Anyone for G@y Marriage but against Incest?

I disagree. So you think Bestality is okay too huh? How long before someone in this thread starts supporting pedophelia. Accepting one thing is not a blanket statement and not accepting another is not hypocrisy.mattykovax

Pedophilia involves children, who are incapable of consent to a sexual relationship. I'm not sure how that is ethically similar to saying that consenting adults who also happen to be at least partial siblings should have their relationships objected to on an ethical or ultimately legal level.

But that's the point of the discussion isn't it? To bring out ethical differences so that our conclusions are based on something more than just visceral and emtional reactions.

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]I disagree. So you think Bestality is okay too huh? How long before someone in this thread starts supporting pedophelia. Accepting one thing is not a blanket statement and not accepting another is not hypocrisy.m0zart

Pedophilia involves children, who are incapable of consent to a sexual relationship. I'm not sure how that is ethically similar to saying that consenting adults who also happen to be at least partial siblings should have their relationships objected to on an ethical or ultimately legal level.

But that's the point of the discussion isn't it? To bring out ethical differences so that our conclusions are based on something more than just visceral and emtional reactions.

What's the point of discussing incest when probably less than 1% of the population would engage in it?Solid_Snake325

I personally find incest repulsive and would never, ever engage in it, but I really don't care what CONSENTING ADULTS do as long as nobody else is harmed.

[QUOTE="agilefalcon16"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]This is ethical hypocrisy of the highest order. One cannot logically accept homosexuality whilst condemning incestuous relationships. As for you guys talking about the deformities resulting from incestual reproduction, either the male or the female can easily become infertile by choice. The great irony here, is that one is so quick to condemn the homophobes for what they see as gross (which is very understandable, don't get me wrong, I think homophobia is irrational), yet they themselves invoke this 'grossness' factor to comden incestuous relationships. Double standards?mattykovax

^This. If you people say it's fine for people to deviate from the traditional man and women relationships, then you better be prepared to support dudes who want to have sex with other dudes AS WELL as dudes who like to have sex with their sisters/brothers/cousins/etc. If you support one without supporting the other, you are a hypocrite.

All I was talking about the people think homosexuality is ok, NOT myself. FYI, the only type of sex that I think is ok is traditional man and woman sex.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]What's the point of discussing incest when probably less than 1% of the population would engage in it?BiancaDK

anyone for heterosexual marriage but against bestiality?

this thread is a cheap shot

Ethically, how many parents who are willing to have sex with their kids will really wait until their 18th birthday? Additionally, how can you be sexually attracted to your kids and still be a good parental role model?Eddie5vs1

As usual, I believe in judging people on their actual acts, not on a presumption of guilt based on only the most abhorrent of the manifestations of the activity. Since we are talking about consensual adult relationships and not relationships imposed on underage children, I don't think the two completely compare.

In short, is there an ethical objection to a parent having a sexual relationship with his underage children? Yes, absolutely. Does this same ethical objection exist for consenting adults who are also genetically related? No, for the same reason that sex between consenting adults in other arrangements isn't objectionable due to similar models happening by force to individuals under the age of consent.

[QUOTE="agilefalcon16"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]This is ethical hypocrisy of the highest order. One cannot logically accept homosexuality whilst condemning incestuous relationships. As for you guys talking about the deformities resulting from incestual reproduction, either the male or the female can easily become infertile by choice. The great irony here, is that one is so quick to condemn the homophobes for what they see as gross (which is very understandable, don't get me wrong, I think homophobia is irrational), yet they themselves invoke this 'grossness' factor to comden incestuous relationships. Double standards?mattykovax

^This. If you people say it's fine for people to deviate from the traditional man and women relationships, then you better be prepared to support dudes who want to have sex with other dudes AS WELL as dudes who like to have sex with their sisters/brothers/cousins/etc. If you support one without supporting the other, you are a hypocrite.

Non Sequitur. That whole argument just doesn't follow. Children and animals are incapable of consenting, so they represent something totally disparate from consenting adults engaging in activities that harm noone.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]What's the point of discussing incest when probably less than 1% of the population would engage in it?Solid_Snake325

And i don´t think you can compare wether or not something is significant enough to be "worthy" of debate, based on a quantitative value alone of how many individiduals will participate or invest themselves in it ...

