Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

wazky

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are doing the same thing as Czarcasm just tried to pull above. You are painting a picture that would be unpleasant at the best of times, and simply dropping incest into the middle of it to try and have peoples natural revulsion to that situation stick to incest rather than the situation itself.

What if your sister cheated on the brother with her father then?, more awkwardness.

eviltwin

Two consenting adults ... I don't see the problem

P_1

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was meant to paint a pretty picture of a father having sex with his own son?

"Disgusting" doesn't matter when it comes to incest apparently, so you can't say what I said is disgusting in the same way as I can't object to incest because I find the whole concept disgusting.

I'm talking about consenting adults too btw, as if that makes any difference.

A fair point but its not as if they're holding you down and forcing you to have a bit of 'hows your father' with, well, your father. Yes of course you can object to it but you can't force your own morals on others who wouldn't necessarily object to it.

Dravokivich

Akrasia wrote: »

In ireland, the list of people who you can't marry includes plenty of non genetically related people.

What if they were to get divorces. It doesn't seem to say anything about Ex-Husband, Ex-Wife on the list. Or is there no change in the status with a divorce? Would it be the same for Widows/Widowers?

Gbear

Czarcasm wrote: »

Girl doesn't pull on a night out, be grand, she's still got her father and a couple of brothers at home. Yeah, I can really see that as progressive. It's insane, and shouldn't be encouraged.

It shouldn't be the governments business to encourage or discourage.

It's none of their business.

The only vaguely sane argument for making it illegal is the possible effect of inbreeding, but I don't think that the government has any logical basis to ban the danger to an unborn child vs other dangers - cousins, 2nd cousins, drinking while pregnant, having a bad diet while pregnant, being obese at the time of pregnancy, etc...

And anyway, much the same as the laws regarding the legality of homosexuality have nothing to do with procreation, neither should any laws concerning the sex lives of consenting adults.

There's an idiotic tendency for people to conflate these sorts of arguments as being "pro-incest", "pro-homosexuality", or whatever you like. The specifics are completely besides the point. The point is that the government should not have the power to interfere in such matters at all and allowing them to do so gives them an avenue to interfere further at a later stage.

nozzferrahhtoo

Seriously.... are the arguments against incest so hard to adumbrate that one has to resort instead to these kind of tactics that we see from not one but two users here in parallel..............

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was meant to paint a pretty picture of a father having sex with his own son?

Youre still doing it. It is propoganda nonsense you are offering here.

As I said in an earlier post "Assuming of course consensual adults. Alas "incest" is an umbrella term for many things, many of which have their own demerits that damn them. So one needs to make that clarification clear. Though even having made it I expect we will see all kinds of "Father with his kiddie daugther" type comments coming up in the thread."

And you did not disappoint did you?

No one is asking for a "pretty picture" but what you are doing in your little propaganda stunt is deliberately painting a non pretty picture that has nothing to do with incest..... and then simply dropping incest into that picture.

The simply fact is that the scenario you painting of someone going out lusting for sex, failing to get it, and returning home to get it off whoever happens to be there.... is not a pretty picture.... and has nothing to do with incest.

You merely painted it and then dropped incest into the middle of it in the vague hope it would become slimey by proxy.

wazky wrote: »

What if your sister cheated on the brother with her father then?, more awkwardness.

And you continue to do the same crass and fetid little tactic again. You are talking about a scenario that even without incest is awkward and unpleasant. And having built up that scenario you simply drop incest into the middle of it in the hope incest will be smeared by proxy.

Take the "have your brother and sister latch on to eachother and go at it hammer and tong at the table" line for example. Replace "brother" with "father" and "sister" with "mother". I doubt there are many people here who would feel comfortable at that kind of behaviour going on at the dinner table with their parents. Or even their best friend who brought their girlfriend along. Your fetid and crass little imagery has nothing to do with incest. You just drop incest into it as a failed attempt to make it look bad.

eviltwin wrote: »

Two consenting adults ... I don't see the problem

I guess the problem is that some people can not tell the difference between "That is disgusting to me" and "That is disgusting". We can see that a consensual adult relationship between a father and son disgusts Czarcasm for example. That is fine. No reason why it should not.

