What makes incest wrong?

[M.Dancer]

.

Reply

The Bible is what this countries legal system was built on and based on. The far left since the 60s seems to want to base our legal system on "whatever floats your boat".

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.

[Drea]

The Bible is what this countries legal system was built on and based on. The far left since the 60s seems to want to base our legal system on "whatever floats your boat".

Nothing wrong with floating your boat so long as your boat is not harming any other boats!

Children are harmed from incest regardless of their age.

Children are harmed by multiple partners being married at the same time.

Children are harmed from gay marriage because they can go out and adopt children.

Conjecture.... there is no evidence that children raised in "gay" households, homes with more than one mom and dad... are harmed in any way. Children are no longer "children" once they become adults. It is immoral to have sexual relations with child (a non adult) because it harms them.

If you ever become a parent your view of the world will change. BTW I dont even go to church but the way our society is headed down the toilet scares the hell out of me. We were a lot better off when we were a Christian Nation. Now we are just a sad joke. No wonder so many in the world looks at us as infidels. Heck im even disgusted at us. We are a Joke.

Holy smokes! Pining for a theocracy are you?

I have a fourteen year old son.

Haha We used to look down on Commie Pinko you know whats. Haha Now I wonder what they call us? Were worse right now than they ever were. Boy that Bay Booming Generation that had everything given to them sure made a mess out of our country.

I do believe "commie pinko" is a bannable offense here on MLW.... ps, there is no such thing as "commies" anymore -- your "new" enemy is Islam remember?

and my question remains unanswered.... if an action does not cause harm, what makes it immoral?

Edited January 18, 2008 by Drea

[Michael Hardner]

Renegade:

One of the more thoughtful post in this thread I've seen. Ultimately I think you are right, this is illegal simply because enought people "don't like the idea" but are unable to provide sufficient other justification.

It bring up the interesting discussion of if enough people are repulsed by it, perhaps only because it invokes an emotional reaction, should that be sufficient critieria to ban an activity?

You're doing a good job of explaining our systems to the many, many people on this board who don't understand how things work.

Please read this, people: Just because something is disgusting, doesn't mean it will automatically be made illegal. Just because 99% of the people want something to be illegal, doesn't mean it will automatically be made illegal.

That's how our system works, or rather is supposed to work.

Renegade, as I pointed out, there are examples where this doesn't happen but not because the activity is "banned" but because human judges know that they can't rule logically on certain issues. As such, same-sex marriage was illegal when it shouldn't have been. I expect that judges just decided that the country wasn't ready. Similarly, slavery was allowed by the USSC even though it was plainly against the constitution.

[blueblood]

I suppose you are right. The majority has decided it should be illegal simply because they say so, and they are the majority.

IMV that is poor justification. Majorities decided that slavery was ok because they said so.

I guess we have not evolved enough to a level of thinking that does not depend upon the emotional reaction of the majority to decide on the legality or illegality.

It would be interesting to see a court challenge on this.

Majorities have also decided that slavery was not ok because they said so.

I'd say the level of thinking of people is always evolving. Democracy is still the most fair way of doing things, one is free to decide which way they want their vote to go and right now, incest is still illegal.

Having laws written by an unaccountable judge is a slap in the face to democracy.

Edited January 18, 2008 by blueblood

[Guest American Woman]

According to this article, "many European societies decriminalised [incest] - France in 1810, then Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Portugal. It is also legal in Turkey, Brazil and Japan. " And according to this article, "Sweden ... permits half-siblings to marry."

This seems to be an issue now so maybe we will see incest legalized. I think there's going to be a lot of children born with birth defects if that ever happens. But then, with all of the sperm banks out there, that very well could be a problem anyway.

[Brain Candy]

According to this article, "many European societies decriminalised [incest] - France in 1810, then Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Portugal. It is also legal in Turkey, Brazil and Japan. " And according to this article, "Sweden ... permits half-siblings to marry."

This seems to be an issue now so maybe we will see incest legalized. I think there's going to be a lot of children born with birth defects if that ever happens. But then, with all of the sperm banks out there, that very well could be a problem anyway.

I think think big thing is having enough people not wanting it, I dont think their is enough people in the west who want to marry their sisters or cousins and their are currently no major groups advocating it, possibly because they cant use the habits of certains areas in rome as examples of successful societies who had incest at some point, like NAMBLA does for pedophilia.

