Is incest morally wrong between consenting adults? Why or why not? (Muslims, Abraham)

[badlander]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

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.

Fair enough if religious rules or laws are the reason you provide for being opposed to incest then would it also be true that other than it is interpreted that homosexually is a sin there are no other reasons to oppose it? I mean the OP is all about one religious person claiming that if one supported homosexuality one had to support incest. So are the only reason for opposing both of these is the fact that is may or may not be in a book?


As I stated already atheists have been willing to put their opposition or non opposition to incest with reasons however most theists can only say it is immoral because that is what the books say. I believe that with this discussion I have been able to clarify my thoughts on the subject thanks to the comments of others and a discussion to think about. I think the chances of two siblings growing up with no knowledge of each other getting together as adults is more likely to happen in a movie or a novel than in real life, therefore I do not think that people ever leave the family dynamics behind them hence I think that for that reason incest is not moral as I do not believe that there can be with certainty informed consent. Cupper once again we disagree on a stance or viewpoint, does that now make us enemies?


And is the Yuck factor more cultural or religious?

[rent.in.nyc]

Originally Posted by JerZ

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.

Oh, yes, I see, you are right, JerZ, I totally overlooked that.

[whoppers]

A question one might ask is why endogamous marriage ("Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group, rejecting others on such a basis as being unsuitable for marriage or for other close personal relationships. Endogamy is common in many cultures and ethnic groups."- Wikipedia) was (and is) so prevalent, yet the incest social taboo arose.

One would think that incest would be more forbidden in an exogamous society (in order to promote more genetic diversity), yet I don't think that's been shown to be the case. The incest taboo is found in various forms in endogamous societies as well - though the degrees of how close of a relationship constitutes incest varies.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by rent.in.nyc

You have to better define "harm."

It could "emotionally" harm parents and/or siblings if some siblings sleep with each other, no?

If consenting adults are involved sexually, why is there emotional harm? Consent is the operative word, not coerced or forced or anything else. How are individuals harmed, emotionally, if they consent?

I'm not saying that at some point they may have second thoughts, I but then, I bet we all have had those with some past sexual relationships we have had.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

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.

Yes, I would like to have June 7 respond again, and get her take considering we have had further discussions here on the issue.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by badlander

And is the Yuck factor more cultural or religious?

It may be neither, but rather, largely psychological due to the (necessary) dynamics of any family in order that it function healthfully and in a beneficial way to all, as well as these dynamics being in place in order for us to later transfer them in order to understand how to live in a broader society - since we are, after all, a societal animal.

I guess that would loosely point more to cultural than religious but it doesn't comfortably fit into either camp, really.

So...yet another reason that it's totally puzzling that this question would up on the R&S board. UNLESS we take the OP to his word and relate it directly to a religious context. But really, it doesn't have to have one. It may not even have to have a moral one (in the most technical sense). We don't necessarily want and need family members to operate on a certain type of system of trust due to morality. That's more psychological and developmental, in that case.

I just don't get the reach here for a religious tie-in...some religions morally oppose incest, duh...we know this. I'm not even really sure what the question is here, except to entrap the religious into having "no good argument" against it...even though there are good arguments already in place against incest, all over the place.

I just am kind of confused.

Once again...I feel this is the wrong board, or if it isn't, the stretch to try to force this to be a religious dilemma of some kind is just that...a stretch. It isn't quite working.

(Let me reiterate for clarity that I am not religious at all and am not defending any one religion or religion in general.)

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

So because they do not see it like you do, you want to name call them "pigs". That is hardly mature or intellectual is it? It is not much better than the other user who simply implied anyone who does not see it her way must be mentally ill.

Do you have any actual arguments against the morality of it, or are insults and implications.......... about people who do not agree with you........... the full level we are to expect from you here?

And on another note, what do you even mean when you say pigs have no consciousness? Do you have any idea what you are talking about there? Or did you intend to right conscience? Are you really saying that someone who does not agree with you has NO conscience at all? Well the insults just come hard and fast here don't they? But remember insults demean only the insulter, never the insulted.

Originally Posted by southernbored

What a sad little man you are.... Everyone who disagrees with you, or is willing to have a rational discussion, are "pigs or any other animal" with no conscience or morals, huh? You are such a great ambassador for your religion!


What a joke.

This is an altogether different discussion now.

But think logically. Why is 'pig' considered a derogatory term? I think for a couple of reasons. It's associated with incest, and it loves to live in dirty mud, and also perhaps it eats poop and excretion.