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"]Ethically, how many parents who are willing to have sex with their kids will really wait until their 18th birthday? Additionally, how can you be sexually attracted to your kids and still be a good parental role model?m0zart

As usual, I believe in judging people on their actual acts, not on a presumption of guilt based on only the most abhorrent of the manifestations of the activity. Since we are talking about consensual adult relationships and not relationships imposed on underage children, I don't think the two completely compare.

In short, is there an ethical objection to a parent having a sexual relationship with his underage children? Yes, absolutely. Does this same ethical objection exist for consenting adults who are also genetically related? No, for the same reason that sex between consenting adults in other arrangements isn't objectionable due to similar models happening by force to individuals under the age of consent.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think you can discuss incest without also discussing child molestation due to the high correlation. Even taking into account that the child has reached 18 before sexual activity occurs, would sexual intent/interest confound the entire releationship? In therapy, and many other profession, sexual interest/activity is not allowed due to the risk for abuse and/or concerns regarding a dual relationship. Eddie5vs1

I think not only can you discuss it like that, but you have to. Otherwise, you end up making an incorrect judgement by lumping several activities together under one overly generalized banner. That would be defining by non-essentials, which is never a good idea when trying to decide on questions that will ultimately affect the lives of others.

I would have absolutely no problem with throwing a pedophile who acts on his inclinations in jail or similar punishment and in some cases, even throw away the key. I would fee that way whether it was a parent doing it to their child, and older brother doing it to underage siblings, or just some random guy on the street doing it to a child he only just met. But I do have an issue with throwing adults who are in a consensual relationship in jail or applying even lesser penalties for taking part in said relationship on the ethical and legal basis that it's equivalent to the molestation of children.

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"]I see what you're saying, but I don't think you can discuss incest without also discussing child molestation due to the high correlation. Even taking into account that the child has reached 18 before sexual activity occurs, would sexual intent/interest confound the entire releationship? In therapy, and many other profession, sexual interest/activity is not allowed due to the risk for abuse and/or concerns regarding a dual relationship. m0zart

I think not only can you discuss it like that, but you have to. Otherwise, you end up making an incorrect judgement by lumping several activities together under one overly generalized banner.

I would have absolutely no problem with throwing a pedophile who acts on his inclinations in jail or similar punishment and in some cases, even throw away the key. I would fee that way whether it was a parent doing it to their child, and older brother doing it to underage siblings, or just some random guy on the street doing it to a child he only just met. But I do have an issue with throwing adults who are in a consensual relationship in jail or applying even lesser penalties for taking part in said relationship on the ethical and legal basis that it's equivalent to the molestation of children.

**edit ~ For example, drunk driving is illegal not for what has happened, but what could happen due to the increased risk of injuring someone. There are many drunks that make it home safely, however, when discussing drunk driving that isn't the point.

Okay, what about the children of an incestuous relationship? Again I see what you're saying, but I just don't think you can discuss incest without also discussing its high potential for abuse.Eddie5vs1

I've already mentioned that the one objection I can see is based on the genetic ramifications on children resulting from the relationship. But it's not as simple as just stating that outright. Not all relationships are about children or produce children, so even if I were to say that parents must legally abstain from that sort of childbearing, I wouldn't suggest that this is equivalent to banning the relationships outright. Additionally, even to suggest that children could not result from the relationship, I would have to see (a) evidence that the chances for genetic abnormalities were unreasonably high in cases of children born from incest, and (b) that one act of incest normally leads to another within the same family unit, gradually increasing the chances of genetic anomalies over time.

The next consideration would be whether the children in the relationship receive some sort of societal pressure for being born from incestual relationships. But that's not one I would seriously consider unless the problem were overwhelming. This kind of argumentation is usually a last call when no other honest ethical objections can be obtained. When I was a younger man, I heard countless objections to interracial marriage, and I saw over the years how those objections were answered one-by-one, until the only argument the naysayers had left was "think of how interracial marriage affects the children involved." This might sound trite today, but at that time it was a serious consideration as chidlren born from interracial relationships often saw more discrimination than members of either of the contributing races. And since that time, I've heard the same basic reasoning used to object to gay adoption, and countless other taboos which have become less over the years. The problem with those types of arguments is that they are circular, suggesting that we should continue to discriminate and even use legal force to enforce discrimination because the discrimination already exists. This situation is little different. The law exists to protect people from this sort of activity, not reinforce it or place even more burden on those affected by it.

Bad...thread is bad...abort, abortrawsavon

If they don't reproduce, then they're not hurting anyone, are they?

