyone in exchange for anything (although offering sexual favours in the hope of getting a reward is usually accepted). Incest has nothing to do with that.


An 18 yo who wants to go to college is probably 100% financially dependeant on his parents. Very much like an employee who knows he won't get the promotion unless he/she sleeps with the boss. If you get that sort of tratment at home, why bother calling it home anymore?


Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Yeah, and?

Yeah, and?


That was sarcasm.
Instructor
#34 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
If incest become legal, who's going to guarantee you that family love that couldn't be made sexual? Who's going to make sure that your brother/father won't make sexual advances on you that you do not want.


It happens anyway. Fathers and brothers make advances on daughters/sisters all the time. Its already happening in the world. Especially north Australia near Darwin.

Cass, 22, Australia
My Simblr
Scholar
#35 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 3:39 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
If incest become legal, who's going to guarantee you that family love that couldn't be made sexual? Who's going to make sure that your brother/father won't make sexual advances on you that you do not want.



That sounds a lot like the common argument against homosexuality: "If we make it legal, then it will spread like wildfire --> society collapses."


But I think the great majority of people will NOT practice incest if it is legal (judging from the "ew gross!" responses here). And even if some of them do, I still haven't heard a reason why it is morally objectionable (or more morally objectionable than woman past the age of 40 having children).


Btw, I hope that I've made it clear that I think it should be legal for two consenting adults. Not for people to sexually take advantage of their children.
Mad Poster
#36 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 4:37 PM
Children who are still dependant on their parents are in a disadvantaged position from the start, and they don't have to be underaged for that.
From your posts I get the feeling that you have made up your mind and no amount of reasoning will make you change your opinion. Leaving morals aside since they are so subjective and people's moral standards may vary, you should check up on findings of studies on the effect on consanguinity, maybe hard numbers and statistics will convince you that it is a bad thing. It is illegal for a reason, and regardless of what two consenting adults may think is appropiate for them, it is inappropiate for society as a whole.
Scholar
#37 Old 2nd Apr 2008 at 1:22 AM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Children who are still dependant on their parents are in a disadvantaged position from the start, and they don't have to be underaged for that.


So far, this is the best support for making incest [between parents-children] illegal that I have seen in this thread. That is, that the power dynamics existing between the two make an abusive relationship more probable even if they are adults.

I have to think about that take on incest a little more before I come to a decision on whether I think it should be legal or not. Anyway, good point here. I'm undecided right now, but I'm trying to work it out in terms of other consensual sexual relationships that can occur between people with differential power, possible brainwashing, and isolation (such as in a cult).

In any case, this doesn't apply to many other cases of incest, including the case brought up at the beginning of the thread: half-brother/half-sister incest wherein neither person has met the other for the majority of their lives.

Quote:
Leaving morals aside since they are so subjective and people's moral standards may vary, you should check up on findings of studies on the effect on consanguinity, maybe hard numbers and statistics will convince you that it is a bad thing. It is illegal for a reason, and regardless of what two consenting adults may think is appropiate for them, it is inappropiate for society as a whole.


Between first cousins, the rate of defects increases from 3% to 7%. That seems rather small.

Between brother-sister, I haven't found any hard statistics on this, but the numbers I have seen for birth defects are 25%-50% likelihood.

Yes, it's very high, but consider the chances of birth defects for:
a person with Down's Syndrome: 50%
two people who are heterozygous for sickle cell (or any other recessive lethal disease): 25%

I think there are so many cases that can result in genetic defects (genetic history, poverty, smoking/drinking while pregnant, etc) that there must be some other reason to single out cases of incest.

And if birth defects are what worries you, then I have to ask: if mandatory genetic screening were enforced for embryos in incestuous relationships (so that there was essentially 0% chance of birth defects), do you think incest should be legalized?

Quote:
From your posts I get the feeling that you have made up your mind and no amount of reasoning will make you change your opinion.


That's a bit presumptuous on your part and easily swings both ways.

