|
|
|
|
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 5:01:12 PM | A topic that's sure to churn stomachs...
My two cents:
1) When your need to bang your sister or brother produces 4 horredously deformed kids that MY tax dollars have to pay for: Yeah, then it's no longer your personal "behind closed doors" fetish.
2) Think of the poor kid. What happens when he gets to be 16 and his buddies at school find out that he/she is the product of incest. I went to school with a girl who was the product of incest and to her, that was a pretty brutal fact to have to live with let alone what other kids would think if/when they found out.
3) Yes, where DOES IT END? One step over the "line" never seems to be that bad. But for the past 20 years with rampant political correctness in our societies, that entire line has shifted MANY steps. Now it's brother and sister: what happens when 45 year old daddy wants to have sex with his 18 year old daughter in exchange for a new convertible or nice new clothes? "But it's between two consenting adults" these same people will cry out.
To borrow a line from usma, age is "just a number" so how long until 45 year old men are given their rights to have sex with 12 year old boys or girls?
It's not a case of these politically correct types opening a flood gate of immorality that's suddenly going to turn society upside down over night: it's their constant niggling and pushing for that one extra step over the line that is gradually making things get pretty disgusting.
So right now, brother and sister is just that one step over our "moral line". And then one step past that, is father-daughter, and then one step past that is man-child, and then one step past that is man-infant....
But that's how society unnfortunately seems to work: people fight for one right and are satisfied for a while until they start feeling the need to crusade for the "next personal freedom." | |
|
atlast
|
Joined: 2/25/2007
Msg: 27 | |
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 5:06:44 PM | | My aunt mom said it is perfectly allright, and if my sisters weren't all taken, I wouldn't have to look for a girlfriend outside the family. Remember what Jeff Foxworthy said: "If your family tree doesn't branch, you might be a redneck!" | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 5:25:33 PM |
Yes, where DOES IT END?
This is the cool part about a slippery slope fallacy, ...it never ends, what started with cousins marrying, inter-faith marriage, than bi racial - marriage, ....it just keeps rolling on through past beastiality, human sacrifice, cannibalism, the sun going nova when God get's peeved, .....it never ends, the only limit is your IMAGINATION. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 5:37:15 PM | I can't say that I agree with the notion of "legislated morality" in any way. The question of who's morality is the standard being the main one, the second being the idea of the tyranny of the majority.
With issues like this I usually try to consider "where is the harm done". Where standards for legislation on issues that some (or most) consider moral are concerned the best tests are, in my view, "one person's rights end where another's begin", public health/welfare and capacity to consent.
Incest, in most cases, involve the issue of public health/welfare with some falling into the area of capacity to consent. That most disabilities are caused by recessive genes and the probability of closely related individuals both carrying copies of the recessive genes is what places the issue in the public health/welfare category. The reality is that society as a whole bears the burden of providing many of the needs for disabled individuals through health care, education and public accommodation. I have no doubt that disabled individuals are entitled to the support of society (and this can easily be argued as a point of natural right as evidence indicates it to be a naturally evolved element of human society given that it has been observed (indirectly and directly) to occur in social groups for tens of thousands of years) but I do not feel that any individual or pair of individuals has/have a right to arbitrarily impose this burden on society without the consent of society. Some instances of incest (parent/child, siblings with several years age difference) can be an issue of capacity to consent, as in, the younger member of the pair may not percieve a right to refuse as a result of the power relationship.
For those "slippery slope" types I also offer the following:
Polygamy: Potentially a public welfare and capacity to consent issue. As marriage is also a contractual arrangement it is reasonable to expect that all parties involved show a capacity to fulfill the inherent contractual responsibilities (e.g. If you and some or all of the others divorce, will you each be able to fulfil your various legal contractual obligations to the offspring of the marriage/spouses such that the marriages/divorces will not place an undue burden of support on society through social assistance, legal aide, health care, etc. As a side point, I think this should be a requirement for all marriages). The capacity to consent issue arises in highly religious environments that expect polygamy to be a fact of life. In such environments, a child raised with that belief as a paramount consideration may not, as an adult, feel that it is their choice to disagree/refuse.