But that says nothing about incest. That such a sexual relationship disgusts Czarcasm is irrelevant. That just tells us something about Czarcasm. It tells us nothing about the relationship. Or about incest.

The same argument for example is made by homophobes against homosexuals. They find it disgusting so they just _know_ in their hearts it must be wrong, and bad, and immoral somehow. But they simply can not form a cogent argument as to how. So they just come out with crass sexual imagery to make it sound worse than it is.

Czarcasm

eviltwin wrote: »

Two consenting adults ... I don't see the problem

Relationships between family members are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best or times.

Relationships between people who aren't related are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best of times.

Two or more family members entering into a sexual relationship is just a recipe for disaster from a sociological and biological perspective.

Society evolved from moving outside our own circles, incest would be devolution rather than evolution.

There are plenty of problems with it if you actually really gave it some thought.

Reindeer

wazky wrote: »

Awful!

*off to ride the sister*

Woah, there Cowboy! Let me get off her first.

wazky

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you continue to do the same crass and fetid little tactic again. You are talking about a scenario that even without incest is awkward and unpleasant. And having built up that scenario you simply drop incest into the middle of it in the hope incest will be smeared by proxy.

Take the "have your brother and sister latch on to eachother and go at it hammer and tong at the table" line for example. Replace "brother" with "father" and "sister" with "mother". I doubt there are many people here who would feel comfortable at that kind of behaviour going on at the dinner table with their parents. Or even their best friend who brought their girlfriend along. Your fetid and crass little imagery has nothing to do with incest. You just drop incest into it as a failed attempt to make it look bad.

Bad enough catching your sister getting rogered by some randomer, would be worse if it were your father who was doing the rogering.

Ush1

Czarcasm wrote: »

Relationships between family members are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best or times.

Relationships between people who aren't related are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best of times.

Two or more family members entering into a sexual relationship is just a recipe for disaster from a sociological and biological perspective.

Society evolved from moving outside our own circles, incest would be devolution rather than evolution.

There are plenty of problems with it if you actually really gave it some thought.

I don't think you understand the meaning of this word and how it's useless with regards biology.

P_1

Czarcasm wrote: »

Relationships between family members are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best or times.

Relationships between people who aren't related are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best of times.

Two or more family members entering into a sexual relationship is just a recipe for disaster from a sociological and biological perspective.

Society evolved from moving outside our own circles, incest would be devolution rather than evolution.

There are plenty of problems with it if you actually really gave it some thought.

That's a fair point, the only question that brings up is if the state has the right to criminalise these actions to in effect, protect people from themselves

nozzferrahhtoo

Czarcasm wrote: »

Relationships between family members are fraught with difficult dynamics at the best or times.

Which is why, even though I have never heard a cogent argument establishing incest to be "wrong" or "immoral".......... I still strongly advise against it. Or at least I advise that no one engages in it lightly and thinks it through seriously first however.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Two or more family members entering into a sexual relationship is just a recipe for disaster from a sociological and biological perspective. Society evolved from moving outside our own circles, incest would be devolution rather than evolution.

An evolutionary argument for this is really worse than irrelevant. For evolutionary or biological arguments to come into it on a species level.... you would need a certain minimum % of people to be engaging in it. Yet I neither see this happening..... nor even anyone suggesting or recommending or expecting it.

It is a mistake to think of evolution as having a direction either. It does not. It would be neither an evolution or a de-evolution, it would simply be.... or more precisely already IS....... a minority behavior, with near zero biological impact, within a larger species. In fact I am not even convinced you know what the word De-evolution really means. EDIT: I see I was not the only one above to suspect this.

Czarcasm wrote: »

There are plenty of problems with it if you actually really gave it some thought.

Then do so! And tell us what you come up with. But building up crass and off putting sexual scenarios nothing to do with incest.... and then simply dropping incest mindlessly into that image..... is the exact opposite of "some thought".

wazky wrote: »

Bad enough catching your sister getting rogered by some randomer, would be worse if it were your father who was doing the rogering.