[Community Advocate]

No one seems to have anything intelligent to add to this discussion.

I gotta agree with that, but sure am enjoying the horse jokes!! I love puns!

[Michael Hardner]

Majorities have also decided that slavery was not ok because they said so.

I'd say the level of thinking of people is always evolving. Democracy is still the most fair way of doing things, one is free to decide which way they want their vote to go and right now, incest is still illegal.

Having laws written by an unaccountable judge is a slap in the face to democracy.

Blueblood,

I don't think we should have to wait for popular support for these things in every case.

As I have pointed out, 'the people' still hold the power in the end.

[Guest American Woman]

As to what makes incest wrong, outside of probable birth defects, here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

Parents are supposed to be authority figures for their kids. They are supposed to guide them/help them through puberty, teach them about safe sex, what makes a good partner, etc. Kids feel akward enough about their new bodies/new sexuality/changes in their bodies as they reach puberty. If they thought their parents were looking at them sexually, how akward would that be? Same thing goes for siblings. Kids shouldn't have to wonder if their siblings are looking at them with lust or fantasizing about them sexually. The home should be a safe environment for them in all ways.

And in this day and age, a lot of single fathers are raising daughters and single mothers are raising sons, so it's important that these daughters and sons be able to talk to their parents about what's happening to their bodies and about sex, etc., without thinking that their parents could want to have sex with them some day. They need to be comfortable. They need a sexually neutral person to depend on. They need a safe non-sexual environment to grow up in.

I don't think 'uninfluenced consent' enters into a relationship where one holds authority over the other; and that does tend to happen in positions of authority, which is why sexual harassment in the work place is against the law.

As for brothers and sisters-- there's a reason we don't let our teens spend the night with the opposite sex. There's a reason we don't let them live together. If it's not taboo for brothers and sisters to have sex, kids will have to constantly live with controlling their sexual urges. Parents won't be comfortable leaving brothers and sisters home alone. Furthermore, that wouldn't give kids a sexually neutral/safe environment to grow up in.

Families are one kind of love, sexual partners are another. There needs to be a separation or there's more likely to be abuse going on; abuse that's too murky to be recognized/dealt with by the law.

Edited January 18, 2008 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

AW,

This is an excellent point:

I don't think 'uninfluenced consent' enters into a relationship where one holds authority over the other; and that does tend to happen in positions of authority, which is why sexual harassment in the work place is against the law.

Even in adults, this is so.

Of course, you still have the odd-but-possible scenario where reunited family members, reunited as adults, consent.

[jazzer]

Having laws written by an unaccountable judge is a slap in the face to democracy.

Which unaccountable judges have written laws?

[blueblood]

Which unaccountable judges have written laws?

There are some people saying that this should be taken to court. Incest is illegal, a judge overturning it would make it legal. Judges do this from time to time.

Also a judge is accountable to no one, whereas a politician is accountable to the voting public.

Edited January 18, 2008 by blueblood

[Michael Hardner]

Also a judge is accountable to no one, whereas a politician is accountable to the voting public.

And there are good and bad aspects to both relationships.

That said, a judge is part of the community and as such would likely think twice about judging incest to be legal, even if he believed that was the correct legal decision.

[jbg]

I gotta agree with that, but sure am enjoying the horse jokes!! I love puns!

It's interesting to note that many of the puns would go over well in my country despite big linguistic and cultural difference.

[kengs333]

As for brothers and sisters-- there's a reason we don't let our teens spend the night with the opposite sex. There's a reason we don't let them live together. If it's not taboo for brothers and sisters to have sex, kids will have to constantly live with controlling their sexual urges. Parents won't be comfortable leaving brothers and sisters home alone. Furthermore, that wouldn't give kids a sexually neutral/safe environment to grow up in.

Interesting phrase "sexually neutral". And I suppose that's what same-sex households are? The argument that gay rights advocates always seem to make is that homosexuality is normal, that gays are "born that way" and that giving them "full equality" only recognizes the "reality" of the existence of homosexuality in our society. But here you are essentially arguing that this should not be the case when it comes to other forms of sexual deviance. By your logic, there should be no reasons why two consenting siblings should be able to engage in incestuous relationship because according to people like you if it occurs then it is "natural". In reality, though, is there really a "safe non-sexual environment to grow up in" in a society that embraces sin as acceptable; when we watch TV and there are so many sexually charged messages bombarding us?