[QUOTE="Eddie5vs1"]I guess I associate incest more with parents molesting their children, not two consenting adults.m0zart

Yes, and that is part of the problem with the word being used commonly for parent-to-child molestation and sexual assault. Children are not capable of consenting to sexual relationships, regardless of what they are. It wouldn't matter if it were within the family or outside of the family, a sexual activity performed by an adult with a child is inappropriate and morally obectionable either way.

If someone wants to marry their cousin or sibling, or anything like that, they can go ahead. I'm not gonna support someone doing it and tell them it's the right decision, but I won't stand in the way of their happiness either, although if they reproduced I would feel so sorry for that child for two reasons, first he has a higher chance of having a birth defect, and second, the kids at school might be cruel to the kid who's inbred.

i would say even after the child is of age i would still think it's wrong because of the violation of the parent child relationship. heck there was a recent case of a mother finding the son she gave up for adoption and having sex with him. that's just going to really psychologically harm a person even if the son was 18.Ontain

I saw a documentary on just such a case, except the son was in his 20s.

As much as my stomach turned from the very idea of it, I couldn't and still cannot really find an ethical objection to it. The mother couldn't even have kids at this point, and the son was as consenting as the mother -- possibly even more so.

I still believe that adults have to make their own decisions and live with the natural consequences. If that ends up being shame or some kind of psychological problem, then I'd rather he be free to make that mistake than have someone throw him in jail or fine him for making that mistake.

And if it turns out to be not a mistake, i.e. something that brings both of them a lifetime of happiness, I can't really stand in the way of that either, especially by supporting the use of institutionalized force to prevent it.

It's been previously stated in this thread but there is a greater risk of birth defects in an incestuous relationship. Besides, you could always move on and find someone ELSE who you find attractive. There's no reason why you can't just go out and find a girl/guy outside of your family; no excuse for incest, really. It is different for homosexuals.super_mario_128

I could care less.JC346

Homosexuality is not a choice,incest is.mattykovax

That was the other thing I was thinking while away from the computer. You cannot control what gender you are attracted too,however you can choose who you sleep with. Homosexuality is not a choice,incest is.mattykovax

Without delving into the idea that attraction is not something we have direct control over,the status of the attraction as a"choice" isn't enough of an ethical objection against it to qualify for banning it. The only question as far as I can see that wouldhave any bearing is"Who is it directly hurting?" and "Is the individual capable of choosing to take that risk?" In the cases I've limited my part of the question to, i.e. consenting adults, those are decisions that can only be made by said consenting adults. Again, the caveat of children being involved is entertainable, but not the outright ban under that criteria.

Lots of activities we can take part in in life are choices, and at least for me, those choices which are denied by the force of law should have a very strong ethical basis behind that denial, or simply not exist at all.

[QUOTE="JC346"]I could care less.super_mario_128

Homosexuality is not a choice,incest is.mattykovax

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]It's been previously stated in this thread but there is a greater risk of birth defects in an incestuous relationship. Besides, you could always move on and find someone ELSE who you find attractive. There's no reason why you can't just go out and find a girl/guy outside of your family; no excuse for incest, really. It is different for homosexuals.mattykovax

I think most of us have an in-built aversion to sexual attraction within the family, and I think that serves the species as a whole. In general, our instincts about these things are there to protect us. Sure, sometimes prejudices can stand in the way of our development, just as laws might be deemed inappropriate in particular situations, but denouncing an entire law as unjust on the basis of absurd exceptions or losing faith in the source of law or instinct as a whole is as dangerous as it is counter-intuitive.jimmyjammer69

Its wrong. Im sorry like it or not you have to draw a line somewhere and one line is sleeping with imediate family. If you do not understand why that is morally reprehensible I am sorry,but its on the list of stuff you just dont do.

mattykovax

If you can't EXPLAIN why it's morally wrong, then you're not doing much better.

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]

Its wrong. Im sorry like it or not you have to draw a line somewhere and one line is sleeping with imediate family. If you do not understand why that is morally reprehensible I am sorry,but its on the list of stuff you just dont do.

If you can't EXPLAIN why it's morally wrong, then you're not doing much better.

I saw a documentary on just such a case, except the son was in his 20s.

As much as my stomach turned from the very idea of it, I couldn't and still cannot really find an ethical objection to it. The mother couldn't even have kids at this point, and the son was as consenting as the mother -- possibly even more so.

