What makes incest wrong?

[cybercoma]

So there are issues of trust and power.

Ideally healthy relationships should not have baggage attached to them that starts in earlier realtionships where one party had power over the other and now wishes to continue that power imbalance but now use sex to reinforce the power imbalance.

Couldn't this pertain to other people meeting as well? (ie: employer/employee)

We don't make those relationships illegal. We just say both parties must be over the age of 18.

[kengs333]

I don't care what thread's you've started.

You made this claim:

Now, I want you to support your statement by showing me the studies. You made a claim, which implies you've read these studies, now I want you to educate me by showing me these studies.

I'll tell you what, why don't you ask me in a really polite manner, and then I'll consider posting a response if I can fit into my busy schedule. How does that sound, kid?

[Renegade]

How are the rights even allowed in the first place? The majority gives them out and the majority can take them away.

Er no. Rights are inherent to the individual. They are not given by governments or majorities, they are simply acknowledged. Let me quote from the same source:

All human beings are

born with inalienable rights

. These human rights empower people to pursue lives of dignity -- thus,

no government can bestow them but all governments should protect them

. Freedom, built on a foundation of justice, tolerance, dignity, and respect -- regardless of ethnicity, religion, political association, or social standing -- allows people to pursue these fundamental rights. Whereas dictatorships deny human rights, free societies continually strive to attain them.

Human Rights

Those principles are written in ink, not stone. Those principles are also an idea. In reality the majority is accountable only to itself, that's the way it works.

That is not completely true. Any majority which did not respect the rights of the minorities could not call rightly itself a democracy. In fact in cases where the majority severely abused the minority, they were accountable to the international community who brought them up on war crimes. (Bosnia, Nazi Germany)

Some of the greatest tragedies and triumphs throughout history have been dictated by the will of the majority. It is up to each individual person to exercise his say in the grand scheme of things wisely, so that nothing too outrageous happens. To limit that with "principles" that say the majority of people want this but since it's on paper their vote isn't worth spit is completely ridiculous.

But outrageous things DO happen when the majority will is let run amok. There are many examples of this. Majority vote doesn't give people uncondtional power, at least not in our democracy or in most modern democracies.

If we are all to follow the charter as blindly as you suggest without changing it, why have a democratically elected government, we can all follow the charter like a cult.

Because there is a big difference between the charter and legislation. The charter guarantees certain rights which sets the bounds for any legislation. It does not replace legislation. Creation of that legislation is what governments are needed for.

Mob rule might be primitive, but in the grand scheme of things it is the most fair.

Fair for who?

---------------------------------

blueblood, As much as I enjoy this discussion, it is getting so far removed from the original topic that I have to curtail any further responses in this thread. If you want to continue this discssion it will have to be in a new thread.

[Renegade]

To return to the original question....

I recently read an article about Woody Allen, and he mentioned that he and Soon Yi Previn had been married now for 10 years, and have two daughters. He never formally adopted her, but he did have children with her mother, both biological and adopted, and he acted in the role of a father for her for many years. Many people saw this as being close to incest at the time, but it has been accepted as two consenting adults choosing to be with each other, regardless of the ick factor. I think we would see the same reaction to a relationship between adopted siblings.

I think you've raised an interesting question here, Renegade, regarding the twins on CNN. What makes someone part of someone else's family? Is it just about genetics, or is it about the emotional ties connecting them? And do our taboos against incest make sense in all situations? I understand the concern regarding impairments in children, but that doesn't account for taboos against relationships where there is no chance of children being conceived.

Melanie, good post. I'm not sure I agree with your asessment on the general reactio to a relationship between adopted siblings. While I think if people were rational they would be accepted, but on this issue people are far more emotional than rational and would likely shun them. I suspect many people shun Woody Allen and Soon Yi Previn today.

[Renegade]

Rue, good post.