All I can say is this: "winning" is not the reason that I engage in discussions. I like to discuss because it helps me understand my own opinions and others'. It helps to figure where my opinions are lacking and where they aren't logically supported.

To give you an example of this, I haven't been a proponent of legalizing incest for a significantly long time. My initial reaction to it was similar to yours, but after I read more about it, listened to others' reasons on why it should be legal, I changed my mind. If logical evidence is brought forth to support making incest illegal then I could change my mind again. So far, the bulk of the anti-incest evidence has been the "EW, those laws are there for a reason/It's common sense" response. That strikes me as very superficial reasoning.
Mad Poster
#38 Old 2nd Apr 2008 at 2:19 PM
Incest is defined as having sexual relationships with close relatives, relatives either by blood or alliance. Incest laws are there to protect everyone that might become a victim of incest. They are not there to hinder some couple's love/sex pursuits. Just because those couples think they are doing great and coping just fine with their situation, does not mean that everyone is able or willing to do that. Not to mention that adult people may take wrong decisions depending on their emotional status and consent to things they do not fully understand.

Let's take this couple into consideration. Brother and sister, they met when she was 15 and he was 23, and started a relationship 6 months after their mother died and she became an orphan. At age 22 she already had 4 kids with him, 2 of which were disabled. Is this the kind of relationships that you want to legalise?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm


http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet...cest/index.html


Is the risk of emotional abuse and exercising of undue influence on your sibling or child exaggerated? Is 50% chance of disablitities in offsprings too little and can be dismissed as insignificant? What if the child marries the parent and after the partner's death he/she becomes guardian/parent to his siblings? Should they be allowed to have that sort of power over their siblings? I think not.

You talk about manadatory genetic screening in case of incestuous relationship babies, but you forget that there is no law on earth that can oblige a woman to have an abortion in case her baby has health conditions. Besides, on top of the risk associated with such a pregnancy there are also those other preexisting risks you mentioned like history of smoking, drinking, drug abuse, various health isuues, or age.
#39 Old 4th Apr 2008 at 6:31 AM
So there is much adue about this.

I don't think that there is anything to argue over, really. The concept of right and wrong is incredibly fluid and constantly changing. Todays taboo is tomorrows latest trend.

Humans have no real basis for their morals, save their own individual upbringings. However, for the sake of social order, laws and governmental bodies to enforce the laws are created. Some of the laws make sense to most people (i.e. it is illegal to assault or kill people) and some are completly arbitrary, such as laws against personal drug use or what sexual positions are allowed. Most laws fall in the middle, of having some practical application, but the potential for also being very silly.

The laws don't protect everyone, and there are many ways to circumvent them. But it seems to be a general consensus that things without them would be much worse alltogether, so they continue to exist.

Where incest falls into place with all of this, I do not know. I know that I personally find the concept to be revolting. But does that mean that it is inherently bad? No. I am not in the position to draw such a conclusion for the entire human race.
Scholar
#40 Old 5th Apr 2008 at 4:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Okay, I think some of you don't understand exactly how profound the term "universal" is when i say incest in a Universal Taboo.

No, it really doesn't matter how universal the taboo is - that is still no reason to make it illegal.
Scholar
#41 Old 5th Apr 2008 at 7:56 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Even if the emotion is disgust. We may not fully understand why certain things make us feel the way they do, but it doesn't mean that it's something to shrug off.

No, but considering that many people have been disgusted at people like homosexuals and foreigners (like Jews), I'd say that disgust should not be trusted. That doesn't mean that all disgust is wrong, but neither is all disgust right. So bringing up that people are repulsed by something doesn't actually help, because we don't know if that repulsion is allright or not.

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
It already IS illegal. You should be arguing why it SHOULD be legal.

It most likely illegal because it disgusts people (just like homosexuality was illegal in the past), and because people think that it could wrong the children produced by such relationships (back to the eugenics thread). That is no grounds for keeping it illegal. Unless they can give a good reason, it should be legal in all democratic countries - where things are "legal until proven illegal".