Bestiality: The issue of capacity to consent. Clearly, an animal does not possess the capacity to consent to sexual activity with a human. Sexual activity by the vast majority of animals is instinctually driven, not a matter of conscious consent, and near as I can determine, would not normally engage in sexual activity with a human without a) human intervention and b) the unavailability of a compatible species with which to breed (the poodle that humps your leg typically meets both criteria).
Children: Again, the capacity to consent in all cases, as well as public health/welfare and "rights" in the case of forced or coerced sexual activity.
Murder, fraud, robbery, etc: No, these are not inherently moral issues. Many may object to these things on moral grounds but the fundamental issue in all is the idea that "your rights end where mine begin" in that, in carrying out these acts you are depriving another of their rights. There is also the public welfare aspect of these laws in that, much of the social interaction in society would be compromised and in many cases would not be feasible or even possible without these laws. Finally, there is the consent issue in that very few would consent to such activities being perpetrated against them and generally, the victims consent is not solicited.
There are many other examples I could cite but I think that it would be redundant to do so. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 5:56:11 PM | Don't they do this in the Southern States, I hear it is already legal there!
This would explain George Bush, for sure, and the rest of the world is thinking," so that is what happened!" | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 6:00:57 PM | | THANK YOU, sombient, for your educated and well -spoken regard in this matter..I am both shocked and pleased that the debate should even occur.....regardless of the horrid nature of the question............it is that we live in a democratic society that this debate is even tolerated..........the last most powerful society to allow EUGENICS did NOT allow debate........did not ALLOW the debate when something was WRONG ...as there is so clearly wrong here. You are a credit to this community for being willing to discuss this on the only level that matters............and give of your clear expertise .....grazi | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 6:01:41 PM | WTF!!!
Incest is wrong. Father, daughter, brother, sisters, etc. Making it legal doesn't make it right. Genetic risks aside, what about the emotional risk. Incest destroys families through generations. Secrets can kill, whether it is a life or ones livelihood. The scars last a lifetime. Children affected by incest grow up with emotional pain, shame, and so on...become adults who have so many problems. I don't see how legalization of an immoral act can be of any benefit to society. People are alwasy trying to justify something that is wrong, when in reality they are going to do it anyway regardless of the consequences. If people can get away with it they will do it. Incest is selfish, self-gratifying, just WRONG!
That's why people keep it a secret!
TEH | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 6:07:29 PM | in biblical days, very early right after adam and eve, there kids married each other, they had kids, and so on,.. their genes were excellent
well I am not 100% up on the bible but a friend of mine was talking about it a few months ago and he said the reason why they could marry and breed is cuz god made them in the purest form and they had the perfect dna....although they were siblings they were put on earth for that reason....they were not like you and I.
I personally don't agree with allowing incest...but like others said...who am I to judge 2 consenting adults?? I think it's gross....but my problem is that having kids is wrong that way...cuz the tax payers are going to end up footing the bill for their 'handicapp' children...and there is another thing...there gene's...what kinda mix are they bringing into play?? lol....where is the lifeguard in this gene pool???
GROSS GROSS GROSS!! | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 6:21:30 PM |
That's why people keep it a secret!
I would argue that most people (who do it or have it done to them) keep it secret because it is illegal, seen by many as desperate for sex/sick and, in most cases, forced in one manner or another.
All of which account for:
Incest destroys families through generations. Secrets can kill, whether it is a life or ones livelihood. The scars last a lifetime. Children affected by incest grow up with emotional pain, shame, and so on...become adults who have so many problems.
I don't see how legalization of an immoral act can be of any benefit to society.
Emotional arguments are rarely the basis for good laws. The best laws have a rational, objective basis which protects the rights of the individual and the rights of society as well as the obligations of the individual to society/society to the individual.
One can always find objective, non-emotional reasons for good law but invoking god, morality or "ick" as the primary basis can never result in good law. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 6:45:23 PM | I concur with Sombient's call on this one.
Science is a great thing, when it's based
on facts.
The closer the degree of blood, the greater
the likelyhood of birth defects. And if two
people knowingly concieve a child, knowing
that child will suffer by defect. That is a
rather selfish, thoughtless act on their part.