Families are one kind of love, sexual partners are another. There needs to be a separation or there's more likely to be abuse going on; abuse that's too murky to be recognized/dealt with by the law.

The gay rights movement has done much to try to blur the line between sexual and platonic/familial "love," whereby just about everything can become an inidcator of sexual attraction. This is the world that many people wanted because they wanted to be "free" to pursue their own lustful desires, so now you have to live with the consequences. This is why ALL sin is related, and why ALL sin is WRONG.

[Guest American Woman]

Interesting phrase "sexually neutral". And I suppose that's what same-sex households are? The argument that gay rights advocates always seem to make is that homosexuality is normal, that gays are "born that way" and that giving them "full equality" only recognizes the "reality" of the existence of homosexuality in our society. But here you are essentially arguing that this should not be the case when it comes to other forms of sexual deviance. By your logic, there should be no reasons why two consenting siblings should be able to engage in incestuous relationship because according to people like you if it occurs then it is "natural".

First of all, I'm not referring to incest being a sin, but rather as being legal/illegal. Two very different things. So the same standards would apply to same-sex households. So I'm not arguing any case against homosexuality. I wasn't referring to anything except incest in my response. I'm totally supportive of same-sex unions and do realize they are "born that way." I already gave my opinion regarding consenting siblings, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

In reality, though, is there really a "safe non-sexual environment to grow up in" in a society that embraces sin as acceptable; when we watch TV and there are so many sexually charged messages bombarding us?

Sure there is. As I said, it's the parents' responsibility to inform and guide their children. This includes talking about what they see on tv. Again, I'm not referring to "sin," but to one's own standards of right and wrong.

The gay rights movement has done much to try to blur the line between sexual and platonic/familial "love," whereby just about everything can become an inidcator of sexual attraction. This is the world that many people wanted because they wanted to be "free" to pursue their own lustful desires, so now you have to live with the consequences. This is why ALL sin is related, and why ALL sin is WRONG.

Again, "sin" had nothing to do with it.

As for the gay movement doing much to "blur the line between sexual and platonic/familial 'love,'" it does nothing of the sort. It's still two consenting, non-related adults choosing to be with one another, make a committment to one another, same as heterosexuals do. If anything, their desire to be legally married would make the line between sexual and platonic familial "love" less blurry since it would make their family unit the same as heterosexuals'.

Edited January 19, 2008 by American Woman

[Drea]

my question remains unanswered.... if an action does not cause harm, what makes it immoral?

I will just keep asking until I see an answer.

[Guest American Woman]

AW,

This is an excellent point:

QUOTE: I don't think 'uninfluenced consent' enters into a relationship where one holds authority over the other; and that does tend to happen in positions of authority, which is why sexual harassment in the work place is against the law.

Even in adults, this is so.

Of course, you still have the odd-but-possible scenario where reunited family members, reunited as adults, consent.

There are possible exceptions to a lot of laws, but we take in the bigger picture rather than disregard it because of possible scenarios and make laws accordingly.

[Renegade]

Renegade, as I pointed out, there are examples where this doesn't happen but not because the activity is "banned" but because human judges know that they can't rule logically on certain issues. As such, same-sex marriage was illegal when it shouldn't have been. I expect that judges just decided that the country wasn't ready. Similarly, slavery was allowed by the USSC even though it was plainly against the constitution.

That said, a judge is part of the community and as such would likely think twice about judging incest to be legal, even if he believed that was the correct legal decision.

I'm not sure if this is true or not. I suspect it varies from judge to judge. If true, I would find it very troubling. A judge is supposed to uphold the law, and the principles enshrined within the law and make legal rulings. It should not waver based upon societal attitudes and acceptance.

No doubt many judges are influenced by community opinions and being human cannot separate themselves from being influenced from the community even though it is their duty to do so.

Many rulings which upheld civil rights were made by couragous judges who did so to uphold a principle, in the face of public opinion and acceptance. In the US, segregration, abortion, come to mind. In Canada, same-sex marriage. In many cases public acceptance followed judiciary rulings.

Majorities have also decided that slavery was not ok because they said so.

