|
|
|
|
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/9/2007 7:58:32 AM |
Really, how did 18 become such an arbitrary number so as to determine so much about our lives? I don't mean to get off topic, but am I the only one who thinks that with TV, the internet, and more interactive educational opportunities, we are maturing much faster than we used to? I think that a typical 14 year old today has seen more, done more, and is thinking more about the future than a 14 year old 20 years ago.
Maybe we are a little more mature than 20 years ago, although I'm not even so sure of this. But when you look at 200 years ago what was the average life expectancy? Or how old people were when they married? I do believe we think more of the future in some sense, but I'm not so sure the typical 14 year old "has seen more, done more, and is thinking more about the future" more now then before. I know when my pops was 14 he was doing a lot more than I was. And I'm sure my grandfather had someone really kick his behind and make sure he was doing stuff. It just seems people take a little longer to really decide what they want to do with their life nowadays, as opposed to not really having many choices. And of course every generation seems to have more of those. As for where 18 became such an arbitrary number, clearly this number varies depending on country and some do update it from time to time, I'm not really sure. Trial and error? The "adults" have the power over such "law" that states when you are an "adult". It surely is a complicated issue...
As for the incest thing......ewwwwww!  | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 7:11:27 AM | "Where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another - they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults. This phenomenon is known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation is consistent with the theory that the Westermarck effect evolved to suppress inbreeding."
(From the Wiki)
The Westermarck effect is arguably what we are more commonly referring to on here as the "Ick or Ewww Factor", it makes sense, but this effect is not universal. While I and most others develop Icky feelings at the mere thought of incest, not everyone does.
Many here are arguing that Incest is wrong and Incestuous marriages should not be tolerated because there is a higher incidence of birth defects in children born of closely related parents, and that we in society should not have to pay for medical attention for those defective children. Those who are using that arguement must necessarily argue that the mentinally handicapped, dwarfs, midgets, the morbidly obese, and any number of people who already carry defective genes should not be allowed to breed either, as the incidence of birth defects in those groups is also high.
I personally think that many of the people on here who are using the potential defects arguement, will not extend that same reasoning to all those other potentially defective reproducers, and that the reason that you will not do so is because you are not being completely honest in your reasons for opposing incest between consenting adults in the first place.
I sense from many of the postings that there is a religious undertone to the opposition, and that the genetic arguement is just a front. If you are being honest with yourselves, and the possibility of geneticilly defective children is your real concern, then you must also ban all the other people from the mentioned groups, and so many others from breeding as well, as incest is not the only possible precursor for birth defects. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 8:42:59 AM | ^^^^^^
I suppose common good manners,plain common morals ,a decent society does not count in these situations of so called "freedoms" to be able to commit incest ?
Of all the people in all the world that you could shack up with..........why would you choose a relative? A sister/brother/mother/father?
For those who really question why its wrong ........you need help to put it blunty .
Holland is the most permissive country in Europe.Started off with red light areas,gay freedoms and they now have a party pushing for child/adult sex as well as beastility.
Chip away all the time till society gives in and accepts it.
Who is to sau both persons consent to incest,to child sex or the rest.
Its sick | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 10:44:50 AM | But Cleopatra did marry her younger brother Ptolemy XIV. So why its people not seeing it as immoral, took actions and stoned them? Who made the law or there was no law at that time? I would say all laws were in the hand of the council and those who had the power. When the King said it is okay, it is okay. What jail term ?? And there were history of incest of our Chinese Emperors.
I am not saying incest is right or it is wrong; I just want to ask in referring morality standard why we are not consider the historical precedent, or when it was right before it doesn't always has to be right??
This Thread also remind me of the book Flowers in the Attic by VC Andrews'. Why it was such a good seller and people love it?? | |
|
chinua
|
Joined: 9/30/2005
Msg: 55 | |
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 12:10:21 PM | The main reason why royalty in the past did the incest thing; you had to marry another royal; and there weren't very many of those. The result? Things like hemophelia , and high infant mortality. Kings back then could say anything was ok; they had absolute power.