I am sure you are aware that in the case of i, incest is as you say a taboo, because in-breeding will kill out any people with genetic defects that will arise. Nature intended us to diversify our gene pools to remain healthy, evolve and adapt. There is no debate as to the results of genetic inbreeding.

That may be true, but nowhere in our criminal law is there a mandate to maximize genetic diversity and minimize genetic defects. Nature already does a good job of creating a feeling of disgust in mating with close relatives. Why would we think nature needs any help from criminal law?

The key here is to see what kind of relationship preceded the one you now move into and whether that relationship distorts feelings and power.

Here the problem though. There are massive inconsistancies in society using this as justiticaiton. It is not criminal for the CEO to have sex with his secretary if both are willing participants. In many cases there is preexisting relationships and power imbalance. What about a rich-poor marriage? Even there there is a power imbalance. Yet we trust that adults can make their own decisions without criminal penalty.

[cybercoma]

I'll tell you what, why don't you ask me in a really polite manner, and then I'll consider posting a response if I can fit into my busy schedule. How does that sound, kid?

I shouldn't have to ask you to direct me towards the studies to which YOU were referencing. I'll take your ignorant juvenile response to mean you don't know of any such studies. Thanks.

[guyser]

I shouldn't have to ask you to direct me towards the studies to which YOU were referencing. I'll take your ignorant juvenile response to mean you don't know of any such studies. Thanks.

Bingo !

[Melanie_]

Melanie, good post. I'm not sure I agree with your asessment on the general reactio to a relationship between adopted siblings. While I think if people were rational they would be accepted, but on this issue people are far more emotional than rational and would likely shun them. I suspect many people shun Woody Allen and Soon Yi Previn today.

I'm sure many people shun Woody and Soon Yi. I can't imagine how her siblings, his children, react to their relationship, or to the daughters, their half-sisters/nieces. Or how Mia Farrow feels about her grandchildren, the children of her ex-partner, who is now her son-in-law. But in the end, whatever social taboos have been violated, there is no legal impediment to the relationship, and the shunning they may experience may not hold any relevence for them.

Rue, I think you make some very good points regarding the imbalance of power in sexual relationships within families. What we are seeing here is the tension between personal choice, and exploitation. Who's to determine how that tension is resolved? When does that imbalance of power end, or does it ever? Can we trust adults to make choices independently, or does the government need to intervene? My first reaction is to be repulsed by incest, but I'm not convinced that my personal reaction should serve as a guide in other people's lives, particularly self aware, consenting adults.

[Moonlight Graham]

Actually it wouldn't. What it feels like is irrelevant, unless you happen to believe that morality and crimminaltiy can be judged by "feel".

i guess you're right. My post was mostly in jest. I would say incest is considered wrong because we know the genetic defects it can cause if related people have a child together. There may be social reasons factoring themselves in the ethics of it, like how the majority of people would consider the idea/act of having sex with a sibling or a parent as repulsive.

[capricorn]

And can we please, please, PLEASE stop playing the "traditional family unit" card? There is no such thing as a traditional family anymore.

How can you say traditional families no longer exist?

If I say I come from a traditional family what would you presume? That I was raised by a mother and a father who are my biological parents, right? So in effect, the traditional family has not altogether disappeared and traditional families still exist, right? Or am I missing something here.

[cybercoma]

I'm not convinced that my personal reaction should serve as a guide in other people's lives, particularly self aware, consenting adults.

Exactly! I wish more people would adopt this kind of thinking.

[cybercoma]

How can you say traditional families no longer exist?

If I say I come from a traditional family what would you presume? That I was raised by a mother and a father who are my biological parents, right? So in effect, the traditional family has not altogether disappeared and traditional families still exist, right? Or am I missing something here.

That's not really what I meant. I guess the point I was trying to get at is that the traditional family is not the only healthy family. Other families produce happy well-adjusted human beings as well.

[kengs333]

I shouldn't have to ask you to direct me towards the studies to which YOU were referencing. I'll take your ignorant juvenile response to mean you don't know of any such studies. Thanks.