And what of the slaves who payed the ultimate price until the majority decided it wasn't ok anymore?

I'd say the level of thinking of people is always evolving. Democracy is still the most fair way of doing things, one is free to decide which way they want their vote to go and right now, incest is still illegal.

Demoracy only works as a system when the underlying individual and minority rights are protected despite any laws passed by the majority. It would seem like you are confusing being in the majority with being "right".

There are some people saying that this should be taken to court. Incest is illegal, a judge overturning it would make it legal. Judges do this from time to time.

That doesn't mean that a judge makes law. A judge interprets law and validates its legality against principles enshrined in documents which override any law. If a law doesn't conform to those principles, that law should be invalidated.

Also a judge is accountable to no one, whereas a politician is accountable to the voting public.

A judge is accountable to the law and to the court heirarchy. That is how the system is structured to work. How else do you prevent the majority from bullying the minority ?

[Renegade]

my question remains unanswered.... if an action does not cause harm, what makes it immoral?

I'm going to guess that even though they aren't coming out and explictly saying it, it is their own religious and belief system which makes it immoral.

[Renegade]

Parents are supposed to be authority figures for their kids. They are supposed to guide them/help them through puberty, teach them about safe sex, what makes a good partner, etc. Kids feel akward enough about their new bodies/new sexuality/changes in their bodies as they reach puberty. If they thought their parents were looking at them sexually, how akward would that be? Same thing goes for siblings. Kids shouldn't have to wonder if their siblings are looking at them with lust or fantasizing about them sexually. The home should be a safe environment for them in all ways.

Parents having sexual intercourse with their kids SHOULD be illegal for the reasons you state. Even if it we not illegal, there are enough cultural taboos around incest that I can't see that people would suddenly have an expectation that it was "OK" and that would cause akwardness.

I don't think 'uninfluenced consent' enters into a relationship where one holds authority over the other; and that does tend to happen in positions of authority, which is why sexual harassment in the work place is against the law.

Agreed. That is why I think it makes more sense to cover all relationship restrictions between people in positions of authority and those in their care, in one law, A law which covers parent-child, doctor-patient, teacher-student, etc makes sense because it all encompasses the same principle.

As for brothers and sisters-- there's a reason we don't let our teens spend the night with the opposite sex. There's a reason we don't let them live together. If it's not taboo for brothers and sisters to have sex, kids will have to constantly live with controlling their sexual urges. Parents won't be comfortable leaving brothers and sisters home alone. Furthermore, that wouldn't give kids a sexually neutral/safe environment to grow up in.

You should distinguish between it being legal and it not being a taboo. Regardless of if it is decriminalized, I suspect our human instincts which have evolved over many generations will always make it a taboo.

Families are one kind of love, sexual partners are another. There needs to be a separation or there's more likely to be abuse going on; abuse that's too murky to be recognized/dealt with by the law.

Most of your post deals with incest where at least one of the participants is a minor child. It is understanable that consent cannot be given by minors, or would be invalid in circumstances where one holds a position of authority.

But what about amutually consentual relationship between adult participants?

[Guest American Woman]

Most of your post deals with incest where at least one of the participants is a minor child. It is understanable that consent cannot be given by minors, or would be invalid in circumstances where one holds a position of authority.

But what about amutually consentual relationship between adult participants?

Older teens can lawfully have consensual sex, yet they are still living at home in most instances. Brothers and sisters are minors, yet minors do engage in sex. So my post doesn't deal with incest where one of the participants is a child at all. But of course parents are supposed to help their children deal with their new sexuality when they are minors, as an authority figure; and as one's parents they are always an 'authority figure.' That's what my post deals with.

So none of my post deals with incest where one of the participants is a minor. I want to make sure that is perfectly clear, so my post covers your question.

[Renegade]

Older teens can lawfully have consensual sex, yet they are still living at home in most instances. Brothers and sisters are minors, yet minors do engage in sex. So my post doesn't deal with incest where one of the participants is a child at all. But of course parents are supposed to help their children deal with their new sexuality when they are minors, as an authority figure; and as one's parents they are always an 'authority figure.' That's what my post deals with.

So none of my post deals with incest where one of the participants is a minor. I want to make sure that is perfectly clear, so my post covers your question.