Still doing it arent you. I am sure you have 1 million dodgy images you can write up that you can retrospectively drop incest into. But you are saying literally nothing relevant by doing so except giving us a minor glimpse into how your mind works.

Czarcasm

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't think you understand the meaning of this word and how it's useless with regards biology.

You still got the point of my post though, right?

Ush1

Czarcasm wrote: »

You still got the point of my post though, right?

You can argue social factors, but moral and biological arguments put forward are fairly weak.

As I said, the laws are purely to do with money, not biology.

Czarcasm

P_1 wrote: »

That's a fair point, the only question that brings up is if the state has the right to criminalise these actions to in effect, protect people from themselves

The State does that all the time P, we have family law (do I need to post about child custody cases?), domestic violence (from another recent thread), the difficulty in proving consent (sounds familiar again?), social protection legislation (a whole family on the dole and all they're doing all day is inbreeding another generation of social welfare scroungers? Reminds me of the AH threads in 50 years time thread)...

You get the idea. "Two consenting adults" would be the least of my worries. If only it were that simplistic I'd say "to hell with it, knock yourselves out, I don't actually give a fiddlers", but it's not.

Skullface McGubbin

If the pro-incest groups really wanted to get their way, they could just start making up words like "incestophobia" and label anyone who disagrees with them as bigots or "incestophobes".

'fundemental right' is certainly a loaded term in this case.

wazky

Who has ever looked at their sister and said "yes, I shall fornicate with you my lovely" and not been sectioned?

Czarcasm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then do so! And tell us what you come up with. But building up crass and off putting sexual scenarios nothing to do with incest.... and then simply dropping incest mindlessly into that image..... is the exact opposite of "some thought".

nozz you can make all the intellectual arguments you like and give it welly with the academic spiel, but you'll still never be able to make a compelling argument FOR incest that will convince the majority of the western world that there's no problem with keeping it in the family and getting family members in the family way.

topper75

The people in those videos are professionals. Please don't try this at home folks.

suicide_circus

Czarcasm wrote: »

nozz you can make all the intellectual arguments you like and give it welly with the academic spiel, but you'll still never be able to make a compelling argument FOR incest that will convince the majority of the western world that there's no problem with keeping it in the family and getting family members in the family way.

Fascist!

Celly Smunt

Is there any evidence to suggest that genetically we're hard wired not to find family attractive?.

If not then I don't see the problem,it's just another forced societal attitude to the morality of sex.

Wouldn't be for me however.

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

you'll still never be able to make a compelling argument FOR incest

You don't have to be 'for incest' to realise that making criminals out of two consenting adults is morally questionable.

I think incest is horrible but I wouldn't support imprisoning people for it.

Satriale

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't think you understand the meaning of this word and how it's useless with regards biology.

Ahem.;)
dev·o·lu·tion
1. A passing down or descent through successive stages of time or a process.
2. Transference, as of rights or qualities, to a successor.
3. Delegation of authority or duties to a subordinate or substitute.
4. A transfer of powers from a central government to local units.
5. Biology Degeneration.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devolution

deseil

Ush1 wrote: »

You can argue social factors, but moral and biological arguments put forward are fairly weak.

As I said, the laws are purely to do with money, not biology.

If a father/ mother seeing their son/ daughter as a potential sexual partner, becomes something acceptable or normal where does it end!!
It's so wrong and unnatural there has to be boundaries, and what age does a child become an adult and capable of choosing a relationship like this 16? 18? 21?

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

You don't have to be 'for incest' to realise that making criminals out of two consenting adults is morally questionable.

I think incest is horrible but I wouldn't support imprisoning people for it.

And you don't think incest is morally questionable?

I see, you do, as does the majority in society, because they understand that people are more than that which can simply be reduced to "two consenting adults".

The "two consenting adults" argument completely ignores the complexity and the dynamics of the multitude of issues involved. There's about as much chance of incest being decriminalised in this country as there is a unicorn taking a piss in my back yard.

