What makes incest wrong?

[Renegade]

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.

blueblood, I am stunned about how narrow a view of democracy you hold. It is apparent you see no value in a separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches or the value in having a base set of rights which cannot be overridden by the will of the majority. I don't really have the patience to convince you that the system only works because there is those checks on pure rule by majority, however, I will point out that every country espousing a modern democracy has it. Coincidence?

[Renegade]

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.

A lot of your position is based upon potential harm which may or may not occur. Moreover, that harm if it occurs, is restricited to the consentual participants.

Personally I don't think the government should be making decisions about what activities adults participate in even if those activities can cause potential harm to themselves. There are some cases where the government criminializes self-inflicted harm (for example suicide), however in general it is up to the adult individual to make those decisions for themselves.

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.

It was not my intention to link incest to homosexuality, however I think there is justification to say that the same principles apply. Even before homosexuals were permitted to marry, sexual relations between people of the same gender was decriminallized under the principle that says that adults should be free to make their own decisions on sexual partners without interfernce of the state. The same principle should apply here.

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.

It may be "wrong" but it is not criminal. In general society ,adultry is considered "wrong", but it is not considered criminal even where it can be shown to cause actual emotional harm to the other spouse.

[Guest American Woman]

A lot of your position is based upon potential harm which may or may not occur. Moreover, that harm if it occurs, is restricited to the consentual participants.

Personally I don't think the government should be making decisions about what activities adults participate in even if those activities can cause potential harm to themselves. There are some cases where the government criminializes self-inflicted harm (for example suicide), however in general it is up to the adult individual to make those decisions for themselves.

Actually, my position is based on the fact that I think the "consent" may be questionable in too many instances. But there are laws based on the fact that people can cause potential harm to themselves, and not just in regards to suicide. For example, we must wear seatbelts and most states have helmet laws for motorcyclists.

It was not my intention to link incest to homosexuality, however I think there is justification to say that the same principles apply. Even before homosexuals were permitted to marry, sexual relations between people of the same gender was decriminallized under the principle that says that adults should be free to make their own decisions on sexual partners without interfernce of the state. The same principle should apply here.

I already pointed out the differences, so I won't get into it again.

It may be "wrong" but it is not criminal. In general society ,adultry is considered "wrong", but it is not considered criminal even where it can be shown to cause actual emotional harm to the other spouse.

Yet one can, and often does, legally pay a price when divorce is based on adultry. Adultry is grounds for divorce in both the U.S. and Canada, so that implies legal repercussions in itself. And technically, some states do have laws against adultry.

[Renegade]

Actually, my position is based on the fact that I think the "consent" may be questionable in too many instances.

I understand. I just don't happen to agree with your assessment on the validty of the "consent". Virtually all "consent" we give is influenced in some way, by advertising, our environment, our friends, our cultural background, etc.

But there are laws based on the fact that people can cause potential harm to themselves, and not just in regards to suicide. For example, we must wear seatbelts and most states have helmet laws for motorcyclists.

Yes, you are right that those laws exist. In cases where the only harm is to the individuals themselves, I believe those laws too are not justfied.

Yet one can, and often does, legally pay a price when divorce is based on adultry. Adultry is grounds for divorce in both the U.S. and Canada, so that implies legal repercussions in itself. And technically, some states do have laws against adultry.

Actually you need no specific grounds for divorce at all (at least in Canada). My point was not that there are not legal repecussions. My point was that it was not considered criminal. Yes there are some states which do criminalize it, no doubt the same states which criminalize homosexuality and sodomy. Of course there are governments who criminalize adultry and impose penalties such as stoning on the participants. I'm sure you'll agree that those are not countries who we want to emulate.

[Community Advocate]

Older teens can lawfully have consensual sex, yet they are still living at home in most instances.

So can younger teens - from the age of 14 - the age of sexual consent.

[RB]

I think when arguments are of a moral compass it should be rightly focus. This society is crawling with immoral thoughts and justification why wrongs should be practiced. It is unbelievable.

You can measure societies by the amounts of moral concern it provides for the weakest links e.g. abortion is of moral concern, and is a major platform for political power. Incest in my opinion is crossing the threshold of what is moral.