Ok so perhaps my use of minors was the wrong word. I read your post, to object to the influenced that incest had around "kids" while growning up.

My question is around adult individuals, say brother and brother who are in their thirties, and who have left home and are living separately. The objections you raise don't apply.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok so perhaps my use of minors was the wrong word. I read your post, to object to the influenced that incest had around "kids" while growning up.

My question is around adult individuals, say brother and brother who are in their thirties, and who have left home and are living separately. The objections you raise don't apply.

The objections I raised do apply. We look up to our siblings. We love them. We want them to love us. What if one wants sex and the other doesn't? What if the one who does puts pressure on the one who doesn't? Does it affect the family dynamics? The family unit? Sounds to me as if someone would be 'harmed.' There are sometimes great age discrepancies between siblings. What if a 30 year old sibling wants to have sex with a 17 year old sibling? There are too many instances where 'uninfluenced consent' wouldn't apply, so to protect the majority, we say it's wrong.

What are we going to do-- say it's against the law unless both are past a certain age? Are we going to put a number of legal restrictions on it? What if two siblings are under the same roof and there's a rape/forced relations. If that happens in a partnership/marriage, one can leave the partnership/marriage. What if it happens within a family-- Does one leave the family so as not to put oneself at risk again? Furthermore, how does one prove rape when both people are under the same roof since siblings ofter return home at the same time? Seems to me it would be quite difficult.

As I said before, allowing incest would make too many things 'murky' in regards to the law. So even though one can say in the scenario you brought up it would be two consenting adults,' it's too gray an issue and too difficult to separate from the situations where it could be harmful to one sibling if incest were legal. There's such a thing as pyschological harm too.

I think maybe the point of this debate is to say if homosexuality is ok then incest should be too. But there is a difference. In the case of incest, only a very restricted group is off limits. One can still find love outside those limits. By denying homosexuals a legal union, we are denying them the opportunity of ever being married/joined in a legal partnership. If one is attracted only to members of their own sex that is a different situation than one being sexually attracted to one's sibling. Gays can't have sex with their siblings either. They have to find sexual love outside the family unit.

We are attracted to different people in life, but we can't have sex with all of them. Someone might be attracted to their sister's husband or their brother's wife, but it's wrong to have sex with them-- even if both are consenting. Society as a whole agrees with that. So we have to find suitable partners within the group that we are attracted to. For heterosexuals, that means a suitable person of the opposite sex. That's all gays are asking for-- to be allowed to have a marriage with a suitable person within the group that they are sexually attracted to.

[blueblood]

And what of the slaves who payed the ultimate price until the majority decided it wasn't ok anymore?

Demoracy only works as a system when the underlying individual and minority rights are protected despite any laws passed by the majority. It would seem like you are confusing being in the majority with being "right".

That doesn't mean that a judge makes law. A judge interprets law and validates its legality against principles enshrined in documents which override any law. If a law doesn't conform to those principles, that law should be invalidated.

A judge is accountable to the law and to the court heirarchy. That is how the system is structured to work. How else do you prevent the majority from bullying the minority ?

1) It was T.S. for the slaves in those days. It was acceptable in those days dictated by the majority of people. The majority of people changed their minds for the better.

2) Your view of democracy is that democracy is a powerless figurehead in a dictatorship led by some parchment. In your view people should follow that parchment blindly and it can never be changed. That is dangerous, my idea of democracy has more freedom than yours. Democracy is literally about saying T.S. to the minority, that's the whole principle of it ---> what most of the people want is what most of the people get, it's simple logic. There is a country which follows your idea of democracy, it's called Venezuela, how free are the people there???

3) If principles enshrined in documents override the will of the people, there is a major problem, and a definite lack of freedom. Ultimately that is the slap to the face of democracy. Principles are variables and can be changed, what if slavery was an enshrined principle?

4) And who is the court heirarchy accountable to? They're judges themselves, so they are accountable to no one, they cannot be fired. That is dangerous as well.

The majority bullying the minority is what democracy is. The majority of people decided stealing was wrong for example, should the minority thieves be allowed to steal then? You would rather have a dictatorship run by an elite who are accountable to no one and have a set of laws that can never be changed. You say you believe in freedom, I say your a hypocrite.

If a minority of people do not like what the majority does, it's time to go.