Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But neither yours or the post you quoted added anything to the discussion. If you read the OP, this thread is a response to a posting relating incest and homosexuality.
Can one conclude from your post that is one cannot see what is wrong with incest that means they do not lack the maturity to understand what is wrong with homosexuality ?
So if incest is so wrong, why? That was the question. Personally i do not see the if homosexuality is allowed then incest argument valid but if you cannot say why one is bad can you then say the other is acceptable? Seems easier to answer a question than make a comet on the poster.
I agree, bringing religion into this is going to derail the thread!
The OP did not ask if incest is a SIN, he asked if it is IMMORAL.
Wow, I did, may be my htoughts are just wandering?
Forgive me. I cannot help reading your sig as 'Rent in knicks'.
June 7's post had to be said. Incest can be very damaging. But that is not in fact a reason to ban it, only in cases where it causes harm. The argument is an emotive one and has been used against everything to do with sex from porn, prostitution and the pill to sex education, dolls with genitals and sexual Content on TV. Oh, and GBLT rights of course.
"It will harm the children". It may, but the answer has never been to simply Ban It because it does not work, and the answer is to make people aware of the issues and problems so they can consider what harm may be involved.
If there is none that can be seen by all those old enough to have a valid opinion on the subject, then there is no valid reason why not. Ick and traditional morals and I have to say, examples of the harm than can be caused by using children sexually (and of course that applies whether they are related or not) is not in itself a valid reason to maintain the illegality. These arguments do not strike me as being good enough, and as to the harm to the vulnerable, the age limit surely is the safeguard there?
There is (and I can hear June polishing it up) an argument that children can be so vulnerable that even one example of harm (such as she described) justifies an across the board ban as a threat or at least discouragement or, since the blighters will do it anyway, legal or not, Sending the Right Message. The sheer existence of legality of incest would be (it would be argued) a loophole for the abuser to cow and bully the relative (unprotected by the age limit) into saying they consented, when they didn't.
It strikes me that where a law exists for no valid reason (the Ick factor and traditional morality not being good reasons) maintaining the ban through fear of potential harm, if only in rare cases (and probably those that would happen ban or not) is, I believe, more to do with personal feelings, a resistance to change and perhaps an understandable but misplaced desire to protect the vulnerable, than with taking a rational view of the matter.
I have no doubt that June 7 can approach the matter reasonably, which does NOT mean just agreeing with me. She may have some damn' good reasons I haven't thought of.
P.s I have thought of the evolved instinctive taboo against possible genetic damage (it is inexplicable otherwise) and the response of "the naturalist Fallacy" (more correctly, "appeal to nature") applies.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-22-2016 at 12:12 PM..
Forgive me. I cannot help reading your sig as 'Rent in knicks'.
June 7's post had to be said. Incest can be very damaging. But that is not in fact a reason to ban it, only in cases where it causes harm. The argument is an emotive one and has been used against everything to do with sex from porn, prostitution and the pill to sex education, dolls with genitals and sexual Content on TV. Oh, and GBLT rights of course.
"It will harm the children". It may, but the answer has never been to simply Ban It because it does not work, and the answer is to make people aware of the issues and problems so they can consider what harm may be involved.
If there is none that can be seen by all those old enough to have a valid opinion on the subject, then there is no valid reason why not. Ick and traditional morals and I have to say, examples of the harm than can be caused by using children sexually (and of course that applies whether they are related or not) is not in itself a valid reason to maintain the illegality. These arguments do not strike me as being good enough, and as to the harm to the vulnerable, the age limit surely is the safeguard there?
There is (and I can hear June polishing it up) an argument that children can be so vulnerable that even one example of harm (such as she described) justifies an across the board ban as a threat or at least discouragement or, since the blighters will do it anyway, legal or not, Sending the Right Message. The sheer existence of legality of incest would be (it would be argued) a loophole for the abuser to cow and bully the relative (unprotected by the age limit) into saying they consented, when they didn't.
It strikes me that where a law exists for no valid reason (the Ick factor and traditional morality not being good reasons) maintaining the ban through fear of potential harm, if only in rare cases (and probably those that would happen ban or not) is, I believe, more to do with personal feelings, a resistance to change and perhaps an understandable but misplaced desire to protect the vulnerable, than with taking a rational view of the matter.