As a culture and nation we do have a duty to abide by its:

Belief: (The current expectation of the children we produce would entail that our kid meet some nice boy or girl, NOT to mate with their siblings)

Standard: (within my own race)

Principles: (same systems of belief, and responsible moral behaviour)

Ethical Limits: (I refuse and would NEVER produce kids to commit insex each other)

I always felt that there is perhaps a high % of women who choose not to reproduce for the simple reasoning that this is a decaying moral society. And you have listed some of downfall of society: gay genes, free sex all around, cheating on partners, simply cheating, no good moral standards, no good role models, the young ones can't distinguish between right, wrong and mischief, and now rightly or wrongly trying to justify incest.

I mean what happen to sex being special, private and personal - at one time it meant a boy meets girl, fell in love, they got marry, had some children and live happily. Not as today boy and girl meet tons of whatever they can get easily.

We are shaped by limits. Some limits carry invisible boundaries and incest is out of bounds. There is something also called self-worth, and conscience, if current societies are intending to remain civilized and preserved self-worth, then living within the constraints of moral boundaries is paramount.

Edited January 20, 2008 by RB

[Moxie]

Quote from RB; mean what happen to sex being special, private and personal - at one time it meant a boy meets girl, fell in love, they got marry, had some children and live happily. Not as today boy and girl meet tons of whatever they can get easily.

Under the guise of Liberal Ideology these values are scorned and mocked now. To follow the traditional path isn't a good thing anymore, our values aren't worth much to people who believe in socialism and Modern Liberalism. The anything goes group voice has been louder than the "Traditional Family Values Group", they think they are progressive and they see our beliefs as being outdated. Sadly us Cons have to pay for the social experiments of "The anything Goes" mentality. If given a choice I'd opt out and let the far left pay for their utopian dream of sex with anything that moves is cool man. They won't be happy until we are completely comfortable walking down the street and we note our neighbour having Cow Sex. We are suppose to hail this a progressive and normal, who's he hurting right? Consentual sex and all that other nonsense. I wonder what kind of malfunction took place during conception that leaves a brain with the belief that consenting sex with anything one wants to have sex with is progressive??

We use to call this ideology perversion, now it's progressive thought.

[Moonlight Graham]

I saw a recent story on CNN: Unknowing twins marry each other

What makes incest wrong?

What makes this couple brother and sister? Is it simply DNA? Would two adopted kids who grew up in the same household as brother and sister but not genetically related, be considered "brother" and "sister" and any sexual acts between them incest?

It seems to me that our crimminalization of incest is simply based upon past cultural taboos, rather than any rational justification.

go have sex with your sister and tell me how you feel afterwards. That will answer your own question.

[bush_cheney2004]

go have sex with your sister and tell me how you feel afterwards. That will answer your own question.

That's not very brave....how about my consenting brother, or mother...or FATHER! Remind's me of a great punchline lyric from "Alices Restaurant"....i.e. "father rapers" sitting on the bench.

[Renegade]

go have sex with your sister and tell me how you feel afterwards. That will answer your own question.

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

[cybercoma]

I'm slightly disturbed that people on here think that laws should be made based on what they "don't like," with no other logical explanation.

Would I MARRY a relative? Hell no.

Do I think relatives should be prevented from marrying according to law? Not at all.

The laws should be there to protect those who can't protect themselves. Two adults are quite capable of deciding for themselves what kind of relationship they want.

And can we please, please, PLEASE stop playing the "traditional family unit" card? There is no such thing as a traditional family anymore. There are kids with a mother and a father, kids with single mothers, kids with single fathers, kids with two mothers, kids with two fathers, kids being raised by other relatives, kids with foster parents, kids whom were adopted (either from here or from other countries), and so on. In all of the above situations there are children who live happy well adjusted lives and there are those who have issues.

So what if the parents are gay? If they're loving and honest people, that's a hell of a lot better than little johnny living in a house where pops is off on business trip sleeping with the office tramp behind mom's back.

[blueblood]

blueblood, I am stunned about how narrow a view of democracy you hold. It is apparent you see no value in a separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches or the value in having a base set of rights which cannot be overridden by the will of the majority. I don't really have the patience to convince you that the system only works because there is those checks on pure rule by majority, however, I will point out that every country espousing a modern democracy has it. Coincidence?

The Canadian Charter of Rights can be changed by the will of the majority of the people. It's a real pain in the ass but it can be done.

The American Constitution can also be amended, it's also a pain in the ass.

Nope Pure majority still rules in Canada and the States. Where are the checks in the judicial branches?

I'm stunned you think people are too stupid to think for themselves.

True Democracies allow their laws to be changed. Take away the will of the people, then democracy does not exist.