How many billions of people are on this planet??? We have more to chose from than our own family; whether we grew up with them or not. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 12:41:26 PM | | ^^^so does it mean morality could / should be: conditional, depends on situations, flexible ??? Or does legality necessary link with morality? Do we need a law to govern ourself? Or if we don't do something is it JUST BECAUSE all the others say we should not do so? Case in this Thread, obovisity no law can stop them to parent 4 children, and I think the fifth one is coming. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 1:28:32 PM | Is there a religious Moral basis for opposing Incest. I believe that the bible is rife with it. And I just don't mean Lot's Daughters getting him drunk, on successive nights, and each daughter having their way with him and both becoming pregnant, and the children going on to prominence, but elswhere in the bible as well. If God was not only ok with Incest, but liked the practice so much that he relied upon that method to populate the world.....not just Once, but actually Twice, (Remember the Flood)then surely the godly among you would be blaspheming indeed to say that God was in error, or screwed up, when he made the decision to have sons and mothers, brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters of the same families copulating and breeding.
God may have had enough power to have planted enough people here to populate the earth without requiring inter-family breeding, so why not do that. He was not forced to do it, so obviously he chose to go the Incest Way. It's not for me, but then again I'm not religious, so I feel no obligation to adhere to such godly biblical ways. | |
|
chinua
|
Joined: 9/30/2005
Msg: 58 | |
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 2:14:35 PM | crystal; i'm not saying that what the royals did was ok; I don't know where you got that from; just saying what their reasons were. We no longer live under such absolute power like the people in Cleopatra's and Henry 8's time. Siblings didn't always grow up together back then either( boarding schools, fostering); and I don't think there was a lot incest (at least not out in the open)
Renfrew; I'm not a christian, so my adversion to incest has nothing to do with that- yes there's that 'ick' again!!!
Somebody mentioned Jerry Lee Lewis to my mom today; she called him a pervert because of his marriage to his 14 year old first cousin. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 3:07:56 PM | chinua, sorry if I have confused you. No, I don't mean you were saying what the Royal did was ok; I just tried to say people have different morality standard at different times and would adjust the standards when they feel they "need" to, therefore I am not sure if I should jump on those who agree with Legalizing incest.
Renfrew, sure I have thought of the Bible and what God did, but I am not going to open a can of worms to touch the Christian in here.
What I also want to point out is at this current time, there are (should I insert the word "still"?? ) countries who allow male family members to have sex with: daughters, daughter-in-laws, sisters and sister-in-laws with or without their consents; and I won't name the countries. If I am sad about this it would be because most of times the sex are forced on the women and in forms of raping; my sadness would not be so much on the moral of incest itself.
Edit: oh another question comes in mind. So bonking his own daughter-in-laws or sister-in-laws is not act of incest for they are not blood related to him, how many of you will agree to this ?? Just curios! kind of off topic here. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/11/2007 3:29:13 PM | There will be a huge jump in incest over the next few decades
All those absent dads fathering children with various women in close proximity to one another, those kids mingling BANG six fingered Banjo players galore!
I believe in the UK the law is only in place for marriage and incest between blood when one is under 18 on an abuse of trust basis (age of consent is 16 here) | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/12/2007 8:14:44 AM | Maybe informed consenting adults should have the right to tell the "law" to "go to h*ll!", and do what they want. Please note EXACTLY who I said should be allowed to do this.
As far as genetic defects being enhanced in close family members, and forbidding their having kids because of it, I agree. Someone mentioned others who perhaps should be included, in this group of non-parental material, BUT, we used to do that. The "rights" groups decided that was wrong, and chose to stick the taxpayer with the huge bills to sustain these folks. Sometimes it paid off....often doesn't. Some of the best minds in the world are in bodies that are defective.
Simply not allowing sister and brother to breed is one thing....disallowing others due to "genetic defective crap shoot" is another. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/12/2007 9:13:00 AM | One form of incest is sex between a sister and brother.A sister or brother are offspring from the same parents , correct?