I still believe that adults have to make their own decisions and live with the natural consequences. If that ends up being shame or some kind of psychological problem, then I'd rather he be free to make that mistake than have someone throw him in jail or fine him for making that mistake.

And if it turns out to be not a mistake, i.e. something that brings both of them a lifetime of happiness, I can't really stand in the way of that either, especially by supporting the use of institutionalized force to prevent it.

m0zart

I find both acts too be disgusting, and abortion just plain wrong.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I think most of us have an in-built aversion to sexual attraction within the family, and I think that serves the species as a whole. In general, our instincts about these things are there to protect us. Sure, sometimes prejudices can stand in the way of our development, just as laws might be deemed inappropriate in particular situations, but denouncing an entire law as unjust on the basis of absurd exceptions or losing faith in the source of law or instinct as a whole is as dangerous as it is counter-intuitive.MetalGear_Ninty

I disagree. So you think Bestality is okay too huh? How long before someone in this thread starts supporting pedophelia. Accepting one thing is not a blanket statement and not accepting another is not hypocrisy.mattykovax

Children and animals aren't consenting adults.

I would say its instinctive. While I would never sleep with another man and find it gross on a personal physical level I have no internal compass telling me its wrong. Yet to think of incest and to the core of my being it just screams out as something you dont do,like murder.mattykovax

I actually do also have a prohibitive instinctagainstmurder, but as an adult, the main reason I hold that murder is wrong is because I see that it is obviously unethical/immoral to take the life of another human being in normal circumstances (i.e. outside of self-defense). If murder didn't involve the taking of innocent life, I wouldn't be able to use that as an objection and may not be able to justify it as a crime.

And the same situation applies here. The reaction I have to incest is purely visceral, but that's not enough to justify bans. Besides that,it seems that the "instinctive" deterrantagainst incest is a learned behavior, in that wedevelop the deterrance to attraction with thosewe are raised with and/or by. In most cases, adopted children who are raised together have the same instictive deterrance depsite the fact that they are not genetically similar. And in certain types of arranged marriages in which the betrothed are raised in the same communal family, there is also a strong abhorrence developed to sexual activity, which has resulted in a reduced population among those who practice it.

But in cases where genetically related individuals were raised apart and did not meet until adult years, the instictive abhorrence doesn't quite exist in many cases. Besides that though, just the existence of a certain visceral abhorrence to the activity isn't enough to make that decision for everyone else, universally, under penalty of law. At least, it isn't from my perspective.

THe main argument im seeing here is children might be deformed. Well they dont HAVE to have kids, just like a homesexual couple cant. They could just adopt if they wanted too, just like a homosexual couple. Or donate.

I do understand the point being made here. As long as the two are legally able to consent, what's the harm? I do find incest, especially between parent and child, pretty disturbing and it is different than homosexuality. But the same point is in effect: They're two consenting adults, so let them be with who they want.

I don't know if anyone knows this, but there are some U.S. states that allow uncle and niece marriages. So, in some cases, incest can be legal.

i will post after i finish puking .........."throwing up"

I still see it as an abuse of a relationship. like a psychologist dating a patient or professor with a student (of legal age). there's a line that the authority figure should not cross. the relationship is not that of equals.Ontain

I don't consider parents in those cases to be authority figures for the rest of their lives despite being authority figures during development years. Were they authority figures at some point in someone's life, I have no objection to the relationship changing at different stages, ... at least, no objection that I'd be willing to get "men in black and badges" involved with. On an aside, I see no issue for a psychologist dating a patient, or a professor dating or marrying a student, once the temporal professional relationship has ended. For many who have the types of incestual relationships you are talking about, those relationships never really existed in the first place.

Comparing gay sex with incest is... Uh... Stupid, I have to say.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I think most of us have an in-built aversion to sexual attraction within the family, and I think that serves the species as a whole. In general, our instincts about these things are there to protect us. Sure, sometimes prejudices can stand in the way of our development, just as laws might be deemed inappropriate in particular situations, but denouncing an entire law as unjust on the basis of absurd exceptions or losing faith in the source of law or instinct as a whole is as dangerous as it is counter-intuitive.jimmyjammer69

OT has really been going to **** lately, bunch of teen girl pop culture threads. Bunch of inetellectual light weights trying to present their bs as fact. People trying to take stabs atheism, with the so called 100% fool proof evidence, and racism.