Gummy Panda

Cavan says YES!

sammy37

If we all evolved from adam and eve surely incest had to be rife at the beginning well according to the bible anyway.

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

And you don't think incest is morally questionable?

If it involves two adults who consent to it? Not really, no. Do you think imprisoning a person who engages in consensual incest is moral?

I see, you do, as does the majority in society,

So? A majority of people were against homosexuality, mixed race marriage, mixed religion marriage, witches etc in the past too.

because they understand that people are more than that which can simply be reduced to "two consenting adults".

What?

YFlyer

Peist2007 wrote: »

Anyone else notice how prevalent incest is on the main page of major porn websites? You would think that most people would be disgusted by that sort of stuff yet the amount of videos of incest or acted incest is unreal. Has to be a lot more popular than you think

Links?

Turtwig

Culturally, I believe knowledge of biology has nothing to do with our feeling of disgust towards incestuous relationships. Incest was something reserved for those of royalty not lowly plebs. It's also something that threatened property marriages. The idea that if a woman loved her sibling the family wouldn't gain any land.

Ethically I believe the majority are either disgusted by it or have no qualms against it - as long as the relationship is mutually consensual and there's no
reproduction, note: not sexual intercourse, involved.

The qualms against reproduction though is a funny one. It borders eugenics. Nobody would ever forbid an Irish couple carrying the CF gene to reproduce. Yet incest, which by all accounts also carries a probability of a relatively healthy offspring* is somehow deemed forbidden for genetic reasons. Baffling!

*risk of genetic malaise becomes more significant with subsequent generations of incest. *

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

If it involves two adults who consent to it? Not really, no. Do you think imprisoning a person who engages in consensual incest is moral?

I'm sure they have morals. I wouldn't agree with their actions, but I can't really offer an opinion on their individual morality as we all have our own standards of morality.

If a person were to exploit their 12 year brother's admiration of them to coerce them into a consensual sexual relationship, I would judge that person's behaviour abhorrent, but that would be a negative judgment of that person based on my own morality.

So? A majority of people were against homosexuality, mixed race marriage, mixed religion marriage, witches etc in the past too.

All of which were based on ignorance and prevailing social attitudes at the time. As people learned more, their attitude changed. I guess society just isn't "enlightened" enough yet to adopt a Mormon lifestyle.

What?

Incest is far more complex than just "two consenting adults". These are people with thoughts, emotions, attitudes and morals of their own.

The "two consenting adults" argument is fine if they were just automatons or Vulcans, in complete control of their emotions and used logic and reason to make the case for why it's logical that they should have sex, but then you couldn't use the "two people who love each other" argument because that argument is based on emotion, which is completely devoid of logic.

In other words - Incest is more complex than just the question of consent between two adults, and the question of consent merely focuses on the sexual aspect of the relationship, with no regard to the person's psychological, emotional and mental health.

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm sure they have morals. I wouldn't agree with their actions, but I can't really offer an opinion on their individual morality as we all have our own standards of morality.

Do you think it's moral to imprison people who engage in consensual incestuous relationships?

If a person were to exploit their 12 year brother's admiration of them to coerce them into a consensual sexual relationship,

That would be taking advantage of someone and it would be a sexual offence. We're talking about a consensual relationship. Stop trying to muddy the waters.

Incest is far more complex than just "two consenting adults". These are people with thoughts, emotions, attitudes and morals of their own.

All true but the question above remains. Do we as a society deal with incest by imprisoning people? I believe locking people up for incest is immoral.

In other words - Incest is more complex than just the question of consent between two adults, and the question of consent merely focuses on the sexual aspect of the relationship, with no regard to the person's psychological, emotional and mental health.

You're muddying the waters again, please stop - it's tiresome. What we're talking about here is consensual relationships.

RobertKK

Incest is not a fundamental right and having children as a result of incest is not fair on the resultant children.

In farming, there are computer programs so a farmer knows if an animal is related to another animal to avoid inbreeding.
It is pretty sad that humans have higher standards for other mammals than they do for humans where 'rights' can mean anything goes.

Incest is rightly outlawed and anyone who think there is a fundamental right to allow it, needs their head examined.