If you're too lazy to find the thread, then that's your problem, not mine. Whatever the case, the the traditional nuclear family is still the best environemtn for raising children.

[capricorn]

That's not really what I meant. I guess the point I was trying to get at is that the traditional family is not the only healthy family.

Thanks for the clarification.

Other families produce happy well-adjusted human beings as well.

For sure.

[cybercoma]

If you're too lazy to find the thread, then that's your problem, not mine.

I don't care about your thread. I want you to cite the studies to which you're referring. You brought up the studies, you're referring specifically to them, I want to read these studies for myself so I can better understand your POV.

So, please link me and everyone else reading this thread to the studies you're referring to... thanks.

[Brain Candy]

How can we say yes to one and no to the other because when we move away from the Bible as a guide then anything goes.

Not necessarily true, marriage between men and women predate the bible.

[Melanie_]

Cybercoma, here's a link to some recent Canadian research, published in October 2007, that states that divorce is unrelated to changes in parenting behaviour. It doesn't cover the entire gamut of the debate between you and Kengs, but it does contradict Kengs position, as do some of the other articles linked from this site. Unfortunately you would have to be a subscriber to read the entire article, but the abstract is quoted below.

Challenging the Presumption of Diminished Capacity to Parent: Does Divorce Really Change Parenting Practices?

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to determine whether divorced parents exhibit a diminished capacity to parent in the period following divorce. Using 2 waves of data from a national survey of Canadian children, the current study prospectively follows 5,004 children living in 2–biological parent households at initial interview and compares changes in parenting practices between households that subsequently divorce and those that remain intact. Results show that divorce is unrelated to changes in parenting behavior, suggesting that there are more similarities than differences in parenting among recently divorced and continuously married parents.

[Don Cherry]

No. Not in the least. Find one diatary law in our books that mirrors the bible. Find contract law in the bible that mirrors our law.

Our laws have their roots in English common law asw well as the laws of pagan Rome.

http://www.preventivelawyer.org/main/defau...?pid=Edling.htm

" The worldview that birthed the English common law tradition based its jurisprudence on universal principles of the moral law, including the Ten Commandments, and natural law, the law as written on men’s hearts by their creator, that, if followed, is consistent with the natural order of the world. Numerous jurisprudential principles still extant in the practice of law today find their origins in biblical principles.

A defense attorney may well argue the principle of lex talionis (an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth) as restitution exceeding the nature of an act. Similarly, punitive damages find their historical root in the Mosaic code of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Even the burgeoning field of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) has recognizable roots in the wise counsel Moses received from his father-in-law Jethro in Exodus 18:13-26 and in Jesus’ teaching, in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew’s gospel, concerning how the church can help people solve problems between themselves. "

[M.Dancer]

http://www.preventivelawyer.org/main/defau...?pid=Edling.htm

" The worldview that birthed the English common law tradition based its jurisprudence on universal principles of the moral law, including the Ten Commandments, and natural law, the law as written on men’s hearts by their creator, that, if followed, is consistent with the natural order of the world. Numerous jurisprudential principles still extant in the practice of law today find their origins in biblical principles.........

Now it is not suffice to say simply that because the autors are christians they are pursuing an agenda contray to history, even though that's the case.

The above article is a classic case of post hoc reasoning. Law existed before the advent of christianity but they are using what pre existed and pointing it back to the torah, which was pretty much alien the the local baliffs, reeves and magistrates. Was murder a crime before the Judaeo-Christian brought the bible to the west? Of course it was. You can't point to ancient laws and say they are based on a foriegn influence, they are home grown. In other words their logic is anachronistic and ahistorical.