Now, modern day farming has reduced the hygiene issue in pigs, but we don't care when a pig performs incest.

So why is 'pig' still considered a derogatory term?

Perhaps the practice of incest is THE ONLY reason why 'pig' is still considered a derogatory term.

The question is, does a pig think or believe that incest is immoral or wrong? Probably not.
And so do some Humans.

So looks like, a believe that "there is nothing wrong in the practice of incest" is common between a pig and some humans who also believe that there is nothing wrong in incest as long as adults consent.

Will an incest practicing pig be offended if he is called a kind of human who also finds nothing wrong in incest?

In my opinion, those humans who find nothing wrong in incest should NOT consider 'pig' being a derogatory term. They don't have a reason.

Do you agree?

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

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.

Some theists think that their books that were developed centuries ago by superstitious, desert dwelling tribesmen are the epitome of anything moral. Many of those books are anything BUT moral, and if those that use them for guidance have been able to perpetrate all sorts of horrors on people.

So, yes, it is important and revealing to understand that moral reasons anyone, atheist or theist, is opposed to incest between consenting adults. Don't forget, in many places, incest is defined as including up to the second cousin, whereas first cousin marriage is common in the Middle East, with a large percentage of marriage being cousin marriages.

Interesting study shows that third cousin marriages (is that still incest?) have the best chance of reproducing. Who knew?

When Incest Is Best: Kissing Cousins Have More Kin - Scientific American

For the christians in the crowd, there is no rule against incest in the bible. Except, in the OT, and as we have heard so many times, those laws are only for Jews of the time, as Jesus "fulfilled that law". So, christians have no basis to stand on, from the bible teachings.

Islam is a bit more complicated, as outlined in this article. As example, if a daughter is born out of wedlock, it's OK for the father to have sexual relationships with her, no mention of it needs to be consensual.

https://www.booksie.com/posting/adam...n-islam-321115

It surprises me how many place first place cousin marriage is legal. Scroll down to take a look a the map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin...Current_status

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

Many of the posters who can understand the argument that sex between consenting adults is not immoral, nevertheless, still get and feel the 'yuck' factor. Those are two different and separate things.

.....
The entire thread seems to be uncovering a problem that some Atheists feel.
The religious group has no issue or problem in opposing incest.

As outlined above and referenced, that is not the case.

[rent.in.nyc]

Originally Posted by cupper3

If consenting adults are involved sexually, why is there emotional harm? Consent is the operative word, not coerced or forced or anything else. How are individuals harmed, emotionally, if they consent?

I'm not saying that at some point they may have second thoughts, I but then, I bet we all have had those with some past sexual relationships we have had.

I am talking about emotional harm to the Parents if their children choose so!

Let's say "oldfashioned" parents have a son and a daughter who engage in "incest," that would give them emotional pain, don't you think so?

Although I say, to each their own, but if it were my kids I would suffer, because still in our times it is seen as incest.

[southernbored]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

This is an altogether different discussion now.

But think logically. Why is 'pig' considered a derogatory term? I think for a couple of reasons. It's associated with incest, and it loves to live in dirty mud, and also perhaps it eats poop and excretion.

Now, modern day farming has reduced the hygiene issue in pigs, but we don't care when a pig performs incest.

So why is 'pig' still considered a derogatory term?

Perhaps the practice of incest is THE ONLY reason why 'pig' is still considered a derogatory term.

The question is, does a pig think or believe that incest is immoral or wrong? Probably not.
And so do some Humans.

So looks like, a believe that "there is nothing wrong in the practice of incest" is common between a pig and some humans who also believe that there is nothing wrong in incest as long as adults consent.

Will an incest practicing pig be offended if he is called a kind of human who also finds nothing wrong in incest?

In my opinion, those humans who find nothing wrong in incest should NOT consider 'pig' being a derogatory term. They don't have a reason.

Do you agree?

No, because your post is ridiculous nonsense. You know dang well calling someone a "pig" is derogatory, yet you did so anyways. Why is that? Because of something you made up in your head about why we think it is derogatory?


If I called you a "pig" or "cow" or "chicken" or "ass" or "lemming" or "rat" or whatever other animals you may call people, would you not think it derogatory?


If I am not mistaken, you are of the "We ain't no dang monkeys!" crowd, so we all know the answer anyways, so I guess it was more of a rhetorical question...