Turtwig

Czar,

With all due respect you are just needlessly obfuscating the issue with such attempts at pedantry. They're barely even relevant.

Buona Fortuna

Birneybau wrote: »

Incest can result in seriously deformed kids, that's why it's frowned upon.

Is it ?

So its OK for two sisters, nephew and uncle, once everyone's above the age of consent?

Karl Stein

RobertKK wrote: »

Incest is not a fundamental right and having children as a result of incest is not fair on the resultant children.

Humans have a natural right to be left alone if they're not harming others or themselves.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

Do you think it's moral to imprison people who engage in consensual incestuous relationships?

It's completely dependent on the circumstances. You want to limit the discussion of incest to a specific set of circumstances that suit you, and I can't possibly do that. I'm genuinely not being obtuse or muddying the waters or any of the rest of it. I simply cannot regard the concept of incest as black and white clear cut as you're trying to nail down.

Turtwig wrote: »

Czar,

With all due respect you are just needlessly obfuscating the issue with such attempts at pedantry. They're barely even relevant.

Hardly fair Turtwig now in fairness?

Asking that posters consider the psychological, emotional and mental health of the people involved in the consensual incestuous relationship, is hardly obfuscation, and surely it should be relevant if the argument for it is that they're in love?

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm genuinely not being obtuse or muddying the waters or any of the rest of it.

You think you aren't but you are.

I simply cannot regard the concept of incest as black and white clear cut as you're trying to nail down.

That's not a reason to make incest a criminal offence.

Do you think it's moral to make criminals out of adult siblings who engage in consensual sexual relationships?

Yes or no?

Turtwig

People are taking the health and welfare of individuals into account. In fact that's why the caveat is often repeated.
"Mutually consenting relationships"

To suggest otherwise is to completely misunderstand or obfuscate the discussion.

This isn't about brooding, abuse, psychological detriments etc. None of those actually have any independence from all other categories of human relationships. Yet I don't see psychology of a wife being relevant for her right to marry her lover. Only here, hence the unnecessary obfuscation.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

You think you aren't but you are.

That's not a reason to make incest a criminal offence.

It's already a criminal offence. You're actually muddying the waters by asking ms to come up with a compelling argument why it should stay that way, when the onus is actually on you to present a compelling argument why it should be decriminalised.

Your argument so far amounts to "two consenting adults should be able to do what they want".

That's not a very compelling argument.

Do you think it's moral to make criminals out of adult siblings who engage in consensual sexual relationships?

Yes or no?

Yes.

Turtwig wrote: »

People are taking the health and welfare of individuals into account. In fact that's why the caveat is often repeated.
"Mutually consenting relationships"

To suggest otherwise is to completely misunderstand or obfuscate the discussion.

This isn't about brooding, abuse, psychological detriments etc. None of those actually have any independence from all other categories of human relationships. Yet I don't see psychology of a wife being relevant for her right to marry her lover. Only here, hence the unnecessary obfuscation.

That's all easy to say Turtwig, but none of those relationships are between siblings, which presents a completely different dynamic that moves the relationship between them from familial, to familiar, if that makes sense?

If what you want is a simplistic "two consenting adults" answer, I can't give you one as they're not just two consenting adults, they're family.

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

the onus is actually on you to present a compelling argument why it should be decriminalised.

No it is not. Authority must justify itself or everything breaks down to 'because I say so or you go to prison' which is to say it's no justification at all. That's why we no longer keep slaves, burn witches etc. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Yes.

So you think criminalising consenting siblings because you don't like what they're doing is defensible.

It is you who is immoral.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

No it is not. Authority must justify itself or everything breaks down to 'because I say so or you go to prison' which is to say it's no justification at all. That's why we no longer keep slaves, burn witches etc. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Authority has already justified itself and decided that incest is illegal. Authority derives it's power to do so from society. Society no longer agrees with incest. Have you just come from the 14th century?

So you think criminalising consenting siblings because you don't like what they're doing is defensible.

It is you who is immoral.