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
An interesting discussion from you proincest people would to be.... exactly how beneficial to our society it would be if they did legalize incest.

No no, it doesn't to be useful to be legalised. We don't make everything illegal unless proven to be useful - instead, we make everything legal until there are good reasons to ban some of them. That's what living in a free country means.
Scholar
#42 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 4:43 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
But again, homosexuality isn't a universal taboo. And being disgusted by Jews is just intolerance.
Being grossed out by incest is totally different than being a racist bigot.

That's different.

How is it different? Why is a non-universal taboo just intolerance, but an universal taboo is perfectly fine?

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
But what I am saying is... all you are saying is they should do it because it's a free country.
But it's illegal as it stands. So instead of knocking down every reason that it's already illegal...

I want to know the reasons you think it should be legal and how it would benefit out society were it to be legalized.

I would only benefit society in the sense that people would not have their freedoms being taken away because of the gut-feelings of the people in power.

The reason I think it should be legal is because there is absolutely no good reason to keep it illegal. That is a good enough reason by itself, even if making it legal would have no useful effect on society.
Scholar
#43 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 5:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
As someone said before, Incest laws are not gut feelings... they are put in place for abuse reasons.

Could you please explain how this works? What abuse is happening with the brother and sister in the first post?

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
With the homosexuality thing... other than the fact you refuse to accept the profundity of a universal taboo... being disgusted by certain acts doesn't make you intolerant... God knows a lot of stuff straight people do grosses me out...
But hating or doing things to the person is intolerant.

Perhaps, but do you not think that people should try not to be disgusted by Jews or try not to be disgusted by old people? That disgust is certainly not helping the anti-semitism or ageism.

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Our laws are intolerant of many things, and incest and rape, murder, ect. are some of them, although you might say that's limiting freedom.

The very acts of rape and murder limit the freedom of the victim (because they don't get a choice in whether to have sex or whether to die), so I'd say that preventing rape and murder is actually increasing freedom. Consensual incest, on the other hand, limits nobody's freedom, so I do say that limits freedom.

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Plus, there's nothing specifically disgusting about Jews, so that would obviously just be racism and therefor not anything like being grossed out by sex acts.

Are you implying that there is something specifically disgusting about sex acts? And besides, if people get disgusted by Jews, doesn't that imply that they are disgusting to some people? I don't see any difference here. How do you know which times it is ok to be disgusted and which times it isn't?

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
But seriously Dodd, would you have sex with your mother?

No, but I wouldn't have sex with a guy either because I'm not gay. But that doesn't mean that I think that guys having sex with guys or guys having sex with their mother should be illegal.
Scholar
#44 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 8:27 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Right, but why wouldn't you have sex with your mother? Simply because you do not find her attractive enough?

Yes, I'm not at all attracted to her. That is, if I saw her on the street and had no idea she was my mother, I still wouldn't want to. I do have a (1st) cousin who I think is kinda cute...
Scholar
#45 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 10:52 AM
Nope, I just think incest is wrong. Genetically, morally and generally...
although, it's apparently human nature to be attracted to people with a similar facial structure to your own, as close relatives would have.... how that's supposed to work against incest, I don't know....

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
#46 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 12:09 PM
I watched a program on this tonight, with a father/daughter relationship. She brought 2 young kids into their relationship and they went on to have another. The police arrested them and have put them on probation. They can live together as a couple but they aren't allowed to have sex.

How is the relationship fair on those kids? The oldest is 14. The father/daughter part was unknown by their town until tonight. How will these kids survive at school now?

I don't care about the adults, they chose to get involved in this. The kids had no choice. That's where my problem lies.
Scholar
#47 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 1:15 PM
Quote: Originally posted by PandaGuin
I don't care about the adults, they chose to get involved in this. The kids had no choice. That's where my problem lies.

If the kids are affected by the prejudice, is that the fault of the incest itself or the bigots at school?