A homosexual act is a sexual act between people of the same sex, right?
Mastrubation is having sex with oneself, right?
Therefore, if an individual commits mastrubation is he/she also commiting incest(common parents) along with homosexuality(same sex)???
Just thought that I would through this in to keep everyone on their toes!!! | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/12/2007 10:47:55 AM | N urture vs Nature.....but there is a problem - while the separated siblings meet later on in life and get married (due to the attraction of having similar interests) it doesn't make it right. In fact, beyond the birth defects, nature tells them that this is wrong due to the fact that immediate family members are repulsed by the scent and body odours of relatives for the express purpose of making sure that they do not become mates!!!!
This has got nothing to do with religion - and the belief that other defective breeding populations should be banned from breeding occurs naturally. For example, severely handicapped people don't generally mate and produce children as a whole, thus, making this a non-issue.
FYI: midgets/dwarves aren't horrible brith defects, and morbidly obese people getting it on (the mechanics of such thing would be doubtful) can produce perfectly normal people as the rates of defects isn't as high as sibling incest. Missing arms and legs/poorly developed brain stems/weak nervous systems - thats a problem | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/12/2007 11:06:08 AM | "well, lets start from the begining,.. 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, as time went on, our genes got worse, just think how bad they r know, u marrie your cousin or sister, and have kids, they wont be normal. its common sense, law or no law."
The beginning started a lot earlier than biblical days, humans never had perfect genes, we've been evolving for millions of years. Even when our populations were small, there were at least a few million of us around. Our ancestry comes from a whole group of early humans, not just a single couple. Incest is universally bad in animals. It's often not very harmful in the first generation if the parents have a good gene pool but successive inbreeding is definetly harmful to the offspring. All sorts of recessive birth defects can be brought out when defective genes are combined. Mating with someone outside your gene pool limits the chances of recessive genes being combined. While I'm usually opposed to the government legislating morality, I think incest along with bestiality and child molestation should always be illegal. I think comparing incest to homosexuality is ridiculous. Two homosexuals aren't going to produce a deformed baby. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/12/2007 11:42:44 AM | | so the argument continues to be against reproducing - what about sex without reproduction? other than personal eewwww factor - why is that illegal? 2 adults; no children | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/12/2007 12:44:20 PM |
why is that illegal? 2 adults; no children
Exactly. I am in NO WAY condoning it. I think it's as icky as the next person does, but since when is it my place to tell two consenting adults what to do or not to do in the privacy of there own home.
Sex between two people who aren't related is legal, but not if that sex is with an underage child... well, I'm sure the same goes with incestual sex. If there is a law then I'm sure there would also be limitations like that of not have sex with anyone under a certian age (no matter what their relation is to you). As for having children, I would hope that incestual couples would have some kind of common sense to not pro-create. Either that, or make it a law that if you get pregnant by a relative that it is aborted... your punishment for breaking that law? I dunno, just a thought.
Either way, just because a law is passed that you can sex with your sister, doesn't mean that it's a free pass to have sex with children. Here in North America you can't have sex with a minor, and yet some sickos still do... it's no different in incest cases either. If a 50 year old man and his 30 year old daughter want to have sex (eww, I can't beleive I just said that) it doesn't automatically mean that he wants to sleep with little children.
I think that telling people they can't do something because you think it's gross is not the way to go. There's alot of things that heterosexual couples do that make me go "ewww", but as long as it's consentual and in there own home, who am I to question it. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/12/2007 9:19:07 PM |  I think it is totally outrageous that Germany is even litigating such a travesty..... The consequences of an inept adjudication on this issue....
Would just highlight Germany's glamorizing the "Family Tree" into a straight-edged two-by-four! | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 11:56:19 AM | I'm a big fan of ancient history, especially ancient gods... who were living beings, come to earth, but had simply... genetetically corrected their dna. Their political structure was based in the purity of their DNA, as were their ethics of marriage and intercourse. As it turns out, when your DNA is that pure, the best we to keep it pure is to have a baby with your half sister, merging 2 ultra pure bloodlines... and this is what they did.