[kengs333]

And can we please, please, PLEASE stop playing the "traditional family unit" card? There is no such thing as a traditional family anymore. There are kids with a mother and a father, kids with single mothers, kids with single fathers, kids with two mothers, kids with two fathers, kids being raised by other relatives, kids with foster parents, kids whom were adopted (either from here or from other countries), and so on. In all of the above situations there are children who live happy well adjusted lives and there are those who have issues.

Studies have shown time and again that the "traditional family" is the best arrangement for raising children. Children from single-parent households are much more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, do poorly in school. Don't you think that society would therefore benefit from this being the norm? Should not society go back to considering it the ideal arrangement for raising children? I do.

So what if the parents are gay? If they're loving and honest people, that's a hell of a lot better than little johnny living in a house where pops is off on business trip sleeping with the office tramp behind mom's back.

Actually neither arrangement is acceptable. I think the nature of "same-sex" households has been seriously overidealized. Let's see what it's like in 50 years when there is a significant number of same-sex households and a couple of generations of kids have been "raised" in these environments...

[PoliAgno]

Incest insults the notion of family hood. It suggests that some families are faking it - the platonic love. For crying out lous even Monkeys wont mate with monkeys they were raised with.

[cybercoma]

Studies have shown time and again

Show me.

[Renegade]

The Canadian Charter of Rights can be changed by the will of the majority of the people. It's a real pain in the ass but it can be done.

The American Constitution can also be amended, it's also a pain in the ass.

Nope Pure majority still rules in Canada and the States.

I'm stunned you think people are too stupid to think for themselves.

True Democracies allow their laws to be changed. Take away the will of the people, then democracy does not exist.

There is a reason why it is a "pain in the ass" in both countries. It is to prevent simple majorities from easily setting rules. I agree that despite best intents, both American constitution and the Charter need a mechanism which allows change, however the mechanism implemented needs to be onerous enough to discourage majorities from making changes on a whim.

Actually I don't think people are "too stupid to think for themselves". It is precisely because people DO think for themselves and will put their own emotions and self-interest first that you need these kinds of protections. Do you think that the majority is always rational? Do you think the majority will always makes decisons which respect human rights?

Where are the checks in the judicial branches?

It's called an appeals process.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Renegade

[guyser]

Fixed it for you, say you're welcome and we can be done.

Studies have shown time and again that the "traditional family" is the best arrangement for raising children. Children from single-parent households are much more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, do poorly in school. Don't you think that society would therefore benefit from this being the norm? Should not society go back to considering it the ideal arrangement for raising children? I do.Of course I couldnt show you these studies, so take what I say as gospel since my religion is the only one

[blueblood]

There is a reason why it is a "pain in the ass" in both countries. It is to prevent simple majorities from easily setting rules. I agree that despite best intents, both American constitution and the Charter need a mechanism which allows change, however the mechanism implemented needs to be onerous enough to discourage majorities from making changes on a whim.

Actually I don't think people are "too stupid to think for themselves". It is precisely because people DO think for themselves and will put their own emotions and self-interest first that you need these kinds of protections. Do you think that the majority is always rational? Do you think the majority will always makes decisons which respect human rights?

It's called an appeals process.

In the majority mindset, the majority is always rational, that's why they are the majority, and it's T.S. for the minority. The majority can make whatever decision it wants. In Canada the majority of people decide to respect human rights, in Saudi Arabia the majority of people don't respect human rights.

That is why oppressed people living in countries with a tyrannical majority are leaving their country because the majority rules and if they don't like it it's T.S. for them. Likewise a minority of extremely wealthy business people are settling elsewhere in the world because the majority of Canadians decided that we should pay heavy taxes to fund massive social programs. A country belongs to the majority of it's citizens and they have the right to run the country how they see fit.

Oh and how do you appeal a supreme court decision. Who is a supreme court justice accountable to?

Can a supreme court justice be fired?

[Renegade]

In the majority mindset, the majority is always rational, that's why they are the majority, and it's T.S. for the minority. The majority can make whatever decision it wants. In Canada the majority of people decide to respect human rights, in Saudi Arabia the majority of people don't respect human rights.

That is why oppressed people living in countries with a tyrannical majority are leaving their country because the majority rules and if they don't like it it's T.S. for them. Likewise a minority of extremely wealthy business people are settling elsewhere in the world because the majority of Canadians decided that we should pay heavy taxes to fund massive social programs. A country belongs to the majority of it's citizens and they have the right to run the country how they see fit.