Now don't be going putting words in my mouth. You asked for a simple yes or no answer and I gave you my answer. Now who's muddying the waters?

Turtwig

Czarcasm wrote: »

Authority has already justified itself and decided that incest is illegal. Authority derives it's power to do so from society. Society no longer agrees with incest. Have you just come from the 14th century?

Spectacularly missed the point.

Law is one thing, ethics are another. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral or vice versa. Society has decided things to be immoral than we now deem moral and acceptable e.g slavery, equal status for women. Society should always justify why a certain action or event is ethically permissible. If it doesn't it's nothing but a primitive society. The great thing about our current world is that if we wish to restrict the rights of others we must justify why.

nozzferrahhtoo

Czarcasm wrote: »

nozz you can make all the intellectual arguments

I have not needed to make an intellectual argument yet, as you have given me nothing to rebut. Just a crass propaganda attempt to build up unpleasant sexual scenarios into which you simply drop incest as if incest has anything to do with them. Though the fact you are so disparaging of intellectual arguments here is quite telling. The usual approach of someone who simply can not make one.

In other words you are simply unable to construct moral and intellectual arguments on the subject, so you try to link incest to crass unrelated imagery as a substitute.

Which means you essentially made my point for me.... which I made early in the thread.... that when people are called upon to actually lay out what is wrong with incest they merely flail about at it and fail miserably. You could have not made a better example of what I mean had you given me your password and allowed me to write your posts for you. Cheers.

Czarcasm wrote: »

but you'll still never be able to make a compelling argument FOR incest

I never suggested I intended to, or feel compelled to. I see no onus upon me to do so. I live in a world and a society that believes in "Innocent until proven guilty". As such I am willing to consider any arguments you might get around to constructing eventually as to what is wrong with it, but if those arguments fail then my position is validated.... which is simply that I am unaware of any arguments intellectually against it.

All you and your cohort really have are crass imagery and "argumentum ad personal distaste". Hardly convincing.

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Is there any evidence to suggest that genetically we're hard wired not to find family attractive?

If not then I don't see the problem

There is some I think, plus many genetic arguments as to why you would not want it predominant or overly common in a species. But the arguments why we should have any issue with a minority being engaged in it are seemingly non existent.

Even if there was genetic hard wiring though, I would be hesitant to put that forward as an anti argument. I think human morality has gone beyond mere genetics and what we decree to be moral or immoral does not always tend to mirror what our genes say.

deseil wrote: »

If a father/ mother seeing their son/ daughter as a potential sexual partner, becomes something acceptable or normal where does it end!

It is never long before discussing on human sexuality turn to "slippery slope" arguments. It seems people are generally in capable of discussing a topic X without automatically assuming it has implications on topics Z and Y.

What has incest got to do with the age of consent or our concepts of informed consent at all? They are entirely different topics.

The same happens in conversations on homosexuality too. Someone always wades in with some throw away nonsense like "If we allow two men to marry then why not men marrying 20 women, or their pet horse?"

I think we should advocate having discourse on EACH thing independently. Allowing homosexuality does not equate to opening the stable door to bestiality before the horse has bolted. The discourse on homosexuality, incest, bestiality, polygamy and so forth can all be had independently and on their own merits and demerits. The scare mongering we see of "If you allow X then you will have to allow Y" is just that.... scare mongering.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Incest is far more complex than just "two consenting adults". These are people with thoughts, emotions, attitudes and morals of their own.

AND the ability to make their own informed decisions. That is why we call it "informed" consent. There are complex issues and choices to make.... I do not deny that. But it is THEIRS to make. They do not need a Nanny State or a Nanny Czarcasm tut tuting at them for doing something that is, frankly, not your business at all.

So no it is not really more complex than "two consenting adults" because the meaning of CONSENT is more complex than you are allowing it. It is more than two adults merely saying "Yes, ok".

RobertKK wrote: »

Incest is not a fundamental right and having children as a result of incest is not fair on the resultant children.

Why?

RobertKK wrote: »

In farming, there are computer programs so a farmer knows if an animal is related to another animal to avoid inbreeding.