I have no doubt that June 7 can approach the matter reasonably, which does NOT mean just agreeing with me. She may have some damn' good reasons I haven't thought of.
P.s I have thought of the evolved instinctive taboo against possible genetic damage (it is inexplicable otherwise) and the response of "the naturalist Fallacy" applies.
June 7 overlooked the fact that OP's question was
"Is incest morally wrong between consenting ADULTS? Why or why not?
NOT children.
Would you, please, elaborate on your "rent.in."knicks" remark ??????
Just phonetic or regarding knickerbockers...:-D)
Not sure why is everyone jumping up and down in our Atheist camp?
It is already established by a couple of Atheists here that THERE IS NO MORAL REASON TO OPPOSE INCEST in 10 pages of discussion.
Now, the Atheist camp has turned to the THEIST group and asks them to come up with a "NON-RELIGIOUS" based moral reason to oppose incest.
How stupid and idiotic is this approach? Do the THEISTS require any other reason when faith based morality has already discredited incest? Absolutely not! There is no more need left to look for more reasons.
So again, the Atheist group seems to have been divided into two groups. The ones who think there is nothing wrong in incest as long as there is a consent on the table between two adults.
And the other group feels the "yuck" factor that comes with the thought of incest; however, they don't seem to have a moral reason to oppose incest. They seem to be looking for a non-religious based moral from the religious camp. lol
Will the religious group stop rejecting incest because their is no "non-religious" based moral out there? Probably not!
Will the chunk of Atheists who feel the yuck factor but don't seem to find a moral reason against it, get over the yuck factor and stop opposing incest? It's up to the Atheist.
The entire thread seems to be uncovering a problem that some Atheists feel.
The religious group has no issue or problem in opposing incest.
I agree, bringing religion into this is going to derail the thread!
The OP did not ask if incest is a SIN, he asked if it is IMMORAL.
When I asked him for clarification...since, if this is not down to religion or at least spirituality but rather morality, it belongs on the Psych or another board...he said he was curious as to people's morals on this s subject from a religious standpoint.
If this is not about religion or spirituality and instead is down to morality then it needs to be moved to a different board.
Topics on this board relate directly to religion and/or spirituality.
"Is incest morally wrong between consenting ADULTS? Why or why not?
NOT children.
Would you, please, elaborate on your "rent.in."knicks" remark ??????
Just phonetic or regarding knickerbockers...:-D)
And it was mentioned on here, more than once and by more than one poster, that in family dynamics, even when the children grow to adulthood those dynamics typically remain in place.
That was the whole point to that line of discussion, I thought, especially given the definition of incest including non blood-relatives who live in a nuclear family-style situaton. And it's being overlooked when people keep repeating that nobody has been able to put forth a reason as to why it would be *morally* injurious even *between adults* to engage in incest. While this is not 100% - there must somewhere be (???) two consenting fully adult closely-related individuals who somehow have no power/hierarchy family dynamics in place, and are currently enjoying a romantic/sexual relationship (can we add a stipulation that a unicorn has to attend the wedding?)...since this issue of family dynamics and all they entail are *so prevalent* in cases of incest (and so overwhelmingly injurious), then adult or otherwise it should have bearing.
But that line is being ignored, so...
I guess this dream scenario of the power play-free, fully consenting, started as adults, close family member, family dynamics/placement-free, consenting, healthy (can we get any more specific here and eliminate any more possibilities in order to force a point? We probably can't) incestuous relationship could be considered roughly akin to "In a situation where a person specifically asked for and requested to be murdered in cold blood, this being not a case of euthanasia, while in a fully physically and healthy state, then should the murderer be indicted? Obviously not! It COULD happen, so we can't say there's a moral basis for murder in cold blood being illegal".
Because I mean it could happen...and somewhere, this being the very strange big blue marble with its very strange inhabitants, it probably has.
In this happy, healthy scenario the OP has put in place, for which nobody so far has been able to come up with proof of it having actually happened with actual, real people, would incest be immoral?
No.
There you go! See? You guys were right all along. Not immoral! /end thread
Last edited by JerZ; 09-22-2016 at 01:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not immoral! /end thread