If your position is that "the majority is always right and TS for anyone else who doesn't agree", then why bother having a Charter or Bill of Rights, or Constitution? Afterall the majority can just do what it pleases, when it pleases, without the inconvenience of being held to a set of principles.

The system you describe is not democracy at all. It is more accurately referred to as "mob-rule". You have pointed to the US as one example of a democracy. I then refer to the US govennment web-site to describe what a democracy is: What Is Democracy?

More specificly:

Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule,

coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies,

while respecting the will of the majority,

zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.

It would appear that your version of democracy only includes majority rule but excludes the rest. More reading for you: Majority Rule, Minority Rights

Oh and how do you appeal a supreme court decision. Who is a supreme court justice accountable to?

Can a supreme court justice be fired?

The court interprets law. You don't like a supreme court decision, you elect a government to change the law or get enough support to change the Charter, or whatever is the basis of that decision.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Renegade

[blueblood]

If your position is that "the majority is always right and TS for anyone else who doesn't agree", then why bother having a Charter or Bill of Rights, or Constitution? Afterall the majority can just do what it pleases, when it pleases, without the inconvenience of being held to a set of principles.

The system you describe is not democracy at all. It is more accurately referred to as "mob-rule". You have pointed to the US as one example of a democracy. I then refer to the US govennment web-site to describe what a democracy is: What Is Democracy?

More specificly:

It would appear that your version of democracy only includes majority rule but excludes the rest. More reading for you: Majority Rule, Minority Rights

The court interprets law. You don't like a supreme court decision, you elect a government to change the law or get enough support to change the Charter, or whatever is the basis of that decision.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[Melanie_]

I saw a recent story on CNN: Unknowing twins marry each other

What makes incest wrong?

What makes this couple brother and sister? Is it simply DNA? Would two adopted kids who grew up in the same household as brother and sister but not genetically related, be considered "brother" and "sister" and any sexual acts between them incest?

It seems to me that our crimminalization of incest is simply based upon past cultural taboos, rather than any rational justification.

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.

[jbg]

Incest insults the notion of family hood. It suggests that some families are faking it - the platonic love. For crying out lous even Monkeys wont mate with monkeys they were raised with.

This whole thread bespeaks the blurring of right and wrong.

[kengs333]

Show me.

Actually, I started a thread about a recent study about this, but it appears to have disappeared when the forum was restructed. Whatever the case, I'm fairly certain that you were involved in the discussion to some extent, so you know already what you want to be "shown". You just don't want to accept it.

[Rue]

I saw a recent story on CNN: Unknowing twins marry each other

What makes incest wrong?

What makes this couple brother and sister? Is it simply DNA? Would two adopted kids who grew up in the same household as brother and sister but not genetically related, be considered "brother" and "sister" and any sexual acts between them incest?

It seems to me that our crimminalization of incest is simply based upon past cultural taboos, rather than any rational justification.

Your question has two parts; i-the biological factor, ii-the relationship factor.

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.

This leads us to the second factor and that is if there is no biology issue, should incest between adopted children be a problem?

In regards to the second matter it is not just an issue of biology it is an issue as to what constitutes or should constitute a healthy relationship. Whether someone is your adopted child or sibling or biological one, the non-biological relationship is the same.

So there are issues of trust and power. In a relationship between any parent and child or sibling, the trust requires parties maintain sexual boundaries or the relationship necessarily becomes deviated and abusive since one of the parties will use the power that comes with their sibling status or parental authority to impose on the other.

A healthy sexual relationship is supposed to be about two consenting adults who come to their choice through free will. The sex between adopted siblings or between adopted parents and children is not done through free will but a distortion or exploitation of the closeness that comes from being a father or sibling.

When say Woody Allen decided to take up with Mia Farrow's daughter, he had played the role of her father for many years. To pretend he could suddenly switch that off and be her equal is not genuine. Her initial attraction physically would have come about because of his role as her father figure not an equal.

He then exploited that power and still does.

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.

Now if my father when I am in my 30's marries some women and I meet her daughter for the first time and presumably her daughter is of the same age or emotional level as I (i.e., not 18) and I have never had any relationship with her and do not live with her adn my father and step mother and that daughter and I are completely independent, a relationship taking place between us although probably not a smart thing (because if we break up it causes tension to the other couple) would be different then say if I was 15 and the step sister is say 10 and we live together for ten years before I decide to get into bed with her.

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.

[cybercoma]

Actually, I started a thread about a recent study about this, but it appears to have disappeared...

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

You made this claim:

Studies have shown time and again....

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.