I'd oppose it on those grounds. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 7:15:00 PM | When does the law take into account an emotional agument? Surely a law could address or take into account the cost to society that incest inflicts. A human being has the right to exist in life and go about life without the additional shackles of incest. Society is composed of individiuals. Individuals struggling with the effects of incest have a hard time being productive is various areas of their life. So society can be impacted. If the only objective for legalizing incest consist the genetic factors, the law could be limiting. What about the individuals that present no genetic abnormalities? How will punishement be determined?
Adults engaging in consentual incest doesn't justify it or make it right. Children are powerless to give consent. And the eventually become adults dealing with issues related to incest. Children of incestuous parents, again the childre are powerless. When does it stop? We as adults know right from wrong. It's not a sickness, it's selfishness.
Incest is kept a secret because of shame, fear, guilt, powerlessness, and yes, and because of the fact that it is illegal. It can occur without force, but more though subtle manipulation of one's love of a parent or family member by the person who is in power. There are so many layers involved with incest that really, we are only at the tip of the iceberg. Society as whole has to figure out what degrees of incest are intolerable or intolerable. The emotional and moral implication, yes, perhaps not the basis of a good law but definitely a part of fabric of socitey in which the law are made. "In God We Trust...."
Interesting thread.
TEH | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 8:01:20 PM | When does the law take into account an emotional agument?
Many laws are based on emotional rather than objective considerations, the laws against homosexual behaviour of the past and present are good examples. For many, anti-incest laws are far more an emotional issue that an objective issue.
Incest is kept a secret because of shame, fear, guilt, powerlessness... It can occur without force, but more though subtle manipulation of one's love of a parent or family member by the person who is in power.
I don't disagree with you about the effects that incest can have on individuals but I have to point out that each and everything you mentioned is a form of force. Force is not limited to held down, tied up or any other form of direct physical control. Force can also occur through power and authority which leaves the victim unable to refuse hence the reason there are laws in place that prevent adults from claiming consent in certain situations involving other adults (boss/employee, university prof./student, etc). I did specifically bring this point out as a rationale for limiting incest, e.g. parent/child or siblings with several years age difference.
The reality likely is that in many instances where incest occurrs as a result of true, honest consent by both parties any guilt, shame or fear that occurs results from social factors external to the event rather than the incest itself. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 8:04:07 PM | "Sheep in number do not need valid arguments for their beliefs, because they KNOW or FEEL that they are absolutely right, so if anyone makes them feel "icky" they herd together like mindless cattle, and stampede everything in their way, often times even each other."
WTF?? | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:10:05 PM | I agree with Beep Beep. Incest steps over the moral line. It is sick and disgusting. If a man can not find anyone besides his sister, then he is not much of a man, just a immoral looser, who is more interested in his satisfaction than he is about the poor little children with disibilities he will spawn. For the one making the jokes about GWB and rednecks. He is not a true Texan. He is a transplant from the north east. I suggest you know what you are talking about before you post. He is not a product of a redneck. There is nothing wrong with the people some label rednecks.  | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:50:57 PM |
Incest steps over the moral line. It is sick and disgusting. If a man can not find anyone besides his sister, then he is not much of a man, just a immoral looser, who is more interested in his satisfaction than he is about the poor little children with disibilities he will spawn.
Uhm... agreed with incest being wrong, but don't you think the sister in this situation might be a little at fault as well? | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 10:00:14 PM |
Uhm... agreed with incest being wrong, but don't you think the sister in this situation might be a little at fault as well?
Yes, both are equally guilty, sorry, my bad. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/7/2007 10:12:13 PM | I hear a lot of discussion about "who is to judge if this is moral or not"
One of the things I took away from a 3rd year University Philosophy course on right and wrong is this: and it's also my personal view of what's right/wrong: Anything in question, visualize EVERYONE doing it. Stealing is wrong, because if EVERYONE did it, everyone would be worse off. Killing is bad: because if you kill someone, you yourself might get killed.
Now imagine if EVERY relationship was incestuous. Things would get REAL bad REAL fast. Thus I don't think it's something to be promoted.