Firstly humans are not farm stock up for breeding. So the analogy fails before it starts.

Secondly however a farmer does not really need to avoid inbreeding. He needs to avoid an EXCESS of inbreeding. So you are over stating the farming element here too.

For incest to be biologically relevant to a gene pool there has to be a minimum threshold of it active in that gene pool. And given there is not even NEARLY that % of people in our species who feel compelled to engage in it..... the biological genetic argument against it simply is not relevant.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is pretty sad that humans have higher standards for other mammals than they do for humans

Riiiight because not treating humans as breeding stock to be controlled under eugenic breeding programs is treating them at a lower standard than we treat our live stock. Uhuh.

Czarcasm

Turtwig wrote: »

Spectacularly missed the point.

Law is one thing, ethics are another. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral or vice versa. Society has decided things to be immoral than we now deem moral and acceptable e.g slavery, equal status for women. Society should always justify why a certain action or event is ethically permissible. If it doesn't it's nothing but a primitive society. The great thing about our current world is that if we wish to restrict the rights of others we must justify why.

But incest is not a right, so nobody is actually restricting anyone's rights?

If society were to constantly have to justify itself, we'd have referenda every day a bit like the Lisbon treaty -

Keep going until we get the answer we want.

You might have a point if the majority in society were in favour of incest, but they're not.

Until then all we're doing here is arguing hypotheticals.

Czarcasm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All you and your cohort really have are crass imagery and "argumentum ad personal distaste". Hardly convincing.

Me and my cohort? What?

Argumentum ad personal distaste? Again - What?

AND the ability to make their own informed decisions. That is why we call it "informed" consent. There are complex issues and choices to make.... I do not deny that. But it is THEIRS to make. They do not need a Nanny State or a Nanny Czarcasm tut tuting at them for doing something that is, frankly, not your business at all.

"Nanny State", "Nanny Czarcasm"?


Some real high brow shìt right there, and not a compelling argument in sight to change the current legal status of incest.

Karl Stein

Czarcasm wrote: »

But incest is not a right, so nobody is actually restricting anyone's rights?

People have a natural right to be left alone if they're not harming others or themselves.

If society were to constantly have to justify itself, we'd have referenda every day a bit like the Lisbon treaty -

Authority not society.

You might have a point if the majority in society were in favour of incest, but they're not.

'In favour of incest'. Will you stop doing that? 'A majority of society' has no bearing on whether criminalising people for certain behaviours is justified or not.

If a 'majority of society' was in favour of making red haired people slaves would that then make it moral or justified?

Shakespeare's Sister

If it's between two consenting adults I just cannot accept that being a crime - it's actually nuts when I think about it. I'm not trying to be "liberal" as the people who say stupid sh-t like "pro incest" :rolleyes: would probably think, I just think criminalisation of two consenting adults who want to be with each other being with each other is utterly fascistic.

The problem IMO though is: where does this attraction come from? Maybe it's totally innocent but when abuse is most likely to occur in families I'd be afraid of the possibility of grooming/conditioning being involved.

Czarcasm

Karl Stein wrote: »

People have a natural right to be left alone if they're not harming others or themselves.

They actually don't. That's not how a society functions.

Authority not society.

Authority takes it's direction from society. That's why we have referendums for these decisions.

'In favour of incest'. Will you stop doing that? 'A majority of society' has no bearing on whether criminalising people for certain behaviours is justified or not.

Are you sure about that? Isn't that why homosexuality was decriminalised and rape is still illegal?

If a 'majority of society' was in favour of making red haired people slaves would that then make it moral or justified?

Stop muddying the waters. You're poisoning the red herrings.

Karl Stein

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

it's actually nuts when I think about it.

Indeed. If you strip it down to its fundamentals it's essentially threatening people with kidnap/imprisonment because 'ew'.

I'm reminded of the story of Alan Turing, a gifted individual who became a WWII codebreaker who helped defeat the Nazis.

He was subsequently convicted of being gay and 'chose' "treatment with oestrogen injections (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison ... Turing died in 1954, 16 days before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined his death a suicide"

Such cruelty.