In fact, his book "Wars of Gods and Men" by Zecharia Sitchin, he goes on to describe the power struggle between 2 half brothers, one who had a claim to power by being the first born of his married parents, and the other by being the purest blood of the father's line.. In the end, they had to split the rulership of earth... one become the ruler of the 'Underworld" which back then was defined by the Sphinx, which lies on the 30th parallel, and the other brother became ruler of the upper world, and there were ongoing battles between each other's armies, of humans, whom they created as workers
Incest as an illegal act was originally created in sumerian times as a way of keeping bloodlines purer. Men were a creating of Neandertal and "the Image of God(s)" meaning their DNA, and this produced the "Adamas" or worker, to dig gold in South Africa (which came to be known as hell, below the river styx, in the underworld)
so bans against incest is all about purity of DNA and not morality... but it certainly has become that. Another point, is that the old "Divine Right of Kings" is a carry on from the gods.. as the gods gave up rulership of earth to the demi gods (2/3 'divine' blood) and then to the Pharoah's, (1/3 divine blood) and so forth, the intermarriage of royalty was seen as a method of keeping the bloodlines pure. It goes without saying that the Nazis bought into this wholesale, and oh ya, if you are up on all the templar stuff (davinci code etc) you will note that it follows the blood line of royalty from ancint egypt 3000 years ago, through jesus and mary magdalene, and then on up through the last 2000 years..
In my opinion, all the really heavy morality about incest is just crap. As to age gap relationships, I think that the boundaries need to be defined in terms of real maturity instead of numbers, but certainly, this is even more elusive than age based limits, and so age based laws are a compromise... common agreement... but in my mind, incest itself is not evil... whereas "Removing Choice from Others" is... which of course is what happens when people have sex with immature people of any bloodline. Immaturity in your life is equivalent to having no choice or empowerment in your life.
well that's my 2 cents worth.
Chris | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 6:43:07 PM | No offense, but incest is NOT "legal in every other country" in Europe...I know it is the "old world" but it doesn't mean they are just a bunch of immoral idiots...
That said, for medical reason it should not be allowed as it does generate severe genetic problems.
Despite the fact that I can understand they can love each other as they didn't grow up together (he was raised with adoptive parents), if the court rules this particular case of incest as an "act of love", it opens the door to any kind of abuse. Dads will be able to abuse their daugthers with the protection of justice and moms their sons because it would be "an act of love"... | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 7:19:34 PM |
Dads will be able to abuse their daugthers with the protection of justice and moms their sons because it would be "an act of love"...
Abuse is not an act of love. And no court whether here or in Europe will say that it's ok for a father to have sex with his young daughter because it was "an act of love". If incest were to become legal there would be limitions to the law just like any other law. It's not illigal to drink alcohol, but under a certain age it is. It's not legal to have sex, but if your partner didn't consent, it is.
Just like with all the other laws out there, incest becoming legal doesn't mean it's a free for all to have sex with whoever, whenever, whether the other party wants to or not. If the daughter wants to sleep with her dad and is over the legal age limit, then it wouldn't be considered abuse. It's no different than fathers being accused of molesting their daughters here in North America and telling the courts that it was "an act of love". They don't get away with it here, why would that excuse hold up anywhere else.
People are assuming that if incest becomes a law that it's going to be OK for adults to sleep with children... well, if the law says that you have to be a certain age to legally have sex, then why would that change just because it's sex with a family member?
*sidenote*... I don't think incest should be legalized, I think there is NO reason that relatives should be having sex and definatly NOT breeding, but for the sake of argument... what adults wanna do with there bodies in there own home is not mine or anyone elses business. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 7:26:58 PM | To those of you defending incest... You're joking, right? I pray none of you have siblings, or indeed any relatives that can be influenced by you.