Beep | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 7:46:01 AM | I understand and agree with those who think incest should not be allowed in society. As I said before I think you need a little more than..'ewww..thats gross.. i wont ever do it..so no one else should'. That to me is a poor excuse and is an attitude that has run rampant over history where people were and still are persecuated for their different beliefs, culture, religion etc.
Putting away someone for incest i believe is a bit too far, throwing them in a prison with other violent offenders will not deter this from happening again. Come on people these are peoples lives here and their time on earth is just as valuable as someone elses. Why should we lock them up for this 'moral crime'. Are you prepared to throw someone in jail for having sex with his/her sibling? Is it that big of a problem that it needs to be controlled in such a way? Sure, its the easy way, lock them up, and hide them from society and the problem will go away.. just like everything else right?
Now I hear that there is a big concern on the children that would be born defected. How about if there were no children born? remove the possibility of having a child and what argument are you left with? the ewwww..its gross argument. If two siblings were to get together and not have children does that make it okay? If not why? (and you can't use the ill factor!) You know what alot of people think anal sex is gross and there are still sodomy laws in some parts of the world that will persecuate , hell i love anal sex and its my personal preference and I wouldnt want to be persecuted for something that I enjoy consentually with someone else.
I know comparing anal sex with incest are quite different. So is comparing incest with child molestation so throw that argument out the door.
I DO understand how this topic can generate outcries of 'I cant believe people are trying to defend this' and its wrong.. yeah its wrong but how far will we go to restrict the way people want to leave just because we feel its so.. if your going to punish someone for incest.. you have to have a better excuse than 'its simply gross'.. Because I believe its gross, but im not going to persecute someone for doing it. just as I wouldnt want to be jailed for anal sex.
And this arguement about 'it is my concern because i have to pay the medical bills for others to have these deformed babies..'
man that is a poor excuse.. take a look at society and you can say the same for .. smoking and cigerettes.. how much does it cost the help those with lung cancer and other related diseases only to see them continue to smoke..EVEN when they know its bad for them..hell lets throw them in jail for running our bills up .. how about the rampant fast food companies that can be linked to a growing obesity problem in the U.S, how much money does that take from medical... lets lock them up!.. I think both examples are morally wrong...well because you are causing harm to yourself..but i wont persecute you for doing it.. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 7:55:48 AM | | sexyfunguy, since you have study genetics how many generations do you have to go before you can ingage in sex for reproducing. For example someone stated that 1st cousines only have a 6 to 7 % chance of birth defects. Is this true? Could be valuable information! | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 11:22:56 AM | True - marrying your first cousin isn't as harmful as marrying your brother/sister, but its not great for the species as a whole as there is still a chance that a recessive harmful genes could be passed on to your offspring - much higher than it would be if you mated exogamously. (note: there is an exception to this rule - see below)
As to the percentages that you've quoted - I've seen similar numbers as well, but the range is usually as low as 3% to 10% - so the middle ranges could be taken as a fair assessment of the risks. However, if inbreeding continues and on a wide scale, as it does in many South Asian and middle eastrern cultures, then the population as a whole suffers and is less "fit" genetically speaking
*****without getting too technical, inbreeding could theoretically be used to weed out harmful genes in the modern world - the thing is you would have to map out both partners genetic makeup to make sure that a) the harmful gene would indeed be bred out and B) that no new harmful recombient would form. This would involve a lot of work in the laboratory among other difficulties, and I don't think we are at the technical stage right now in which mapping out people genetic structure for the mass market is very feasible.
In the past, in small breeding populations could benefits from inbreeding - as long as enough HEALTHY survivors were able to pass on their genes. But in today's age with modern transportation systems, this would probably only really apply to isolated stone age societies in Micronesia. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 11:29:30 AM | Hey People
I caught wind of this story as well… Whether this err smells good or bad you be the judge.
