I don't see how your opinion is better than anyone else's. Or why you expect "facts" from other people, while providing none yourself. And then "proclaiming victory". You're a moron. Impossible to even have a conversation with. You disgust me, and you shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet ever again, or speak words to humans.
Your opinion is completely arbitrary, lacking any form of rational support.
Same goes for you, Einstein.
Same goes for you, Einstein.
If you keep a moral belief only because of moral disgust (meaning it’s unjustified), it’s therapeutic to at least acknowledge it. I have a belief that [consensual] incest is disgusting and wrong. The paradox is that I know this is false, that there’s absolutely no reason to believe it. People go absolutely ape**** over incest. But the arguments can be refuted by a hamster:
It’s unnatural — the same old line’s been used to prove the immorality of homosexuality, interracial marriage, contraception etc. Sorry. The answer’s always “so what?†(being unnatural doesn’t make something bad) and “no it isn’t†(eg. 10–15% of college students reported some childhood sexual contact with a brother/sister).
[LIST=2]It’s universally condemned — this was also used against interracial marriage etc. Again: so what? And again: no it isn’t. It’s universal to have some kind of incest taboo, but the limits vary a lot. In many cultures it’s common for first cousins to marry (with up to 50% of marriages being between first cousins).
[LIST=3]It causes birth defects — finally a somewhat true statement (although apparently the best strategy is to actually marry your 3rd cousin). But if that’s reason to outlaw incest we need to outlaw drinking/smoking during pregnancy (which we don’t and it would be a big deal to do this). We’d also need to prevent 2 carriers of a genetic diseas from procreating. Finally despite what you hear on the news, we’re not living in the 12th century. Sex ≠babies. 2 sisters having sex, or a heterosexual incestuous couple using contraception will demolish the argument.
[LIST=4] People who were brought up together shouldn’t be together — umm, because…? I’ve heard this one before. It’s priceless, the ultimate non-sequitir. This suggests that two childhood friends should avoid romantic relationships. This of course happens very often. I’m not aware of studies suggesting such couples are psychologically/emotionally worse off than the average couple. This argument is grasping at straws.
[list=5]It makes me personally uncomfortable — at last, the truth! Yes, it certainly does.
So, there’s no reason not to legalise it. The only immoral case is a heterosexual couple not taking contraceptive precautious. Even that’s no slam dunk. There’s the obvious correlation with child abuse but just like fantasies of pedophilia and acts of child abuse have merged in our minds so have incest and child abuse. If you’re raping someone, the presence of incest does nothing to change the brutal nature of the act. If we keep incest statutes as a legal instrument against abusers, we should at least admit it.
On another note, incest is only a matter of degree. We’re all related, descending from a common evolutionary ancestor, so everyone on earth is some cousin of yours. Sometimes a close one if you live on an island. It’s an evolutionary quirk to distinguish between the in-group (largely relatives) and out-group, as if there’s something fundamental about these 2 groups.
Anything producing moral panic should be viewed skeptically. People even feel a need to verbally state “that’s sick†to incest stories from the news, as if to make sure everybody knows they don’t approve. Even if you agree with the arguments-from-disgust, consensual incest isn’t the end of the world.
It's not strictly rational. Some things like murder can have reasons attached to them, other things like having sex with your sibling if they're sterile are more iffy. Since they're not totally based on reason they vary somewhat from person to person...which is why between the insults people keep mentioning the word 'opinion'.
What's there to be iffy about?
Here's a fairly non-controversial moral principle: If no one is hurt, it's ok.
Consensual incest hurts no one, so why are people still raining down the damnations?
Morality isn't about arbitrary opinion. It's about cold hard reason founded on the warmth of humanity.
What's there to be iffy about?
Here's a fairly non-controversial moral principle: If no one is hurt, it's ok.
Consensual incest hurts no one, so why are people still raining down the damnations?
Morality isn't about arbitrary opinion. It's about cold hard reason founded on the warmth of humanity.
I've read the whole damn thread since I left last night and all I've seen is crap. You keep saying you're right because the other side has "no proof" but you have yet to provide some. You proof is that they have none? That's so easily turned around and you know it. They could use the same reason against you. Who are you to define morals? If you would care to, like it's already been said, get off your high horse and show some solid evidence, then telling everyone else they're wrong and you're right, "proclaiming victory" is useless.
Also, to argue that they're just "generalizing", well, so are you! People here are saying that the couple will be somewhat normal and not go to crazy lengths to provide comfort to their kids, and you're saying the opposite. You know, there aren't that many communities in the world in which bullying doesn't exist. Bullying will almost always be there, for whatever stupid reason. Kids don't need a pair of parents like these to find something to be cruel about. If that kid grew up my elementary school, any average person would not be able to stand it. And maybe you'll argue that the kid will be able to take it, but that's still just guesses. Maybe the kid will be someone who can, and maybe they'll be a weak little kid who gets pushed around because of their parents.
High horse statement was said against me.
So far, the reasons against incest are, "its icky" and "its risky".
I think saying, "So what?" is a valid counter.
Condemning love because of risk and personal dissatisfaction aren't valid reasons...
The same can be said about all families. It's a chance any parent is willingly taking, to raise a child. It could be a success, or it can end in tragedy. Why the same is not true for this couple is not obvious. Sure, it's tougher, but does that make it morally wrong to try? I argue that if they are great parents, they can do well, and their child can be happy. It's possible, therefore I think we owe it to the parents to let them try.
It's not like great parents are that few and far between.