While I can't recall the name of the person who said this, this case is their solid proof.
"In a society where anything goes, everything eventually will. A society that stands for nothing will fall for anything." | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 7:31:49 PM | so everyone posting on this subject does realise that this brother and sister didn't grow up together, but met as adults and fell in love, right? that it's not a flowers in the attic story... and while i'd not like to live their lives, it would be an understandably heightened attraction meeting someone so much like one's self. it's not hard to figure out why they fell for each other... the sibling thing would probably be the surreal part of their lives as they'd never have lived that through thier childhoods, and for this reason there really isn't the typical social stigma attatched to this particular romance.
on the offspring... granted there can be a myriad of genetic problems for children of such close parentage... but this can happen just by a couple from the same genetic pool having kids... ie: jewish with jewish (tay sachs), black with black (sickle cell) and so on...
does that stop people from pro-creating with others who share their own heritage?
and don't most people have at least one first cousin that they, at some time in their lives, secretly had the hots for?
(last 2 questions are rhetorical) | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 7:54:55 PM | The law's a waste of time. How are they going to enforce it, bash down the door because you think they're going at it? Or peeking in the windows?  (Yes, I realize it's a wreath, but there's no window) | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 9:02:25 PM | Whew! Back. Had to take a walk, I was decidedly nauseous over the sheer number of people who think incest is defensible.
shigogouhou:
The law's a waste of time. How are they going to enforce it, bash down the door because you think they're going at it? Or peeking in the windows?
I believe you're half-right. While keeping it illegal won't stop those determined to do it from doing it in privacy, it nevertheless greatly discourages them from trying to promote it as acceptable. Making it legal is very literally, legitimizing it, encouraging them.
As for leanhaunshee
the sibling thing would probably be the surreal part of their lives as they'd never have lived that through thier childhoods, and for this reason there really isn't the typical social stigma attatched to this particular romance.
The hell there isn't. While their seperation during their childhood might help explain how they might have initially thought a relationship was ok, their continuing it on learning of their relation was just as wrong. That they would then go on to have children is the height of selfishness given the terrible risks they're exposing the child to genetically and emotionally.
Besides, when they're already this warped... What happens when their children get old enough to look appealing?
on the offspring... granted there can be a myriad of genetic problems for children of such close parentage... but this can happen just by a couple from the same genetic pool having kids... ie: jewish with jewish (tay sachs), black with black (sickle cell) and so on...
BIG difference in risk levels, to knowingly create life so near-certain to be pained is monsterous.
Renfrew :
I sense from many of the postings that there is a religious undertone to the opposition, and that the genetic arguement is just a front. If you are being honest with yourselves, and the possibility of geneticilly defective children is your real concern, then you must also ban all the other people from the mentioned groups, and so many others from breeding as well, as incest is not the only possible precursor for birth defects.
You make a fine point, save to so casually blame religion for being the source of the objection.
These other people should not rightly be banned from reproduction as they did not choose to be as they are, and while they run the considerable risk of having children with similar disadvantages, it is that or let them die out. No one should tell them what their decision should be in that. To do otherwise is merely eugenics, a deeply foul thing.
The difference with the incestuous is that, if they were with a different mate, their odds of having healthy children would be relatively normal. Whereas when they choose to have children with their siblings/parents/etc. they are greatly increasing the risk of inflicting considerable genetic and emotional damage on these children that have no choice in the matter.
They do this for far less dire reasons than 'If I don't, my line dies with me.' Very selfish. | |
|
| Legalizing incest....
Posted: 3/14/2007 9:20:19 PM | | c'mon......what is there even to think about? the evolution of our species.......morality.....the abnormalities and deformities.........the thought that this is a debated topic.......is mankind progressing? i think i'm going to be sick. deviant behavior is evolving into some chic thing were acceptance is the key. when do we say when? when do we realize that the ozzie and harriet days of yester year were actually healthy and wholesome. c'mon.........let's get well. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