I personally think we’re devolving. Early Christians etc had to unfortunately beat promiscuity, polygamy, gayness etc and all that out of various groups. While this should have done in a peaceful manner early on, many bring up ancient history like crusades (while arguably still occurring in the middle-east) or witch hunts etc. To accept liberal/secularized mish mash out there now. And I’d add the Superman (Nitche sp.) ignorance to make the buck and plug away. Regardless of Fatima, stigmata, the non-visual spectrum (I could go on…) Now we have AIDS, genetic defects, alienation and division and the conquered/confused.
Incest has been around forever. It’s been in various cultures, yeah in places in the deep southern states. Even some royals and some rich people have engaged in the practice.
Now someone said all is fair in love and war… It really shouldn’t be in a good relationship. Some people get power fixated. Compromise generally is good. It sounds like that couple is in love. And there are a whole wack of people against them (who IMHO should be worrying about healthcare or global warming for example.) And most of Europe has caved to this group (people lobbying for incest laws.) Well if everything goes, and they’re in love… I think they IMHO should adopt kids for the kid’s (no genetic deflects and the mind-set of the culture right now) sake. I heard two of their kids got taken away.
Cheers,
Dan | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 11:35:29 AM | replying to the above post...
some may look at incest and just say "Oh you're only objecting because of the eww factor." I agree that there's a big "EW" factor involved.
I object because of the "draw the line somewhere" factor as well as the "well it's only the logical next step" factor. People can ALWAYS push the limits and say "well this isn't SO bad". Society is letting that line/limit slowly creep forward one little "right" at a time.
I can almost garuantee you that within two or three years of legalizing incest, certain people will be pushing for the right to have intercourse with their own children so long as both as of age and consenting. After that? Then what?
And this arguement about 'it is my concern because i have to pay the medical bills for others to have these deformed babies..'
this argument still stands. Smokers in my opinion should have to pay for their own healthcare treatment. Those who suffer from obesity because they can't show the self control needed to NOT eat at Burger King 9 times a week deserve to pay for their own treatment.
But the kid who's born with a genetic defect because brother and sister wanted to get their groove on when mommy and daddy weren't looking? He/she doesn't deserve to have to deal with those consequences.
And no offense to anyone, but those saying "who are we to judge" incestuous relationships are the same types who in ten years would be saying "Well who are we to judge that man for wanting to sleep with his daughter/son/mother/infant/dog/_____insert other item here: _________
After all, these things all wil be just one "little itty bitty step" over the newly drawn moral line right?
Much easier to shift a moral boundary one inch at a time than to pick it up and move it fifty feet. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 11:59:53 AM | Beep
If you read my post my post you would have seen I'm against this. It will enviably turn into the "human rights" thing and will pass by a sympathetic judge and a lawyer(s) that can argue that Hell is a nice place to live. Most of Europe has caved again. Obviously science and the good of society has been in question for decades now for individual rights. You know that small oligarchy that has money and the media in their bag? I think they maybe the problem... Oh there's more.
Ah smoking... Less and less people smoke PERIOD. So this is less of an issue. I think the taxes are high enough that smokers pay for there medical costs (what little smoke now.) I think we can look at the high cost of medicine. And the drug costs are a big problem. I think a lot of people in the healing business are exploiting the sick... While we inhale pollution that mainly comes from the US (I heard about 50%.) And all those cars and big plants in TO pollute. What about processed foods? What about a healthy outlet instead of messing with the help??? The brass rail?
Ciao,
Dan | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 6:21:01 PM |
but could you give me a reason why you have a problem with it besides the increased risk of birth defects (which I already addressed) or the "eww it makes me feel icky" reason?
maybe it's along the same lines that child molestation is wrong/icky/gross, but some people/groups/nasties believe sexually "loving" children is AOK and shouldn't be against the law? Ya think?
No reason is needed to say it's wrong. And gross. And disgusting. And sick. | |
|
chinua
|
Joined: 9/30/2005
Msg: 50 | |
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/8/2007 8:49:28 PM | and if their kids decide they want to do the same thing??? what then??
I saw a woman on a tv talk show years ago who found out that the reason why she never met her extended family- her parents were brother & sister , and were cut off from their family. Thats how she also found out why she had so many medical problems. At the time that she was on the show; she was suing her parents to pay for her medical costs. She also made the decision to never have children herself. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