A similar example, with that of a mixed-race couple having a child, would have brought similar problems back in the 50s. Would that have made miscegenation bad enough to be kept illegal?

The answer to discrimination is not to hide from it, it is to combat the attitude. Black people shouldn't need to have children who are more white, homosexuals should not need to act more straight, Jews should not need to have nose surgery to fix their 'Jewish nose'. I'm all for people doing that if they want to, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Likewise, incestuous couples shouldn't be forced not to have children just because some people are too narrow minded to realise that their disgust is not morally valid.
#48 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 2:25 PM
I was thinking more of the relationship in the family affecting the kids. But I'm never very good at explaining things.
#49 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 7:52 PM
You know, I was reading this, and I couldn't help getting a little frustrated. Ideas like common sense and universality are just a load of crap. If it were common sense, EVERYONE would behave a certain way, right? So why don't they? The same with universality. It seems like not everyone agrees with you, so that means it's not universal.

I find the idea that, if the barriers are removed, everyone would participate just completely laughable. This isn't a sale at KMart. Feelings are not dictated by laws, and you would not fall in love with your father just because some law says it's legal. Do you think it's right to steal? No? If stealing was legal, would you think it right to steal? I'm not understanding why you would change an opinion. If your relative morals (because morals ARE relative) say that it's not ok to steal, I fail to see why, when the law is removed, you'd change your mind. Family structures would still be intact: your brother can still love you as his little sister and cherish you above all the world without wanting a sexual relationship with you.

And rape laws are still in place. For everyone who talks about unwanted advances and eventual unwanted sexual contact, that's still rape. In the victim scenario, that equals rape. Rape is still illegal. It would still be wrong for a father to have sex with his daughter if she doesn't wanted, still wrong for a mother to force her son to perform certain acts on her. If the two are CONSENTING ADULTS, however, it's not rape. As the OP said, the two are CONSENTING ADULTS. And if they were underage, then yes, in the US at least, it would still be illegal even if incest was legal. Though I find it silly for a 16 year old male to be arrested for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, that law is still there.

Faithlove, you keep saying people aren't understanding what you mean by universality. I think this means that it's NOT universal, then. In order for it to be universal, EVERYONE would have to agree, EVERYONE would have to understand, EVERYONE would have to be on the same page. It's just not happening. And why should age really matter? I know I'm letting my personal feelings control this statement, but, heck, I'll go for it: I think it's high time adults stop discarding the opinion of "children." Teenagers may not always look or act like it, but they have valuable opinions. But that can branch into another debate. You seem to be very condescending in this whole debate. I understand these are your morals and this is the way YOU feel, but not everyone has to agree with you, not everyone WILL agree with you. You find incest absolutely repulsing and just terribly disgusting. I don't. It's not for me, I don't find any of my family members attractive, and I still wouldn't even if incest was legal.
#50 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 8:18 PM
Faithlove, I wasn't saying that you specifically discarded the opinions of teenagers. Didn't mean for it to sound that way; it was more of my general frustration at hearing "how old are you, anyway?" I'm still confused, though, why age would matter to say something dealing more with the nature of sex. This whole topic is dealing with things of a sexual nature. And unless you're 18+, you'd be underage, too.

As far as the universal thing goes: many people here have said that the nature of incest changes with the culture. If the couple was in America, yes, it would be considered incest and taboo. If they moved somewhere where half sibling incest wasn't considered taboo...well then, that kinda makes it non-universal. I truly dislike the ideas of universality and commonality. Everything is in degrees, and those degrees is what makes the difference. Like the "degree" of incest allowed. I'm also thinking that since they're HALF siblings some places and people might not have as much of a problem with it.

I think the connotations of words may be playing against a lot of situations here. Because no, it's not just the dictionary definition that matters. It's what we've grown up believing, and that colors our opinions of a lot of things. Have you ever been in love, Faithlove? Love is a strong emotion, and it's not something you can turn on or off. What would you do if you found out the person you were in love with was related to you?
 
Page 2 of 7
Back to top