Roman law was lost through the Dark Ages, but in the eleventh century AD scholars in the University of Bologna rediscovered the texts and were the first to use them to interpret their own laws.[20] Mediæval legal scholars began researching the Roman codes and using their concepts. In mediæval England, the King's powerful judges began to develop a body of precedent, which became the common law. But also, a Europe wide lex mercatoria was formed, so that merchants could trade using familiar standards, rather than the many splintered types of local law. A precursor to modern commercial law, the lex mercatoria emphasised the freedom of contract and alienability of property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history#_note-19

[Rue]

In response to Melanie when she stated;

"My first reaction is to be repulsed by incest, but I'm not convinced that my personal reaction should serve as a guide in other people's lives, particularly self aware, consenting adults. "

I can only say in regards to the above comment that what you state is precisely what the professional practice regulations require of psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers.

I think you are dead on Melanie precisely because personal reaction necessarily distorts what we perceive . Therapists of course call it transference and counter-transference phenomena.

Now in response to Renegade he stated;

"nowhere in our criminal law is there a mandate to maximize genetic diversity and minimize genetic defects"

Well technically Renegade the Criminal Code of Canada doesn't talk about the above but that is precisely why in the Criminal code it is a criminal offence to have sex with your parents or brothers or sisters and first cousins.

In regards to those inconsistencies you mentioned Renegade what can I say other then exasperating what you discuss is of course the reality that people with money can manipulate the legal system and often that is all it comes down to, what you can afford to get away with.

[Don Cherry]

M.Dancer

There is an official state religion in Great Briton and the Queen is head of the church of England. Like it or not but Canada was founded by, built by Christians with Cristian values. Up until the 60s when everything started going to hell most Canadians considered themselves and our country very much British and Christian.

If they went by Roman values then homosexuality would have been accepted.

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer

There is an official state religion in Great Briton and the Queen is head of the church of England. Like it or not but Canada was founded by, built by Christians with Cristian values. Up until the 60s when everything started going to hell most Canadians considered themselves and our country very much British and Christian.

If they went by Roman values then homosexuality would have been accepted.

I'm not sure how naming people whose laws originate form the Roman republic strengthans your argument ....and regardless who founded Canada and what they believed, our laws stem form Rome, not Jerusalem.

Regarding Homosexuals in Rome...contrary to your unlearned opinion....

While the world of the ancient Greeks seems to have tolerated homosexuality (as seen in the poems of Sappho and the dialogues of Plato), that of the Romans was more cautious. Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”

The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against. Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.

This would change in the later Roman Empire. While the first three centuries of the empire saw no legislation as far as we can tell regarding homosexuality, aside from the continuation of the Lex Scantinia as marked by its citation by the Roman jurists, in the fourth century there would be dramatic new laws condemning male homosexuality. Most scholars interpret a convoluted law from the year 342 AD surviving in both the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree from the emperors Constantius II and Constans that marriage based on unnatural sex should be punished meticulously. Although Constans himself was later denounced as having male lovers, this trend of the emperors in condemning male homosexuality in laws would continue. In a law of 390, surviving in the Theodosian Code and the Lex Dei (‘Law of God’), the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death.

[guyser]

Up until the 60s when everything started going to hell

One mans hell, another mans utopia. Life sure is much better since the 60's.

[Brain Candy]

It was hilarious how all the "hippies" of that generation became the new "cool" capitalists starting 20 years later. Shows how serious they were about change!

[kengs333]

Cybercoma, here's a link to some recent Canadian research, published in October 2007, that states that divorce is unrelated to changes in parenting behaviour. It doesn't cover the entire gamut of the debate between you and Kengs, but it does contradict Kengs position, as do some of the other articles linked from this site. Unfortunately you would have to be a subscriber to read the entire article, but the abstract is quoted below.

Challenging the Presumption of Diminished Capacity to Parent: Does Divorce Really Change Parenting Practices?

You should try to find out more about the author; it seems that she has an agenda, as her "findings" tend to show that divorce isn't all that bad as everyone makes it out to be. I would think that below the surface there lurks a feminist, and as we all know feminists have given us the divorce industry that we now have.